Featured Post

Wake up Now ! جاگو ، جاگو ، جاگو

Wake up Pakistan ! Presently the Muslim societies are in a state of ideological confusion and flux. Materialism, terrorism,...

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Ideology of Pakistan - Debate


A steady but intense debate is taking place all over social, print and electronic media in Pakistan. The trigger has been the worrisome condition of the state and polity of the country that have been facing a serious existentialist crisis ever since extremist militancy began to reach unprecedented propositions from the early 2000s.

The debate is squarely based on the following question: What role (rather, how much of a role) should faith be playing in the matters of the state, governance and society in a country like Pakistan that came into being as a Muslim-majority entity? This question (and the debate that itusually triggers), is certainly not a new phenomenon. It has cropped up before.

But the urgency that it seems to have gathered today had been missing for over three decades now.

This urgency is largely the result of some extraordinary policies that the state and the government finally decided to enact from early 2014 to curb the once seemingly uncontrollable menace of extremist violence and bigotry that Pakistan has been in the grip of, especially after 2006.

The decision of the Pakistan armed forces (under General Raheel Sharif) to exhibit certain overt maneuvers to tackle the mentioned menace; and the (albeit hesitant) anti-extremist actions of thecurrent PML-N regime, have opened up the debate, giving it the kind of fluency that it had been lacking for decades.

In a nutshell, one section in the debate insists that whatever that was concocted in the name of a national ideology (after Jinnah`s demise in 1948; or more so, after the late 1970s), is largely to be blamed for popularising an idea of nationhood engineered through the state`s many experiments that seeded a non-organic ideology.

They believe such an ideology characteristically mutated into becoming a dogma that has contributed the most to whatever that has gone down in the country in the way of faith-based violence and the ever-increasing episodes ofbigotry.

The other section disagrees. It suggests that it is the opposing section that is to be blamed because it undermined the true raison d`etre of Pakistan`s creation by imposing `alien / Western concepts` of governance and nationhood and (in the process) stalled the infusion of divine laws and culture in a country that came into being in the name of faith.

As the debate rages on and the military establishment, the state and government of Pakistan now find themselves urgently trying to carve out a much clearer middle-ground between the two poles, it should be remembered that this debate is not a sudden occurrence that emerged from a manic vacuum.

A similar debate had raged in the country almost four decades ago (in the 1960s). The question that triggered that debate was quite similar to the one thatis prompting the current one.

The only difference is that the 1960s were a more tolerant period in which an inte11cetually superior debate was likely to thrive and in which various wellknown scholarly figureheads from both sides of the divide participated.

The debate had crupted with the coinage of the term, `Pakistan Ideology` As author and historian, Ayesha Jalal, has often observed, the term `Pakistan Ideology` was nowhere in the speeches during the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Nor was its Urdu expression `Nazriya-iPakistan`.

When the 1962 Constitution of Field Marshal Ayub Khan`s regime highlighted its understanding of Pakistani nationhood to mean being a Muslim (as opposed to a theological) state where a modernist and reformist spirit of Islam would guide the country`s politics and society, the religious parties opposed it.

It was at this point that the term Nazriya-i-Pakistan first emerged. It is largely believed that the expression was first used by the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) who suggested that Pakistan`s ideology should be squarely based on policies constructed through the dictates of the faith, striving to turn Pakistan into a theological entity.

The debate about exactly what kind of a vision drove Jinnah to demand a separate Muslim country in South Asia, and what should constitute Pakistani culture and nationhood peaked in the late 1960s when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto formed the left-leaning Pakistan People`s Party (PPP); and when Sindhi, Baloch, Pushtun and Bengali nationalists accel-erated their agitation for provincial autonomy.

After witnessing the ascendency of leftist parties in Pakistan in the late 1960s and the growing agitation by ethnic nationalists, JI`s founder and prolific Islamic scholar, Abul Ala Maududi, declared that socialism was an anti-religious ideology.

Prominent progressiveintellectuals such as Hanif Ramay and poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz responded by emphasising that Pakistani nationhood and culture were multi-ethnic and multicultural and best served by democracy and socialism.

Maududi struck back by explaining leftist and liberal Pakistani political organisations and cultural outfits as `Trojan horses` who had infiltrated Pakistani society and government to `damage the country`s faith-based fabric.

Responding to Maududi`s outburst, the popular Urdu literary magazinc, Nusrat (that had been founded by Hanif Ramay) began to run a series of essays ex plaining `Maududiat`.

