The Wahhabi
were founded by Abd al-Wahab (1703-1791) who claimed that the teachings
of Mohammed had been corrupted by decadent influences. He argued that
the faith should return to the purity of the Islam of the first two
centuries. After his expulsion from Medina Wahab formed a relationship
with the Saud tribe. The Saud's went onto conquer Arabia. By 1811 they
had established control and created a capital in Riyadh. Wahhabism
became the favoured version of Islam. The Saudi reign was challenged by
the Ottoman Empire on two occasions. The last was made famous by the
film Lawrence of Arabia. This was to mark the beginning of a strange
friendship between the West and Islamic fundamentalism. The British
formed an alliance with the Saudi's to defeat the common enemy, Ottoman
Turkey. The result was the restoration of the Saudi dynasty in Riyadh
and the re-establishment of the Wahhabi sect.
However, not
all is well in the relationship between the Saud royal family and
Wahhabi clerics. Wahhabism is puritan in outlook and shuns the
ostentatious display of wealth. As oil money began to spoil and corrupt
the royal family Wahhabi clerics began to declaim the corrupting
influence of the West. There is now deep division within the Saudi
society between the supporters of religious orthodoxy and the supporters
of a more pro-western stance.
The Deobandi are named after a Muslim seminary founded in the Indian city of Deoband in 1866. This sect arose largely in response to the perceived
corruption caused by the influence of Hindu syncretism and Sufi
mysticism. They were also violently opposed to British rule. Like the
Wahhabi it seeks to return to a purer version of Islam. For this reason
the Deobandi are sometimes incorrectly referred to as Wahhabi.
When Pakistan and India split during the partition Deobandi radicals became influential in Pakistani politics. It is the Deobandi who founded the madrassas, the religious schools that were the source of the Taliban, Taliban simply means 'student'.
The
important point to remember is that both of these sects arose as a
reaction to the belief that Islam had been corrupted by outside forces,
and they arose before oil had been discovered in the Middle East.
As mentioned
the Saud royal family are the patrons of Wahhabi sect. The Wahhabi sect
has had a powerful influence throughout the Islamic world. Many rich
Saudi's regard it as their religious duty to support the efforts of the
clerics. This has included the private and public funding of a network
of charitable organisations. These organisations helped fund Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan and helped fund Bashir's school in Indonesia. A proportion of this money has also helped fund Osama bin Laden's activities, pursued in the name of Wahhabi religious zealotry.
The common Muslims of the subcontinent have been moderate and the
general body of both Sunnis and Shiites has lived in peace. Not so long
ago people following the Sunni doctrine used to be seen atop rooftops
witnessing Ashura processions. At some places, they also used to set up
water dispensers for the mourners. Despite their doctrinal differences,
the common Muslim did not consider others heretics or apostates. These
are now things of the past.
The Saudi influence in Pakistan and the adoption of extremist demands
has led to the unhindered growth of extremism. The country started
depending on Saudi Arabia for financial assistance and even involved it
in its political matters. The dependence of Pakistan on Saudi aid had a
price tag about which the common Pakistani had no idea. The price tag
was the total freedom to the Salafi doctrine to set up their religious
schools or madrassas without any government oversight over the syllabi.
That resulted in the exponential growth of this doctrine, which had a
comparatively inclusive strain of Sunnis as a majority. It was
conveniently forgotten by those allowing them uncontrolled growth that
the Salafis had no tolerance for dissent and had all but wiped out any
dissenting doctrine from areas under their political dominance. General
Zia’s active support for this doctrine forced Iran to involve itself to
assist the Shiites fight the onslaught on them and this made things more
complex. Sectarian killing started in his era as a result of operations
by militant organisations he let form and the country has since
suffered. While in the past there has been some retaliatory activity by
the aggrieved, it is fortunate that they have concluded retaliation to
be self-consuming, and in the recent past, sense has prevailed and their
reaction has so far remained restrained and civil.
The majority of students from madrassas where the dissident is taught is
a heretic and thus deserving death have become the backbone of
extremism in Pakistan. When terrorist outfits began operating in this
part of the world, these very people sympathised with their activities
and offered them political support. When subsequent to the terror
attacks on the US, Pakistan started its war on terror, it did not
concurrently start the prerequisite of zero tolerance for extremism that
was necessary for a successful campaign against terror. The covert
political support for terror outfits has, therefore, succeeded in
dividing the public reaction to acts of terror, as is evident from the
Malala incident where a section of society was made to smell a
conspiracy, thus making the reaction weak.
