Smokers’ Corner: Hydra unity
Pakistan, we are told, is a deeply polarised nation. But sometimes I feel what especially the ‘establishment’ means by polarisation is the presence of the rich ethnic, religious and sectarian diversity the country has.
These different people on most occasions have simply refused to come under the all-encompassing umbrella of ideological unity the country’s establishment, its religious allies and the urban bourgeoisie have been shoving down our throats for the last six decades.
But no doubt there is also polarisation of a more genuine kind in society. On occasions it’s been like a black comedy that can generate sheer bafflement. Every Friday at my office during the second half of the morning session, I notice guys who regularly go for prayers at the mosque break up into little groups. One day I decided to figure out why that happens, or why they are all not going to the same mosque.
It is easy for me to understand that the Shia among them would visit the Shia mosques, but one Friday I was rather amused when I overheard a group of Sunni guys discussing why they would not go to a particular (Sunni) mosque because the mullah’s sermons there offended them. It turned out that the lads were Deobandi Sunnis, who, due to lack of time, had had to visit a nearby mosque whose mullah belonged to another Sunni sub-sect, the Barelvis, who are the majority Sunnis in Pakistan. So the discussion was to locate a Deobandi mosque nearest to the office.
A senior colleague who’d seen me talking to these guys, approached me in the evening, smiling: “Did you see how they were whining?”
I smiled back, “I’m not very good at understanding these things.”
He shook his head and then said something that took me by surprise. He said, “I was the one who introduced them to the mosque they are now whining about. Do you know in their hearts they now believe I am a heretic.”
This senior colleague is a very religious man, with a beard and all, so his claim did baffle me but not for long. I soon realised what he was suggesting: He belonged to the Barelvi sect. It was a strange experience because on so many occasions I’ve seen him agreeing with his Deobandi counterparts on so many issues, especially on things like the Blasphemy Law, the need to enforce the Shariah, etc. But here they were, refusing to go to one another’s preferred mosques.
This actually shouldn’t come as a surprise in a country where the state has for long been active in defining what or who a ‘Muslim’ is, and that too in a society brimming with various sects and sub-sects. This has left the sects judging one another, sometimes overtly and sometimes discreetly.
The state did not learn anything from the findings of the famous Justice Munir Report in which — after the 1954 anti-Ahmadi riots, instigated by the Jamat-i-Islami and Nizam-i-Islami Party — Justice Munir noted that according to his interviews with a number of ulema on the matter, he found that no two ulema agreed on a uniformed definition of a good Muslim.
Later on history recorded another rather amusing episode. During the movement against the Z A Bhutto government in 1977, led by an alliance of various religious parties (the PNA), the alliance leaders met at the Karachi Press Club to brief the press about their plan of action. Demanding the imposition of Shariah laws and the ouster of the ‘secular, socialist’ Bhutto regime, the alliance’s top three parties were representing the country’s main Sunni sub-sects.
The Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI) followed the Deobandi school, whereas the Jamiat Ulema Pakistan (JUP) the Barelvi. PNA’s third main party, Jamat-i-Islami, had a following among middle-class urban Sunni conservatives and pro-Saudi elements.
Newspapers reported that after outlining their plan of action and professing their unity of purpose (the downfall of Bhutto and the imposition of Shariah), the PNA leaders broke for the evening prayers.
In those days there were no prayer rooms or mosques in places of work, and certainly none at the Karachi Press Club (though there is one now). So some journalists cleared a room for the PNA leaders to say their prayers in. Urdu dailies, Imroze, Jang and Musawat, then went on to report how a restrained but firm commotion broke out amongst the leaders when they couldn’t agree on who would lead the prayers as all three followed their own respective schools of thought.
The issue was not political but sectarian. Some newspapers reported that JUI’s Maulana Mufti Mehmood refused to offer prayers behind JUP ‘s Shah Ahmed Noorani. Syed A. Peerzada in his book Politics of JUI quotes a JUI leader who alleged that the reporting of this discord was the doing of the PPP’s Kausar Niazi whose job it was to exploit the sectarian differences between the PNA’s religious parties.
This might be true, but then this was perhaps the easiest thing to do, i.e. disturb the make-up of what Bhutto might have (correctly) thought was, at best, a cosmetic face of unity among the political-religious figures of Pakistan. The fact still holds true, and like it or not, perhaps, it always will.
"the Barelvis, who are the majority Sunnis in Pakistan" – From where did this stat come from ?
This is really a good act to talk, mostly your Ulema avoid to talk on these issue but these are the real issue in our religious segmenation,
My Dear Mr Paracha, if you think problem starts at Sectarianism, think about sir, even among Pakistan's dominant Sunni sect, there are differences, as the religious people who are right wing oriented show an unbelievable level of tolerance towards members of their own faith who happen to be not religious, intolerance begins at a very micro level. Pakistan is turning into the Bible Belt of America, right wing sunni groups are making life difficult even their own.
