Share this article
Print this page
Email a friend
- RSS
- Today's Paper
- Subscribe
- beta 2.0
High: 34°C
Low: 28°C
Alerts
Is Pakistan like Israel?
Ayesha Siddiqa in her June 6 column in The Express Tribune made a very interesting comparison between Pakistan and...
The writer is a director at the South Asia Free Media Association, Lahore (khaled.ahmed@tribune.com.pk)
Ayesha Siddiqa in her June 6 column in The Express Tribune made a very interesting comparison between Pakistan and Israel: both were supposedly formed on the basis of religion, both are national security states with illegal nukes and are internationally isolated. The comparison is favourable to neither. There are minor differences, however.
Pakistan has a constitution which says it is a religious state. Israel doesn’t have a constitution, so its legal status is undecided. But were the two demanded in the name of religion? It is not certain.
The only document that lays out the nature of the Israeli state is proclamation of Madinat Yisrael of 1948. (State in Hebrew is madina!) This is the proclamation about the foundation of the state. It speaks of Israel as a homeland of all Jews. It says the values of the state of Israel will be based on the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets.
The Proclamation of Independence, read over the radio by Prime Minister Ben Gurion in 1948, is controversial in Israel. But the truth is that secular Israelis would not sign it if it contained the name of God. Prime Minister Ben Gurion, whose secularism and left-leaning thinking prevented the rightwing “observing” Jews from coming to power till 1977, did not allow the word ‘God’ in the Proclamation.
“Non-observing” Jews founded Israel while the orthodox Jews opposed it. A constitution would have clearly defined the ideology of Israel, but no agreement exists so far on such a constitution.
In the case of Pakistan, partially “observing” but non-clerical Muslims founded the state. A majority of the clerical parties rejected Pakistan just as most orthodox Jews were to reject the Herzl-Gurion enterprise called Israel.
Like Ben Gurion, Jinnah did not want a religious state. When he spoke about the nature of the state on 11 Aug 1948 three days before its actual coming into being, he described it as a secular state. After his death in 1948, his successors thought of defining the state in Islamic terms.
In the case of Israel, this did not happen. The Labour “socialists” dominated Israel till 1977. Ben Gurion hated Menachim Begin, the founder of right-wing Likud. If he had had his way, Israel would not have continued to occupy the lands it conquered in 1967.
One can say that Israel is still secular because of its 40 per cent Ashkenazi European-Jewish population. Judaism has a sharia abandoned by the European Jews in the 17th century. When it came, Islam did not follow the Pauline-Christian rejection of the Sharia. The Mishnaic-Talmudic “parallel” authority is comparable to the authority of Hadith.
Pakistan wrote up its Objectives Resolution in 1949 after Jinnah’s death. It mentioned God in it, which later became Allah. It allowed the non-Muslim minorities to practise their religion “freely”, but when the resolution appeared inside the constitution in 1985, “freely” disappeared from the text without due notification. (It has been reinstated by the 18th amendment in 2010.)
Like Pakistan, Israel also treats its minorities badly. Mullahs in Pakistan and rabbis in Israel wield power, because of ideology in the case of Pakistan, and proportional representation in the case of Israel. Unlike Pakistan, Israel invited “all Jews of the world” to Israel.
Quite brainlessly, it was proclaimed that Pakistan was made up of letters indicating the regions contained in it. It contained Kashmir but not East Bengal. The first it never got and the second it lost in 1971.
Israel too was named all wrong. The name of the Jewish state under the prophet-king David was Judea. Israel in the Bible was in fact a renegade state destroyed for its evil in 722 BC. In rabbinic translation, the name Israel means wrestling with God. In Arabic too if you write “sara’” with “suad” instead of “seen”, it means wrestling.
Published in the Express Tribune, June 13th, 2010.
Reader Comments (23)
Latest News
A Spoonful of music
The underground band, popular for their covers of legendary musicians, finally presents something original.
Antoine Pagis: Around the world in search of an ‘ideal match’
Frenchman Antoine Pagis is in Pakistan, two months into a world tour.
Kharan school principal, 12-year old nephew killed in targeted attack
Principal Muzaffar Jamali had received threats to his life, family, but authorities only provided a guard for school.
