The world will be surprised to know that the constitution of Pakistan has a provision for piety, the one thing that the nation-state in the 18th century had begun thinking was not measurable. Today, crime is described in penal codes, then punished. Religion too punishes crime, albeit at times too harshly, like cutting off the hand for pilferage. But how can you punish lack of piety, like not knowing a certain Arabic verse of the Quran by heart?
Article 62 of the constitution of Pakistan says that a member of parliament is not disqualified as long as “he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions; he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins; he is sagacious, righteous and non- profligate, honest and ‘ameen’, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law; he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
If you don’t pass this test, you can’t even stand for election — the election officer can ask you to recite a Quranic verse in Arabic — and if you can’t, you can be denied nomination. Of course, the non-Muslim members of parliament are exempted, although subject to possessing “moral character”. For clarity’s sake, sin and crime are clubbed together in religion, whereas the “non-intrusive” modern state doesn’t consider all sins as crime. A policeman in Lahore feels safer nabbing sinners, who are mostly peaceful citizens, in preference to dacoits, who can shoot him dead. The penal code, after a heavy injection of religion, allows him this choice.
There is the provision — “adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and duties prescribed by Islam” — relating to the practice of piety. What is “adequate”, one may ask? Of course, only the clerical community or those ex-madrasa soldiers of Islam doing jihad can pass these two tests. The Taliban adhere to this provision of the constitution rigorously: warlord Mangal Bagh in Khyber Agency, on the authority of a hadith, burns down the houses of those who don’t attend group prayers in a mosque on Friday.
After reservations expressed by some quarters, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared that it will deliver the final verdict on how Article 62 is to be enforced. We don’t know how it is going to handle the “duty” of saying “compulsory” namaz. Laws presently in the statute book can get parliamentarians sacked for drinking “wine” in their hostel.
What will the honourable court do about the “compulsory” (farz) namaz? Muslim courts are always conservative — a “liberal” judge is a curse — and can’t be expected to become “Voltairean” to make religion compatible with modern times.
If the honourable court wants to become “enlightened” and “rational”, it had better continued…
– See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/tyranny-of-piety/#sthash.QdyzUHV4.dpuf
The world will be surprised to know that the constitution of Pakistan has a provision for piety, the one thing that the nation-state in the 18th century had begun thinking was not measurable. Today, crime is described in penal codes, then punished. Religion too punishes crime, albeit at times too harshly, like cutting off the hand for pilferage. But how can you punish lack of piety, like not knowing a certain Arabic verse of the Quran by heart?
Article 62 of the constitution of Pakistan says that a member of parliament is not disqualified as long as “he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions; he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins; he is sagacious, righteous and non- profligate, honest and ‘ameen’, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law; he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
If you don’t pass this test, you can’t even stand for election — the election officer can ask you to recite a Quranic verse in Arabic — and if you can’t, you can be denied nomination. Of course, the non-Muslim members of parliament are exempted, although subject to possessing “moral character”. For clarity’s sake, sin and crime are clubbed together in religion, whereas the “non-intrusive” modern state doesn’t consider all sins as crime. A policeman in Lahore feels safer nabbing sinners, who are mostly peaceful citizens, in preference to dacoits, who can shoot him dead. The penal code, after a heavy injection of religion, allows him this choice.
There is the provision — “adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and duties prescribed by Islam” — relating to the practice of piety. What is “adequate”, one may ask? Of course, only the clerical community or those ex-madrasa soldiers of Islam doing jihad can pass these two tests. The Taliban adhere to this provision of the constitution rigorously: warlord Mangal Bagh in Khyber Agency, on the authority of a hadith, burns down the houses of those who don’t attend group prayers in a mosque on Friday.
After reservations expressed by some quarters, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared that it will deliver the final verdict on how Article 62 is to be enforced. We don’t know how it is going to handle the “duty” of saying “compulsory” namaz. Laws presently in the statute book can get parliamentarians sacked for drinking “wine” in their hostel.
What will the honourable court do about the “compulsory” (farz) namaz? Muslim courts are always conservative — a “liberal” judge is a curse — and can’t be expected to become “Voltairean” to make religion compatible with modern times.
If the honourable court wants to become “enlightened” and “rational”, it had better continued…
– See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/tyranny-of-piety/#sthash.QdyzUHV4.dpuf
Courtesy: Brigadier Latif
Written by Khaled Ahmed | Posted: November 15, 2014 12:02 am
The world will be surprised to know that the constitution of Pakistan has a provision for piety, the one thing that the nation-state in the 18th century had begun thinking was not measurable. Today, crime is described in penal codes, then punished. Religion too punishes crime, albeit at times too harshly, like cutting off the hand for pilferage. But how can you punish lack of piety, like not knowing a certain Arabic verse of the Quran by heart?
Article 62 of the constitution of Pakistan says that a member of parliament is not disqualified as long as “he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions; he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins; he is sagacious, righteous and non- profligate, honest and ‘ameen’, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law; he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
If you don’t pass this test, you can’t even stand for election — the election officer can ask you to recite a Quranic verse in Arabic — and if you can’t, you can be denied nomination. Of course, the non-Muslim members of parliament are exempted, although subject to possessing “moral character”. For clarity’s sake, sin and crime are clubbed together in religion, whereas the “non-intrusive” modern state doesn’t consider all sins as crime. A policeman in Lahore feels safer nabbing sinners, who are mostly peaceful citizens, in preference to dacoits, who can shoot him dead. The penal code, after a heavy injection of religion, allows him this choice.
There is the provision — “adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and duties prescribed by Islam” — relating to the practice of piety. What is “adequate”, one may ask? Of course, only the clerical community or those ex-madrasa soldiers of Islam doing jihad can pass these two tests. The Taliban adhere to this provision of the constitution rigorously: warlord Mangal Bagh in Khyber Agency, on the authority of a hadith, burns down the houses of those who don’t attend group prayers in a mosque on Friday.
After reservations expressed by some quarters, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared that it will deliver the final verdict on how Article 62 is to be enforced. We don’t know how it is going to handle the “duty” of saying “compulsory” namaz. Laws presently in the statute book can get parliamentarians sacked for drinking “wine” in their hostel.
What will the honourable court do about the “compulsory” (farz) namaz? Muslim courts are always conservative — a “liberal” judge is a curse — and can’t be expected to become “Voltairean” to make religion compatible with modern times.
If the honourable court wants to become “enlightened” and “rational”, it had better continued…
– See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/tyranny-of-piety/#sthash.QdyzUHV4.dpuf
Categories: Asia, Pakistan, Secularism, Separation of Church and State