There was also a debate on secularism. The majority of the audience
agreed that secularism was not as scary/dangerous. This took place in the mullticultural Sindh.
I agree it’s not religion itself but the way it’s used. I think mostly its the blasphemy laws and hudood ordinances which are used against minorities. At the same time it is also the education system that Ali pointed out in the other thread which are kind of biased and don’t mention the positive contributions of minorities. Obviously those who are well educated are not going to discriminate but uneducated elements who cannot think for themselves may.
Of course they were being tormented - these are religion based battles people have been fighting and continue to fight. Its because of misinterpretations of Islam and because its being considered a way to govern.
Freedom of religion is not in Pakistan.
Again - the root cause is religion. Whether is Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, etc…its all about religion. In my opinion, its NONE of the government’s business or the peoples’ business who the public believes and how they believe.
None whatsoever.
I know this is not a popular opinion - and trust me - I’d never want to be born anything but Muslim. I love my faith and feel lucky to be a Muslim and my heritage as a Pakistani. I’ve always been proud.
But faith has no place in Pakistan anymore - it never did. You cannot be considered a progressive nation if your people are comprised of different religions and you’re mindset is Muslim and Muslim only. Our religion teaches us tolerance but because we’re a Muslim country, we’re not required to be respectful of other religions. The only way I see is separate church and state completely cold turkey. Yeah, it sounds pretty drastic and bold but Islam has been defamed to the point of embarrassment because of so-called Muslim countries. How about we leave Islam to the Muslims to practice with dignity and allow others to do the same with their own faith? Isn’t this a form of Dawah in itself? To be kind and compassionate to others?
It didn’t do so badly for India. Even though discrimination exists in society the laws treat everyone equally. Any Indian, of any religion, can aspire toward any position in government. The PM of the country is Sikh, a minority, and a Christian is the main mind behind the government. There are personal laws for different religions. Muslims are free to marry 4 wives, no inhibitions on niqab/hijab(unlike in some western countries/European), and are given allowances for Hajj by the government.
Sunni, Shia and Ahmaydiya are given freedom to practice their religion and are given protection from fatwas. Are there many other secular non-Muslim majority countries that allow these rules? While the Muslim board of India does not consider Ahmadiya Muslims the government makes no difference. The Bharatya Muslim Mahila Andolen in India has set up women run Shariah courts which will deal with matters of divorce, polygamy, child and property rights. India: Shariah courts for women to be set up | MuslimVillage.com
You might mention mob violence and riots but they have occurred against number of minorities (Muslims, Sikhs) and though justice is slow and not enforceable there is hope it will eventually occur. Similarly, the victims of mob violence, such as from earlier this yr when Christians were targeted in Pakistan, have not had complete justice yet. Pakistani Christians demand justice: Christian community responds angrily to latest attacks - YouTube
Justice is slow in the subcontinent
Also, previously you mentioned that Pakistani culture is influenced by festivals like Diwali and hindu festivals. But how can that be the case when such a small % of Pakistanis of poor socioeconomic status belong to those religions. Is it from Indian tv or Bollywood that this influence is there because I don’t see any hindu influences at all in Pakistani society, media or entertainment. It is a proud Muslim society. If that is the case then does Hollywood have a Christian influence on Pakistan?
How many secular non Muslim majority countries recognise Muslim personal law? All religious holidays are given holidays in India from Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Sikh holidays.? India is not perfect and is not even completely secular because it has personal laws for different religions but most citizens feel accepted.
There is social discrimination against some Muslims, even like Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi, from some housing committees in society (not from constitution) but there is also police protection for them against fatwas.
Besides there is no obligation that Pakistan’s constitution follow India’s constitution. If there is a better constitution, whether that be western or middle eastern or Turkish, there should be full freedom to follow it.
I respect your opinion but I would like to disagree with it, why?, I’ll try to put it down in words. you see a person with common sense would agree that one should live and let live, agree?, but if that person were brought up in a jahil environment they would consider it an honor physically hurting someone that would utter blasphemy because they were never really thought religious tolerance to begin with, so religious extremism has nothing to do with religion.
You insult my religion, its my choice to either tolerate it or not. in the same way as, if you were to insult my family, caste, skin color, social status, it would be my choice to act on it or just simply ignore it.
You want a progressive country, educate its inhabitants, and besides, a recent study revealed that educated people are generally more secular and generally smarter than religious people even though I disagree but it fits right in with what you’re trying to say.
No offense but your argument is not that dissimilar to the whole argument behind how women should wear appropriate enough clothing to avoid being raped.
I absolutely agree, our educational system needs a massive redo, we have 3 different educational boards in Pakistan I think and for what?, why cant we just have one national educational board like our neighbors and pretty much the rest of the world?
