Kindly visit my wordpress blog for future posts:
https://fatimaaltaf.wordpress.com
https://fatimaaltaf.wordpress.com
Friday, May 27, 2016
Quaid, Iqbal and Muslim Nationalism
April 26, 2016
When Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was asked by British writer Beverly Nichols how he would define the vital principles of Pakistan, he said:
“In five words: the muslims are a nation.”
“… If you grant that,” he added, “and if you are an honest man, you must grant the principle of Pakistan. You would have to grant it even if the obstacles were a hundred times more formidable than they actually are. Of course, if you do not grant it, then,”.. . He shrugged his shoulders and smiled.. .”Then, there is an, end of the matter.”
When Nichols further asked him, ” When you say the Muslims are a Nation, are you thinking in terms of religion?”
The Quaid replied,” Partly, but by no means exclusively. You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical Code of Conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence…”
Such a concise yet comprehensive summary of the two-nation theory and the entire ideology underlying the struggle for Pakistan! No wonder Nichols titled this chapter of his book Dialogue with a Giant. What’s more is that the Quaid’s words were a complete reflection of how Allama Iqbal – the spiritual father of the nation – had defined a nation, and more specifically, the Muslim Nation.
Iqbal had voiced his ideas of muslim nationhood time and again in his writings, lectures and speeches, and these ideas finally came out in the form of a vision – the desire to see a seperate homeland being formed for a seperate nation – in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League, in 1930; more famously known as the Allahabad Address.
However, the answer to the fundamental question What IS a nation? had been given before Iqbal by French Orientalist Ernest Renan (1823-1892) whose ideas of nationhood differed strikingly from the those more prominant Western thinkers of his time whose ideas prevailed in 19th century Western society. In his famous 1882 lecture “What is a Nation?” – Renan described a nation in the following words:
“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present… To have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more-these are the essential conditions for being a people… A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future.”
Iqbal, inspired by Renan’s ideas, quoted from his lecture in the famous Allahabad Address in 1930:
“Man,” says Renan, “is enslaved neither by his race nor by his religion, nor by the course of rivers, nor by the direction of mountain ranges. A great aggregation of men, sane of mind and warm of heart, creates a moral consciousness which is called a nation.”
Iqbal, agreeing with Renan that race or geography did not constitute a nation, and also that mere belief in religious ideas could not bring a people together, took this idea a step further in saying that “Islam has a far deeper significance for us than merely religious.”
“…According to the Quran, it is the religion of Islam alone which sustains a nation in its true cultural or political sense. It is for this reason that the Quran openly declares that any system other than that of Islam must be deprecated and rejected. (3:84)” – Islam and Nationalism.
“In India, as elsewhere, the structure of Islam as a society is almost entirely due to the working of Islam as a culture inspired by a specific ethical ideal. What I mean to say is that Muslim society, with its remarkable homogeneity and inner unity, has grown to be what it is, under the pressure of the laws and institutions associated with the culture of Islam.” -Allahabad Address.
“Mere belief in the Islamic principle, though exceedingly important, is not sufficient. In order to participate in the life of the communal self, the individual mind must undergo a complete transformation, and this transformation is secured, externally by the institutions of Islam, and internally by that uniform culture which the intellectual energy of our forefathers has produced.” – The Muslim Community.
It was this “complete transformation” of the individual mind which enabled the muslims to become a nation, and transcend the boundries of race, geography and culture to obtain that oneness of vision which has been mentioned by Iqbal in Javednama:
What is the nation, you who declare ‘No god but God’?
With thousands of eyes, to be one in vision
And elsewhere:
کیا تو نے صحرا نشینوں کو یکتا
خبر میں، نظر میں، اذان سحر میں
The subject of Iqbal’s case study, in particular, was the Muslim Nation of the Indian sub-continent. Although Islam, in Iqbal’s view, being entirely different from other religions, had doubtless acted as a “binding force,” to bring together people of different race and culture throughout its history, yet, it had done much more for the Indian Muslim Nation, the effects of which had been much more far reaching:
“It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity – by which expression I mean a social structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical ideal – has been the chief formative factor in the life-history of the Muslims of India. It has furnished those basic emotions and loyalties which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own. Indeed it is not an exaggeration to say that India is perhaps the only country in the world where Islam, as a people-building force, has worked at its best.” -Allahabad Address.
The past centuries had indeed witnessed in India the emergence of a nation which possessed a character of its own, an entity, an organism on which Islam as a belief system and culture had had a deep and lasting impact, perhaps much more than any other in the history of Islam. The Indian Muslim Nation was, therefore, a unique amalgamation of Islamic beliefs and a uniform culture which not only emanated from those beliefs but also served to strengthen the same.
Iqbal’s view of this “Uniform Culture” was seen to be echoed by the Quaid when he said “…our history,our heroes, our art, our architecure, our music, our laws, our jurispdence” – a uniformity of culture, lifestyle and code of ethics/conduct, transferred to us from our forefathers, and which, despite living with other nations for centuries, managed to preserve its exclusive status and identity. In Quaid’s words:
“In all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life which links us together. Our names, our clothes, our foods—they are all different; our economic life, our educational ideas, our treatment of women, our attitude to animals.. we challenge each other at every point of the compass. Take one example, the eternal question of the cow. We eat the cow, the Hindus worship it.”
Thus, according to our founding fathers, Islam as a religion was capable of connecting individuals through the unity of thought/vision which it offered – and the uniformity of culture arising from that unity – and collectively binding them to form a nation; with the Indian Muslim Nation being an epitome of such nation building by Islam.
It was based on this special status of the Muslim Nation of India that Iqbal proposed the formation of Pakistan. We, as Pakistanis, must understand that Islam, belief in Islam and Muslim culture are the vital components and the building blocks of our society. Muslim culture is a complete lifestyle and code of conduct which evolved and flourished through centuries and was finally passed on to us. This culture is not Arab, or Persian, or Turkish, or Indian, but Muslim Culture in its most enriched form. We cannot replace it by importing a foreign culture which is not compatible with what we have inherited from our forefathers:
اپنی ملت پر قیاس اقوام مغرب سےنه کر
خاص ہے ترکیب میں قوم رسول ہاشمی
When Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was asked by British writer Beverly Nichols how he would define the vital principles of Pakistan, he said:
“In five words: the muslims are a nation.”
“… If you grant that,” he added, “and if you are an honest man, you must grant the principle of Pakistan. You would have to grant it even if the obstacles were a hundred times more formidable than they actually are. Of course, if you do not grant it, then,”.. . He shrugged his shoulders and smiled.. .”Then, there is an, end of the matter.”
When Nichols further asked him, ” When you say the Muslims are a Nation, are you thinking in terms of religion?”
The Quaid replied,” Partly, but by no means exclusively. You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical Code of Conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence…”
Such a concise yet comprehensive summary of the two-nation theory and the entire ideology underlying the struggle for Pakistan! No wonder Nichols titled this chapter of his book Dialogue with a Giant. What’s more is that the Quaid’s words were a complete reflection of how Allama Iqbal – the spiritual father of the nation – had defined a nation, and more specifically, the Muslim Nation.
Iqbal had voiced his ideas of muslim nationhood time and again in his writings, lectures and speeches, and these ideas finally came out in the form of a vision – the desire to see a seperate homeland being formed for a seperate nation – in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League, in 1930; more famously known as the Allahabad Address.
However, the answer to the fundamental question What IS a nation? had been given before Iqbal by French Orientalist Ernest Renan (1823-1892) whose ideas of nationhood differed strikingly from the those more prominant Western thinkers of his time whose ideas prevailed in 19th century Western society. In his famous 1882 lecture “What is a Nation?” – Renan described a nation in the following words:
“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present… To have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more-these are the essential conditions for being a people… A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future.”