Though the term had been first coined by Maududi`s opponents in another religious outfit, the Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI), which had accused Maududi of trying to construct a separate sect, Nusrat and eventually the PPP used the term to define Maududi`s philosophy as being opportunistic because he had originally opposed the creation of Pakistan but was now using the polities of the same country to safeguard his `economic (industrialist) and foreign (Western / capitalist) allies (from socialism).

Maududi bounced back and accused the leftists of being on the strings of the Soviet Union. The JI began publishing Maududi`s new Nazriya-i-Pakistan thesis along with his earlier writings.

Author and journalist, Safdar Mir, claimed that JI had omitted republishing the essays that Maududi had written before Pakistan`s creation and in which he had lambasted the Pakistan Movement because (according to Maududi) Muslim Nationalism was contrary to the univer-sality of Islam.

Mir sardonically lay into Maududi`s thesis by reproducing the contents of the missing essays. On the other end, famous lawyer, A.K.

Brobi (who, ironically, was part of the anti-JI Ayub regime before its fall in 1969) and popular novelist, Naseem Hijazi, sided with Maududi and denounced the period`sleftist forces for being `anti-religion` and `anti-Pakistan` The debate abated after the 1970 election. But the separation of East Pakistan (1971), the economic failure of the first PPP regime (1971-77), the emergence of a reactionary dictatorship (1977-88) and the fall-out (in Pakistan) of the Afghan Civil War, retarded the debate.

Decades later it has returned; or rather, it has returned to become a proper polemical entity again as opposed to being a one-sided narrative which began explaining opposing ideas (of what constitutes Pakistani Nationhood and ideology), as a threat to the country`s existence.

Thus, one section of the debate is now claiming that such an existentialist threat actually emerged due to the myopic egoism of the post-`77 narrative, while the other section is suggesting that this happened because what the narrative suggested was never properly implemented.

It is still too early to determine which way the debate would turn. But the way it has opened up once again after years of becoming extremely narrow and mutated, the changing conducts of the military establishment and the government in this context should encourage the debate by drawing in more scholarly-sound men and women from both sides of the divide. Because so far, unlike the one in 1960s, this debate is still being largely moderated and defined by somewhat ill-informed and `abistorical` opinions (especially on the electronic and social medias).

After all, it is the synthesis emerging from such a debate that can surely provide the key to any positive outcome of a country and polity in turmoil.
By Nadeem.F.Paracha Dawn.com

More: 
Why Pakistan? http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/p/why-pakistan.html

Muhammad Ali Jinnah's 11th August Speech - Wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah's_11th_August_Speech
Muhammad Ali Jinnah's 11th August Speech is one of the most notable speeches made by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founding father of Pakistan and known as ...

August 11, 1947 address of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKeBYusrlVo
August 11, 1947 address of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. ... Published on Sep 11, 2012 ... Muhammed Ali Jinnah - Speech About The Making Of Pakistan.wmv

Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah - India Admits His ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW9EK1NVxmw
Sep 20, 2011 - Uploaded by Roothmens Armageddon
Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Gujarati: Urdu: محمد علی جناح, Audio 25 December 1876 -- 11 September1948) was a ...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Other Perspective

Reclaiming the original ideology
By Zahid Hussain

Liberalism is a political philosophy or world view founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.
Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism 

Nawaz Sharif is under intense attack by the religious lobby for calling for making Pakistan a ‘liberal’ democratic nation. The chief of the Jamaat-i-Islami wants the prime minister to withdraw his comments, which were made at an investment conference. Though Sharif actually used the term in the context of the economy, it has nonetheless triggered a renewed debate on the ideology of Pakistan.

Islamic parties gathered under the umbrella of the Milli Yakjehti Council (MYC) have threatened to launch nationwide protests against what they describe as a ‘conspiracy’ to turn Pakistan into a secular state. “We cannot compromise on the basic ideology of Pakistan,” they have vowed. This squabbling lot that never agrees on any religious issue now appears united in defending the country’s ‘Islamic identity’.

Such a strong reaction to the mere mention of the term ‘liberal’ does not come as a surprise given the ignorance and narrow outlook of our religious elite. More shocking, however, are the views of some supposedly moderate political leaders on the concept of liberal democracy and secularism. One wonders how these political philosophies clash with the basis on which this country was founded.

Nothing could be more ludicrous than the claim by Sirajul Haq that the remarks by the prime minister are contrary to the Constitution, the philosophy of Allama Iqbal and the principles laid down by the Quaid-i-Azam. How do concepts of political and civil liberties and religious freedom come into the conflict with Pakistan’s original ideology and the vision of the nation’s founding fathers?

