Rejected Comment on ‘Thorny issue of secularism bound to prick, but cannot be ignored ‘: A Refutation of Nasira Iqbal, Javed Jabbar and Other Deluded Individuals

According to a 2008 survey conducted on behalf of the non-partisan American think tank Terror Free Tomorrow, 36.8 percent of the Pakistani population thought that it was very important goal for the Pakistani government to impose strict Shari’ah law throughout Pakistan, while 37.9 percent thought that it was a somewhat important goal. In contrast 11.8 percent considered it to be somewhat unimportant while only 7.2 considered it to be not important at all. From the survey it is obvious that having their government impose the Shari’ah in Pakistan is a vision shared by nearly 75% of the population of the country.

The extent to which the people of Pakistan are a Islamic people can be gauged from the fact there exist no popular political parties in Pakistan which advocate secularism or the idea of separation between religion and state. It is common for supposedly left-wing and progressive political parties to use religious imagery and affirm the Islamic nature of the country in their political messages[1].

As for "opposing Pakistan” i.e. opposing the partition of India, what is Ms. Nasira’s proposal? Should all those who believed that partition was not in the best interests of Indian Muslims be denied political power in Pakistan? Was partition a political question facing the Muslim community of India, which a sincere Muslim could oppose or was it some cornerstone of faith to deny which would be blasphemy[2]?

[1]An example of this can be seen in PPP’s manifesto which declares: "Islam is our Faith. Democracy is our politics. Socialism is our Economy. All Power to the People”. Despite being the most irreligious of all existing mainstream political parties, PPP leaders still feel the need to affirm their faith in Islam. Another example of this can be seen in the public behavior of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, despite belonging to a thoroughly Westernized family and being a graduate of the Cambridge university, Bhutto found it necessary to don the Islamic head covering when she entered politics. A further example of this may be seen in the attempt, by Bhutto’s political party, to use Bhutto’s assassination and the killings of various other members of their party as rhetorical tool in establishing the ‘Islamic’ credentials of the party. Thus the assassinated Benazir Bhutto and her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto are both referred to as “Shaheed” i.e. martyrs in the Islamic cause. Thus Javed Jabbar, who claims that Pakistan is a "secular society” because Islamic parties have never been in power, is a merely deluded idiot. Unless the "non-religious” parties contest elections on an explicitly anti-Shari’ah platform, a vote for them cannot really be considered a vote for secularism.

[2] The bogus argument that a large number of `Ulama were opposed to the partition of India and therefore should be denied political voice in Pakistan – More on that later insha Allah

A common misinformation spread by the mulhideen regarding Islamic laws in Pakistan is that these laws have mostly been promulgated by unpopular military regimes. In reality Pakistan has had four military dictators and of these four, only one namely Zia ul Haq has been sympathetic to the enforcement of Islamic laws and to the religious classes, the other three military regimes mostly had an adversarial relationship with the religious classes. The Islamic aspects of the Pakistani government have mostly been promulgated by populist and democratic governments rather than military dictatorships, for example the democratically elected Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto government passed the Islamic constitution of 1973, the ban on alcoholic drinks and the official declaration of the heterodox Qadiyani sect as a non-Muslim group.On the other hand the first military dictatorship, that of Ayyub Khan was responsible for promulgating the Muslim Family Ordinance, which was widely condemned by the religious classes as a set of un-Islamic laws based on western thought. In fact the first martial law was proclaimed in Lahore against the first Khatm-e-Nubuwat movement (1953), in defence of the Qadiyani sect. In reality Pakistanis have always had their aspirations blocked by a satanic Mulhid-Military alliance.

Three further issues that need to be addressed are:
– The meaning of secularism and mulhideen taking exception to the term ‘La Deeniyat’
– Takfir of Jinnah/Iqbal: Are they subject to the same standards as everyone else or not?
– Nature of the social contract of Madinah: Was it really a secular contract?


جواب دیں

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

آپ اپنے اکاؤنٹ کے ذریعے تبصرہ کر رہے ہیں۔ لاگ آؤٹ /  تبدیل کریں )

Google+ photo

آپ اپنے Google+ اکاؤنٹ کے ذریعے تبصرہ کر رہے ہیں۔ لاگ آؤٹ /  تبدیل کریں )

Twitter picture

آپ اپنے Twitter اکاؤنٹ کے ذریعے تبصرہ کر رہے ہیں۔ لاگ آؤٹ /  تبدیل کریں )

Facebook photo

آپ اپنے Facebook اکاؤنٹ کے ذریعے تبصرہ کر رہے ہیں۔ لاگ آؤٹ /  تبدیل کریں )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: