THE PML-N governments at the centre and in Punjab are apparently too busy protecting themselves against the Panama leaks’ fallout to take note of the tightening of the state’s siege by the religious orthodoxy. It is time the citizens sought a few clarifications about what is what from the ulema and the political authorities both.

Two laws made to prohibit child marriage and to protect women against violence are being attacked by some clerics and their supporters in political parties operating under religious banners. The first question is as to what interpretation of Islam is being invoked to justify child marriage or violence against women. This because, barring a few matters, the various schools of Islamic fiqh have different views on a number of issues of legal import. The community of the faithful that has grown up with the conviction that there are no priests in Islam and that each Muslim is free to interpret his faith has a right to ask religious scholars to quote the authorities they rely upon.

A related question is whether anti-women edicts are based on the centuries-old formulations or whether any attempt has been made to interpret Islamic injunctions in accordance with the state of Pakistani society and the demands of the age, because Islamic laws are liable to change with a change of place and time. It may be noted that the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) is supposed to consist of, according to Article 228 (2) of the Constitution, “persons having knowledge of the principles and philosophy of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, or understating of the economic, political, legal or administrative problems of Pakistan” (emphasis added).

The conservatives have been given an advantage they do not deserve.

Obviously, while laying down Islamic legal norms for Pakistani society the related economic, political, legal or administrative problems have to be taken into account, otherwise there would be no need to mention experts in these fields, at a par with religious scholars, for selection as CII members.

This issue becomes all the more important in view of the glaring examples of abuse of belief to defend practices that do not, and cannot, enjoy religious sanction. The demolition of girls’ schools is justified in some parts of the country in the name of Islam, whereas everybody knows that the objective is the preservation of feudal practice.

Likewise, some ulema have undertaken the odious task of reinforcing the outdated and oppressive patriarchal system, while every ordinary Muslim knows that women have rights over men just as men have rights over them. The enthusiasm displayed by some clerics while defending men’s ‘right’ to break the arms and legs of their wives, or other relatives, makes one wonder which religion is being cited.

It is also necessary to satisfy the public that the door to ijtihad is not being closed. Unless present-day Muslim scholars in Pakistan have acquired the right and authority to completely overrule Allama Iqbal, his call to resuscitate Islamic jurisprudence that has been frozen for five centuries is even more relevant today than it was at the time of his Allahabad address in 1930.

Another important question thrown up by the present debates is as to who has the authority to make laws — the legislature or a body of ulema. Again one should like to know why Iqbal’s verdict on this point is not taken into consideration. While rejecting the creation of a board of ulema to advise parliament in Iran’s 1905 constitution, the allama had warned the Muslims of the subcontinent against following this model. He had argued that in a modern Muslim state the elected legislature was competent to make laws for the community and if the ulema wished to make laws or influence their making they should get themselves elected to the legislature.

Under the constitutional scheme followed in Pakistan until Gen Zia assumed absolute power to make laws and define Islam, the power to make laws lay exclusively with parliament. Any refusal to have this principle reinforced will expose Pakistan to legal anarchy.

The need to seek answers to the queries raised here has been accentuated by indications that the government is once again trying to appease the conservative lobby. The religious political parties are being consulted on possible changes to the Punjab Protection of Women Against Violence Act. In principle, there is nothing wrong with discussing legislation with any group of critics but the people’s worst fears are aroused when the religious political groups are the only beneficiaries of this open-hearted policy.

Unfortunately, the government seems to have learnt no lessons from the havoc caused by appeasing the orthodoxy in the past. The authors of the Objectives Resolution thought the religious parties would let them interpret the document the way they liked. They were proved wrong in no time. The Bhutto government thought the agitation against the Ahmadis would end once they were declared a minority; the logic underlying the step has created a number of problems. Many people thought that Ziaul Haq’s investment in madressahs would have no effect on the people’s political inclinations; one hopes they have begun to realise how wrong they have been.

That religion has an important place in the lives of the Pakistani Muslims cannot be denied. Much can also be said against hurting the people’s sentiments. No sane person will suggest the use of force against religious activists who shun violence. But appeasement and coercion are not the only options open to the defenders of public interest. By giving them a monopoly on religious discourse, or whatever of it that is allowed, the conservatives have been given an advantage they do not deserve.

There was a time when the Muslims of the subcontinent prided themselves on following the most liberal version of their faith. That tradition was sacrificed at the altar of exclusivist politics. While steps must be taken to revive a fair intra-religion discourse, the authorities and the ulema should thresh out their problems in parliament, whose status neither party has as yet denounced.

Published in Dawn, April 14th, 2016