Liberal democracy was the core ideology of Pakistan’s founding, as articulated by the Quaid himself.

In fact, it is an attempt to redefine Pakistan’s ideology that has harmed the country the most by widening the religious divide within its polity. The Islamist groups gathered under the banner of the MYC have been instrumental in fuelling sectarian differences and religious extremism in the country. One of the participants in the group’s recent meeting was Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed whose organisation is on the UN list of terrorist organisations.

Liberal democracy was the core ideology of the foundation of Pakistan, something that was clearly articulated by Mohammad Ali Jinnah in an interview to Reuters in 1946. “The new state,” he said, “would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.”

Pakistan was never supposed to be, in the words of Mr Jinnah, a “theocratic state” that these religious groups strive for. In fact, the country has long deviated from this core principle. Theocracy is anathema to the modern democracy that the Quaid had envisaged.

The country drifted from its ideals when the state got involved in religious matters, and with deciding who was and wasn’t a true Muslim. It went from bad to worse when the religious groups, many of whom are part of the MYC, took it upon themselves to determine the Islamic credentials of different sects. This has also been the major cause for the deaths of thousands of Muslims in sectarian violence in Pakistan.

Rising religious extremism and intolerance have led to escalation in violence against religious minorities and their systematic persecution. The mob attacks on Christian colonies and the lynching of Ahmadis in the name of faith has given the country the dubious reputation of being among the most intolerant nations in the world. What happened in Shantinagar, Gojra, Joseph Colony, etc and more recently in Jhelum is testimony to that.

Many of these religious groups have been directly and indirectly patronising militant organisations such as the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. They rationalise terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of innocent people including young children and also provide religious sanction to suicide bombings. Is that the country that our founding fathers had envisaged?

Not surprisingly, the MYC has criticised the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the death sentence of Mumtaz Qadri, the police guard who murdered Salmaan Taseer. Most of those comprising it have publicly condoned the killing of the former governor of Punjab in the name of alleged blasphemy. They have reserved their harshest criticism for that section of the ruling that said that calling for the reform of the blasphemy law is not blasphemy.

The misuse of the blasphemy law both against Muslims and non-Muslims has increased in recent years, in that it is being used as a licence to kill. Many of the mob attacks are instigated by clerics associated with these groups. The latest such example is the burning of an Ahmadi-owned factory and an Ahmadi place of worship in Jhelum last week sparked by allegations that some employees of the factory had committed blasphemy. Announcements from area mosques instigated the crowd to violence.

One wonders why the law has not come into action against Hafiz Saeed for making inflammatory statements. Although the media is barred from reporting the activities of his organisation, his remarks against the prime minister were widely covered. It is highly ironic that he is projecting himself as the protector of Pakistan’s ideology.

Liberalism is the essence of modern democracy. It is a philosophy that believes in progress, religious tolerance, the essential goodness of the human race, the autonomy of the individual and protection of political and civil liberties. How are these values in conflict with our religion as these self-styled guardians of Islam claim? For this country’s stability and progress we need to go back to the ideals of our founding fathers.

The country has suffered hugely as a result of religious bigotry and the wrong interpretation of Pakistan’s ideology. Pakistan was created to be a modern democratic state with freedom of belief and religion. It was not supposed to be an obscurantist state as the country is now being portrayed by assorted so-called Islamic groups. We must reclaim the original ideology of Pakistan if we really want to move forward and establish a tolerant society. Liberal democracy is the only answer to violent extremism and religious bigotry.

By Zahid Hussain: The writer is an author and journalist.
Comments:
RIAZNov 25, 2015 07:27am
Liberal or theocratic are both irrelevant. Their is one and just one ideology practiced in Pakistan. It is feudal ideology in every nook and corner of Pakistan's culture and mindset irrespective of one's claims to be liberal or Islamic. Corruption, nepotism, patronage and the high and mighty being above law and accountability are feudal paradigms that are in the very DNA of Pakistan. The so called liberals keep the nation illiterate to ensure their vote bank of ignorants who vote for them no matter how corrupt and disgusting they are. The religious on the other hand ensure their vote banks by offering free education with free board and lodging. They churn out useless programmed human robots with ability to think rationally rendered immune for good at a young age with systematic and sustained dogmatic indoctrination.
More comments: http://www.dawn.com/news/1222036

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, BlogsMagazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits
http://JustOneGod.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Bad Governance & Democracy