I am not opposed to education in order to make a better country. It makes complete sense and is an absolute must. But in order to go along with that…you’d have to eventually allow educated people to choose for themselves wouldn’t you? You’d educated your country and then what? You’d be teaching them respect for other religions and still be governing non-Muslims with Muslim laws? That won’t work…your newly educated free thinkers would eventually revolt.
Pakistani people should be free to practice Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, ANYTHING their heart desires. But Pakistan should not be a Muslim country. They should not be controlling non-Muslims. They should not be denouncing any other religion or swaying masses in favor or against any faith simply because its not their business to.
This is the next stage. First lets agree that Islam is not implemented in Pakistan. I’ve been referring to choo choo ka murabba type constitution from my first post in this thread. I respectly disagree that secular constitution would act like a magic wand to solve all the problems in Pakistan
The Ottoman empire? Discrimination exists in Pakistan because of misuse of some laws. Religion isn’t to blame but people who misuse blasphemy laws. When examples such as Rimsha Masih, Asia bibi, Shahbaz Bhatti and Salman Taseer become known worldwide it hurts the image of fair minded Pakistanis. It’s not only minorities that are targeted but they are vulnerable to it.
Things like this unnecessarily harm the good image of many Pakistanis. Many patriotic pakistani christians, ahmadiya and hindus exist and i feel they shouldn’t be forced to leave because they feel they won’t get justice or they feel they would be treated as second class citizens. Prem Chand We Are Ashamed! | Syed Ali Abbas Zaidi’s Blog
I have a Pakistani friend who blogs about minority issues especially concerning the Ahmadi minority so i know there are Pakistanis who are against this. A while back she told me that at comstats university in lahore people were putting up Anti-Ahmadi posters and when one Ahmadi girl ripped them off she was expelled from school. Might sound small but it was big in the life of that girl as she was finishing her degree. The reason given was due to the blasphemy law.
Pakistan
This is compared to 7 cases from 1927 to 1986 before the law was made stricter and extra provisions meant it only applied to Muslims. Previously it was a secular law to protect all faiths and also found in India. The extra provisions by Zia Ul Haq were quite broad and further sections had harsher punishment including death.
This was the secular definition of the blasphemy law. It is quite comprehensive and covers all religions and was found in both india and pakistan from 1927 onwards and was given by the British:
“Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.”
Then in **1982 Zia ul Haq added this section **which increases punishment and focuses on Muslims only and gives a harsher punishment:
“Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.”
Then PM Junejo added another section to it in 1986- it gets even more vague and the punishment is now death. How much more does it add then the original? Isn’t the intention the same behind the secular and new definitions.
“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”*
In what ways was religion not adequately protected in the original blasphemy law? I mean only 7 convictions occurred from 1920s to 1980s but then a 1000 have occurred in 25 years. Either law was working better back then, people have changed and become more blasphemous or new law is being abused. I doubt people have become so blasphemous in 25 years. I have a feeling it is because it is being misused.
It doesn’t even just target adult minorities who might accidently say the wrong thing, drink from the wrong well or be targeted if someone has a grudge against them, even disabled children can be targeted who may accidentally mention something in their homework which could be defamatory. Even Muslims who defend those minorities, like Salman Taseer, can be targeted.
Even a child like Rimsha, aged 14, with mental age of 11, was framed and could have faced death penalty but luckily for her she was acquitted with Rs 1000 000 bail and has now escaped to Canada to live her life freely. The guy who accused her was acquitted of wrong doing. Rimsha Masih Case: Cleric
It has the same problems but as a younger country it is not better or worse. I don’t think religion is the problem but it should be personal and there should be personal religious laws for the particular community and others who are non-Muslims should be allowed to follow their laws. That is what secularism is about. It isn’t about limiting the rights of Muslims to practice Islam.
Bangladesh may not be in a better or equal position to Pakistan and it can be questionable how secular it really is as there is a state religion. However, Bangladeshi minorities are treated better than Pakistani ones and fewer productive and resourceful minorities are fleeing Bangladesh compared to Pakistan as came to worldwide attention in 2012.
Treatment of minorities there is not ideal as it is in Pakistan and there is little political representation. However their constitution and official secular outlook probably makes their minorities feel more welcome. They have also had more minorities voted in to government ministry. National religious days of all religions are celebrated and while there were attempts in 2006 to inject some fatwas in the constitution this did not come to pass. There is still discrimination against Ahmadis and other minorities but there are no blasphemy laws to be abused.
Bangladesh’s anthem is based on a poem by Rabindranath Tagore, a Bengali Hindu, who was a Nobel Prize winner in literature. It has not yet been changed and many Bengalis are proud of it. Rabindranath Tagore work influenced India’s national anthem as well as influencing the national anthem of Buddhist majority Sri Lanka. A stamp is also being released in his name. How Tagore inspired Sri Lanka’s national anthem
Many Indians are proud of Allama Iqbal’s Saare jahan se aache and it is seen as a very patriotic song. If you go to youtube there will be many versions of it by different singers and it has been featured in movies and Tv shows. Lata Mangeshkar has sung it.
