There is a line separating man from God that should never be crossed. For when it is, hell breaks loose. We witnessed hell today in Pakistan. One hundred and thirty two children slaughtered in a barbaric attack on a school.
This time the line was crossed by Taliban – a serial offender. They gloatingly accepted full responsibility, adding that the children were murdered in response to Pakistan army’s offensive against them. One might question such logic. After all there are rules, even in war. Rules set by the very religion the Taliban profess to follow. Civilians are off-limits. The children for sure.
But such logic matters not. For when you have crossed the line, you are no longer subject to constraints put on men. You are “god” now – judge, jury and the executioner – all rolled into one. The Taliban want to impose “shariah”. We can never know what that means, except to know that it means whatever the Taliban want it to mean. Murdering children could be kosher, if “the god” Taliban so decides. We better submit, or our head could be next.
There is a word in the western world for crossing the line between man and God. It is called Fascism, and the line-crossers are known as Fascists. But we in Pakistan know them through more honorific titles such as Maulana, Allamaand Mashaikh – or even Generals and Prime Ministers.
Yes, make no mistake. The Taliban are not the first to cross the line between man and God. In fact, they are really one of the last to join this habitual pastime of Pakistani elite.
The line was first breached by Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1974 who, flanked by every political party and religious scholar, set out to determine who was a true Muslim and who wasn’t. General Zia took this initiative to the next level by inventing his own “divine laws” that prescribed precise penalties for a wide range of “blasphemous” acts.
The following generation of leaders, both within the army and beyond, became even bolder. Why not just decentralize the whole business of trespassing on God’s territory, they thought. Thus you no longer had to head the parliament, or be a General to decide “god’s will”. Anyone with the right length of beard could do it. The subtleties of law and due process were no longer a hindrance.
A local cleric would declare some poor Christians “blasphemous”, and they could be lynched, burnt alive, or their entire community set on fire. The cleric and his mob would never face justice. And if the “accused” Christian somehow managed to save her life, she would surely be picked up by police and banished behind bars for years to come.
Before the Taliban butchered our children in Peshawar, there was a Talibanesque mob in Gujranwala that went to punish the “heretic” Ahmadis. They locked up women, and children as young as 8 months old, inside a room before setting it on fire. The whole episode was video-taped with exuberant men chanting religious slogans. The government looked the other way because the “god” was on their side.
This begs the question. Why blame the Taliban alone when so many in Pakistan are quick to impose divine punishment upon others? But let us not try to answer this question any more.
It is not easy to bury one’s own children. Not so many. And not so regularly. We must put an end to this. We must do the unthinkable. We must redraw the line between man and God in Pakistan, and promise never to breach it again.
This means getting rid of all discriminatory laws in Pakistan. All laws where the state interferes in matters of faith. It means getting rid of all blasphemy laws. The question is not whether Aasia Bibi committed blasphemy or not. The question is why should there be such a question in the first place.
We must respect the line between man and God. Let us all admit that there is no god, except God. May our children rest in peace.
http://scholar.princeton.edu/atif/blog/line-between-man-and-god/
I read this article by Professor Atif Mian.
Professor Atif Mian has raised a valid point of abolishing Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan.
He has described the history of Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan. He started with Bhutto onward to General Zia and others.
..
Actually we need to dig out the actual root causes of this tragedy.
Before Bhutto, it was Resolution of Pakistan, Creation of Pakistan and further on to the early periods of Islam itself.
The punishment of a MURTAD was and may be is death in Islam.
I fully agree that Blasphemy Laws should be abolished in Pakistan.
.
What about Pakistan, majority of the TF USA affiliates may not interested in abolishing Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan.
We will see. Let us discuss Blasphemy Laws.
TF USA cannot change the laws in Pakistan.
But after discussion TF USA can issue a policy statement that Blasphemy Laws should be abolished in Pakistan.
Of course TF USA affiliates have to make a public statements that Blasphemy Laws are anti – humanitarian, they violate UNO charter of human rights etc.
But all TF USA affiliates who agree with this decision have to publish their name in Dawn and other Newspapers in Pakistan.
…
I can’t predict about their behavior but let us start the discussion about Blasphemy Laws in general.