Image result for bad democracy quotes
Let me start with the famous remark made by Winston Churchill on democracy: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” It is quite common in Pakistan to see people complaining against democratic governments over every major or minor issue. There is widespread public disappointment with the performance of governments today, but this has always been the case whenever we have had elected governments. Let us acknowledge, with open minds, that dynastic leaders, parties, the electoral elite, political families and powerful political groups, in every region of Pakistan, have very few achievements and little success to show to the public. They are long and strong on rhetoric and very short and weak on performance.
Image result for bad democracy quotes

One more thing in our social and democratic context is very important, which is also true for other Muslim majority societies, i.e., the solid connection between misrule and rise of extremism, terrorism and militant ethno-nationalism. Misrule is perhaps a polite and benign expression for the massive plunder of Pakistan by the ruling elite, often elected on the strength of illegal monies and strong political networks they have created. Most of the ruling elite have little respect for the people of this land or any real interest in the development of this society. They are here for the easy money they can make and when the going gets a little tough, they escape to their safe havens abroad — and live in peace, prosperity and happiness.

The rise of radicalism in every Muslim society has been a real cause of the neglect of education, rule of law, good universal values and governance. Unlawful behaviour of the elite and the immunity they enjoy through their power and political clout, have in turn produced many forms of illegalities in society. The deterioration of values, decline of institutions and weakening of laws and their implementation have spread to every part of society. Political catchwords like ‘we have done nothing wrong’ and ‘no court has convicted us’ tell us more about the failure of the system of accountability than the innocence of all famous and infamous political players of the country. Their conduct in power has created a vacuum of ethical legitimacy that has been effectively exploited by radical ideology, which argues that the failure of the ruling elite is actually the ‘failure’ of Western democracy, and that elected public figures are nothing but ‘tools’ of Western powers.

Add to this pervasive social discourse and popular narratives at the lower levels of society is the problem posed by our young population that is without adequate, let alone good education, and has limited employment opportunities and avenues for personal progress. Indeed, these are all serious problems that may continue to pull Pakistan down. Ignoring these problems, which are often associated with democracy and ‘democrats’, is not an option anymore.

What is the alternative to bad democracy? Frankly speaking, none. After four military interventions and more than four democratic movements as well as the restoration of the Constitution, democracy has emerged as a ‘default position’ for Pakistan. Our institutional endowment for democracy is far stronger than any other Muslim state’s, and we have a long history of development of political and state institutions going back to colonial times.

We have the means to improve conditions under democratic rule, and we know how others have transformed bad democracies into good ones. Chief among them is public awareness, which is better than before. We have laws and institutions that need to be strengthened and should be made to work in the areas of accountability and rule of law. Pakistan’s future progress, order, stability and coherence depend on good democracy.
By Rasul Bakhsh Rais: The writer is a professor of political science at LUMS
http://tribune.com.pk/story/997619/living-in-a-bad-democracy/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fuss over good governance:

Image result for bad democracy quotes
By Imtiaz Gul:
The Pakistani media has been awash with heated debates over the ‘unconstitutionality’ of the concerns on good governance that General Raheel Sharif conveyed during the November 10 Corps Commanders’ conference. Opposition members of parliament pounced upon the army chief’s advice in order to settle scores with the government. The discourse in the media clearly stemmed from the civilian government’s displeasure over the advice coming from a “constitutionally subordinate institution”.

But was this really something unusual given Pakistan for decades has been guided by the military establishment and an erratic, self-serving civilian ruling elite? Certainly not. So, why all the fuss? Let us first see how the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific defines good governance. It describes it as “decision-making by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)”. It also identifies eight major characteristics that constitute good governance: a system that is participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimised, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. Can the federal and provincial governments claim they are following all or some of these ingredients of good governance? The answer is largely in the negative on many counts.

Despite Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s rosy projections, Pakistan is ranked a lowly 138 out of 189 countries on the World Bank’s Doing Business 2016 ranking. Has the government elevated or jolted the confidence of multinationals already operating in a fragile situation? We understand that the FBR is acting like a ‘robber baron’ to extract funds for its IMF-dictated resource mobilisation campaign. In a high-handed, unbecoming manner, individuals and businesses are being asked to cough up funds to meet IMF demands. This state of affairs will certainly not encourage foreign investments, nor will other countries remove travel advisories for those of their citizens intending to visit Pakistan.

