The insertion of faith in public discourse
In this episode, it is significant that the girl was not in an Islamiat class during the alleged incident. According to news reports, she was commenting on a ‘naat’— a poem written in honour of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), in an Urdu class.
According to Article 22 of the Constitution of Pakistan, no person can be asked to study another religion, or be forced to take part in any ceremony or event associated with another religion. This article was inserted in the 1973 Constitution to safeguard the minorities and to allay their fears that even after the declaration of Pakistan as an ‘Islamic Republic’ they would not be forced to practically become Muslims. After all, this was exactly the same fear that led the Muslims of South Asia to demand a separate homeland for themselves.
In 1937, when the Congress formed ministries in nine out of eleven provinces of British India, several of their policies irked the Muslims. The singing of the Bande Matram (‘Ode to the Motherland’), which was composed during Hindu resistance to Muslim rule in Bengal in the eighteenth century was considered especially offensive, and thought of as exhibiting the non-acceptance of Muslims and Indian Muslim history, by the Congress. Whatever the truth in this perception, the result of such policies of the Congress ministries was that the Muslims of South Asia (barring some significant sections), were alienated from the Congress and threw in their lot with the Muslim League, thereby reinvigorating an almost dead organisation. Subtle policies like the singing of songs with Hindu overtones and the slighting of Muslim rule were the bedrock of Muslim support for the Muslim League.
Pakistan is an Islamic country and so Islam has a public role. But this does not mean that it has to be inserted in everything. Asking a non-Muslim student to study something which is clearly Islamic is a clear violation of the rights granted to minorities in the Constitution.
The insertion of religion in every sphere of life in Pakistan has meant the religion has lost its special value. Shallow and rash understandings of the religion have become the vogue, and a meaningful study of the religion has been relegated to the domain of the few religious scholars. It would be much better if the aforementioned ‘naat’ were studied by Muslims in an Islamiat class. There they would have been able to not only appreciate the literary qualities of such a composition, but also be able to analyse and understand the theological concepts which underlay the poem.
Putting in religion in every school textbook, not only alienates non-Muslims, it also makes Muslims take the study of faith for granted, and makes the mere appellation of something Islamic enough for the people. It is time that the study of religion is returned to its proper sphere, so that we can develop citizens who have a deep understanding and appreciation of the tenets of Islam. Only grounded Muslims can become good Pakistanis, and this project cannot be achieved through piecemeal learning of Islam through Urdu or other subjects, and can only be achieved through a scholarly approach to the study of Islamiat.
The usage of Hindu symbols alienated the Muslims of South Asia from the Congress and fractured the unity of India which had been the crowning achievement of the British Raj. It gave rise to the religious polarisation which not only led to the creation of Pakistan, but also sowed the seeds of the religious massacres during the partition and riots thereafter. Pakistan is already a fractured country, with little sense of citizenship and a confused notion of nationalism. In this scenario we should not deliberately exclude non-Muslims and make them feel like second-class citizens, especially when they have contributed, and continue to contribute, towards the betterment of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 4th, 2011.
COMMENTS (33)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1729512368-0/liam-(8)1729512368-0-405x300.webp "article")
-(1)1718038311-0/SYDNEY-(1)-(1)1718038311-0-165x106.webp "article")
1731481723-0/BeFunky-collage-(47)1731481723-0-165x106.webp "article")
@ Brute forc Thank u man for this information and your view i will read more ...
Vickram darling, I thought Kerala had a higher percentage of Muslims than UP or Bihar? Kyaa logic hae aap kee darling? I am impressed:-)
@ Vickram hahhahah i like your sense of humar.
@ Vickram Thank u for explaining in detail but can u tell us why U.P or Bihar and all other india not benefiting from fedral system can u...
I was shocked to notice a couple of years ago that "Urdu kee teesri kitab" (Class 3 urdu text) had a section on Tajweed at the end. Until then I didn't even know exactly what the F this word 'tajweed' meant! Why do the kids in 3rd grade need to learn Arabic tajweed in their Urdu text book?
