The Logic of illogic

By

Dr Ghayur Ayub

The internet is fast impelling us to think logically even if things do not fit in as being logical. Furthermore, it tends to bracket illogical happenings as chances or coincidences which might not be so. In the process, the modern mindset is becoming oblivious to the fact that, in history, certain events occurred which had no bearing on logic and they certainly could not be considered as coincidences. Let me quote three such events.

Firstly, around 1200 BC, a mother placed her baby son in a small crib in a turbulent stream to avoid Pharaoh's soldiers killing him. The baby landed up in Pharaoh's palace and was brought up as his son. Later, he became the founding father of Judaism.

Secondly, in 325 AD at Nicaea, Emperor Constantine, after getting tired of bickering amongst the custodians of various gospels, ordered the custodians to leave all the gospels under the table and the gospel found on the table the next day, would become the official gospel of Christianity. On the table the next day was St Paul's gospel giving birth to "˜Pauline Christianity' which later became "˜Roman Catholicism'

Thirdly, in the fifth century AD in Yasrab, Abdul Mutlib, was going to sacrifice his son Abdullah to the deities according to the ritualistic customs. Instead a hundred camels were sacrificed after successively casting 10 magical arrows on instruction of priest Pythia of the temple. Abdullah grew up and became the father of Mohammad. (PBUH).

These three events which lacked apparent logic shaped the world theologically as it is today. Around five billion people with logical minds are followers of these religions. How and Why?

Another illogical event in recent history has tied 160 million people to a country which should not have been on the map of the world. But it is; and we call it Pakistan. Before coming to that point, it is equally interesting to read about a bizarre and illogical way in which the founder of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah's father was converted to Islam. According to reports, Punjalal Thakkar (Mr. Jinnah's father) once reacted angrily to the maltreatment meted out to his father Premjibhai Thakkar by the elders of his clan, Lohana, when they refused to accept him back in the community after he left them over a business dispute. In his fury, Punjalal Thakkar became a Muslim, keeping his nickname Zino, meaning "˜Skinny' and pronounced as Jinno in Gujrati. Mohammad Ali kept the nickname of his father and changed it to Jinnah. Can we imagine if his father restrained his fury and had not become a Muslim or his grandfather was taken back into the Clan? There would have been no Muslim Jinnah!

Coming to the circumstances Mr. Jinnah faced and the raison d'être surrounding him, no logical mind could accept Pakistan as an independent state. For example:

1. The launching platform for a new Muslim state was technically narrow, humanly shaky and politically nonviable.
2. Though the country was meant for the Muslims of the subcontinent, it didn't have any support from (rather they opposed it) major Muslim scholars and theological schools. They labeled Jinnah a "˜Kafir' (infidel) and Pakistan a "˜Kafiristan' (the country of infidels).
3. Mr. Jinnah, though demanded a separate Muslim State, was himself not a practicing Muslim. He was a westernized liberal, who dressed like a foreigner, could not speak the native language, and had limited knowledge of Arabic.
4. A large number of Muslim intellectuals labeled Pakistan a misguided notion.  
5. The politically powerful Hindus were deadly against its creation.
6. The Hindu intellectuals would call it a madman's dream.
7. There were no Muslim "˜think tanks' to strategize a separate state.
8. In initial stages, Mr. Jinnah seemed a reluctant leader and left the stage not to return from England.
9. The British Raj did not take Muslims seriously in political matters.
10. Mr. Jinnah antagonized Ghaffar Khan at a stage when he needed support of the Pukhtuns.
11. Lastly, the prominent political pundits were convinced that in the unlikely event of its creation, Pakistan would not survive for more than three years.

Against all the logical justifications, Pakistan came into existence and survived against any common sense. This was on the face of:

1. Having no potent financial resources.
2. Having no proper military, administrative, economic, agricultural, industrial, educational, health or other infrastructure worth a name of. It was like rubble left by a strong earthquake and overrun by millions of refuges. 
3. Being demolished under its own weight within three years as predicted by the think tanks of the time.

But it survived. How and Why?

Every country rests on the strength of three pillars; Judiciary, Legislative and Executive. It happened that three extra pillars were added in the case of Pakistan; again an illogical incident. The added pillars are; the armed forces (thanks to general Ayub); the bureaucracy (thanks to the executives); and the religion (thanks to general Zia). It is historical fact that countries disintegrate when their supporting pillars crumble because of irreparable damage caused by erosion. Over the years, we have witnessed gross erosion of all the pillars sustaining Pakistan by administrative nepotism, moral corruptions, financial bungling, military interferences and sectarian activism. How did this poor country keep itself alive is beyond any logic.

Now, here comes the crunch; while each pillar was getting eroded, an illogical event was taking place in the shape of nuclear technology. The program had progressed steadily during every perilous circumstance.  It was this program which was going to act like glue to keep the society cemented from within and protect the country from without. Had it not been for our nuclear technology, India would have invaded Pakistan twice in the last 15 years with disastrous consequences. It is reported that once Israel had nearly taken it out as it did in Iraq. The most illogical part of this program was that it was spearheaded not by a highly skilled nuclear scientist but by an ordinary metallurgist with an apparently dubious disposition.

Each of the three great religions mentioned earlier, needed a state as the flag bearer. The Vatican in 1929 and Israel in 1948 became those states for Roman Catholicism and Judaism respectively. In the mid 1970s, when a defeated Pakistan arranged OIC Conference and took an initiative to become nuclear; it considered itself to be the flag bearer of the Muslim world. Was it illogical? Yes it was. A geographically, morally, psychologically and financially broken country looking for leadership of the Muslim world was illogical indeed. Then in 1998, it seized the title after conducting the nuclear tests surpassing Saudi Arabia which not only holds the holiest places of Islam but keeps the Central Secretariat of OIC at Jeddah as well. Wasn't that illogical?   

So, here is Pakistan born illogically, survived illogically, became the flag bearer of the Muslim world illogically and now threatened by the unambiguous superpower illogically despite being its primary ally. Would the superpower be successful in its aim? Logically yes, illogically no; the question is which one is more powerful; the logic or the illogic?  Those who believe in the forces behind the illogical events might agree with the latter.

The end