Iqbal, inspired by Renan’s ideas, quoted from his lecture in the famous Allahabad Address in 1930:
“Man,” says Renan, “is enslaved neither by his race nor by his religion, nor by the course of rivers, nor by the direction of mountain ranges. A great aggregation of men, sane of mind and warm of heart, creates a moral consciousness which is called a nation.”
Iqbal, agreeing with Renan that race or geography did not constitute a nation, and also that mere belief in religious ideas could not bring a people together, took this idea a step further in saying that “Islam has a far deeper significance for us than merely religious.”
“…According to the Quran, it is the religion of Islam alone which sustains a nation in its true cultural or political sense. It is for this reason that the Quran openly declares that any system other than that of Islam must be deprecated and rejected. (3:84)” – Islam and Nationalism.
“In India, as elsewhere, the structure of Islam as a society is almost entirely due to the working of Islam as a culture inspired by a specific ethical ideal. What I mean to say is that Muslim society, with its remarkable homogeneity and inner unity, has grown to be what it is, under the pressure of the laws and institutions associated with the culture of Islam.” -Allahabad Address.
“Mere belief in the Islamic principle, though exceedingly important, is not sufficient. In order to participate in the life of the communal self, the individual mind must undergo a complete transformation, and this transformation is secured, externally by the institutions of Islam, and internally by that uniform culture which the intellectual energy of our forefathers has produced.” – The Muslim Community.
It was this “complete transformation” of the individual mind which enabled the muslims to become a nation, and transcend the boundries of race, geography and culture to obtain that oneness of vision which has been mentioned by Iqbal in Javednama:
What is the nation, you who declare ‘No god but God’?
With thousands of eyes, to be one in vision
And elsewhere:
کیا تو نے صحرا نشینوں کو یکتا
خبر میں، نظر میں، اذان سحر میں
The subject of Iqbal’s case study, in particular, was the Muslim Nation of the Indian sub-continent. Although Islam, in Iqbal’s view, being entirely different from other religions, had doubtless acted as a “binding force,” to bring together people of different race and culture throughout its history, yet, it had done much more for the Indian Muslim Nation, the effects of which had been much more far reaching:
“It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity – by which expression I mean a social structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical ideal – has been the chief formative factor in the life-history of the Muslims of India. It has furnished those basic emotions and loyalties which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own. Indeed it is not an exaggeration to say that India is perhaps the only country in the world where Islam, as a people-building force, has worked at its best.” -Allahabad Address.
The past centuries had indeed witnessed in India the emergence of a nation which possessed a character of its own, an entity, an organism on which Islam as a belief system and culture had had a deep and lasting impact, perhaps much more than any other in the history of Islam. The Indian Muslim Nation was, therefore, a unique amalgamation of Islamic beliefs and a uniform culture which not only emanated from those beliefs but also served to strengthen the same.
Iqbal’s view of this “Uniform Culture” was seen to be echoed by the Quaid when he said “…our history,our heroes, our art, our architecure, our music, our laws, our jurispdence” – a uniformity of culture, lifestyle and code of ethics/conduct, transferred to us from our forefathers, and which, despite living with other nations for centuries, managed to preserve its exclusive status and identity. In Quaid’s words:
“In all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life which links us together. Our names, our clothes, our foods—they are all different; our economic life, our educational ideas, our treatment of women, our attitude to animals.. we challenge each other at every point of the compass. Take one example, the eternal question of the cow. We eat the cow, the Hindus worship it.”
Thus, according to our founding fathers, Islam as a religion was capable of connecting individuals through the unity of thought/vision which it offered – and the uniformity of culture arising from that unity – and collectively binding them to form a nation; with the Indian Muslim Nation being an epitome of such nation building by Islam.
