 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
| Religion in Politics -- Opinion by: Riaz A Hakeem |
| Religion, when enmeshed with politics, can deepen polarities and derail the examination of issues from the perspective of logic and the aggregate national benefit. We have seen, for example, how politics and state policies underpinned by religious diktat can lead to laws that are discriminatory and can be used as tools for victimization. The Qisas and Diyat Act, the Hudood and the blasphemy laws are cases in point. At the very least, a political fabric woven from religion will either dismiss minorities and their rights, or polarize politics between dominant and minority religions. Pakistan made the state the custodian of religion through the 1949 Objectives Resolution, which was later made the preamble to the constitution by the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto government and added as an annex by Ziaul Haq. Although religious parties have not historically fared well in elections, Pakistan’s politics have, over successive decades, been colored by religion. The separation of religion and politics will, of course, neither automatically ensure justice nor guard against the misuse of religion. But it can be a first step towards delineating the private and public spheres. ---------------------------------------------------- In Dawn newspaper the above opinion was expressed under the heading of "Religion in Politics". It would have been a great joke had this topic not been the cause of so many deaths in that country. So to set the record straight, it is important that the Pakistani authorities write and teach a correct history of their country. Only in this manner will successive generations learn from the mistakes made by the predecessors and attempt to avoid them, or in the best case scenario, try to change what went wrong. First the most damaging decree ever issued in Pakistan was by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto when he attempted to take over Allah's role in deciding as to who is and who is not a Muslim. I speak of his decree that declared all Ahmadi's as non-Muslims and stripped them of Pakistani citizenship. Subsequently any one applying for a Pakistani passport would have to declare that he or she was not an Ahmadi before they were granted a passport. This ruling made it possible for other sects to be similarly viewed under suspicion as to their authenticity of being Muslim. I could question, for example, why the Ismaili's are not similarly treated? In any case it laid the ground work for sectarian strife. This is all the more remarkable in that Mr Bhutto was Shia himself, one would think that in a Sunni majority state he would have been more careful. After Bhutto opened the doors to Religion in Politics when Zia ul Haq the General, came on the scene, he literally tore off the doors. From then on there was no distinction between the body politic and religion. The common reasoning is that unlike other religions Islam is a complete way of life and our beloved prophet Muhammad (SAWS) also was involved in Politics while he preached. This ignores what Mustapha said many times, that the rules for him are far different than for ordinary men. Now that the State founded on the basis of Religion is not turning out to be what it was promised by Jinnah then people are wanting to take religion out of Politics. How can that be when the very foundation of Pakistan, a political decision, was made on the basis of religion? If you want to take out that factor this is fine, but we then need to re-examine if we need an Muslim state for Muslims if it will not have comprehensive Muslim laws? Here is the problem, all laws are updated when circumstances warrant it. But the Sharia laws are stuck in time. Moreover they are the result of misinterpretations, of incorrect Exegesis because of a male dominated society which performed the interpretation such that they favored them. Even Surah Al Nisa is nuanced incorrectly by most male commentators. When you think of Islam the most significant thing about it is that Islam is about social justice. Then why would there be clauses in it that distinctly treated one half of all humanity unjustly? The answer is that the Qur'an does not - it is the male interpretations that are at fault. Take for example the rule requiring two female witness compared to one male. It seems to reinforce the opinion that one male is equal to two females. Not true. The surah has to be identified as to what is it dealing with primarily? If the Surah is about Finance, then we know that Muslim women of that time, and even today, if not exposed to Financial matters will be ignorant of such things compared to men who are more likely, roaming outside the house to have been exposed to it. This does not allow us to extrapolate the financial dictum to all matters. Similarly the Qisas and Diyat laws are to viewed in light of enlightened exegesis of the Qur'an. Referring to Maulana Maududi's translations for all these matters will not serve us well. This is not meant as a criticism of the great Maulana, but an appeal for others to conduct further research where he left off. After all except for Allah there is nobody perfect, and all things can be further improved upon. Let us implement the social justice implored by Islam across all of Allah's makhlukat. |
