EDITORIAL Islamophobia of Muslims
Two unidentified men on a motorcycle on Wednesday shot the editor of the Islamic journal, Ishraq, in front of the office of Al Mawrid Research Institute run by the country's top Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, in Model Town Extension, Lahore. Manzur ul Hasan was shot in the mouth and is struggling for his life at a local hospital. Ignorant of the implications of what has happened, the police have issued their pro-forma prediction about a "personal rivalry or family feud". In a country where people are attacked for expressing `different' views such explanations simply point to a much deeper malaise.
Mr Ghamidi, whose institute was attacked, is an enlightened Islamic scholar of repute. In the past six months his defence of moderate Islam has been aimed at changing the extremist trend in the country. In particular, his mastery of the sources of Islamic law has swung the extreme posture adopted by most Pakistanis regarding Hudood laws to a more temperate view. One can say that without him the debate on changing the Hudood could not have been won despite the efforts of the mainstream political party, the PPP, in parliament. So thin is the genuine grasp of Islam among politicians that they don't even dare initiate a campaign to repeal clerically recommended laws that are repugnant to human dignity. It is to Mr Ghamidi that the government owes the general acceptance of its legislation amending the unjust Hudood laws.
An attack on Mr Ghamidi's institution arouses fears that it may be a warning delivered to him to desist from expressing his moderate views. Such fears are not ill founded. In the past years Mr Ghamidi's persistent refusal to accept a privatised form of jihad has been castigated by the hardline ulema. Articles have been written against him in the Urdu press and clerics appearing with him on TV have condemned him for deviating from the "consensus of the ulema" in general. But the gentleman has rested his case on solid scholarship that appears in his publications and is difficult to defeat in a public debate. His view actually deviates partially or completely from the dominant extremist clergy on almost all issues.
The incident will have the effect of scaring off most people emboldened by Ghamidi's outspokenness. It was a shot across the bow that we know will succeed because it has been the modus operandi of the Islamists all over the world. They accuse the West of suffering from Islamophobia, from a bias against Muslims that is based on irrational fear. Indeed, the term has rightly been accepted by liberals in the West who warn their societies against acting out of hatred for a community that is not composed of just terrorists. But the reality of fear among Muslim societies cannot be denied too. Moderates and courageous intellectual nay-sayers are not tolerated. They are often attacked and subjected to physical injury. Western institutions are full of such people simply because they could not live in their own societies and survive.
Phobia also propels other less obvious reactions. Support to the religious extremist may spring out of fear because the state is either unwilling or incapable of protecting people against violence. Mere authority can also exact allegiance: a religious organisation with a good outreach among people becomes a surrogate for the state if it is weaponised and pretends to do jihad. Clerics not directly involved in jihad may enhance their authority in the community by paying lip service to these outfits. Therefore one can safely say that Islamophobia characterises the mind of those in Pakistan who are constitutionally Muslim but are treated by the extremists as an apostate minority. Sectarianism has exacted an annual toll as a factor of fear of being a Muslim.
Nowhere is the fear of extremist "Islamism" more palpable than in Pakistan's Tribal Areas where the common folk have to suffer physical punishment and pay fines for not saying their prayers in the mosque. Mangal Afridi in the Khyber Agency lashes people who speak against his version of Islam because he has a lashkar with which to enforce his scary version of Islam. Thus what has happened in Lahore may be an aspect of what the people of the Muslim world are going through these days: fear of holding moderate views and speaking the truth. If the moderate and enlightened government of President Pervez Musharraf is sincere, it should take a closer look at what it is neglecting to do. It should provide complete and failsafe security to Mr Ghamidi and others like him so that they can continue to uphold the truth in the face of the threat of violence. *
SECOND EDITORIAL: Qazi's opportunism Vs Bhutto's ladeeniyat
Reacting to a recent statement by the PPPP chairperson, Benazir Bhutto, the MMA president, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, has accused her of being "more `secular' than General Pervez Musharraf". He said: "Gen Musharraf only wants to amend the Hudood Ordinances while Benazir wants them repealed. She is more ladeen (literally meaning `without religion' but which is wrongly interpreted as `secular') than Musharraf". Needless to say, this has angered the ARD chairman, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, and the PPPP secretary general, Raja Pervez Ashraf, who returned the compliment in kind when a clash ensued between the two big entities within the opposition.
The MMA is an alliance of religious parties whose political marginality before 2002 was known to all. Today they are better entrenched in the political system than before, thanks to General Musharraf. But the PPP is a national party that the people continue to support because of its past credentials. It struggled for democracy when Qazi Sahib was an ally of General Zia and will be appreciated for this by coming generations. Qazi Hussain Ahmed should consult Maulana Fazl ur Rehman, secretary general of the MMA, on the PPP's record because the Maulana used to be an ally of the same ladeen PPP once upon a time and actually held the slot of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the National Assembly. Accusing someone of `secularism' in Pakistan is flecked with hypocrisy. The charge of opportunism has more clarity, which should scare the clergy and it is one charge that cannot be pinned on the PPP. *
|