It was based on this special status of the Muslim Nation of India that Iqbal proposed the formation of Pakistan. We, as Pakistanis, must understand that Islam, belief in Islam and Muslim culture are the vital components and the building blocks of our society. Muslim culture is a complete lifestyle and code of conduct which evolved and flourished through centuries and was finally passed on to us. This culture is not Arab, or Persian, or Turkish, or Indian, but Muslim Culture in its most enriched form. We cannot replace it by importing a foreign culture which is not compatible with what we have inherited from our forefathers:
اپنی ملت پر قیاس اقوام مغرب سےنه کر
خاص ہے ترکیب میں قوم رسول ہاشمی
Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed and Mumtaz Qadri
March 13, 2016
In 1923 a Hindu publisher from Lahore, named Rajpal, published a book written by an anonymous author, on Prophet Muhammad, called “Rangeela Rasul,” which literally means “colorful prophet” vilifying the Holy Prophet in clear words and depicting him as a playboy (Nauzubillah). This caused the greatest level of outrage and unrest amongst the already destitute Muslim Community of India. A series of nation wide protests began against the book, and the muslims demanded that Rajpal be severely punished for hurting the religious sentiments of the largest minority in the country. However, as no law existed against religious criticism of any kind, the Lahore High Court was unable to convict him, and he was therefore released. Muslims continued to protest against the man, and thought it quite outrageous that a man who had carried out such blasphemy be allowed to roam about freely. Their sense of insecurity increased two fold, and as each muslim felt the brunt of the insult – emotions ran high.
Such were the sentiments of Ghazi Ilm ud Din, a 19 year old young man from Lahore, who vowed to kill Rajpal for this blasphemy against his beloved Prophet. On 6th sept 1929, he bought a dagger and attacked Rajpal in his shop, killing him on the spot. Ilm ud Din was arrested immediately after the murder and was sent to Mianwali jail. His trial took place in Lahore High Court, in which he was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death.
This greatly grieved Allama Iqbal, and upon his special request Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah took up the case as Ilm ud Din’s defense lawyer, filing an appeal in the High Court against the death sentence. During the court hearing the Quaid’s contention was that the defendent was “only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.”
The court rejected the appeal and maintained the death sentence. Ilm ud Din was executed on 31st October 1929, and was buried without a proper funeral. This caused outrage amongst the muslim community and mass demonstrations broke out throughout the country. Allama Iqbal, along with other scholars, led the campaign to recover Ilm ud Din’s body, so it could be given a proper Islamic burial. The government feared revolt, but after reassurances given by Iqbal, the authorities exhumed the martyr’s body and handed it over to the muslims. Approximately 200, 000 people attended Ilm ud Din’s funeral. He was lowered in his grave by leaders like Allama Iqbal and Maulana Zafar Ali khan, and at that moment Iqbal exclaimed tearfully, “This uneducated young man has surpassed us, the educated ones.”
Following the recent hanging of Mumtaz Qadri, a lot of people have been comparing and likening his case to that of Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed. They are overwhelmed by their sentiments and, due to their high spirits and passion, fail to discern and appreciate the differences which completely set the two incidents apart from each other.
Mumtaz Qadri killed a man who “allegedly” committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, Peace and Blessings be upon him. The man was Salman Taseer, the governor of the largest province of Pakistan, and Mumtaz Qadri was his bodyguard, sworn to protect his life.
The reason why Salman Taseer was accused of blasphemy was that he gave his protection to a Christian woman, Asia bibi who was accused and convicted of blasphemy under the Blasphemy law. Asiyah had denied that she had committed blasphemy, and had asked to be pardoned from the death sentence. According to Salman Taseer, the reason he sympathised with Asia Bibi was that the blasphemy law, in the way it is “implemented” in Pakistan, has many flaws, and makes it very easy for the powerful people in the country to target the weak through this very law. Any unbiased person with a sane, rational and sympathetic mind would agree with this. In our society, within the existing (read flawed) social justice framework, such laws can easily be used by the rich, powerful and influential people of the country to target and victimize any weak or innocent person. According to Asiyah Bibi, this is what actually happened in her case. Her family and her neighbour’s family had an old property related dispute, and her neighbour made this accusation against her to get her revenge.