@ Ram Bhrose Singh Still u didnot get man if Kerala ar Gujrat ststes are rich or prospering its not because of fedral system but peoples of those areas are NRI working overseas and sending lot Riyals and Dollers and those petro gulf money working well and U.P or Bihar area are poors bhaia log dont travel too much just work on paan ki dukan and live in the country and about jinna sahab when talk to congress for loose fedral sys that congress denied..
@Ali Tanoli: India has a federal system now; Every state is pretty free to decide what and how to advance their state. Because each state is free you see growth and development in states like Kerala (95 % literacy) and Gujarat (highest income; highest growth) with very smart and caring leadership. And more poverty and more illiteracy and less growth in UP and Bihar. Federal system has worked well in India. Don't know if we are speaking the same thing. Anyway Pakistan is a different country with its own unique set of problems which has more similarity with Middle-East than India
@ Ram Bharose singh ji please accept my apology if i hurt u but it was not what u understand my point of view was the reason jinnah left congress after they did not want a fedral base sys of govt in india.
"The singing of the Bande Matram (‘Ode to the Motherland’), which was composed during Hindu resistance to Muslim rule in Bengal in the eighteenth century was considered especially offensive, and thought of as exhibiting the non-acceptance of Muslims and Indian Muslim history, by the Congress. "
If you do not know your own history then why quote it?
Congress had won most of the seats, but also most of the Muslim seats in India. It is a crowing achievement for the Congress that election was. Muslim league had been thoroughly routed in many areas where majority were Muslims it contested against the Congress.
Muslim league marginalized, now needed something to offer to woo the Muslims. It played the communal card. It started equating Congress to Hindu rule and many of the pamphlets said the Hindus must be taught a lesson using violence, and this was the time when Jinnah was president.
Muslim league was successful in playing the British against the Congress and came out in front as a result.
@Ali Tanoli: You are right. From what I know of Jinah and Gandhi, I know both were different even though both were Gujarati. Jhinah was posh and Gandhi, a half naked fakir. Jhinna was not comfortable with Gandi and started Muslim League.
Lot of Punjabis are nostalgic about Pakistan just like Muhajarin in Karachi. But a pakka Bhaiyya from Ganga-kinare like me, feels Jinnah was a blessing for India because he took the weakest links out of India. Personally if it were upto me I would make Jinah the father of Indian nation rather than Gandi.
@ Ram Singh Its a Trillions $ question why jinnah left congress and joined muslim leaque because of Ghandi its a truth and i think this was a reason Allama M Iqbal was in favor of creating seprate state.
@Ranjit: What do you mean you agree? @author I have seen this guy Yamir Houdini say the same line elsewhere that Gandhi introduced Hindu religion to freedom movement against British and so Jinnah joined Muslim League, used religious slogans also and created Pakistan. Now Pakistan is more religious than what Jinnah wanted. But because Gandhi forced Jinnah to use religion all the fault rests with Gandhi and Congress and Indians. Is this the argument? Really?
Blame Congress! And here this Indian guy Ranjit is saying the same thing. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and what elders have been telling us - "If someone jumps off a cliff to certain death, Will you do the same?". Don't the Pakistani leaders have free will or can be swayed by anyone/influenced by anyone?
I think that is the 100 billion dollar question
I agree 100% with the author. The roots of all the major ills afflicting Pakistan can be traced to someone from the outside.
It is unfortunate to describe that our curricula injects hatred in young minds of students in the state runs schools under the disguise of Islamiyat subject let alone the religious seminaries who are clearly based upon sectarian segregation.I still remember my schooling days when in the last chapters of Islamiyat, Sunni students were taught 4 Caliphs biography while Shia students were given lessons about 12 imams. Practically students were separated at the sectarian lines,thus that education culminated in hatred after quitting the schools deep inside the minds of children who know runs their day to day life.Sectarian strife is rampant.We should change state syllabus in order to build a state based upon tolerance,love and respect to all fellow citizen apart from whatever background they come from.
Hold on for a sec, what are we talking about here? Faith or Religion? Asking non-muslims to study Islam as a religion is OK and I actually support that (I support the converse as well, teaching muslims about other religions and their beliefs is equally important) but weighing their output against the Islamic faith is unfair as it has been the unfortunate case in this situation. Here in UK religious studies form part of school curriculum and have indeed helped to create religious tolerence and harmony so I am all for it!.