The recent Midterm Report Card for Members of National Assembly (MNA), launched by Alif Ailaan, states that only three out of a total of 272 elected MNAs managed an overall ‘A’ grade in the scorecard for progress in terms of school facilities, student retention, gender parity and the student-teacher ratio in public schools of their constituencies. So much for the democrats’ love and commitment to education! Has the Model Town case of 2014 or the Kasur child sexual abuse case been resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved? What steps have been taken so far to review and amend the dated Criminal Procedure Code or the 1861 Police Act — both being at the root of low conviction rates, heavy pendency and unreasonably protracted trials often to the disadvantage of the poor and the victims?

Has the Punjab government followed principles of transparency, fairness and the rule of law when approving funds for the Orange Line project or for the security of the Sharif family in Jati Umra? Removal of reluctant government officials and replacing them with yes men certainly doesn’t bespeak good governance. Hospitals, even in provincial and federal capitals, are extremely short on critical, life-saving vaccines and equipment, such as ventilators. Hospital administrations have to wait for months to get petty amounts approved, while pregnant women are forced to give birth on the stairs of hospitals. On the other hand, the bureaucracy and chief ministers hardly waste a minute in approving tens of millions for their own security, with some 2,751 police officials already in the service of the entire Sharif family. Is this good governance? Has the government transparently resolved fiascos such as the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park and Nandipur project? Or do ‘democrats’ believe that the poor man’s vote makes them accountable for their deeds?

The list of such questions is endless and this obligates civilian rulers to handle the poor man’s trust, i.e., votes, with some sincerity. All stakeholders — politicians, bureaucracy, the military, media and the civil society — are supposed to raise concerns when there are administrative lapses and legal deviations, more so in a culture where abuse of power and deviation from the rule of law are norms. Votes from the public do not give our rulers the carte blanche for arbitrary and self-serving governance. Questions, like the ones raised by General Raheel, will continue to be asked as long as rulers continue to abhor the rule of law and transparency.
The writer heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad and is author of Pakistan: Pivot of Hizbut Tahrir’s Global Caliphate
http://tribune.com.pk/story/997587/fuss-over-good-governance/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, BlogsMagazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits
http://JustOneGod.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Liberalism, Secularism & Islamism

Image result for liberalism
Liberalism is a political philosophy or world view founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalismLiberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speechfreedom of the pressfreedom of religionfree marketscivil rights,democratic societiessecular governments, and international cooperation. [wikipedia]
Book:
Islam's relationship to liberal-democratic politics has emerged as one of the most pressing and contentious issues in international affairs. InIslam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy, Nader Hashemi challenges the widely held belief among social scientists that religious politics and liberal-democratic development are structurally incompatible. This book argues for a rethinking of democratic theory so that it incorporates the variable of religion in the development of liberal democracy. In the process, it proves that an indigenous theory of Muslim secularism is not only possible, but is a necessary requirement for the advancement of liberal democracy in Muslim societies.