In all of Taseer’s interviews and speeches that he made during this time we cannot find a single word that he uttered against the Holy Prophet; whatever he said was against the “Blasphemy Law,” the man-made law as it exists in Pakistan today. There is a clear difference between saying something disrespectful against the Holy Prophet (SAW) and merely speaking or expressing your reservations against he blasphemy law, esp. as it is implemented in Pakistan – which is not blasphemy. Moreover, even if, for the sake of the argument, Salman Taseer did commit blasphemy, we live in a state which has a law against blasphemy. Mumtaz Qadri, and others who thought Taseer committed blasphemy, should have filed a case against Taseer, instead of taking the law into his own hands and killing Taseer.
By breaking the law and killing an individual, Mumtaz Qadri was actually responsible for creating “fitna” in an Islamic state. His verdict was based on his own judgement, under which he violated the law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And I am greatly surprised and dismayed at the people who supported and are still in favour of his actions. So according to these people, it is okay to violate and break the law in a civilized society, turning it into a jungle where no law exists.
In the case of Ghazi Ilm ud Din, no such law against blasphemy or hurting other people’s religious sentiments existed. The muslims did file a case against Rajpal, but Lahore High court acquitted him of the allegation saying the law did not cover blasphemous criticism against religion. The muslims continued to protest for years, while the published book continued to circulate freely.
Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed’s action had historical implications, especially for the Muslim community of India, whereby a provision 295A was added to the Indian Penal Code, making insult to any person’s religious beliefs a punishable offence. This incident also played a role in Allama Iqbal’s famous Allahabad address in 1930, whereby he expressed the wish to see a seperate homeland formed for the Muslims of India.
To clearly differentiate between the two incidents, we must appreciate the difference in time, place, and the social/political situation of the Muslims. In the 1920’s the Muslims of the Indo-Pak subcontinent were living with a heightened sense of insecurity, which increased with every passing day. They were constantly on guard, to protect their faith most feroiously and jealously, against any threat, both from the British and the Hindus. They cannot be blamed for this, as Iqbal says in his essay Islam and Ahmadism:
“Where the members of a group feel, either instinctively or on the basis of rational argument, that the corporate life of the social organism to which they belong is in danger, their defensive attitude must be appraised in reference mainly to a biological criterion. Every thought or deed in this connection must be judged by the life-value that it may possess.”
In The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant speaks of the Jewish exocommunication of the great philosopher Spinoza in the following words, which accurately describes the condition and state of the Muslim Community of India:
“If they had had their own state, their own civil law, their own establishments of secular force and power, to compel internal cohesion and external respect, they might have been more tolerant; but their religiaon was to them their patriotism as well as their faith; … ”
While comparing the two cases we must bear in mind the difference between then and now. We now have a state of our own, and our faith does not face any direct or immediate threat from another community or foreign masters, let alone a poor Christian farmer woman who in all probability did not even commit blasphemy, and was merely accused of it by her neighbours. We are free to practice our faith, we have our laws to protect our faith! I, therefore, believe that Mumtaz Qadri was not all justified to kill Salman Taseer, in fact, he committed blasphemy by killing in the name of the Prophet of Mercy. By killing Taseer, Mumtaz Qadri was not only responsible for creating “fitna” in an Islamic state, but he further violated his sworn duty by killing the man he was supposed to protect. His case bears no likeness to that of Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed, may God exalt his soul.
