Making Religion the Scapegoat


IN his column entitled ‘Reaping what we sowed’ (April 13), Irfan Husain has attempted to perpetuate the myth that an excess of religion and ‘religious fanatics’ have created the conditions and the mindset that have held Pakistan back from progress and modernisation. This myth is being presented in the local media as fact.

The truth is that this theory has no evidence to support it. Mr Husain exhibits a rigidity in his worldview that is greater than that of those who are the focus of his repeated diatribes.

Descending to the level of calling the female students of the Jamia Hafsa ‘chicks with sticks’ and ‘scary black forms’ is a direct insult to all the women who have chosen to exercise their inalienable right to protect their modesty and virtue in an increasingly decadent world. Perhaps moral relativism is not part of Mr Husain’s thought process.

He fails to realise that his hollow existentialist utopia is not shared by everyone. In fact, one man’s utopia can be another man’s hell.

The violence and fragmentation caused by religion in the 60 years of Pakistan’s history is far less than that caused by bad governance and ethnic and linguistic factors. The years of political turmoil that followed Jinnah’s death had no religious component.

The secession of East Pakistan had nothing to do with religion. The repeated military interventions, political horse-trading and disregard for the law and Constitution by all the organs of government had no religious links apart from the antics of certain well-known demagogues, since long on the payroll of the military establishment.

The two years of mayhem in Karachi (the worst violence the city has ever seen) during Naseerullah Babar’s operation against the MQM had nothing to do with religion.

What the writer fails to do is to see the big picture. History has no evidence to support the theory that religious orthodoxy stunts progress. From the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilisations, through the Greek, Roman and Persian empires to the British Empire, religious orthodoxy has existed side by side with great advancements. More relevant to the Islamic world, Al-Biruni and Ibn-e-Sina did not belong to societies that separated religion and state.

What most people don’t remember is that America, despite its secular claims, was in effect a deeply conservative Christian country right up till the sexual revolution in the 1960s.

Even now 40 million Americans are part of the evangelical movement, a movement that does not believe in evolution or dinosaurs. Jews who have held on to their core traditions despite 3,000 years of persecution and massacres are today the most powerful and affluent community in the world.

Poor leadership and incessant meddling by more powerful nations in the affairs of weaker nations is what has led to the state of affairs prevalent in the Third World. Man has for far too long made religion a scapegoat. It is men who do evil, not their ideologies.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/24/letted.htm#6

Islam and Secularism


IN his article ‘Islam and secularism’, Dr S. Saeed Ahmed has tried to prove that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was only the spiritual head of the Muslims and not a ruler (April 14), thereby making the Islamic state a secular one.

He says that there is no evidence in the Quran or Sunnah to show that the Prophet ever made any conscious effort to acquire political power. It should have been obvious that his rulership was automatic: if not he, who else was the head of state during his time?

The writer has also made some other misleading claims. For example, with reference to the four righteous Caliphs he says that they were only the head of the faithful (‘Amirul Momineen’) rather than being rulers. Such semantic nitpicking won’t change the reality; if they weren’t the rulers, could he please tell us who held that responsibility?

It may be noted that by the end of the third Caliph’s reign (AD 656), the Islamic empire had included not just the Arabian peninsula but territories beyond, such as the Byzantine and Persian empires and the Islamic North Africa. It would be absurd to say that this empire had no ruler.

He has also asserted that those Companions of the Prophet, like Hazrat Bilal, Hazrat Abuzar and thousands of others, who remained aloof from administration commanded universal respect.

This is incorrect. To this day, the four Caliphs are revered most, after Prophet Muhammad himself, more than the other ‘sahaba’.

Furthermore, Dr Ahmed has talked of the Sufis and should know that apart from the Naqshbandis, who trace their origin to the first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr through Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband, all the other major Sufi Orders similarly consider the fourth one, Hazrat Ali, as the progenitor of their respective ways via the particular exponents of their own Orders.

Ultimately, they all are said to be headed by the Prophet himself.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/25/letted.htm#2

__________________
Yasser Chattha

Separation of Religion and State

THIS refers to I. H. Mahmood's letter (April 17) on the subject of separation of religion and state. Initially holding this premise, he goes on to propose elimination of collective Islamic practice from the daily life at large, carrying an eerie echo of Tony Blair's recent stance on the purdah issue. He also cites the example of Kamal Ataturk as a benchmark.

All of which raises several questions: Is Turkey a superpower today, or is it still the 'sick man of Europe' begging at the heels of EU for admittance? Has Turkey had an illustrious career in world history post-Ataturk? Secondly, incorporation of Islam in daily lives has not hampered but rather benefited many nations, the prime example being Malaysia. Most developed nations in the world, while non-Muslim, have their roots and structures firmly etched in religion.

Islam doesn't hurt anyone. It is gracious and benevolent towards minorities. It opposes use of force at any and at all levels. It is most certainly not defined by the Mulla Omars of today, rather they are the West’s foster children for the war against Islam. Following the same parallel, we cannot define Christianity by the actions of George Bush. One would think that most people would have a sense to discern these simple facts.

Sadly, common sense seems to have deserted many of us. Why is it that the key to all progress is considered to be only the removal of religion by certain quarters of our country? Their finger-pointing is restricted to Muslim states -- they have no objection to other religious states in the world. And terming Islam as the biggest cause of corruption in Muslim states is not only brutally simplistic and heavy-handed, but displays an ignorance of the basic teachings of Islam.

Supporters of 'enlightened moderation' don't realise that their train of thought practically begs the president for a forced elimination of anything and everything that is Islamic from our daily lives. The next logical step for such people would be to denounce observance of Ramazan and Eid as 'extremism', or for that matter, any other collective religious activity. All the while the hundreds of other religions in the world preach and practise at will, never being accused of being fundamentalists or extremists.

Why have we become so apologetic towards our own identity?
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/30/letted.htm#3

__________________
Yasser Chattha