Starting from the beginning
Diversity has to be acknowledged and cherished, without a value judgment by the state.
The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore saroop.ijaz@ tribune.com.pk
It has now become a routine, every year we express shock and horror at the ‘intolerance’ and ‘sectarian strife’, and with longing and nostalgia remember the peaceful times of the past. The common refrain is the ‘how did we end up here’ lament. Every time, it seems that it is due to some curse, or a conspiracy, that we today have sectarian violence in the country.
Sectarian conflict is just a way to refer to the conflict between Shia and Sunni. For the longest time, no mention was made of the ‘sect’ of those killed in ‘sectarian’ violence (an overwhelming number of them being Shia). It is sobering to remember that there was a time when ‘sectarian differences’ would have included another sect as well, namely, Ahmadis. The violence against the Ahmadis has seen no decline (it has actually increased), yet, they are no longer a sect. Any serious inquiry into the ongoing violence and sectarian persecution has to, at least, begin by tracing the trajectory of the Ahmadis being forced to make the transition from the green part of the flag to the white.
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has done, and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definition of everyone else.” This how the Munir Report of 1954 concluded the discussion of defining who is a ‘Muslim’ after examining all the major religious scholars of that time. The small passage quoted above exquisitely captures the fundamental problem of the state taking upon itself the burden of salvation. The Munir Report lies dusty, instead of being translated into Urdu and taught in school, as it should. The possibility of that happening anytime soon is now very distant, and becomes more distant with each passing day.
When the Ahmadis were finally declared non-Muslims and Islam saved, the battle for sanity in this country became more uphill. The state should ideally not have a religion, however, what the state absolutely cannot have is a ‘sect’ or as is in this case, not have one particular ‘sect’. The original movement against the Ahmadis was the Ahrar Movement. It also has prescience in our present context. A movement, party or group defined solely by hatred of another. The Ahrar Movement had people like Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar who is quoted in the Munir Report as saying, “Ik kafira ka wastay Islam ko chhora, yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai, keh hai kafar-e-azam.” The said Maulana had the brazenness to reassert this statement before the Munir Commission. This is breathtaking and revolting audacity. Yet, the precedent was set, the Holy men can get away with anything, even with ridiculous ad hominem attacks on Mr Jinnah.
The definition by hatred model of the Ahrar has now been adopted by many and has gone mainstream. The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) define and know themselves only because of their hatred for Shias. That is bad, worse is that hatred spills over, after a certain point hating just one group/section becomes mundane and the recipients of hate are increased. Most of you might have heard, “kafir, kafir” chants and slogans, sometimes audible in the background on television channels. However, to realise the full import of the sentiment and the mindset and hence, the danger it represents, reflect on the complete slogan which sometimes goes, “jo na manay, woh bhee kafir”. Guilt by association is the governing principle. If anyone feels that the persecution of Ahmadis in this country is completely unacceptable in a civilised society, it means that person is being paid by a secret lobby to do this or is a closet Ahmadi, etc. Similarly, if one condemns the targeted persecution of Shias, the counter questions range from what about those killed in drone attacks to those killed in Kashmir, or traffic accidents, etc.
There might be another reason for the distilled, undiluted hatred for those of the other sect. Jewish/American/Indian lobbies and other fantastic conspiracy theories are in vogue, yet, they are far away distant (mostly imaginary) enemies and to be cursed once every week via the loudspeaker, etc. Sectarian differences, on the other hand, are here and now. And what really irks the bigot is that those from the other sect for all practical purposes are identical to those of his own. Sigmund Freud called it the ‘narcissism of small differences’, where one is at his most violent when he is up against someone who is just like them, but not quite. Exhibit A: Ahmadis, Exhibit B: Shia.
The defence mechanism of many well-meaning people, when confronted with these deep and dark fault lines, is denial. Firstly, by saying it does not matter what the sect of the victim was, all death is to be regretted and mourned. Noble sentiments, yet, missing the main point, i.e., when somebody is persecuted on the basis of belonging to particular belief or sect, we do them no favours by concealing that fact. The thread continues, all of us are Pakistanis and mentioning sects will create discord, etc. There is enough discord already and not acknowledging it will not make it go away. Diversity has to be acknowledged and cherished, without a value judgment by the state.
The rot will not be stemmed only by laws and regulations, although defining hate speech and incitement to violence in particular needs to be done, and done now. Yet, to talk about sectarian harmony, without making mainstream the Munir Report and talking about the persecution of Ahmadis is to talk about sectarian harmony either dishonestly or with blinkers. Once the state and society have pandered to religious fanaticism, (which they indeed have) then reconciliation has to begin from the beginning. Islands of hatred and persecution just don’t work. Either no group is persecuted or all (well, almost) will eventually be persecuted. In the prevailing context, this admittedly seems to be a losing argument. However, without this, there is no argument.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2013.