The ideological foundation of Pakistan, undoubtedly, is Ishq e Rasool, the love of our Beloved Prophet, which is the binding force that holds our nation together. And I firmly believe that in a country with 95% muslim majority, with our deep rooted, inherent love and respect for our Beloved Muhammad (SAW), an actual, genuine case of blasphemy would be rare. Furthermore, would not killing an innocent in his name be a bigger Blasphemy in the very eyes of him who was sent as a “Mercy upon Mankind?”. In a state founded on Ishq e Rasool, we must protect the weak and especially the minorities against any misinterpretations of the Sharia Laws, and be ready to accept and revise our laws if they have any such flaws or weaknesses. I believe in this lies the true application of the Iqbalian verses:
قوت عشق سے ہر پست کوبالا کر دے
دہر میں اسم محمد سے اجالا کر دے
In 1923 a Hindu publisher from Lahore, named Rajpal, published a book written by an anonymous author, on Prophet Muhammad, called “Rangeela Rasul,” which literally means “colorful prophet” vilifying the Holy Prophet in clear words and depicting him as a playboy (Nauzubillah). This caused the greatest level of outrage and unrest amongst the already destitute Muslim Community of India. A series of nation wide protests began against the book, and the muslims demanded that Rajpal be severely punished for hurting the religious sentiments of the largest minority in the country. However, as no law existed against religious criticism of any kind, the Lahore High Court was unable to convict him, and he was therefore released. Muslims continued to protest against the man, and thought it quite outrageous that a man who had carried out such blasphemy be allowed to roam about freely. Their sense of insecurity increased two fold, and as each muslim felt the brunt of the insult – emotions ran high.
Such were the sentiments of Ghazi Ilm ud Din, a 19 year old young man from Lahore, who vowed to kill Rajpal for this blasphemy against his beloved Prophet. On 6th sept 1929, he bought a dagger and attacked Rajpal in his shop, killing him on the spot. Ilm ud Din was arrested immediately after the murder and was sent to Mianwali jail. His trial took place in Lahore High Court, in which he was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death.
This greatly grieved Allama Iqbal, and upon his special request Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah took up the case as Ilm ud Din’s defense lawyer, filing an appeal in the High Court against the death sentence. During the court hearing the Quaid’s contention was that the defendent was “only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.”
The court rejected the appeal and maintained the death sentence. Ilm ud Din was executed on 31st October 1929, and was buried without a proper funeral. This caused outrage amongst the muslim community and mass demonstrations broke out throughout the country. Allama Iqbal, along with other scholars, led the campaign to recover Ilm ud Din’s body, so it could be given a proper Islamic burial. The government feared revolt, but after reassurances given by Iqbal, the authorities exhumed the martyr’s body and handed it over to the muslims. Approximately 200, 000 people attended Ilm ud Din’s funeral. He was lowered in his grave by leaders like Allama Iqbal and Maulana Zafar Ali khan, and at that moment Iqbal exclaimed tearfully, “This uneducated young man has surpassed us, the educated ones.”
Following the recent hanging of Mumtaz Qadri, a lot of people have been comparing and likening his case to that of Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed. They are overwhelmed by their sentiments and, due to their high spirits and passion, fail to discern and appreciate the differences which completely set the two incidents apart from each other.
Mumtaz Qadri killed a man who “allegedly” committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, Peace and Blessings be upon him. The man was Salman Taseer, the governor of the largest province of Pakistan, and Mumtaz Qadri was his bodyguard, sworn to protect his life.
The reason why Salman Taseer was accused of blasphemy was that he gave his protection to a Christian woman, Asia bibi who was accused and convicted of blasphemy under the Blasphemy law. Asiyah had denied that she had committed blasphemy, and had asked to be pardoned from the death sentence. According to Salman Taseer, the reason he sympathised with Asia Bibi was that the blasphemy law, in the way it is “implemented” in Pakistan, has many flaws, and makes it very easy for the powerful people in the country to target the weak through this very law. Any unbiased person with a sane, rational and sympathetic mind would agree with this. In our society, within the existing (read flawed) social justice framework, such laws can easily be used by the rich, powerful and influential people of the country to target and victimize any weak or innocent person. According to Asiyah Bibi, this is what actually happened in her case. Her family and her neighbour’s family had an old property related dispute, and her neighbour made this accusation against her to get her revenge.
