While i consider my religious views fairly conservative in many respects (Muslim/sunni-hanafi)..I find it hard to answer one question..can a state have a religion?
In a Pakistani context the introduction of any idealogy into the state apparatus always creates abuse towards people who don’t fit in…so you have a Pakistani state which at one time was essentially secular and prided itself on a Pakistani identity..at the cost of any other one…people who promoted their own sub culture were often arrested and targetted as traitors..(still are in fact). Now with Zia’s “Islamisation” you find the supposedly Islamic laws creating a culture of discrimination and hypocrisy.
So the question is simple..what business does a state have to judge people on ..what a Muslim is or a non Muslim? While i understand the need for a state to facilitate it’s citizens when it comes to observing religious practices…but assuming the role of deciding issues ..which have not been resolved over 1400 years..seems a bit of a leap..especially considering the poor quality of leaders Pakistan has..
Consider the comments made by the Munir report on the issue of what is a Muslim in the 1950’s:
“The result of this part of inquiry, however has been anything but satisfactory and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be…. Keeping view the several different definitions given by the ulama, 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 Ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definitions of everyone else.” (Page 215, 218)