But how does one know which flavour of religion is better? Does Nacta want to follow the US RAND Corporation’s formula in its 2007 report on “building moderate Muslim networks” that identified Sufi and Barelvi Islam as a counter to the Deobandi and Salafi religious narratives that encourage jihad? Western and local elite get thrilled by images of people dancing to traditional or pop versions of devotional music, in some cases, even high on intoxicants. However, such understanding depicts corporatisation of images that in turn doesn’t explain that even Sufi movements, especially in Africa, were linked with violent uprising. The emerging violence of the Barelvis in the name of protesting blasphemy in Pakistan, which is actually a bid to compete against the slowly growing popularity of the Deobandis, is another case in point. In fact, there are Barelvi militants as well linked with the shrine of Sultan Bahu that have fought in Kashmir alongside Deobandi groups like Jaish-e-Mohammad and others. What continues to keep Sufism and Barelvism relatively peaceful is that state actors have not actively exploited it.
In any case, we are assuming that the common man is still bound to Sufi shrines in a traditional way. In a world driven primarily by quantitative analysis, we forget that hundreds and thousands of people visiting Sufi shrines doesn’t mean anything, especially when there is no narrative being produced by keepers of the shrines that can face challenges of modern times. Pakistan’s renowned sociologist Hamza Alavi called ‘Barelvism’ as religion of the peasants that would undergo tension and pressure once society modernises, even though superficially. Economic and social advancement raises expectations. So, while people will keep going to shrines in droves asking for amulets and blessings of pirs, the level of expectation has changed. The mureed no longer just wants blessings and prayers but also access to the pir’s patronage in the form of intervention with the state. Incidentally, there are now other forces that are becoming more powerful than the pir. In fact, the pirs have begun to partner with the militants for enhancing material gains and power. This is certainly the case in Punjab and Sindh where pirs and puritans coexist (interestingly, some of the prominent pirs of Punjab were falling over each other to participate in Ghazi Abdul Rasheed of Lal Masjid’s funeral).
Meanwhile, the trader-merchant representing the middle class bourgeoisie is attracted towards the religious model offered by the Deobandi and Salafi religious groups due to its relative modernity and inherent egalitarianism. This is most obvious from the package deal offered by the militants to potential martyrs: a crown of jewels on your head and power to get 70 people pardoned in the life hereafter. From the perspective of power politics of a fast urbanising society, the Deobandi and Salafi religious/militant networks are attractive for the emerging middle class and elite due to the former’s capacity to do violence. Donations to militant groups provide protection, enhance muscle power and give spiritual satisfaction as well. This will continue to happen in a state which seems to be melting away, giving way to alternative sources of power.
The other fundamental question pertains to who will determine the correct flavour of religion for society? If the plan is for the State to undertake this shift, then it is a deadly recipe since any form of state intervention of or manipulation of religion for tactical or strategic purposes has brought more, not less, conflict. Learning from conflict in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, even Buddhism will get violent when used for power maximisation. All religions will be good if used for fulfilling spiritual needs but bad when used for power and political gains.
Those, who argue for a utopian idea of politics not being separate from religion in Islam, do so at the risk of ignoring Islamic history that is indicative of how religion was often manipulated for political gains. A Muslim scholar from the 1920s at Al Azhar, Ali Abdel Razek argued in his seminal work on “Islam and the Foundation of Political Power” that the concept of a caliphate is, in fact, a political manipulation as there is no reference to such an entity in the Holy Quran or Hadith. Had a particular system been so fundamental to the lives of Muslims, God would have ordained it. Other scholars like Abdullah’a Naeem talk about the need for separation of religion from politics of the state as fundamental for the growth and development of religion. These approaches need to be discussed and debated but are lost between two extremes — the belief that the state cannot run without religion versus the idea that people should abstain from religion altogether. But a more critical issue with marrying religion with politics of the state is that the group, which will have power, will force its will through marketing its peculiar interpretation of religion as being the word of God.
Post-modernist Islamists who argue that people conforming to specific religious norms and ideology denote free choice and, hence, secularisation of society, forget that people are rarely offered free choice. This idea of free choice is inherently neo-imperialistic as those offering a certain interpretation of religious text do not allow any other perspective and expect the believer to take their word as the word of God.
The journey of cleaning violence from society is steeply uphill. The only option is to free the state of any religion (not to be confused with society that can follow any faith). Else, the alternative religious narrative will prove disastrous. But we are most likely to fail as the leadership doesn’t have the will to bring the critical change.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (34)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Water Bottle:
"No religion ever gets violent. Only people get violent. If you consider the actions of people as the actions of a religion, then mind you, Buddhism is the most violent religion in the world."