أ دھا سیر گوشت اور آدھا سیر بِلّی
لبرل ازم کی طرح سیکولرازم بھی وہ بدقسمت لفظ ہے جسے عفریت بنا دیا گیا ہے۔ جس شخص نے بھی یہ اصطلاح سب سے پہلے استعمال کی، اب بہرطور یہ اُن معنوں میں نہیں لی جاتی۔ اس کا مطلب لادینیت، الحاد یا دہریہ ہونا ہرگز نہیں! اس سے مراد پوری دنیا میں اب یہ لیا جاتا ہے کہ تمام مذاہب کو برداشت کیا جائے اور مذہبی معاملات میں جبر، تشدد، امتیاز اور نفرت سے بچا جائے۔ اگر سیکولرازم کا مطلب دہریت اور الحاد ہوتا تو بھارتی مسلمان اسے اپنی ضرورت نہ سمجھتے۔ اسدالدین اویسی آل انڈیا مجلسِ اتحادالمسلمین کے صدر ہیں۔ تین بار لوک سبھا کے رکن رہے۔ 21 اکتوبر 2015ء کو انہوں نے دہائی دی کہ ''سیکولرازم کے بغیر بھارت بے کس ہو جائے گا۔ اس ملک کی اقدار میں سیکولرازم اور تنوع بنیادی اہمیت رکھتے ہیں اور انہیں ہر حال میں مضبوط کرنا ہو گا‘‘۔ امریکی ذرائع ابلاغ میں آئے دن اُن کے دانشور، پروفیسر اور اہلِ علم وضاحتیں کر رہے ہیں کہ سیکولرازم سے مراد نازی ازم ہے، نہ سٹالن ازم، نہ سوشلزم اور نہ ہی الحاد و دہریت! امریکی اہلِ علم دائیں بازو کے انتہا پسند مذہبی گروہوں پر الزام لگا رہے ہیں کہ سیکولرازم کو یہ لوگ اپنے مقاصد کی خاطر غلط ملبوس پہنا رہے ہیں۔
اس وقت تقریباً اجماع ہے کہ سیکولرازم سے مراد ہے تمام مذاہب کو برداشت کرنا‘ معاشرے میں تنوع کی موجودگی میں مسائل کو عقل اور منطق کے ذریعے حل کرنا، ہر شہری کو اپنے جائز منصوبوں کی تکمیل میں مدد دینا، مساوات کو اہمیت دینا، ذات پات، طبقات، نسل، مذہب اور عقیدے کے تعصب کے بغیر عوام کی فلاح و بہبود کے لئے ریاست کی طرف سے اقدامات کرنا۔
اگر تعصب کو ایک لمحے کے لئے ایک طرف رکھ دیا جائے تو یہ ماننا پڑے گا کہ سلطنتِ عثمانیہ نے یورپ اور امریکہ سے بہت پہلے اپنے معاشرے کو سیکولر کیا تھا۔ بے شک یہ اصطلاح اُس وقت استعمال نہیں ہو رہی تھی مگر آج متوازن اور غیر متعصب دانشور سیکولرازم سے جو کچھ مُراد لیتے ہیں سلطنتِ عثمانیہ نے اس کا عملی مظاہرہ کرکے پوری
دنیا کو دکھا دیا تھا کہ سیکولر معاشرہ کیا ہوتا ہے۔ یہودی اور نصرانی بلند مناصب پر فائز تھے۔ حکیم یعقوب پاشا (یہودی) وزیر خزانہ رہا۔ پرتگالی یہودی موسیٰ ہامون خلیفہ کا طبیب تھا۔ ابراہیم کاسترو ٹکسال کا حاکمِ اعلیٰ تھا۔ سلطنتِ عثمانیہ کے عروج کے زمانے میں (1300ء سے 1600ء تک) غیر مسلموں نے ازحد ترقی کی۔ تجارت، مالیات، سفارت، وزارت، انتظامیہ ہر جگہ موجود تھے۔ سلطان محمد فاتح نے قسطنطنیہ فتح کیا تو حکم دیا کہ ''مسلمان، عیسائی اور یہودی‘‘ سلطنت کے اطراف و اکناف سے آئیں اور قسطنطنیہ میں آباد ہوں! نئے دارالخلافہ کی آبادی میں یہودی دس فیصد ہو گئے۔ دوسرے غیر مسلم اس کے علاوہ تھے۔ 1481ء سے 1512ء تک کا زمانہ ہسپانیہ میں مذہبی عدالتوں کے ظلم و ستم کا تھا۔ سلطنتِ عثمانیہ نے اپنے دروازے کھول دیے۔ ایک لاکھ پچاس ہزار یہودی ہسپانیہ سے بھاگے۔ اکثریت کو پناہ ترکوں کے ہاں ملی۔ عثمانی خلیفہ کا ہسپانوی بادشاہ پر یہ طنز اُس زمانے میں بہت مشہور ہوا... ''تم فرڈی ننڈ کو عقل مند سمجھتے ہو! وہ اپنے ملک کو غریب اور ہمارے ملک کو امیر کر رہا ہے!‘‘ یہ یہودی، عثمانی سلطنت کے امیر تر شہروں میں آباد ہوئے۔ قسطنطنیہ میں اُس وقت 44 یہودی عبادت خانے تھے۔ پروفیسر آرنلڈ، جو مشرقی علوم کے بہت بڑے عالم تھے، سر سید احمد خان اور شبلی نعمانی کے دوست تھے، علی گڑھ مسلم یونیورسٹی اور گورنمنٹ کالج لاہور میں پڑھاتے رہے اور علامہ اقبال کے استاد رہے، لکھتے ہیں کہ عثمانی حکومت کے مفتوح علاقوں میں اسلام زور اور طاقت سے نہیں پھیلا۔ آرنلڈ اس کا سبب اخلاقی برتری کو قرار دیتے ہیں۔ اخلاقی برتری کا ایک مظہر یہ بھی تھا کہ غیر مسلموں کو بلند مناصب پر فائز کیا جاتا تھا!
اِس وقت بھارت میں جو سلوک مسلمانوں اور نچلی ذاتوں کے ساتھ ہو رہا ہے، اُسے سیکولرازم کے کھاتے میں ڈالنا مُودی کے ہاتھ مضبوط کرنے کے مترادف ہے! روایت ہے کہ مُلا نصرالدین آدھا سیر گوشت خرید کر لائے اور بیوی سے کہا کہ پکا دینا۔ خود کسی کام سے باہر چلے گئے۔ بیوی کو ایک مدت بعد گوشت ملا ہو گا۔ اس نے بُھونا اور سارا خود ہی چٹ کر گئی۔ مُلّا آئے تو بیوی نے شکایت کی کہ بلّی کھا گئی۔ مُلاّ نے بلّی کو ترازو میں تولا۔ بلّی کا وزن آدھا سیر نکلا۔ مُلاّ نے پوچھا: اگر یہ گوشت کا وزن ہے‘ تو بلّی کہاں ہے؟ اور اگر بلّی خود ہی آدھا سیر ہے تو گوشت کہاں گیا؟
اگر مودی اور آر ایس ایس کے سیاہ کارنامے سیکولرازم کے کھاتے میں ڈالیں گے تو پھر نتیش کمار اور اُس کا ساتھ دینے والی پارٹیوں کو کہاں رکھیں گے؟ اور اگر بہار میں جیتنے والے سیکولرازم کے نام پر جیتے ہیں تو مُودی اور بی جے پی سیکولر کس طرح ہو گئے؟ ہر شخص کو معلوم ہے کہ مودی ہندوتوا کا نقیب ہے۔ گجرات میں مسلمانوں کے قتلِ عام کا ذمہ دار وہی تھا۔ بھارتی ادیب جوق در جوق اعزازات واپس کر رہے ہیں۔ بھارتی نیوی کے سابق سربراہ نے احتجاج کیا ہے! یہ لوگ یہی تو رونا رو رہے ہیں کہ مُودی اور اُس کے ہم رکاب بنیاد پرست متعصب ہندو بھارت کا مُنہ کالا کر رہے ہیں!
یہ سیکولرازم ہی ہے جس کے طفیل کروڑوں مسلمان، اپنے آبائی ممالک سے ہجرت کر کے، امریکہ، کینیڈا، برطانیہ، فرانس، جرمنی،
ہسپانیہ، جاپان، آسٹریلیا، سنگاپور، نیوزی لینڈ، آسٹریا، ہالینڈ، ڈنمارک، ناروے، سویڈن حتیٰ کہ فن لینڈ جیسے دور افتادہ ممالک میں آباد ہو گئے ہیں۔ ان ملکوں میں انہیں مذہبی آزادیاں حاصل ہیں، مساجد آباد ہیں، جائیدادیں، مکان، دکانیں اُن کے نام پر ہیں، پارلیمنٹ کے وہ ممبر بن رہے ہیں، وزارتیں اور سفارتیں انہیں دی جا رہی ہیں۔ اپنے اپنے ملکوں سے وہ اپنے رشتہ داروں کو بھی بلا کر آباد کر رہے ہیں۔ زرِمبادلہ بھیج رہے ہیں۔ اس کالم نگار نے اپنے ایک عزیز کی وساطت سے مساجد اور مدارس کے اعداد و شمار حاصل کیے ہیں۔ صرف ریاست ہائے متحدہ امریکہ میں تین ہزار سے زیادہ مسجدیں ہیں۔ کیلی فورنیا میں 525، نیویارک میں 507، ٹیکساس میں 302، فلوریڈا میں 186، اسی طرح ہر ریاست میں مسجدوں کی تعداد معلوم کی گئی ہے۔ ایک نجی ذریعے کے مطابق نیویارک، شکاگو، کیلی فورنیا، فلوریڈا اور اٹلانٹا میں درس نظامی کے کم از کم پندرہ مدارس کام کر رہے ہیں۔ ہو سکتا ہے اصل تعداد اس سے زیادہ ہو۔ حفظِ قرآن پاک کے امریکہ میں دو سو مدارس ہیں! برطانیہ کے اُن شہروں میں جہاں پاکستانی زیادہ تعداد میں ہیں جیسے مانچسٹر، گلاسگو، بریڈفورڈ وغیرہ، پاکستان سے فرقہ واریت تک درآمد کی جا رہی ہے۔ پیری فقیری، استخارہ، جادو ٹونہ کا علاج۔ سب کچھ پوری حشر سامانیوں کے ساتھ موجود ہے۔ کوئی روک ٹوک نہیں۔ خصوصی ٹیلی ویژن چینل رات دن چل رہے ہیں، آسٹریلیا میں مصریوں کی اپنی مساجد ہیں، ترکوں کی اپنی، بنگالیوں کی اپنی اور پاکستانیوں کی اپنی۔ لاکھوں صومالوی مہاجر آباد ہوئے ہیں۔ بہت سے خوشحالی اور امارت سے ہمکنار ہو رہے ہیں۔ سڈنی کے اُس حصے میں‘ جسے لکمبا (LAKEMBA) کہا جاتا ہے، جائیں تو یوں لگتا ہے قاہرہ یا لاہور میں آ گئے ہیں۔ میلبورن میں فاکنر کے علاقے میں پاکستانیوں کی بہت بڑی مسجد ہے جو تبلیغی جماعت کی سرگرمیوں کا بھی مرکز ہے۔ اس کے ساتھ ملحق مسلمانوں کا اپنا تعلیمی ادارہ ہے۔ عربوں اور ترکوں کے اپنے تعلیمی ادارے ہیں جو حکومت سے منظور شدہ ہیں۔ ان تمام ملکوں میں اسلام مخالف عناصر آئے دن مطالبے کرتے پھرتے ہیں کہ مسجدوں پر پابندی لگائی جائے اور مسلمانوں کو نکال باہر کیا جائے مگر کسی حکومت نے اس قسم کے انتہا پسندانہ مطالبات کو کبھی درخورِ اعتنا نہ سمجھا! آئے دن ہمارے ہاں سے اور دوسرے مسلمان ملکوں سے علماء کرام، پیرانِ عظام، مشائخ کرام اور روحانی شخصیات ان ملکوں کے دورے کرتی ہیں، چندے اکٹھا کرتی ہیں، عقیدت مندوں سے خدمت کراتی ہیں، تبلیغی جماعت کے وفود ان ملکوں میں شہر شہر قریہ قریہ گھومتے ہیں۔ مشرقِ وسطیٰ کے مسلمان ملکوں میں یہ سب کچھ کرنے کا تصور بھی نہیں کیا جا سکتا! امام خمینی سے لے کر علامہ طاہرالقادری تک سب کی سرگرمیوں کے مراکز مغربی ممالک ہی رہے ہیں۔ یہ سب کچھ جمہوریت اور سیکولرازم کی وجہ سے ہے۔ اگر یہ ریاستیں سیکولر نہ ہوتیں اور مسیحی ہوتیں تو پادری اور دوسرے متعصب لوگ کسی ایک مسلمان اور ایک مسجد تک کو برداشت نہ کرتے!
اس کے مقابلے میں ہمارا اپنا طرزِ عمل کیا ہے؟ مسلم لیگ نون کے رکن ڈاکٹر رمیش کمار نے کچھ عرصہ پہلے قومی اسمبلی کو بتایا کہ ہر سال پانچ ہزار ہندو گھر بار چھوڑ کر بھارت جا رہے ہیں۔ رمیش کمار نے کہا کہ صرف دو ماہ میں مذہبی تشدد کے چھ واقعات رونما ہو چکے ہیں۔ ہندوؤں کی مذہبی کتابیں جلائی گئی ہیں اور بااثر افراد اندرون سندھ میں ہندو لڑکیوں کو مذہب تبدیل کرنے پر مجبور کر رہے ہیں!
اگر ذہنوں میں مخصوص ڈکشنریاں کھلی رہیں گی اور آنکھوں پر مخصوص رنگوں کی عینکیں لگی رہیں گی تو یہی ہو گا، جو اب ہو رہا ہے۔ جہاں سیکولرازم یا لبرل ازم کا نام آیا، چہروں پر ہوائیاں اڑنے لگتی ہیں، یا گلوں کی رگیں پھول کر سرخ ہو جاتی ہیں اور سوچے سمجھے بغیر واویلا مچا دیا جاتا ہے! خدا کے فضل سے اسلام کمزور ہے نہ پاکستان کہ مذہبی رواداری سے اور دوسرے مذاہب کو برداشت کرنے سے اسے نقصان پہنچ جائے! تلفظ تک تو ہمیں آتا نہیں، معنیٰ کیا سمجھیں گے۔ اکثر حضرات کو سیکولر کے سین کے نیچے زیر لگا کر SEECLAR کہتے سنا ہے حالانکہ سین کے اوپر زبر ہے یعنی SECULAR!

By M. Izhar ul Haq
http://m.dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/muhammad-izhar-ul-haq/2015-11-18/13345/38810027

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
BooksArticles, BlogsMagazines,  VideosSocial Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits
http://JustOneGod.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~