Professor Atif Mian, I salute you on your courage to post this article in TF USA website.
Let us start the discussion about Blasphemy Laws.
Marwan Majzoob.
“Let’s redraw the line – between God and man”, by this the author is asking to review the discriminatory laws. Its a good idea but not new at all. Every educated person has been asking this for ever and an easier way was found and adopted by lots of countries which is to separate faith from state – eliminate the line, not redraw is what they did, only laws to be enforced by state are laws given by man. If there was any other reason to separate the two I would like to be informed.
Babar
I agree with Mustafa that best solution is to separate religion and state.
My this comment is on Mr. Fayyaz’s comment which he wrote on Babar Mustafa’s comment.
Mr . Fayyaz’s comment is very brief and I am quoting it here.
>…………>
I agree with Mustafa that best solution is to separate religion and state.
<………….<
Mr. Fayyaz is just agreeing with Babar Mustafa's suggestion/idea/solution to the problem.
The solution they are offering is that "Religion" and "State" should be seperated.
Even though Mr. Fayyaz agrees with Babar Mustafa, but I would ask Babar Mustafa to address this question.
The solution is there. West has done it. All of us can see, this may not be a perfect solution but it has proven to be better than any other solution so far.
The question is how this solution will be implemented in Islamic world.
Islamic world is extended from Morocco to Indonesia.
The biggest problem is at the center and the actual source of Islamic civilization.
At this moment I don't have to be more specific than this. This point will be elaborated as the circle of discussion expands.
Let me share with you my one tangential observation.
I have a feeling that most TF USA affiliates are highly educated and worldly successful people.
But when any serious intellectual point is discussed, normally it is back and forth between two intellectuals, rarely it expands to 3 or 4.
Rest of the TF USA affiliates behave like just spectators.
Sorry for brief distraction but I felt it to make a categorical statement.
Coming back to separation between religion and state, I would ask Babar Mustafa particularly and all TF USA affiliates generally,
how this objective of separation of religion and state will be achieved in Islamic world.
We cannot ignore Islamic history from so called "Golden Age" of Islam to present day.
Let us start discussion and see where TF USA stands intellectually.
Marwan Majzoob.
Neither Judaism, nor Christianity as well as both the Bibles had any instructions for a political system. Whatever there was, it is religion and some ways of life for the society. Their prophets never got a chance to form political rule. Jesus has clearly said his kingdom is in heaven. Islam presented a complete political system, which does not appear in its scripture, but mostly was devised by its prophet and his companions who followed him. The only thing Islamic political system projected that there should not be any political way which is repugnant to its scripture. However, it was Ibn Rushd (Averroes) who advocated the idea of a total separation of political way and the religious order.
This is an amazing and enlightening comment by COGITO.
What I understood from this comment is that like Jewish and Christian Scriptures, there is nothing in Islamic scripture Qura’n about political system of Islam.
Political system was established by the Prophet of Islam based on not revelational (sent by God) guidance but on his personal judgment after analyzing the situations and circumstances he was facing.
After prophets death, the four caliphs used their own judgments of course following the guidelines of prophet to develop, manage and extend political system established by the prophet of Islam.
Islam’s immediate objective was to fix the problems of bedouin tribal paganism. Jews and Christians were people of book and carriers and flag bearers of Abrahamic Mohotheistic traditions.
This comment has brought up a very important point.
If COGITO is correct in saying that Islamic political system is not in Islamic scripture, then it can be safely inferred that re-structuring of political system in Muslim communities has sufficient room of re-interpretation of original political system set up by the prophet of Islam and the four caliphs.
Thinkers Forum USA affiliates should discuss this point and let us see where it goes.
COGITO says at the end of his comment”
However, it was Ibn Rushd (Averroes) who advocated the idea of a total separation of political way and the religious order.
If this is true, then how unfortunate it is that West can learn the separation of religious order from political way and we Muslims cannot or did not.
Muslims followed Al-Ghazaali and see where they are?
West and Jews followed Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Moses Mamonides, and see where they are.
NOTE:
Ibn-Rushd Averroes and Mamonides were contemporaries in Cordoba (Spain) in 13th century – about 100 years after Al_Ghazzali’s death in 1111.