Although this appears to be rational, it actually is not. Some religions had followers that kill on the basis of revelations in their holy books or oral traditions/customs (human history is full of it). Today only a small (fast growing minority) is still using these texts/traditions to justify their murderous actions. Fortunately, most religions have reached the point not to take these texts literally. Btw Japanese Buddhists never committed these crimes because it is written in Buddhist texts or teachings (murder is completely against the Buddhist teachings). Personally, I do not consider Buddhism a religion, although most followers (definitely not all) have turned it into a religion. So there is a huge difference with those killing in the name of their religion/traditions (referring to texts/traditions in which such acts are demanded, glorified, or are rewarded in the afterlife). Lastly, in my view all religions, superstitions, etc. are man-made. Mankind made all religions/traditions and they still set the mindset of mankind (for 98% of the world population). Opium of the people (not for the people).
@Usman Masood:
Seconded. Varies too much between moderators where some days it just seems like someone out of them has a grudge and you have to note a pattern or rotation for the next different mod in hopes your comment gets posted.
Another superb article by the esteemed scholar, wish I could add more to the discussion, but don't want to waste time and effort in case it doesn't get posted.
On a lighter note it seems that your article has actually triggered a situation in Islamabad today.
Nice article. However, she again fails to mention that unless 1971 culprits are properly punished, Pakistan cann.t fight terrorism. The 1971 mindset is the 'mother of all terrorism' mindset
United states is where this experiment ,suggested by the esteem author is in play,namely, seperation of church and state. Look at the violence of homicides and sexual violence inside the states and the violence that its governmental policies are visiting on the different countries, clients or otherwise. To live as a community and nations we need some rules, laws or moral codes whatever you call it. The so called "Secular Humanism" is becoming the fashionable term without any explanation, details, of how to arrange the society.
In order to be progressive, fair and modernistic, governments need to be secular with no religious bent or leaning. As they say faith is between man and God but religion was created by man to gain power and control others.
Symptoms: Terrorism, violence, intolerance to minority, economic meltdown Diagnosis for Pakistan: Poisoning: Overdose of Religion Treatment Antidote: Secularism STAT
Ayesha forgot to mention that there is hardly any sectarian "competition" in KPK-FATA, where the Deobandi school is the majority sect and the Barelwis are few in number and not at all organised. The vast majority of Pashtoons ( including secular and non-practising ones) belong to the Deobandi school in that they do not follow Barelwi/Sufi customs, there are hardly any big or important shrines in KPK-FATA, Deobandi madaris are a prominent feature of the social landscape, Deobandi clergy-run political parties have consistently won 30 to 80 percent of NA and PA seats from KPK and FATA since the 1970 elections, KPK ( former NWFP) had a Deobandi clergyman, Mufti Mahmood, as an elected Chief Minister between 1972 amd 1975. The situation is similar in Northern Balochistan, and parts of Gilgit-Baltistan as well.
Similarly in rural Sindh, there is hardly any sectarian competition, because the dominance of the Sufi Barelwis is unchallenged. There are only pockets of Deobandi influence in rural Sindh, mainly those settlements inhabited by Punjabi muhajireen settlers from East Punjab.
@Avtar : You forgot to mention, that the Deobandi school started only after 1857, mainly in the 1860s. It was precisely because the hardline Barelwi groups were crushed by the Biritish and Mughals and went underground, that they became more inclined to violence. The 1860s Deobandis of North India were the offshoots of these fundamentalist Barelwis. The Deobandis later spread in the Pashtoon belt in the 1890s due to the British suppression in that area.
Separating Church from politics is an evolutionary process that could take centuries before the influence of church on the state diminishes. But the process has to begin with a single step. From this vantage point, generally speaking we are presently going against the process.
Author argues about taking a first step towards the end of the evolutionary process. But at the end of the day even if the process begins, which again hardly seems so, the results are gonna reveal in decades. What of present when we are in the extreme thick of it?
@Indian Constitution: THis comment has nothing to do with subject at hand. Who decided to print it? My comment was not which was more relevant. Wh decides such irregularities?
Well said, I completely agree with the author.
NOthing can happen now!!!!
Jihadis have appeared in every part of Muslim world after 9/11 and the number is multiplying every month :(
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY, of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. ”
NOTE:The original 1950 constitution stated "SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" and "unity of the Nation", the words "SOCIALIST SECULAR" and "and integrity" were added via the 42nd amendment during the Emergency in 1976).
