| 12 March 2004 | Friday | 20 Muharram 1425 |
The roadside 'seminar'
The report about the initiative of some leaders to seek a common path for promoting harmony and tolerance among the followers of various religions could be the most welcome message of the 21st century. We, as Muslims, being the followers of the last monotheist religion which remains intact in all respects, should play a leading role in this noble cause.
No other religion has as much potential for promoting inter-faith harmony as Islam. This is evident from its very name which is neither associated nor interlocked with any person, people or place. And from its very meaning which in the literal sense implies "submission" and in the Quranic sense implies "submission to the Will of Allah" (2:128) (3:85) the Cherisher and Sustainer of all (1:1).
Submission to the will of Allah was the main theme of every monotheist religion by whatever name called (3:19). Islam was, in fact, not prescribed for Muhammad (peace be upon him) alone. As the Quran says, "He laid down the same religion for you as He enjoined on Noah: that which We revealed to you which We enjoined on Ibrahim, Moses and Jesus Christ" (42:13). Thus, depending on the context, the reference to Islam in the Quran, can also be taken as reference to the religions of all the Prophets of Allah.
The Quran being the latest in the series of Divine scriptures confirms all the scriptures that were revealed before it (3:3). It enjoins belief in all the Divine scriptures and Prophets of Allah in the same way as it enjoins belief in itself and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (2:177).
It further says "those who deny Allah and His Messengers and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His Messengers saying we believe in some and reject others and (those who) wish to take middle course, they are in truth not believers" (4:150,151). It means that when the Quran speaks of belief or faith in Allah, it automatically implies faith in Allah and all His Prophets without any distinction.
This is evident from another Quranic verse which says "whoever among the Muslims, or Jews or Sabaeans or the Christians believes in Allah and the Day of Judgment and does the righteous deeds will have no cause for fear or grief" (5:69).
According to a saying of the Prophet, anyone among the followers of other scriptures who having belief in His own Prophet also believed in him i.e. in Muhammad, will be entitled to double reward (Bokhari). That is why, the Quran specifically refers to the existence of righteous people (3:113,114) and people on the right course (5:65,66) among the followers of other scriptures.
The Quran does not exhibit any kind of hostility or animosity towards other scriptures or monotheist religions, nor does it hold their laws (sharia) in contempt.
Rather it exhorts the followers of other scriptures to follow their own law (sharia) (5:44-47), wishes them to be true to their religions (5:65,66) provides indication about how to promote cooperation and better understanding between Muslims and the followers of other scriptures (29:46) and emphasizes the protection of all places where the name of Allah is taken whether they be mosques, churches, monasteries or synagogues (22:40).
When the Romans, who were Christians, were defeated by the Persians, the Muslims of Makkah got very disappointed as the idolaters started joking with them that in the same way in which the Persians defeated the believers in the Unity of Allah, they (the idolaters) too will defeat the Muslims if they fought with them.
During this period, a few verses of surah Ar-Room of the Quran were revealed which predicted that very soon the Romans will emerge as victors and on that day the Muslims will rejoice (30:3,4). And the Romans did emerge as victors as predicted by the Quran.
The Quran says "To each among you We have prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah willed, He would have made you a single people but His plan is to test you in what He has given you. So strive as in race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah" (5:48).
The verse clearly says that it is Allah's own plan that to each of the people has been given their own law (sharia) so that He may test them in what has been given to them. Hence, it is not for them to hate, or fight with, each other on account of any differences in their laws (sharia). Their ultimate goal is one and the same i.e. return to Allah, for which they should strive as in race in all virtues.
The Quran further says "O people of the Book, come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but Allah, that we associate no partner with Him, that we raise not from amongst ourselves lords and patrons other than Allah" (3:64).
Through this verse the Quran invites the followers of all scriptures to develop a common understanding on one point and that is the Unity of Allah. It does not preach any of them to relinquish their religions but exhorts them to have a common understanding on one point, a point that is common to their religions, the Unity of Allah.
