Data Darbar – the same bloody story

Your words are compelling, Ms. Amir and there can scarcely be enough condemnation of the carnage that has now become a staple in our daily lives in Pakistan. However, I would wonder whether the drawing of battle lines along sectarian lines (even seemingly innocuous ones between syncretic and salafi Islam) is the right course of action at this point. The perpetrators undoubtedly had the deepening of our society’s ideological fault lines in mind when they planned this attack. By starting a conversation about the ‘authenticity’ of certain strains of Islam over others, are we not simply buying into the logic of their destructive argument and further embroiling ourselves in debates that offer no constructive solution?

Also, I must humbly make a correction to your reference about Habib Jalib’s poetry. When he mentioned ‘darbaris’, Jalib was referring to ‘courtiers’ or loyalists of the monarch, not sufis. In our historical context, the ‘Darbar’ was the court where the Mughal monarchy used to receive its guests, accept their offerings and demonstrate their largesse. In using this line, Jalib was demonstrating his vehement opposition to poets becoming sycophants of the ruling establishment. It would be tragic to interpret this as a denunciation by Jalib of the asceticism of the Sufi.Recommend

@ Ammar Rashid, Thank you so much for your comment. Especially the Jalib reference clarification. I have always interpreted these words as derogatory to the ascetic and never really considered that they had an alternative meaning dating back to the Mughal darbars. I am indebted to you for this reference and interpretation. I always believed that considering Jalib’s poetry often ascribes to the political, activist nature of people, that the reference was made to the apathy of the mystic regarding worldly affairs. I am glad to be corrected on this score.

Regarding divisions in Islam and drawing the battle lines, while I am completely on board with the fact that this is not the best course of action i do feel that we are already in a place where it is fast becoming the only course of action. We have scores of people in this country who ‘call for Sharia’ without having any conception of what that will mean. If you ask them “What type of Sharia: Sunni or Shia, or which school of thought and then with which people in charge of ijma councils?” they seldom have a clue. Our countries religious demographic itself has shifted from the Hanafi Sharia school before the Zia era towards a clear tilt in Hanbali following Zia’s ten years in power. Much as we shouldn’t and don’t want to ‘pick a right or wrong’ type of Islam, the distinction that Islam is not a monolith and that there are several strands to how Shariah is interpreted must be made at this juncture, when the two interpretations being largely put forth come either from the mullah or the Taliban.

Ours is a society that is used to assessing its ‘religiosity’ and the battle to prove how religious one is cannot be condoned, but it is conducted only by certain people pushing one particular strain of religious interpretation. My point here was not to condone these battle lines at all, but merely to point out that they exist and are increasingly being cemented.Recommend

The country is going to dogs. The common man is getting confused day by day; he stands and sees an event taking place. The event becomes hot news, media jibbers and jabbers, politicians do their part, the “international society” sends their condemn-ings. Then comes the question: Who, what, when, where and why? Up to this day, this question has become a rhetoric itself. Why are there questions without answers? The futility and confusion through which a common citizen goes through is unexplainable. There is confusion over who to even blame. Is it the fundamentalist? Or is it some Indian, U.S. or “yahoodi” agent? Till how long will we witness more events and not get answers? How much more of this frustration? Who, what, when, where and WHY?Recommend