In all of Taseer’s interviews and speeches that he made during this time we cannot find a single word that he uttered against the Holy Prophet; whatever he said was against the “Blasphemy Law,” the man-made law as it exists in Pakistan today. There is a clear difference between saying something disrespectful against the Holy Prophet (SAW) and merely speaking or expressing your reservations against he blasphemy law, esp. as it is implemented in Pakistan – which is not blasphemy. Moreover, even if, for the sake of the argument, Salman Taseer did commit blasphemy, we live in a state which has a law against blasphemy. Mumtaz Qadri, and others who thought Taseer committed blasphemy, should have filed a case against Taseer, instead of taking the law into his own hands and killing Taseer.
By breaking the law and killing an individual, Mumtaz Qadri was actually responsible for creating “fitna” in an Islamic state. His verdict was based on his own judgement, under which he violated the law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And I am greatly surprised and dismayed at the people who supported and are still in favour of his actions. So according to these people, it is okay to violate and break the law in a civilized society, turning it into a jungle where no law exists.
In the case of Ghazi Ilm ud Din, no such law against blasphemy or hurting other people’s religious sentiments existed. The muslims did file a case against Rajpal, but Lahore High court acquitted him of the allegation saying the law did not cover blasphemous criticism against religion. The muslims continued to protest for years, while the published book continued to circulate freely.
Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed’s action had historical implications, especially for the Muslim community of India, whereby a provision 295A was added to the Indian Penal Code, making insult to any person’s religious beliefs a punishable offence. This incident also played a role in Allama Iqbal’s famous Allahabad address in 1930, whereby he expressed the wish to see a seperate homeland formed for the Muslims of India.
To clearly differentiate between the two incidents, we must appreciate the difference in time, place, and the social/political situation of the Muslims. In the 1920’s the Muslims of the Indo-Pak subcontinent were living with a heightened sense of insecurity, which increased with every passing day. They were constantly on guard, to protect their faith most feroiously and jealously, against any threat, both from the British and the Hindus. They cannot be blamed for this, as Iqbal says in his essay Islam and Ahmadism:
“Where the members of a group feel, either instinctively or on the basis of rational argument, that the corporate life of the social organism to which they belong is in danger, their defensive attitude must be appraised in reference mainly to a biological criterion. Every thought or deed in this connection must be judged by the life-value that it may possess.”
In The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant speaks of the Jewish exocommunication of the great philosopher Spinoza in the following words, which accurately describes the condition and state of the Muslim Community of India:
“If they had had their own state, their own civil law, their own establishments of secular force and power, to compel internal cohesion and external respect, they might have been more tolerant; but their religiaon was to them their patriotism as well as their faith; … ”
While comparing the two cases we must bear in mind the difference between then and now. We now have a state of our own, and our faith does not face any direct or immediate threat from another community or foreign masters, let alone a poor Christian farmer woman who in all probability did not even commit blasphemy, and was merely accused of it by her neighbours. We are free to practice our faith, we have our laws to protect our faith! I, therefore, believe that Mumtaz Qadri was not all justified to kill Salman Taseer, in fact, he committed blasphemy by killing in the name of the Prophet of Mercy. By killing Taseer, Mumtaz Qadri was not only responsible for creating “fitna” in an Islamic state, but he further violated his sworn duty by killing the man he was supposed to protect. His case bears no likeness to that of Ghazi Ilm ud Din Shaheed, may God exalt his soul.
The ideological foundation of Pakistan, undoubtedly, is Ishq e Rasool, the love of our Beloved Prophet, which is the binding force that holds our nation together. And I firmly believe that in a country with 95% muslim majority, with our deep rooted, inherent love and respect for our Beloved Muhammad (SAW), an actual, genuine case of blasphemy would be rare. Furthermore, would not killing an innocent in his name be a bigger Blasphemy in the very eyes of him who was sent as a “Mercy upon Mankind?”. In a state founded on Ishq e Rasool, we must protect the weak and especially the minorities against any misinterpretations of the Sharia Laws, and be ready to accept and revise our laws if they have any such flaws or weaknesses. I believe in this lies the true application of the Iqbalian verses:
قوت عشق سے ہر پست کوبالا کر دے
دہر میں اسم محمد سے اجالا کر دے
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)