February 22 marked the day when Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, the founder
of the infamous Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), and the ideological
godfather of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) — the radical group that has
accepted responsibility for the recent killings of the Hazara Shiite
minorities in Quetta — was assassinated by suspected Shiite militants in
1990. As the nation mourned the sad events of February 16, 2013, when
the Hazaras were attacked yet again in Quetta and more than 90 innocent
lives were lost, a twitter post stated, “Ghar ghar Jhangvi utthe ga, Tum
jitne Jhangvi maro gay” (A [Haq Nawaz] Jhangvi will emerge from every
home, how many Jhangvis will you assassinate?). The twitter message
further stated that February 22 was to be remembered as ‘a grand event
of the martyrdom’ of Maulana Jhangvi. The message clearly showed that
Pakistan’s problem of religious intolerance.
Based on a strict Deobandi interpretation of Islam, the discourse
of the LeJ, i.e. ‘the army of [Maulana] Jhangvi’, revolves largely
around the themes of purity and purgation, being especially critical of
Shiite views. A central aspect of it is takfir, i.e. declaring members
of any Muslim group to be infidels, casting them outside the fold of
Islam, and at times, going up to the extent of pronouncing them
‘wajib-ul-qatl’ (deserving of death). This then gets connected to the
concept of jihad having become obligatory to put the specific group to
death. In June 2011, the LeJ issued a pamphlet against the Hazaras in
Balochistan in which all these themes were vividly visible. Words like
‘kafir’ (infidel), ‘naapak’ (impure, unclean) and ‘Pakistan is the land
of the pure [only]’ clearly showed the worldview of the LeJ vis-à-vis
the Hazara Shiites. The pamphlet announced that the Hazaras would be
targeted and killed by the LeJ.
An interesting, and much revealing couplet in a poetic tribute to an
anti-Shiite activist published by Sipah-e-Sahaba reads, “He became a
devotee of the Companions [of the Prophet (sallallahu alehi wassalam)], and took a ticket to
paradise.” In a complex struggle involving religion, history, territory,
identity and politics, Pakistan battles against her Frankenstein’s
monster of religious intolerance and militancy through largely
superficial, negligent and hypocritical measures. Sadly, in a society
where tickets to heaven, and hell, are easily available, innocent people
will keep on dying at the hands of the violent, self-appointed,
soldiers of God. It seems that the monster is here to stay.
The war against terrorism, which is actually the war for preserving the
soul of Pakistan, cannot be won unless there is zero tolerance for the
cancer of extremism that is consuming us. Doing this requires a
catharsis by all institutions that wield power so that mistakes made in
the past are identified and corrective action initiated with the single
purpose of recreating Jinnah’s vision. The constitution grants to the
people freedom of religion under Article 20 (a), which guarantees that
“subject to law, public order and morality every citizen shall have the
right to profess, practise and propagate his religion”, and guarantees
equal protection to all people under Article 25 (1). These rights have
only been selectively granted. This has resulted in extremism getting
further strengthened. Dialogue between people of differing faiths has
been killed and people have been left at the mercy of extremists. The
reversal of extremism requires that Articles 20 (a) and 25 (1) are
implemented in letter and spirit so that the people learn to live in a
world where differing faiths co-exist and form the habit of logical
discourse. Under no compulsion should the fundamental rights of citizens
of any faith be made hostage to expediency. Additionally, hate speech
should be strictly monitored. Giving Takfiri edicts and teaching them at
madrassas must be banned and offenders punished. Police has a presence
in all settled areas and know fully well the places where such words are
spoken. They should be made to do their work and the menace tackled at
its source. The security apparatus should be made to understand that
extremism is the country’s worst enemy and made to act accordingly. They
need to realise there is nothing like a ‘good’ extremist.
It is no more a matter of Pakistan’s image. The survival of the country
is at stake. Any delay in implementing the policy of zero tolerance for
extremism will cost Pakistan heavily and God forbid may force some to
take action that may be suicidal for it.
________________________________________________________________
کوئی تبصرے نہیں:
ایک تبصرہ شائع کریں