Good article. But as I have said earlier, I rarely see a day when none of the Pakistani dailies carries an article that does not mention Islam. Islam is so ingrained in Pakistanis that one of the reader has rightly said that that by 2514 religion and state will be differentiated in Pakistan. Spread of tentacles of religion is so deep in all and every aspect of Pakistan's life that it has become the root cause of slow progress.
well. analysis is no doubt good but the solution is somehow impractical for it is next to impossible to secularize such a highly volatile and instable society. any effort in this direction would prove messy and would bring more disturbance to the society. inherent believes can not be rooted out so easily. the alternative is non interference and non exploitation by the state machinery on any context. social issues should be meted out. poverty needs to be eradicated. education is a must. and the last but not the least law and ordr should be imposed with ful vigour without any partiality. then society will undergo a peaceful change automatically..
@asad:
Secularism is better than Communalism. Secularism is the medicine for Communalism. "Make Pakistan constitution Secular NOW" to solve many problems of Sectarianism, terrorism.
Though i have been thinking on the same lines and it seems a pretty good solution to the problems we have been facing as country recently.But declaring the country a secular state, won't it effect the moral values of our society in general?
Completely agree. Religion is personal faith and belief and the state has no business to get involved in this personal issue between a person and God.
First step the proposed APC should recommend is making the country secular. Yes it would be a brave decision. But someone has to bell the cat. There is no other soft option.
"Learning from conflict in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, even Buddhism will get violent when used for power maximisation. "
Extremely disappointing to see this argument.
No religion ever gets violent. Only people get violent. If you consider the actions of people as the actions of a religion, then mind you, Buddhism is the most violent religion in the world.
The kind of unspeakable atrocities committed by the Japanese Buddhists during and before the second world war, will make Pakistan's atrocities in 1971, acts of kindness.
I never expected such inane comment from Ayesha, whom I admire so much.
Disappointed.
Who will bell the cat. Separation of Religion and State is the only viable option if Pakistan is to survive, but I do not see this happening in the next centenary.. Maybe Pakistani society has reached a point of no return.
Good analysis. Barelvi (from Rae Bareilly), however, lead a jihad against the British and Sikhs in 1830 in the North West Frontier area. Then Shah Ahmad Barelvi also invited rulers from central Asia to join him in his effort to cleanse Islam from unIslamic influences including those prevailing at the Mughal Court. The effort failed. Extremist madrassas were banned and went underground. I do not see too many differences between Deobandis and Barelvi sects.
Naya Pakistan :)
"The only option is to free the state of any religion." What is most impressive about this article is that the author has posited an extremely practical policy measure. I'm willing to bet with anyone that by the year 2514, the Pakistani state will be completely free of religion. It's not too long a time to wait. Also, by then, protesters will be marauding the hyperloop thingy that will take you from Kolkata to Peshawar in two and a half hours etc.
Though I agree with your views on secularism but it can be difficult in Pakistan and situation could become volatile like Egypt. . I think it is better to follow Malaysian soft Islam model with zero tolerance to extremists.
i'm i the only one who is seeing the trend of religious radicalism/extremism, in countries which are poor and underdeveloped, somalia, yemen, afghanistan and our fata region. why is there no radicalism in the heart of wahabism saudi arabia, uae, kuwait. the moral of the story is this when the state abdicates its responsibility to provide education, health, and means of livilihood. poor simple folks turn to other alternatives.
Realistic analysis and only solution for our Jinnah's Pakistan.
The last paragraph says it all excellent conclusion thanks.Most of the states with much greater religious divides have successfully separated religion from politics.This has given people more confidence and greater ownership to their respective faiths as they feel it of their own choice and not one that is imposed.Religion main purpose is to promote morality and morality needs no legislation but personnel journey of self cleaning described by holy books. In Pakistan however, state should give people of all faiths a choice to get their decisions on some issues such as inheritor ,matrimonial,laws according to their faiths.Putting ban on alcohol,gambling drugs etc doesn't necessarily coincide with secular values and can be debated. True Islamic society is bound to give people of other faiths a complete choice and freedom to participate in nation building decisions making and taking responsibilities for making their land a better place.And let me add this is not a favor but command of God and birth right of every individual that is born on soil.Anyone going against the command of Almighty will be held responsible and will be included in the list of tyrants on the day of judgment.But that doesn't exclude worldly punishment current state of affairs in Pakistan speaks volume about that.
A good analysis. Religion in fact is a thriving industry among the Muslim world but competition in Pakistan is quite a 'throat cutting' especially in KP and Baluchistan areas. God save Pakistan.
Once again an excellent article on the issue of terrorism by Ayesha Siddiqa. I solute her courage, for writing truth on such a sensitive issue in a intolerant society, where presenting a different view is a taboo. I think it is a true Jehad.
Simply brilliant!