The premeditated and brutal murder of Salmaan Taseer, governor of the Punjab, by one of his own bodyguards raises some frightening questions. How, for example, did a soldier with a known affiliation to an ideologically extreme – albeit allegedly non-violent – organisation ever get recruited to an "elite" force that protects prominent politicians? How did he get himself assigned to security duty for one of the country's most progressive politicians soon after the latter had made a forceful intervention in the case of Asia Bibi, the Christian farm-worker accused of blasphemy against the prophet of Islam?
Even more disturbing is the welcome given to the murder and the self-confessed murderer, not only by the religious parties (sadly, one has come to expect this) but even by groups of professionals such as the lawyers who have offered to defend him free of charge. Also glaringly visible is the government's failure to act against those clerics who have been offering rewards for the extrajudicial killing of Asia Bibi and the governor himself. Such an inability to act has all the hallmarks of a failing, if not a failed, state.
It is now clear to many commentators, both within and outside Pakistan, that this is not just a matter of combating a relatively few radicalised groups and their adherents. A very deep change seems to have occurred in the psyche of the nation itself. The country was founded by nationalist Muslims who wanted a tolerant, modern state where Muslims and non-Muslims could live peacefully together. The ultra-conservative religious parties opposed its creation for this and other reasons. Now, regardless of which party is in power, they seem to have taken over and to have replaced the narrative of Pakistan's founders with another, alien narrative. As a devout Muslim woman said to me: "We do not know what kind of new religion this is." The new narrative has been sold to new generations of Pakistanis through the teaching of hate in textbooks, not only about religion but in history, geography, the social sciences and much else. It is being taught in numerous madrasas up and down the country and in sermons and devotionals in many mosques. In other words, it is pervasive and is creating a mind-set which is narrow, sectarian and intolerant.
It is this wide dissemination of a narrow ideology which needs tackling first of all. This should involve an urgent review of syllabuses and textbooks, as well as the writing of new ones. A root-and-branch reform of the madrasas must now be a priority for the government, and firm action should be taken on the use of pulpits and minarets to incite violence against non-Muslims and even Muslims of a different persuasion. I have been told again and again not only by Ahmadis but by Shias as to how vulnerable they feel, let alone Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and others. The citizens of a country cannot be at war among themselves. If the steps outlined above are not taken, there may be not one but a number of civil wars – political, religious and ethnic – for the nation to face.
Finally, the government must not give in to blackmail about reforming the blasphemy laws. It may be that a country like Pakistan needs laws against incitement to religious hatred which leads to violence or discrimination but, first, these laws must protect all citizens and communities and, second, the penalties must be commensurate with the crime and not draconian as at present. Moderate Muslim scholars can show the way and government and civil society should do all they can to promote it rather than capitulating to extremist pressure.
Comments in chronological order (Total 85 comments)
8 January 2011 8:20AM
Liberal Muslim - oxymoron
8 January 2011 8:29AM
The country was founded by nationalist Muslims who wanted a tolerant, modern state where Muslims and non-Muslims could live peacefully together.
This is very debatable. Jinnah specifically rejected Nehru's vision of a multi-ethnic multi-faith nation in favour of an artificial Muslims-only state. Although I have no doubt he also wanted a tolerant secular state, the very notion of a state based on religion invites and encourages the extremists of that faith to exercise power.
The same has always applied to faith-based states, from the Papal States to Israel.
It's religion, as usual, which is the root of the problem. Nobody should be surprised at what is happening in Pakistan. It was implicit in the original creation of the state
8 January 2011 8:39AM
BristolBoy
It's obviously not. But if you want, you can define Muslim to exclude anyone with liberal views. That would make your view on the question pretty much the same as that of Al Qaeda's supporters. It is the view of those who welcome the murder of Salmaan Taseer. You keep bad company.
8 January 2011 8:42AM
There is no hope for Pakistan until Muslim scholars create an alternative religious thought that is perceived as authentic and legitimate by a critical mass of the public to be rooted in Islamic religious text and the original teachings of Prophet Mohammad (that applies to a lot of the Muslim world beyond Pakistan too). It is not happening and it is a generational process even if initiated. Furthermore, any efforts to tackle extremism or terrorism in Pakistan is viewed as a Western-led war against the faithful who are resisting a campaign to tamper with their religion. Fighting radical Islamism by promoting secularism just empowers the radical Islamist narrative.
A member of a security entity designed to fight terrorism and protect state figures blatantly killed the official he was supposed to protect shows how far the nation has sunk.
The future for Pakistan is bleak.
8 January 2011 8:51AM
More proof that religion must be kept as far as possible from politics and education.
8 January 2011 8:55AM
Excellent piece.