Then why is it that this beautiful poem/song composed by Jagan Nath Azad, a Pakistani Hindu, has norecognition. It was allegedly played on radio Pakistan on August 14[SUP]th[/SUP] 1947. But even if it wasn’t Azad got many awards and it was seen as a patriotic gesture. Some say Jinnah recommended it because he wanted a Pakistani hindu, proficient in Urdu, to compose a song on Pakistan. Although this statement is controversial there has only been one beautiful version of it on youtube. It is said Azad had to leave Pakistan due to insecurity and this song was only said to have survived 6 months after independence. AZAD KI DUA - Shahvaar Ali Khan - Singer Composer - Jagan Nath Azad - Poet - YouTube
I have online Pakistani friends who belong to majority community in Pakistan and they blog about these human rights/minority issues. They are inspiring and very brave and i admire their work. I don’t usually talk about this but thanks to Rehaji i was given a chance to post about this on gs.
I don’t think a majority discriminate against minority but a few do so based on laws. I don’t know how much is because of influence of religion or because these laws are an easy way to keep minority silent and to keep everyone conforming. With 3-5% minority i think there is hardly any reason to be insecure. So why not just give them equal rights to all other Pakistanis.
according to wiki the original constitution did not discriminate between muslims and non-muslims but changes during Zia ul-Haq’s time, HUdood ordinance and shariat court had impact. A referendum held in 1984 showed 98.5% agreed with the changes.
there are the blasphemy laws (which were there from before partition and present in other subcontinental countries but only recently had extra sections added to them)
**the laws on Ahmadis (**like in 1974- they were declared non muslims which stops them from posing as Muslims, referring to their faith as Islam, posing even preaching and propagating it or sharing it with others or holding gatherings. They cannot directly or indirectly pose as Muslims, neither can they use standard Muslim greeting or call their children Muslim names. Gov and anti-Ahmadi groups use this to harass them. It can even be used by general public to harass them. Shouldn’t it be Allah(swt)'s judgement of who is Muslim or not not the governments. Granted they dont have same beliefs as mainstream Muslims but if they want to see themselves as Muslims, why is that wrong? Why should government police what someone’s religion is. The punishment for violating the above is 3 years and a fine.
Electoral process for non muslims-in 1980s Zia made it so that non muslims/minorities could only vote for minority politicians ( so they had votes saved for them in parliament). Some people said it was a form of affirmative action but many criticised it saying the main Muslim candidates had no reason to listen to minorities and no incentive to listen to their concerns. Community leader Sudham Chand who protested against this was murdered. In 1999 it was abolished and in 2001 it was ruled that they can vote for mayor, deputy mayor type positions but not for candidates running for general seats. In 2000 Christian minority sent a petition to Musharraf but it was ignored.
Is there any justification for this for non-Muslims having no say in gov? If your voice does not even count in deciding how a government is run should you still pay taxes? What if in the West minorities could only vote for minority candidates based on religion. Would you feel detached from the system*?* Why can’t Pakistani christians, hindus and ahmadis vote for candidates in general seats, even today? If they can give their life for their country in military why can’t they vote for the leader? (if this is incorrect as it is from online let me know) Although i have heard there are restrictions on what positions they occupy in military. Why is a Pakistani minority banned from even trying to become PM (apart from the fact few would vote for them)? If they are a good leader, care about their country and welfare for all citizens and are willing to enforce Islamic laws of the government, then why not? If there can be Bhagwan das as a supreme court judge then why not PM? OK he was a judge for a civil court maybe not sharia but why limit them from even trying If politicians in the west can be super religious and support a secular constitution and try for elections, why not minorities?. Chances are they won’t win anyway. feel free to correct me if things have improved since when this info has been updated. Sharia courts can only have Muslim judges, who have right to overturn any laws believed to be non-Islamic. What if a non-Muslim has studied Islamic law can they have a chance at these positions since some of the law applies to them as well? What if Muslims or minorities had to follow certain Christian laws in the West and yet had no say or could not even attempt to change how the laws came up? Sure there aren’t as many Muslim judges in the West but they definitely exist and despite some being very religious are comfortable with applying secular law.