Western Europe’s Renaissance roots are in Greek Philosophy, Mathematics and Science. Those links were passed through Ibn-Rushd and Mamonides to the Jews and Christian thinkers of Western Europe.
These are obvious facts which can be read in lot of books about Renaissance.
Marwan Majzoob
Adding a very important historical fact regarding ‘separate religion and state’ the Ottomans were secular rulers; that is why it became easy for Ataturk not only to implement secular rule but also to ban religion even from private life. In India, starting from Shahabuddin Ghauri (who was Turkish) and the Slave dynasty to the end of Muslim rule (except for a period of Aurangzeb) Muslims were secular rulers. Jinnah wanted a secular rule in Pakistan. It is the Arabs, specifically the Saudi’s who have damaged the secularism inherited by the people of Pakistan from the Muslim rulers of India. In order to end terrorism in Pakistan, say good by to Saudi Arabia and only then we will see peace in that region.
COGITO says: “Ottomans were secular rulers”.
I ma not sure about this statement.
I would say they were not as fundamentalist as some other group are.
Let us see what other TF USA affiliates say about this point.
..
COGITO also says: “Jinnah wanted a secular rule in Pakistan”.
..
When you are creating a state in the name of religion, how can you claim that it will be a secular state.
Most liberal Pakistanis share this point of view that Jinnah claimed a separate state for Muslims but it was intended to be secular.
Jinnah was a man of great character and a man of high IQ as well.
But primarily he was a great legal scholar but not a statesman.
As a father of nation he should have foreseen what will happen to masses of Pakistan.
He created Pakistan for Feudal Lords, Bureaucrats, Industrialists, Military Generals, Religious leaders – and not for masses of Pakistan.
He was not in favor of Partition of India till very late.
He left everything and went to England. He was brought back from there,
you tell me by whom?
We cannot put all blame for the present crisis of Pakistan on Jinnah.
Pakistan and Israel are the only countries in modern times which were created in the name of religions.
I am not sure but Israel does not have a constitution where as Pakistan has a constitution.
This is TF USA. If I am factually wrong I will be corrected.
How secularism can be established in Pakistan now?
TF USA affiliates can discuss if they are interested.
Marwan Majzoob
I agree with comments by COGITO that Political Islam was devised by Prophet(PBUH) and later by his companions and Islamic scholars to meet the political and moral needs of Muslim society in the context of that time. Sharia Laws are the product of this human( Islamic Scholars) endeavor in the context of that time, and that is why we have multiple schools of thoughts like Al-Hanfi, Al –Maliki, Al-Shafi, Al-Hanbal, Al-Jaffery and Al-Zaydi-the last two Shia. There were many more schools of thoughts, like Al-thawari and Al-Tabari, which did not survive to present day. Unfortunately in many Islamic quarters the Sharia Laws are considered like word of Quran and not a human (Islamic Scholars) endeavor amenable to modifications in the context of current times. Al-Shafi changed his positions when he moved from Iraq to Egypt as the changing circumstances of that time required.
Islamic Scholars like An-Naim, Law Professor of Emory University, argues that no Islamic country should adopt any law just because it is a Sharia Law, but a law should meet the test of public good and should be adopted as a State law ( not Sharia Law) amenable to modification or removal if needed.
How to deal with current circumstances of violent extremism and non-violent-Islamist parties who advocate bringing Sharia Laws?
The extremist violent organization like Taliban has to be defeated by force.
Non-violent political Islamist parties, like Jamat-e-Islami or Muslim Brotherhood, cannot be simply wished away or silenced by force because they do have major backing in the public. The secular and liberal parties have to work hard and compete in convincing the public for the best way forward. These liberal parties should not depend on the army, like Egypt, to do their job. In Turkey the liberals have always depended on Army to do their work, now they are on their own and are faltering. If liberals work hard and convince the public, they can defeat the Islamist parties as it happened in recent elections in Tunisia.
The best way forward in Muslims lands is a democratic process in which both liberals and Islamist parties compete and educate the public for the best way forward. If the public chooses the secular values, then it will be long lasting welcome renaissance. Any short cut by force will be self defeating.
Fayyaz