People who believe in imposing Shariah should be treated as supremacists. It is just how Germans supported fascism during the 1930s.
All problems facing our country can be tackled if we but stop being judgmental about others and stop imposing our own version of islam on others. Role of the state is close to none in this regard. I see this as the only difference between us and other muslim countries where different sects and schools of thoughts are prevailing in harmony.
All religious sects should unite under a single umbrella, which is composed of Almighty Allah, Holy Quaran & Prophet (Peace be upon Him) his last messenger. Thats all we should know, thats all we need to know. The sectarian literature should be banned because each sect is producing its own type of preaching and each sect is creation of its own environment. Which is disturbing the harmony among laymen and dividing us in many more religious factions. The simple solution from my vantage point is to abolish the religious multicolour Preaching institutions, Learning of Arabic must be made compulsory at begining and advance academic education level because many of us knows too much about the sermon preached by x, y, z scholars, but it is awful to embrace the real testing fact that very few has the knowledge which our Holy Quaran is preaching us to imbue that real wit and light with our lives. Frankly speaking many big intellectuals, gentlemen and other spectrum of opinion stockers like me lack the real wisdom of our Holy Book. Although we are Doctors, Engineers, Researchers, Scientist ( natural, political and institutional) lack the basic knowledge which is compulsory on every Muslim to learn and to live with. We know so much about Aristotle, G. Chancer, Hegel, Einstein, keats, Bacon, churchill, Napolean, Binladen or etc. Do we know what is the theme of each (PARAH of Holy Quran) ? Obviously most of us are helpless at this point thats why we(masses) are puppet in the hands of few(so called divinely vanguard of our religion).
Religion exists in the minds of people, to each his own. And should be left there. Witness the sects you mention.
A government that overtly, through its laws, supports any one of these groups, also sets the seeds for social disharmony.
Equal justice, under the law, for all who express themselves peacefully.
Or Peace for None.
You nail it down NFP. Still they all shout to impose Sharia, I always ask to them whose Sharia?
I left Pakistan in the late 70's. As a teenager in the early and mid 70's, I remember frequenting all Sunni mosques in Karachi. The question of sect never came up. In fact, I did not even know that Sunnis were grouped into Brelvi and Deobandi sects. Nor did I know that I was from the Mahajir community as my parents were born and raised in Bombay. On a few occasions when someone from the older generation would ask me what the ethnic background of my parents was I would say they are from Bombay. I do not recall any friction between sects or communities other than the West Pakistani vs Bengali issues at the time of the 71 war. My closest friends included Shias, Sunnis, Punjabis, Memons, Sindis, Pathans, etc. What happened?
It is quite understandable that somebody should have the right to chose behind whom he feels comfortable praying.
What is not appropriate is to blame some people or group for not feeling comfortable praying behind certain imam.
I have no problem praying with you or for you, but I may have a problem praying behind you.
We are not living in the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) of 1500 years ago when there awas only ONE Islam. We are living in a time period when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia ul Haq, Ghadafi, Hosni Mobarak, Osama bin Laden and so on are also deemed to be pious Muslims.
Shoul I still be blame forcchoosing behind whomI want to pray?
Interesting article. I've always felt that my faith is something personal- that it's between me and God. When others (excluding my family members and friends who have my best interests at heart) attempt to point out that I'm not what a true Muslim should be, I can't help but feel sorry for them. Sorry that their own faith is so weak that they feel the need to point out the errors of others in order to feel better about themselves.
On the topic of unity one can write books and books (sarcastically). But there is also a brighter side of it, which is the fact that at the times of need, this heterogeneous Pakistani society has displayed some commendable examples of unity. History tells itself.
People's inclination towards religion and zero tolerance often results in segregation of masses, each one thinking the other one is an infidel. This is not only true for Muslims even christians are divided into their ethnic groups with utmost hatred for the other. Hinduism another classical example.
Like we try to make the scapegoats to throw entire blame on them in nearly every aspect, NFP, I have found likes it best against Army, Establishment, Religious and political Figures etc etc. This wont help. As in the last paragraph today, even the iconic ZAB does the same trick, so why blame every tom dick and harry for the fiasco that we face today. We all are responsible for that. Including NFP.
@Wazir Khan: Well put indeed ! Who should define or even judge, who is a good Muslim, Christian, Hindu or any other label or denomination ? Even the top psychologists are hard-put to define who is a "normal" human being. The earlier we relegate such ideas to the background, and concentrate on the greatest good of the greatest number, we will take the first steps to true development.
well said.very realistic analysis by Wazir Khan.
Love the way NFP uses simple examples to expose the complex contradictions that haunt our society.