The hudood ordinances apply to both muslims and non muslims. They apply to things such as rape (which is good), extra marital sex, gambling, alcohol and property offences. It is understandable to apply this to Muslims but why non-Muslims when they have different rules? As 3% of the population I don’t think they will influence anyone. Some are subjected to Koranic punishment other to secular punishment. What about the Hadd cases which discriminate against non-Muslims. A non Muslim can only testify if the victim is non-Muslim. So this can harm Muslim victims if the only witnesses they have are non-Muslim. Also testimony of women, under Hadd, means non muslim men/women and other women, cannot give testimony. So if a guy rapes a woman and this is observed by a non Muslim male or female their account will not be admissible. How would we like it if a crime happened to us in the West and our family were the witnesses but because they are not white or not christian their account is worth less than if they were? In countries in the subcontinent like Pakistan and India marital rape is still legal.
**Misuse of Hudood ordinances-**Lot of the extramarital cases are actually cases of rape where lack of consent was not proven. Some say even 95% of these cases are for rape for which not enough evidence is not found. If someone is accidentally found for fornication/adultery the punishment is flogging/stoning but that has never occurred yet. Often poor women are targeted and 1/3 of cases for adultery of women were actually found through Hudood. I think for Muslims the rules do not have to change if population is happy but why charge non-Muslims with these rules. That is secularism- it doesn’t have to mean no religion but just that not everyone has to follow the one set of rules if they are not part of that religion. -Ministry of religious affairs-is said to spend 30% on repairing minority worship places but many go without basic civil amenitis.
-Registration of marriage: Just last yr Pakistani Hindus were able to register for marriage allowing women to file for separation in case of domestic violence and other issues. Before that they could not.
All these laws affect how society and how people in education see these minorities. If law discriminates, people, who are bound to discriminate, will get more justification to discriminate. Changing laws can humanise people and make them feel less like second class citizens. While changing laws above or modifying them is important unbiased education is also important as is providing common people with basic necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, jobs) and security in life. If they have this they won’t feel frustrated and feel like taking it out on the outsiders or pariahs of society.
I think if a majority of Pakistanis agree with the way this is implemented then that is fine but shouldn’t minorities, who thought according to Jinnah’s speech, they would be treated equally be given an opportunity to leave? There is no protest or chance it will change. Of course no one can stop anyone from leaving but getting asylum is hard. Perhaps the Pakistani government can assist the ones who want to leave to go to the West if they feel that they do not have basic freedom they desire. If they cannot fully engage in electoral process, have say in laws that govern them while paying taxes, and they feel they need to leave the government should help them. Especially as these laws came in 70s-80s, how would they have known laws would change so much and it would be harder for them to leave with few countries accepting asylum. That would be the humane thing to do. This will also help in reducing minorities of Pakistan and making it a more uniform Muslim society where it is easier for these laws to be followed. So it could be a win-win situation.
While i know majority of population is tolerant, especially on gs, these laws can really affect the lives of minorities. It is sad to see news items here in West which unfairly show whole Pakistani population as intolerant when it is just the misuse of laws causing it. I have no doubt most Pakistanis are warm and hospitable and would be against treatment of minorities as much as anyone else. I wouldnt know about this had the Pakistani friends i met online not told me. This isn’t the most important issue in Pakistan but its something worth fixing not just for justice but to improve image abroad.
Conservative values play a big role in American politics too. It’s about what the people want. If one day people decide they don’t want religion in their lives, the government will drop religion from politics. It’ll cease to be of any use.
Nothing would make me happier than a secular Pakistan, a place where you have freedom of religion or from it. But there is a lot of work that needs to be done before we can even think of getting rid of religion at the State level.
Saeed - I feel as if Islam ki dhajjiyan uradi gayi hein. There is barely a non Muslim out there will not equate Islam with terror and fear. Ironically, its the religion of peace. Ironically, we’re supposed to be the role models for the world. For the sake of peace, allow people to practice - not hurt people who don’t believe in it. It just isn’t fair.
And you know why I bring this up? I live in a non-Muslim country… I imagine what would happen to me if I was treated the way Pakistan treats non-Muslims and I shudder out of pure fear. Its a very scary thought to be treated as someone not even worthy of filing a police report to save themselves.
I realise i have posted a lot already but, as a minority in another country, Rehaji I want to thank you for raising this topic of treatment of minorities. I mean minorities does not even have to mean non-Muslims, Shias themselves have also been targets. I wouldn’t say all non-Muslims feel that way about Muslims because chances are they have met awesome ones like you. I understand your sentiments though. There’s a long Sufi tradition of tolerance and lot of Hindus visit Sufi dargahs in India like Hajji Ali and I am sure they would visit the one in Sehwan, Sindh for Shahbaz Qalandar of dama dum mast qalandar fame. Kailash Kher also sang an amazing Allah (swt) ke bande and My name is Khan, looking at discrimination against Muslims, was directed by a non-Muslim and featured Noor-e-Khuda with 2 of the singers as non-Muslim.
sorry rehaji i deleted the rest as i did not want to hurt any feelings by mentioning too many commonalities.