Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India
I look upon Zaid Hamid favourably, in so far as much as one agrees with another on certain issues. I feel his basic premise of trying to instil love for Pakistan in the heart of the youth is a good one; I feel sometimes he goes too far in his zealousness, but overall, as I said, I look upon him favourably. Apart from this, I am a Muslim, my first and primary identity is that of a Muslim and I will not agree with anything that contradicts Islam. On some instances, particularly the issue of promoting nationalism which is haraam in Islam (the Prophet (PBUH) told Muslims to stay away from nationalism, ‘it is rotten’ he said), I do not agree with Zaid Hamid.
Your premise of Indian Muslims being more ‘free’ in India compared to other Muslim countries is false, particularly when considering the dual nature of the obligations that Islam places upon its followers (personal and public). Indian Muslims cannot carry out those public obligations (for example, they would not join the Islamically-permissible jihad against Indian oppression on Kashmiri Muslims). In certain instances, Indian Muslims have to choose to be Indian over being Muslim, which is intrinsically antithetical to Islam’s demands of complete submission to the Will of God.
Pakistan is as much an Islamic State as Saudi Arabia is a liberal democracy. Pakistan may call itself Islamic, but that doesn’t make it so; our foreign policy, economic system, domestic policies, systems of governance, taxation systems, justice system, penal codes etc are not Islamic, hence we are not Islamic.
Apostasy is not allowed according to the majority of scholars (as it is not allowed in Judaism and Christianity). As for proselytising, you need to realise that it is certainly not a fundamental human right. Our religion safe-guards the rights of minorities inso far as much as allowing them the freedom to practise their religion in a personal capacity, but preaching is something that Islam does not allow. Arabia is a holy land of Muslims and no non-Muslim temple or place of worship may be built there, just as no mosque or Hindu temple may be built in the Vatican.
I agree with the essence of blasphemy laws as well as Shariah, but I do not feel that any Muslim country or authority in the world is at the stage where it can properly implement it. If you think Shariah is all about amputating the limbs of thieves and stoning adulterers to death, you’re completely mistaken. Shariah is about justice down to the level of a hungry dog on the street; it is accountability to the level of the clothes a ruler is wearing. I urge you to read this informed article by Professor Sherman Jackson: What Is Shariah and Why Does It Matter.
Of course Indians would feel that the two-nation theory is false, because to admit it would mean that their Muslim population and non-Muslim population cannot live together without one succumbing to another. We in Pakistan say that the two-nation theory is something that is absolutely true and in fact necessary because otherwise Muslims in the Subcontinent would gradually assimilate into the Indian identity and lose those qualities which make them Muslim. You see, it isn’t simply an issue of ‘rights’ and ‘equal treatment’, it’s also an issue of cultural dominance. The case of the Muslims in the Subcontinent is a unique one and cannot be found anywhere in the Muslim world at present and so examples of Muslims living in the Western world do not stand. In the Subcontinent, you have a huge indigenous Muslim population, living amongst an even larger non-Muslim population. Normally, in circumstances where Muslims live in a society where they cannot practise their religion freely, Islam orders them to emigrate. But the ulema-e-Hind have adopted a unique (and frankly shaky) position in saying that the need of hijrah (emigration) does not arise, and that Muslims can live in India according to its laws and regulations without comprising their religious obligations.
And that would, of course, be true if, as I’ve said several times, Islam was a personal faith, but since it isn’t just a personal faith, the arguments don’t stand. Muslims in India may feel they can practise their religions freely insofar as much as personal theology stands, but Islam, as I have said, enjoins numerous public obligations upon the Muslims to rule themselves by the laws of God and not men, which India’s secularity does not allow. You realise, for example, the day a true Islamic khilafah, fulfilling the obligations upon such a khilafah, is declared, the Muslims of India have a religious obligation to declare fealty to that khilafah? And that’s the crux of the argument; you can stand there, and every single Indian Muslim can stand there with you and shout at the top of your lungs that a Muslim can freely practise his faith in India, but the very premise is unsound because the Islamic faith is one that entails a social and political obligations upon its followers and isn’t judge a personal set of rituals.
I’m not saying that those Islamic social and political obligations are carried out in Pakistan, but that’s not because of any other reason than insincere leadership. In India, the very premise of the state (a secular Constitution) does not allow for Indian Muslims to carry out one half of their faith, and that, my friend, is why we feel that Subcontinent Muslims need their own country. In 50 years time, I see Indian Muslims as being less Muslim and more Indian; I see Islam being a completely private faith, with many of its elementary foundations being set-aside in the name of ‘communal harmony’ and I see millions of ‘by-name-only’ Muslims. You may see no issue with this, but as Muslims, we do. I am afraid that that is the real tragedy that Iqbal envisaged. Once again:
Mullah ko jo hai Hind main sajdey ki ijazat,
Nadan ye samjhta hai kay Islam hai azaad.
Pakistan is as much an Islamic State as Saudi Arabia is a liberal democracy. Pakistan may call itself Islamic, but that doesn’t make it so; our foreign policy, economic system, domestic policies, systems of governance, taxation systems, justice system, penal codes etc are not Islamic, hence we are not Islamic.
As for the body-scanners, unfortunately every person has to go through those and not just Pakistani women. I do not condone them, and feel it is a breach of human rights, but a small and mislead minority is not representative of the majority.