Recent Slideshows
More in Opinion
Where we went wrong
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from.
Unless otherwise stated, all content is copyrighted © 2012 The Express Tribune News Network.
Technical feedback? webmaster@tribune.com.pk
poignant and thought provoking!Recommend
Well,I cant understand the fact that Pakistan Assembly littered with feudal and elite liberal class easily allowed to pass the Objective Resolution.(we know well how far Mr.Liaquat Ali and his Begum were religious!!!).Why the most staunch opponent of Pakistan, religious parties were successful exerting their influence so easily?.Then Our military joined hands with Mullahs in bleeding Indians in Kashmir using and abusing religious parties.And now see the irony that this has become such a monster that new breed of fanatical religious group does not acknowledge political religious parties that always proclaimed to bring Islami Inqalab (we have seen JUI and Jamat-e-Islami were both targeted)Recommend
Just so you know, “MEDINA” is State in Hebrew – not “Madina”.Recommend
Great article! Thank you for the insight! It helps that we recognize other nations for there diversity, rather than broadly stereotyping a country. After all, we get incensed when the rest of the world treats us Pakistani’s the same way.Recommend
Very informative and interesting piece of work by Mr. Khaled Ahmed as it should have been. The point about Israel’s being a secular State is arguable. But I would like to make a brief comment about “Like Pakistan, Israel also treats its minorities badly.”
I assume that Mr. Khaled hurriedly concluded his article, for a person of his journalistic stature could not ignore the reality that like Israel it is not the State of Pakistan that treats minorities badly. On the contrary, the whole Israeli government machinery is involved and engaged in its misdemeanor against Palestinian people.
I do not have to go into details about how the minorities of Pakistan are enjoying their freedom. They hold high positions in business, media, show-biz, military, government departments and even judiciary. There are no restriction on their getting education or learning and practicing any skills. Even there have never been any blockades on them. You can find them in any localities of the society according to their social status i.e. in lower middle class, middle class and upper class as well.
Yes, it is true that some religious quarters do express their stern attitude towards certain minorities and their myopic vision is not merely focused on minorities. They also do not spare, in their hatred-filled speeches and writings, moderate and liberal Muslims.
So, in my humble opinion, the writer, being a seasoned and one of the top analysts, has not done justice to his analytical acumen in comparing this aspect of the two countries.
I am sanguine Mr. Khaled Ahmed would dig deep in his insight to thoroughly re-write his version of understanding on this subject.
Rest of the article deserves to be perused minutely by the students of modern world history.Recommend
Ayesha Siddiqa and Khaled Ahmed have tried to malign Pakistan by trying to bracket it with Israel, an apartheid state whose odious occupation of Palestine and wars against its neighbors are now finally bringing about its deligitimization, even in the West.
What are the spurious similarities that Siddiqa and Ahmed claim between the Pakistan and Israel? They were founded on the basis of religion; they are national security states; they have illegal nuclear weapons.
Pakistan was founded on the basis of self-determination, mostly for and by Muslims living in what became Pakistan. Israel was conceived as, and founded as a colonial-settler state by European Jews of European race and ethnicity. Israel was created through the massive ethnically cleansing of Palestinians in 1948; and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has been ongoing ever since. Pakistan is not a colonial-settler state. Siddiqa and Ahmed, in their eagerness to demonize Pakistan, have ignored this fundamental distinction.
How does it help to to use vague generalities – such as ‘national security state’ – to equate Pakistan and Israel? Israel is a garrison state, whose society, economy and military are organized – with massive support from the USA, organized Jewish Diaspora and other Western powers – to maximize its military strength, all in support of endless warfare against the Palestinians and their Muslim neighbors, and in support of regional hegemony. If the military dominates Pakistan, it is because of the weakness of Pakistan’s civil society, and because Pakistan faces a much larger and hostile India.
Israel suborns and uses the power and wealth of the USA against Arabs and Muslims; Pakistan’s military is used by the USA against its own people.
As for ‘illegal’ nuclear weapons: who says so? Since Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to NPT, their weapons cannot be illegal. There is one difference though. The USA turns a blind eye to Israel’s substantial nuclear arsenal, built with stolen uranium from the USA. On the other hand, the USA and Israel have long worked at many different levels to roll back Pakistan’s nuclear program.