There are some verses of the Quran which exhort the Muslims not to take their friends and patrons from among the people of other scriptures (5:51,57). But each of these exhortations pertained to the peculiar situation prevailing at that particular time.
In fact, the conditions at that time were so volatile that the friends of today could be the foes of tomorrow and vice versa. Quranic verses were revealed cautioning the Muslims as to who their friends and foes were at the particular time.
For example, another verse said that nearer to Muslims in love were the Christians (5:82). Hence the verses (5:51,57) should not be taken in the sense that the Muslims were forbidden from taking the followers of other scriptures as their friends for ever or on account of their religions.
The Quran did allow the Muslims to fight with the people of other scriptures but the object was certainly not to force them to accept Islam but was to make them acknowledge the sovereignty of the newly created Muslim state and to pay tax (jizyah) as its citizens (9:29). The first Caliph fought against those of the Muslims who refused to pay zakat.
The charter of Madinah in which the Muslims and Jews were declared as one ummah (Ibn-i-Hisham) could be one living example of cooperation and peaceful co-existence of Muslims and the followers of other scriptures. Besides, the Prophet allowed the members of the Christian delegation of Najran to pray in the mosque.
In his letter addressed to the four Himyarite princes who had accepted Islam, the Prophet particularly stressed that if a Jew or Christian desired to retain his religion he shall be allowed to do so provided he agreed to pay tax (jizyah) (Ibn-i-Ishaque). All the letters addressed by the Prophet to the Christian heads of states and tribes started with due emphasis on the common elements of faith.
In regard to other religions i.e. religions other than the monotheist religions, the Quran also preaches observance of the same degree of tolerance and forbearance. It does not even allow reviling of idols and such other things or objects which the followers of such religions may be worshipping as their lords or patrons (6:108).
In short, there can be no better lesson of tolerance, harmony and co-existence than the one spelled out by the three verses of the Quran which say "there is no force or compulsion in regard to religion" (2:256)," (telling the Prophet) you are not there to compel them into believing" (50:45) and "(asking the Prophet to tell the unbelievers) for you is your religion and for me is mine" (109:6).
The roadside 'seminar'
A Near-consensus appears to be emerging on the inadequacy of the Constitution to meet the aspirations of the people belonging to almost all the diverse classes and sections of the people in Pakistan. The leaders of the so-called Oppressed Nationalities Movement (PONAM) in their roadside 'seminar' the other day in Islamabad stressed the point in the most angry terms.
Their anger was redoubled at being denied the facility of holding their two-day 'seminar' within the premises of the parliamentary lodges, forcing them to meet on the roadside within sight of the president's residence.
Undeterred by the shut-out they nevertheless conducted their proceedings with undiminished zeal and dignity. For the quiet, tidy environment of the federal capital for a meeting of this type was a curious and bizarre sight for the passersby.
The speakers included former chief ministers, serving and ex-members of the national and provincial legislative assemblies, among them stalwarts of the stature of Sardar Ataullah Mengal, Mahmud Khan Achakzai, Maulana Ubaidullah Bhutto and Dr Qadir Magsi. Their demands added up to a sense of deep frustration at the diminishing federal spirit of the system of governance.
They stressed that as 'nationalists' they had the right to demand the immediate setting up of five separate federating units, representing the Saraikis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochs and Pakhtuns who all had the right to own their own lands and resources in keeping with the true federal spirit of the Constitution.
Obviously the Urdu speaking migrants from the Indian parts of the subcontinent did not figure in their scheme of things, despite their preponderance in Karachi and many other parts of Sindh.
Apparently, Prime Minister Zafrullah Jamali, though in no sense aligned to the PONAM, also shares the feeling about the inadequacy of the Constitution. In his address at the National Defence College (NDC) a few days earlier, he expressed a not-too-dissimilar feeling of disappointment with the existing political structure. He was critical of the existing system of allocation of resources of the state, calling it an 'antiquated system of resource distribution.'