Sectarian conflict is just a way to refer to the conflict between Shia and Sunni. For the longest time, no mention was made of the ‘sect’ of those killed in ‘sectarian’ violence (an overwhelming number of them being Shia). It is sobering to remember that there was a time when ‘sectarian differences’ would have included another sect as well, namely, Ahmadis. The violence against the Ahmadis has seen no decline (it has actually increased), yet, they are no longer a sect. Any serious inquiry into the ongoing violence and sectarian persecution has to, at least, begin by tracing the trajectory of the Ahmadis being forced to make the transition from the green part of the flag to the white.
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has done, and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definition of everyone else.” This how the Munir Report of 1954 concluded the discussion of defining who is a ‘Muslim’ after examining all the major religious scholars of that time. The small passage quoted above exquisitely captures the fundamental problem of the state taking upon itself the burden of salvation. The Munir Report lies dusty, instead of being translated into Urdu and taught in school, as it should. The possibility of that happening anytime soon is now very distant, and becomes more distant with each passing day.
When the Ahmadis were finally declared non-Muslims and Islam saved, the battle for sanity in this country became more uphill. The state should ideally not have a religion, however, what the state absolutely cannot have is a ‘sect’ or as is in this case, not have one particular ‘sect’. The original movement against the Ahmadis was the Ahrar Movement. It also has prescience in our present context. A movement, party or group defined solely by hatred of another. The Ahrar Movement had people like Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar who is quoted in the Munir Report as saying, “Ik kafira ka wastay Islam ko chhora, yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai, keh hai kafar-e-azam.” The said Maulana had the brazenness to reassert this statement before the Munir Commission. This is breathtaking and revolting audacity. Yet, the precedent was set, the Holy men can get away with anything, even with ridiculous ad hominem attacks on Mr Jinnah.
The definition by hatred model of the Ahrar has now been adopted by many and has gone mainstream. The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) define and know themselves only because of their hatred for Shias. That is bad, worse is that hatred spills over, after a certain point hating just one group/section becomes mundane and the recipients of hate are increased. Most of you might have heard, “kafir, kafir” chants and slogans, sometimes audible in the background on television channels. However, to realise the full import of the sentiment and the mindset and hence, the danger it represents, reflect on the complete slogan which sometimes goes, “jo na manay, woh bhee kafir”. Guilt by association is the governing principle. If anyone feels that the persecution of Ahmadis in this country is completely unacceptable in a civilised society, it means that person is being paid by a secret lobby to do this or is a closet Ahmadi, etc. Similarly, if one condemns the targeted persecution of Shias, the counter questions range from what about those killed in drone attacks to those killed in Kashmir, or traffic accidents, etc.
There might be another reason for the distilled, undiluted hatred for those of the other sect. Jewish/American/Indian lobbies and other fantastic conspiracy theories are in vogue, yet, they are far away distant (mostly imaginary) enemies and to be cursed once every week via the loudspeaker, etc. Sectarian differences, on the other hand, are here and now. And what really irks the bigot is that those from the other sect for all practical purposes are identical to those of his own. Sigmund Freud called it the ‘narcissism of small differences’, where one is at his most violent when he is up against someone who is just like them, but not quite. Exhibit A: Ahmadis, Exhibit B: Shia.
The defence mechanism of many well-meaning people, when confronted with these deep and dark fault lines, is denial. Firstly, by saying it does not matter what the sect of the victim was, all death is to be regretted and mourned. Noble sentiments, yet, missing the main point, i.e., when somebody is persecuted on the basis of belonging to particular belief or sect, we do them no favours by concealing that fact. The thread continues, all of us are Pakistanis and mentioning sects will create discord, etc. There is enough discord already and not acknowledging it will not make it go away. Diversity has to be acknowledged and cherished, without a value judgment by the state.
The rot will not be stemmed only by laws and regulations, although defining hate speech and incitement to violence in particular needs to be done, and done now. Yet, to talk about sectarian harmony, without making mainstream the Munir Report and talking about the persecution of Ahmadis is to talk about sectarian harmony either dishonestly or with blinkers. Once the state and society have pandered to religious fanaticism, (which they indeed have) then reconciliation has to begin from the beginning. Islands of hatred and persecution just don’t work. Either no group is persecuted or all (well, almost) will eventually be persecuted. In the prevailing context, this admittedly seems to be a losing argument. However, without this, there is no argument.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2013.