Jinnah was a twelver Shia (an Ismaili originally?) and it's a mark of how far Pakistan has descended down the circles of hell that the Shia are so scared. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan need to be scrapped as
- the accusation itself is usually a death sentence
- today they will come for the Christians and Ahamdis and Sikhs and Hindus, tomorrow the Muslim minorities. Heresy hunters never rest
A friend - a devout Sunni - went back to Lahore last year and said it had become a foreign city dominated by fear and hate and corruption.
8 January 2011 8:56AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 8:59AM
Bishop, I like you and have the utmost respect for you, and hope that one day you become AoC.
But please can you stop abusing the word "conservative" to describe psychopaths who belong outside the discourse of civilised nations?
8 January 2011 9:14AM
Maududi and Jamaat-i-Islami originally opposed the creation of Pakistan as a separate state (I'm not sure why), but once it was a fait accompli they then threw themselves into changing it into an Islamic state. The alliances that were set up with different military dicatorships led to increasing ability to wield power so that now there is almost an impunity for extreme Islamist views and violence used as a tool to further these views.
8 January 2011 9:22AM
In short, chuck out anything related to islam that does not conform to peaceful civilised productive social behaviour. Two problems. How is that going to happen? What would you be left with?
Religion of any kind is absolutely no use as a form of governance for human societies. The idea of looking to religious 'scholars' is the root of the problem, not the solution.
8 January 2011 9:26AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 9:50AM
BarrabbasFreed:
Maududi and Jamaat-i-Islami originally opposed the creation of Pakistan as a separate state (I'm not sure why),
Jamait E Islami and Maulana Madani were opposed to the creation of Pakistan, because they wanted to turn the whole of British India, not just 40 percent of the British India( which is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) into Dar-Ul-Islam.
It was not due to any Secularism or Tolerance of the non-Muslims.
8 January 2011 10:01AM
As Islam (the submission to god) demands as a duty of all muslims to both 'defend' and spread Islam, Pakistan will never rid itself of religious hatred until it separates state and mosque/church.
Alas, as Pakistan's raison d'etre is as an Islamic state, it is - and will remain - in a vicious circle.
Pakistan is a failed state in the process of disintegration.
Personally, I couldn't give a tinker's cuss except for the facts that they have nuclear weapons and an ever growing diaspora here in the UK.
8 January 2011 10:09AM
"The country was founded by nationalist Muslims who wanted a tolerant, modern state where Muslims and non-Muslims could live peacefully together"
The learned Bishop is not so Learned after all........he needs to go back to his history books !
Those who know a modicum of their history will be least surprised by the events in Pakistan,one need not be prescient to know this was inevitable..
This country was born into a rabid climate of theocracy and has been indoctrinated over the past decades by a virulent cocktail of fundamental islam and military dictators.......one only needs to look at the wide chasm between India and Pakistan.....2 peoples who started out as brothers and sisters before going on separate journies since partition.....
The difference is telling.....
8 January 2011 10:16AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 10:18AM
Islam has given birth to a new form of Fascism, that like its predecessor, proclaims itself pure, despises the other, and is opposed to enlightenment values. It is a supremacist ideology that must be fought with the same vigour as we fought Nazism.
8 January 2011 10:24AM
Liberal American - oxymoron.
It would probably help if the Americans stopped killing Pakistani citizens. No wonder anything with a western tinge (and that includes liberalism) is so toxic in Pakistan at the moment.
8 January 2011 10:34AM
Liberal American - oxymoron. It would probably help if the Americans stopped killing Pakistani citizens. No wonder anything with a western tinge (and that includes liberalism) is so toxic in Pakistan at the moment.
Briar,
I suppose peace loving and shy Mumtaz Qadri was so upset by the Americans killing Pakistanis that he went on and killed another Pakistani Salman Taseer......this is exactly the problem with Pakistan............every event of some sort in some remote corner of the world is quoted as an excuse for more radicalisation.....more killings in the name of Islam.....this madness has to stop somewhere....
When will Pakistan stop blaming others and start owning up to its ills.....?
8 January 2011 10:41AM
The drift towards Islamic extremism is not confined to Pakistan - it is occuring on our doorstep here in the UK - and is part of a potentially irreversible victory of fanaticism over common sense. This murder has come to symbolise this - the slaughter of those who try to stand up to bigotry and intolerance. Violence seems to be the only answer for these killers. Battered women know this all too well - try and point our your husband's failings and he punches you so hard you immediately come to your senses. This can only get nastier, unless everyone in Pakistan learns to shut up the hard way.
8 January 2011 10:43AM
@harishvidya,
@Anilbose2011
Absolutely right.
Spot on.
The apologists for theocracy who claim the founders of Pakistan wanted a liberal secular democracy have no idea of the bloody history behind the birth of that country.
Pakistan was born amid bloodshed. Hopefully it can be prevented from inflicting a nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent in its death throes.