Siddiqa and Ahmed should focus on the fundamental differences between Pakistan and Israel, not on their superficial similarities.Recommend
Mr. Saalik writes:
What would you call Ordinance XX inducting Sections 295 & 298 in PPC? Isn’t it Pakistan’s law? Dozens have been killed, thousands have landed in Jails; many have lost their homes, businesses and property because of these draconian laws. Pakistan as a state IS treating its minorities worse than any other country. Do you know how many Hindus have left Pakistan because they found it convvenient to cross border to save their lives and women? Please read HRCP’s report and you’ll know where we stand today.Recommend
@Tarique – Regardless of their claims, no political-religious party can ever hold the flag of revolution in Pakistan for so many reasons. First, their shortsighted vision of a true leadership. They have hot-speakers and crowd-pullers, but not thinkers in their ranks. Second, none of these parties represent the majority of even their own sects. Third and most apparent reason is their misconceptions about politics and Islam.
They are adversely divided on basic Islamic ideology. The parties you have referred to are well-known to have had negative stance during the movement for creation of Pakistan.
Lastly, I would like to pinpoint a contradiction in your opinion. You wrote “Then Our military joined hands with Mullahs in bleeding Indians in Kashmir using and abusing religious parties.” and “(we have seen JUI and Jamat-e-Islami were both targeted).”
It was initially Jama’at-e-Islami that sent Mujahideen to help or train Kashmiri freedom fighters (though some factions of other religious parties undertook to replace them). I am personally aware of this fact. I do not understand then just who targeted them?
And those you have labelled as Mullahs are entirely a different breed of practitioners of Islam who were created out of nowhere by agencies and JUI, with the help of Pentagon and CIA, during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. How could have they targeted JUI?
God protect and save this country from these fanatic parasites!Recommend
“Ayesha Siddiqa in her June 6 column in The Express Tribune made a very interesting comparison between Pakistan and Israel: both were supposedly formed on the basis of religion, both are national security states with illegal nukes and are internationally isolated”
Is Pakistan internationally isolated? Ayesha Siddiqa is enormously wrong.Recommend
I found your article very interesting and knowledgeable. The irony is that a state that was built for Muslims of India on the basis of seperate electorate could never be run along secular lines as the Quaid-e -Azam wanted. And as Mr Tarique questions why do you think Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan was killed? Israel is a state that again wants to justify its existence and gain respectibility by pretending to be secular but the firing spirit is always Zionism. We have to read the Zionism Papers( original founding papers, not newspapers) in order to understand the true nature of Israeli existence. In many ways Ayesha Siddiqa is right. The dilemma remains for both the nations. “To be or not to be, that is the question”.Recommend
calling pakistan and israil alike will be just as justified as calling
– licoln and kenedy
– shakespeare and wali shah
– diana and georgina cavendish
alike!
they may be alike but (thankfully) are not identical!Recommend
@Anwar Ahmad – Thank you. I certainly will.Recommend
@Saalik There is no contradiction in my writings.JI joined hands with military in the so called Jihad of crushing Socialism in Afghanistan and the Party was the main beneficiary of CIA funding (Hikmat Yaar used to receive the main chunk of aid and Ahmed Shah Masood was not happy).I am quite agree with you that because of your described reasons these religious parties have been miserably failed to bring any radical change in Pakistani society.What I was saying that these religious political parties and our Pak military have created a monster and now it is out of their control.Recommend
@Tarique – Thank you for further explanation but no more counter-arguments from me simply to avoid any more misunderstanding and to save the subject from deviation.
However, request you to please go through my comment again to grasp the exact meaning which you seem to have missed.
I respect your point of view. Best wishes.Recommend
Simply splendid!!Recommend
@Saalik Siddikki:
Below is Ordinance XX which is clearly an apartheid law, combining slavery with mob rule, a blatant violation of universal declaration of human rights. To borrow your statement “the whole Pakistani government machinery is involved and engaged in its misdemeanour against Ahmadis”, as has been suggested, read the relevant human rights reports.