Faith and Religion are not the same thing. The author seems to be using the two as synonyms thus creating a confusion. Could just be me.
@ Nasir it seems you dont understand what secularism means it does not mean the rights of minorities or stuff like that secularism means that there is no room for religion in the sphere of governance the constitution treats everyone the same everyone is a pakistani it basically means that in terms of law of the land their are no minorities.
@Rehan
There’s only one slight criticism I wish to make: it’s the ‘tenets’ and not the ‘tenants’ of Islam. Two completely different words.
I hope it does not lead to charges of blasphemy as the confusion between two words, 'Lanat' and 'Nat' did.
@ Nasir - are you kidding? We can get rid of laws that actively discriminate against minorities. We can rid ourselves of laws like the Blasphemy Laws and enact laws to recognize the legality of Hindu marriages. We have a long way to go before we can truly consider Pakistan a country that treats religious minorities on par with Muslims.
watch for references to god that will be made in the comments section to prove the author right ;)
@ Nasir: You probably have a lowly understanding of what secular means. In Pakistan non-Muslims cannot become the president. This is in the constitution. A certain Islamic sect has been expelled from Islam, constitutionally. Just two instances. Moreover, Pakistan is nonsecular at civilizational level more than a constitutional level.
Well you can start by rewriting the whole constitution almost.
To start with ... no Secularist ever can say that Pakistan Is a secular country. What they do say however is that in light of the speech of Jinnah dated 11th august to the constituent assembly Pakistan should have been a Secular State.
First thing that needs to be done is the removal of the name Islamic republic and state clearly that Pakistan will be a secular state. Second would be to do away with Laws such as Article 295 -A,B,C,D and Article 298 in the penal code. Also do away with the Ahemdiya Act. Also do away with the constitutional clause that no law contrary to the quran and sunnah will be made. And then do away with the law that bars non-muslims from holding the office of the Prime Minister and President.
then do away with the law the makes it compulsory to teach Islamic Education in schools. When we have done all that we can begin to call Pakistan a Secularish State.
Mr Yaqoob, that was an excellent and very pertinent article. I really enjoyed reading it. There's only one slight criticism I wish to make: it's the 'tenets' and not the 'tenants' of Islam. Two completely different words.
@Author, you said, we shouldn't make non-Muslims a second class citizens, but, sir, they already are not only second class citizens, but not even third or fourth class either, in fact, the minorities in Pakistan are no citizens at all. However, I congratulate you for bringing this atrocious anomaly to the fore. Which country in the world forces its minorities to learn about the majority religion and forces a minority child to write an essay with perfect theological language? And when a minority girl child, at her school, commits some spelling mistakes while writing an essay about the majority religion's iconic person, gets punished and threatened to be slapped with dreaded blasphemy law, which carries mandatory death sentence, then, why the world community shouldn't shun such a country? Nothing could be more cruel and disgusting to see the religious bigots victimizing a little innocent child student, The biggest irony of it all is that these same so called soldiers of Allah, go wild when non-Muslim countries do ban face covering burqas and never get tired at moaning and bemoaning that India is discriminating against its minorities. What a joke indeed! It is said that those who live in the houses made of glass shouldn't throw stones at others, but, sadly Pakistanis don't even live in the glass houses, they live in the open!!
@Nasir
The Federal Shariat Court has declared that Parliament cannot override its decisions, thus placing itself above the reach of elected legislators. For example, it declared that land reforms are unislamic. The land reforms of elected government were reversed and subsequently hundreds of thousands of peasants were put under bonded labour. It was clearly a result of feudal-mullah alliance.
The Citadel of Islam concept inflicted upon makes many people behave as if Islam came into existence in 1947. If one pauses think such iniquities and injustices seem to predominantly take place in Pakistan where these days any hate crime committed under the guise of religion appears to have become permissible.
It is a tragic reflection on what our country has descended to. Rather than regularly cursing outsiders we should instead be raging at ourselves.
So when the secular says make Pakistan secular, what do they mean? As you mentioned, the constitution has already protected the rights of minorities and its just that the law has not been implemented properly. Thats what we have been saying for a long time. What else can be done with the constitution to make it secular? and to what advantage if the the law has not to be implemented.