@Briar
You do the Pakistanis no favours by finding excuses for their dysfunctional behaviour.
FYI the drone attacks are conducted from Pakistan with the permission of the Pakistani government because they can't trust their own military to go after the Pakistani Taliban.
8 January 2011 10:49AM
@BarabbasFreed
Because they wanted to tread in the footsteps of the Moguls and rule the whole sub continent. The splitting off of a Pakistan meant that the Muslims would form a smaller minority in India and thus reduce there power grip fatally on that territory. The split off Bangladesh from Pakistan reduced their grip even more.
Partition was terrible had at least one good consequence.
(Of course they didn't like Jinnah at all: he was quite liberal, non-religious, drank alcohol etc.)
8 January 2011 10:51AM
Religious enlightenment will be viewed as an attack by the West against the tenets of Islam, and moderate Islamic clerics will be branded as western stooges.
With a 97% muslim population, I doubt whether there will be a civil war: if there is a civil war - it won't be because of religion. My main concern, as a liberal European citizen, is to ensure that this brand of religious extremism is not imported into Western Europe: a continent that still has a very good human rights reputation when compared with other parts of the world.
8 January 2011 11:06AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 11:07AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 11:10AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 11:10AM
nickmavros
With a 97% muslim population, I doubt whether there will be a civil war
Why not? They managed to have one between East and West Pakistan. Internecine rivalry between the different muslim sects, or just regional rivalries could spark off another.
The country is swirling round the plughole right now. When it finally falls down into the sewer the various clerics, war-lords, tribal leaders and the army aren't going to stand idly by.
8 January 2011 11:11AM
1 - Salman Taseer was a phoney liberal exposed by his son now get over his death.
2 - Pakistan is not a failed state see link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pakistan
3 - The rise of religious extremist in the country is a consequence of the secular fascists ruling elite who are all phoney liberals - if the country had good governance democratic who otherwise it would be developing like other Asian countries in particular South Korea who aped Pakistan economic five year plans.
8 January 2011 11:13AM
Have you seen the estimated civilian deaths even using the most exaggerated numbers by biased organizations (assuming they are actually civilians too)? How many Pakistani's have died by the hand of their fellow citizens? A few hundred versus tens of thousands. The drone attacks are not the problem. It is Pakistani society starting with the feudal class and stretching to the radical Islamic groups that permeate society.
Also, if the Pakistani establishment actually tackled the Haqqani network along with the Afghan Taliban using certain areas for bases instead of their usual double dealing, the drone attacks wouldn't be necessary. Moreover, the drone attacks is a very effective tool and the civilians in FATA have no love for the Taliban or AQ that are in the area.
Here are the results from a local Pakistani organization that actually went to FATA and surveyed the locals:
– Do you see drone attacks bringing about fear and terror in the common people? (Yes 45%, No 55%)
– Do you think the drones are accurate in their strikes? (Yes 52%, No 48%)
– Do you think anti-American feelings in the area increased due to drone attacks recently? (Yes 42%, No 58%)
– Should Pakistan military carry out targeted strikes at the militant organisations? (Yes 70%, No 30%)
– Do the militant organisations get damaged due to drone attacks? (Yes 60%, No 40%)
Hardly the black/white picture that some misguided people sitting in the west (think Berchmans and his ilk) portray.
8 January 2011 11:20AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 11:24AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 11:26AM
You talk bollocks.
Britsareliars,
What is a 'phoney' liberal? Is it someone who pays lip-service to human rights but does not believe in them for everyone, in which case the fanatics love those types while they're useful, or is it someone professing such things whilst associating with people who don't represent those things...which fanatics love to use most of all?
8 January 2011 11:32AM
Whatever.
8 January 2011 11:33AM
... maxsceptic1 has said, at 1001 am, all there is to be said ... Pakistan will become the first failed state with a nuclear arsenal ... can ANY policy cope with that ... ?
8 January 2011 11:42AM
britsareliars
You seem to be missing the point. It's not only his murder that is a cause for concern. It's the overwhelming popular support for it that's worrying us.
Also: "phoney liberal" ? So, should he have been more liberal and he wouldn't have been killed?
Do you think anyone is going to read that and respond "I'm so glad you pointed out he was just a phoney liberal, because now I'm not bothered at all. We're only concerned about murders of real liberals here. Indeed, I'm in complete sympathy with the rabid masses in Pakistan celebrating his killing now that I know the whole truth about his phoneyness."
8 January 2011 12:04PM
This is not a case of extremists in Pakistan attacking liberal secularism. The only difference between 'moderate' and 'extremist' schools of Islam is that moderates believe it should be left to their god to destroy non-Muslims in the fires of Hell at the end of time whereas extremists believe they are sanctioned to do the will of their god by destroying non-Muslim beliefs and political systems here on Earth. An unbiased reading of the Koran shows that both schools of thought are equally valid.