He called for 'some minor adjustments' in the formula (though what he went on to propose could not really all be described as a minor adjustment') for the sake of compensating for the sake of present inbuilt equity: in his opinion, a more honest way of facing the situation would be to base the infrastructure and social services on 'the established need' of each province and not on a population formula.
Mr Jamali proposed 'some courageous decisions' like binding the provinces together ranging inter alia from elevation of some existing divisions into provinces and revising the existing formula for the distribution of resources. As a concession to the weaker provinces, he suggested establishing the 'best education and technical training institutes' in less developed regions.
Some of these are indeed admirable proposals but this is not the first time that they have been put forward. And, as the prime minister himself acknowledged, there would be the need to launch an open debate on these issues; they have been stoutly opposed by some sections of the people in the past since they felt that their 'vital interests' would be adversely affected.
Mr Jamali himself conceded that a great deal of what he was proposing would perhaps not find a quick positive response from Punjab which would 'most want to maintain the status quo.'
The prime minister did not quite elaborate his suggestion that the development allocation formula should be adjusted by the income level of each province.
Does he believe that his proposed elevation of some administrative divisions to the level of provinces and the provisions of making the population-weight as the basis for allocation of resources would make the system less iniquitous? The chances are that there would be formidable resistance to the idea from the regions enjoying the benefits of the status quo.
Mr Jamali appears to be aware of the complexities of the existing situation and of the administrative chaos any radical change would cause. This is perhaps why he said, rather enigmatically, 'Pakistan is becoming increasingly irrelevant to its people' in the areas of justice, security and equal opportunities for the citizens in all fields'.
With unusual bluntness for a chief executive of the government, the prime minister declared: "Police, irrigation, judiciary, revenue department have made the life of the common people miserable due to weak institutional control."
He did not stop at that and added that the lack of public confidence in state institutions like police and judiciary had eroded their legitimacy and directly contributed to the worsening of public security and the law and order situation in the country.
Mr Jamali also spoke of corruption in public institutions and maintained that in the past decade or so the ruling elite had amassed fortunes through corruption and abuse of authority. He used exceptionally strong language and maintained that corruption had 'penetrated deep' everywhere in all parts of the national life 'including judiciary, private sector and some segments of the armed forces.'
However, he then went on to soften the biting edge of his remarks and observed that the accountability system in the armed forces was transparent and effective. Yet in his address he did not speak of the need to fortify the federal nature of the state.
Close upon the angry outburst of the PONAM leaders against the existing system and the primer minister's proposed changes in the administrative and political setup (e.g. upgrading of certain divisions to the status of provinces), the renowned jurist and former law minister, S.M. Zafar, a member of the ruling PML-Q, also suggested that the Constitution fell short of the people's aspirations.
He asked the government to review the Concurrent List in order to give the provinces more responsibilities. He believed that the provinces were in a position to handle powers more judiciously than the federal government.
Mr Zafar also called for the revival of the Council of Common Interests, (CCI) a device provided by Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1973 constitution to stress the federal character of the Constitution. The CCI was to be the means for resolving contentious issues among the provinces. However, its provision in the Constitution has been allowed to become dormant, eroding its federal character.
Judging from the intensity of the anger which was reflected in the speeches of the PONAM leaders in their roadside seminar it appeared that they could be running out of patience. Such a state of affairs is not in the best interest of either the 'oppressed nationalities' or of the more fortunate ones.
In his essay on Pakistan's problems of national integration Prof Feroz Ahmad has, inter alia, recalled that even in the aftermath of the 1971 events and the breakaway of former East Pakistan, the implications of the unrest in Balochistan in 1973 to 1977 do not appear to have been realized.
The harsh reality of the socio-economic disparities suffered by Sindh have also not been duly understood. Unfortunately, all legitimate grievances of the less privileged provinces tend to be construed as treason.
Only a voluntary and equal association of the 'nationalities' of Pakistan on the basis of their geographical, historical and economic relations, rather than on the basis of a coercive ideology has a chance of success in the process of the proper integration of Pakistan.