> ORDINANCE NO. XX OF 1984 PART II -
> AMENDMENT OF THE PAKISTAN PENAL CODE
> (ACT XLV OF 1860) (3) 298C… Any
> person of the Quadiani group or the
> Lahori group (who call themselves
> ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who …
> invites others to accept his faith, by
> words, either spoken or written, or by
> visible representations, or **in any
> manner whatsoever outrages the
> religious feelings of Muslims, shall
> be punished with imprisonment** of
> either description for a term which
> may extend to three years and shall
> also be liable to fine.Recommend
Here is a short article from The Economist for your perusal; http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2010/06/state_persecution_and_pakistans_ahmadi_sect
You can also check Declan Walsh’s Guardian peace mentioned in the article. Still, lengthy human rights reports of year after year are your best bet in this regard. There is constitutional apartheid against Ahmadis in Pakistan as well as institutionalised persecuting and discrimination.Recommend
Comment above for Saalik Siddikki.Recommend
@Hasan – I was amongst the first ones who condemned terrorist attack on Ahmadis and we all know who these fanatics are. When they kill common citizens of Pakistan, who do you blame; Ahmadis, Christians, Sikhs or Hindus? None of them. We simply call them “terrorists”. Then why this crap about Ahmadis?
Being a Muslim I suggest you should study the books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani. Also please study the definition of a “MURTAD”. You may change your stance.
Thank you for quoting “ORDINANCE NO. XX OF 1984 PART II – AMENDMENT OF THE PAKISTAN PENAL CODE (ACT XLV OF 1860) (3) 298C…”
If possible, please go through every single paragraph of the resolution that was tabled in the parliament to declare Qadiyani non-Muslims.
The subject is very sensitive and crossing certain limits could instigate sentiments of millions of Muslims that is certainly not your intention or mine.
I agree to one point only that no sect of the society should jump over the fence into the territory of others provided each of them remains within its own sphere of beliefs.
These are matters which require us to think first as a Muslim and then as a Pakistani.Recommend
@Saalik Siddikki:
You may also want to review definitions of Kafir, Murtad, wjibul Qatl etc form all other sects; Brelvis, Deobandi, Shias etc. All declare each other kafir and more. This respectable forum does not deserve posting such videos by ‘eminence ulema’ of all sides declaring each other what not so I will avoid doing that. However, unlike Ahmadis, other sects actually go about killing each other and recent Karachi incidents are just a small reminiscent of that. So I fail to understand your failure to notice the bigger issues with other sects rather than arguing about academic issues which are best left for academic debates without any bearings on anyone’s human rights as all civilised societies do. Leaving aside non-Muslim or advanced countries, how many of even Muslim countries have such apartheid laws in application as in Pakistan? Hardly any. The real problem in Pakistan is lack of tolerance, not anyone’s beliefs.
As far as proceedings of national assembly, the government has so far failed to publish those proceeding so it’s futile to make big claims over what occurred during those proceedings. This is however a good opportunity for all those who seek to know the truth to demand the government to publish the proceedings unedited as soon as possible. That should put an end to speculations on the content of proceeding once and for all.
Either we accept the human rights norms in Pakistan as per universal declaration of human rights to which Pakistan is a signatory or, if we wish to support apartheid and religious bigotry under any pretext then good people all over the world do not agree to that. Hence the articles by Khalid Ahmad and Aysha Siddiqua comparing one apartheid state Israel with another; Pakistan.Recommend
Ayesha Siddiqa and Khaled Ahmed are two liberal fascists whose analyses always end up maligning mullahs and the army. has there been no mullah and the pak army, there would have been little adherence to islam in our mosques and pakistan would have been defenceless vis-a-vis hegemonic india.Recommend
@ Hasan, Salam
you referred ordinance XX inducting sections, namely, 295 and 298 being in nature of Aparthied law. i don’t think that is correct interpretation.
Inclusive definition of Aparthied law refers to racial group and not religious group both in ICC and ICSPCA….. yup minus word ‘racial’ said ordinance would be hit by aparthied law, which is not the case.
However, under Article 7 Sub Article 1 clause (h) of ICC said Ordinance might hit by the crime known as ‘crime against humanity’, i deliberately used the word might cause the words ‘widespread or systematic attack’, in said Article, would be subject to debate, if question of its usage arises in any proper forum…
Humanity firstRecommend
whether word God was changed, with word Allah, before passing of resolution or after?Recommend