8 January 2011 12:08PM
What's a "liberal Muslim"?
8 January 2011 12:10PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 12:11PM
Is Pakistan becoming a "fascist" state? Is Pakistan becoming a "failed" state?
People ask these questions and we can see both what we might call "fascist" elements and "failed" state elements...but it's worth remembering that "fascist" states were not "failed" states - they were mostly pretty effective states until defeated by non-fascist states.
Is there likely to be "civil war" (more than before in local areas) in Pakistan? Maybe not...It seems that hysterical totalitarian Islamist sentiment has come more or less to dominate public opinion, and while the more educated and affluent sections of the population may rather dislike primitive, Taliban tribesmen types, there may be no serious opposition to e.g. ecstatic ethnic/religious cleansing of Ahmadis, Christians, and Shiites, and the small constituency of truly liberal and secular Muslims will emigrate if they can. The rich and powerful will back whichever Islamic political/military faction can organise and channel public totalitarian sentiment most effectively, though some will eventually be devoured by it. My worst nightmares about it are not of failure and disintegration, but of at least temporary success, and then possibly war with India.
Let's hope that's just a nightmare.
8 January 2011 12:19PM
It's the overwhelming popular support for it that's worrying us.
Unfortunately as I have previously pointed out there is an irreconcilible divide between Islam and Western Liberals - so why should this reaction in Muslim dominant society surprise you?
I am content living in a liberal western society with a private faith and enjoying the benefits of a modern society .
However the truth is - and I don't know when there will come a day when Western Liberals , Christians , Jews and Muslims will have to stand up for what they believe in .
I am happy to put off that day of reckoning for another day what about u?
8 January 2011 12:24PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 12:24PM
EDLsupporter
8 January 2011 12:08PM
What's a "liberal Muslim"?
No such thing - they can only be phoney liberals at best - When they become fully liberal they are ex - muslims.
8 January 2011 12:32PM
britsareliars,
You are mistaken if you believe Christians and Jews will bring a day of reckoning. This nation is chock full of people who will fight not to be ruled by religion, many of whom are religious. We have had the horrors of religion's iron grip and will not suffer it again. Most of the people who desire it are radicals, the rest of us won't brook it. So dream on about your day of reckoning.
8 January 2011 12:35PM
*
Cassiopeia9000
Read what I said slowly - one word at a time and then reflect - if you still miss my point please ask.
8 January 2011 12:40PM
britsareliars,
Fair enough. You are either referring to a confrontation between those groups and Islam itself, or you are referring to those groups fighting for greater influence within society. Your comment could be read either way and I did not assume the former. But I am surprised that you would say the latter, as I believe you are a Muslim...is it really that inevitable to you - the divide that great?
8 January 2011 12:51PM
I was referring to the former - the divide is not that great but don't expect Muslims to conform to Western Secular enlightenment Values.
In Muslim dominant society the down trodden masses have been exploited by elite liberal secular fascists - they have not benefited from good governance and are turning to faith to escape the pain of the modern world.
What would you do if you were a 18 year old villager in Pakistan - you own elite look down on you as sub human and deny you basic rights .
You have limited economic prospects - so you turn to faith to give you hope and an avenue to fight for basic human rights denied to you by the society you live in.
8 January 2011 12:57PM
britsareliars,
All right, then. But how do you redress a denial of rights by taking refuge in clerical fascists who do not even pretend to offer the rights genuine liberals would campaign for? I don't understand how you get from "these are phoney liberals" to "I'm going to vote for some of the most illiberal people I can find." If people want more rights, what rights will they receive from these ideologues that their current leaders aren't affording them?
Which values in particular should we not expect them to conform to?
8 January 2011 12:58PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 1:04PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
8 January 2011 1:07PM
There can never be true belief where there is coercion. There can be enforced obedience and this is what seems to prevail in Pakistan but enforced obedience is not spiritual progress, it is exactly the opposite and in my view laws against blasphemy make slaves of the people and deny their freedom to truly believe from choice.
8 January 2011 1:08PM
*
Cassiopeia9000
Following the era of colonisation - the imperial British removed all instruments of Islamic power in the countries they plundered. In order to maintain indirect control of the same society they indoctrinated the elite with western secular values - after the wars of independence the bastard offspring of their former colonial master took over the reigns of power. They claimed they were genuine liberals who would devolve power and support the development of an effective middle class - this did not happen - while espousing liberal values there was no devolution of power - the elite exploited the masses.
As a consequence of this exploitation Western secularism failed in Muslim lands hence the rise of religious right - the only avenue to vent their anger at their exploitation.
If there was a genuine liberal but just government in Pakistan there would be no religious extremist.
Which values in particular should we not expect them to conform to?
To subordinate faith to reason and believe in doubt.