Source: tribune.com.pk
The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore saroop.ijaz@ tribune.com.pk
It has now become a routine, every year we express shock and horror at the ‘intolerance’ and ‘sectarian strife’, and with longing and nostalgia remember the peaceful times of the past. The common refrain is the ‘how did we end up here’ lament. Every time, it seems that it is due to some curse, or a conspiracy, that we today have sectarian violence in the country.
Sectarian conflict is just a way to refer to the conflict between Shia and Sunni. For the longest time, no mention was made of the ‘sect’ of those killed in ‘sectarian’ violence (an overwhelming number of them being Shia). It is sobering to remember that there was a time when ‘sectarian differences’ would have included another sect as well, namely, Ahmadis. The violence against the Ahmadis has seen no decline (it has actually increased), yet, they are no longer a sect. Any serious inquiry into the ongoing violence and sectarian persecution has to, at least, begin by tracing the trajectory of the Ahmadis being forced to make the transition from the green part of the flag to the white.
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has done, and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definition of everyone else.” This how the Munir Report of 1954 concluded the discussion of defining who is a ‘Muslim’ after examining all the major religious scholars of that time. The small passage quoted above exquisitely captures the fundamental problem of the state taking upon itself the burden of salvation. The Munir Report lies dusty, instead of being translated into Urdu and taught in school, as it should. The possibility of that happening anytime soon is now very distant, and becomes more distant with each passing day.
When the Ahmadis were finally declared non-Muslims and Islam saved, the battle for sanity in this country became more uphill. The state should ideally not have a religion, however, what the state absolutely cannot have is a ‘sect’ or as is in this case, not have one particular ‘sect’. The original movement against the Ahmadis was the Ahrar Movement. It also has prescience in our present context. A movement, party or group defined solely by hatred of another. The Ahrar Movement had people like Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar who is quoted in the Munir Report as saying, “Ik kafira ka wastay Islam ko chhora, yeh …
Categories: Ahmadis And Pakistan, Ahmadiyyat: True Islam, Asia, Pakistan, Pakistan Inter-Faith
You have taken up very delicate issue with lot of courage. Salute to you and to ET which carried it so boldly. Solution lies in separation of religion from state. This was the motto of Qaide Azam also. Since many decades Ahamdies are suffering. Later started sufferings for Shia also. If no check is made now, where this matter will lead the nation you have already pointed out. In given scenario neither civil elite nor military brass has the courage to recognize this fact that state affairs have to be separated from religion. This will ask amendments in the Constitution abolishing discriminatory clauses against Ahmadies. Agreed there is now lot of awakening amongst intellectuals and educated lot about the atrocities committed against Ahamdiyya but main stream is still flowing with sentiments of religious extremism. In your article you very amicably analysed the whole affair. However the million dollar question remains who will bell the cat. It requires lot of risk and courage. Do we have any Ataturk in pipe line?
It is true. The enmity (Kufr) against Ahmadis is not based on any real Islamic principle. The Ahmadis have not violated any islamic principle.
If Ahraar are to be brought in then there is a political factor also because the Ahraar were very much against the Muslim league. They were paid agents of the Indian National Congress.
At one time, Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru sahib said that he was tired of paying (giving money) to the leaders of the Ahraar.
But let us leave politics out of this affair. The Jama’at Islami was not far behind in instigating poor Muslims against the Ahmadis.
jama’at islami (JI) said, “Pakistan kaa matlab liyaa, Laa Ilaaha Illalah.” trans: What is the mission (meaning) of Pakistan? It is to recite the Kalimah.
The Ahmadis also recite the Kalimah. So why did not the JI accommodate the Ahmadis?
The JI is no less culprit in spoiling the true line (path) of Pakistan. They did not support the creation of Pakistan. JI taught the theory of war type Jihaad. They introduced the religion into politics and used the religion in their politics.
Poor Muslims who loved religion came into the trap of JI and now they are paying the price i.e. unrest, killing. etc.
Islam has its politics which means love and peace for all. But Islam is not political religion. Indian leaders were wise who kept relgion out of politics. They had much difficulty. But they succeeded.
The leaders of Pakistan, after Jinnah sahib, were weak in that matter. Unless religon is kept away from state matters, there cannot be peace and progress in any country.