Should religious schools be shut down in Pakistan?

[MenInG]

The latest molestation case in the news is one example but seems this is not the first or last.

It appears that these schools/institutes are run without any oversight.

So should they be shut down?

 

[Tubs]

Secular schools are always better. Even for studying religion, when studied as an academic pursuit, looking at history, anthropology, philosophy, theology, literature, allegory, etc it is a very interesting subject. But not when it is taught as fact and proselytised. So while religious schools perhaps shouldn't be shut down, they should be reserved for additional study, not as the main form of study, much like 'Sunday Schools' in the West. Ideally, I would want them gone, but I think it's wrong to shut them down, a paradigm shift is likely required before they should be shut down.

 

[Itachi]

I would say no.

guidelines should be placed instead.

Religious schools have their own importance.

 

[guna]

Molestation can happen in any school. Be it religious or secular school. Banning schools is not a solution as it can effect good Moulvis too.

Best is to educate kids and young men/women about their personal space and report right away if someone intrudes it. It may not stop all cases of abuse, but at least students will know what is happening with them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Aren't these madrassas supposedly providing free education? Unless the govt can provide a free alternative, I don't really see how they can close them.

A better solution would be to encourage more vigilance and to take accusations of abuse seriously.

 

[MenInG]

Molestation can happen in any school. Be it religious or secular school. Banning schools is not a solution as it can effect good Moulvis too.

Best is to educate kids and young men/women about their personal space and report right away if someone intrudes it. It may not stop all cases of abuse, but at least students will know what is happening with them.

Oversight is the issue.

 

[street cricketer]

No point discussing the question as it will never happen.

Religion is an inseparable part of the Pakistani society.

 

[PetroDollars]

absolutly, they only serve the purpose of the establishment and parties who want to use islam as a political weapon.

Education should always be secular

 

[PetroDollars]

No point discussing the question as it will never happen.

Religion is an inseparable part of the Pakistani society.

Your being naive.

Do some studying, During the early Ottoman empire, churches and jewish temples were built side by side with mosques, Istanbul and Cairo were the multicultural centers of the world, and at the same time, Europe was ravaged and torn apart by sectarian wars, catholics from france could not enter england and protestants from england could not step a foot in france otherwise they would be killed, muslims and jews did not even think about entering these lands, they were devastated by christianity wars.

YET, at the same time the scientific revolution begins in europe and not multicultural turkey or cairo.

Why do you think that happens?

In those days there wernt even any examples for people to follow.

For pakistan to seperate religion its much easy as you have examples by other countries and modernisation spread through the internet, people want to change, its just that Islam in pakistan since Zia is being used to control the people, once you move that control, the people would move away themselves its natural.

 

[street cricketer]

Your being naive.

Do some studying, During the early Ottoman empire, churches and jewish temples were built side by side with mosques, Istanbul and Cairo were the multicultural centers of the world, and at the same time, Europe was ravaged and torn apart by sectarian wars, catholics from france could not enter england and protestants from england could not step a foot in france otherwise they would be killed, muslims and jews did not even think about entering these lands, they were devastated by christianity wars.

YET, at the same time the scientific revolution begins in europe and not multicultural turkey or cairo.

Why do you think that happens?

In those days there wernt even any examples for people to follow.

For pakistan to seperate religion its much easy as you have examples by other countries and modernisation spread through the internet, people want to change, its just that Islam in pakistan since Zia is being used to control the people, once you move that control, the people would move away themselves its natural.

Here's the issue though. Pakistan is a unique case among nations. It is one of the only two nations (along with Israel) in the world that was created on the basis of religious identity and not on ethnic basis like most other nations or on a geographical basis like a few island nations. Pakistan's identity starts with the advent of Islam in the subcontinent and is fundamentally inseparable from Islam. Pakistani identity is islamic identity.

This is different from even most other muslim nations. The Egyptian identity doesn't start and end with the islamic part of their history only. The pyramids are very much a part of the Egyptian identity too. Likewise when we talk about Persian history, we include its Archaemenid and Sassanid past too. The Egyptian and the Persian identity didn't come into existence only with the advent of Islam. The Pharaohs were Egyptians too as were the muslims who succeeded them. Similarly the Zoroastrians were Persians too, as were those who converted to Islam afterwards. In other words, the history/identity of Egypt and Iran is not tied to the muslim part of its history only.

But this is not the same case with Pakistan. The Pakistani identity came into existence only because of Islam and not because of any other reason. Pakistan was created so as to be a muslim state and not to be governed by any other ideology, be it secularism or communism or whatever 'ism. This is not like a switch which you can turn off and suddenly people will start wanting a secular state instead of an Islamic Republic. You can never decouple the islamic identity with the Pakistani identity because it is because of Islam that Pakistan came into existence. So while for many other nations and even for many muslim states, their religious identity might not necessarily be their entire national identity, but in the case of Pakistan, their national identity is synonymous with their religious identity. It is why you see nearly every Pakistani cricketer do the sajdah after every milestone and chant the nara-e-takbeer after a memorable victory.

 

[street cricketer]

In short, expecting to decouple the islamic identity from the Pakistani identity is a bit like trying to remove the Jewish identity from the Israeli identity, which is practically impossible.

 

[PetroDollars]

Here's the issue though. Pakistan is a unique case among nations. It is one of the only two nations (along with Israel) in the world that was created on the basis of religious identity and not on ethnic basis like most other nations or on a geographical basis like a few island nations. Pakistan's identity starts with the advent of Islam in the subcontinent and is fundamentally inseparable from Islam. Pakistani identity is islamic identity.

This is different from even most other muslim nations. The Egyptian identity doesn't start and end with the islamic part of their history only. The pyramids are very much a part of the Egyptian identity too. Likewise when we talk about Persian history, we include its Archaemenid and Sassanid past too. The Egyptian and the Persian identity didn't come into existence only with the advent of Islam. The Pharaohs were Egyptians too as were the muslims who succeeded them. Similarly the Zoroastrians were Persians too, as were those who converted to Islam afterwards. In other words, the history/identity of Egypt and Iran is not tied to the muslim part of its history only.

But this is not the same case with Pakistan. The Pakistani identity came into existence only because of Islam and not because of any other reason. Pakistan was created so as to be a muslim state and not to be governed by any other ideology, be it secularism or communism or whatever 'ism. This is not like a switch which you can turn off and suddenly people will start wanting a secular state instead of an Islamic Republic. You can never decouple the islamic identity with the Pakistani identity because it is because of Islam that Pakistan came into existence. So while for many other nations and even for many muslim states, their religious identity might not necessarily be their entire national identity, but in the case of Pakistan, their national identity is synonymous with their religious identity. It is why you see nearly every Pakistani cricketer do the sajdah after every milestone and chant the nara-e-takbeer after a memorable victory.

In short, expecting to decouple the islamic identity from the Pakistani identity is a bit like trying to remove the Jewish identity from the Israeli identity, which is practically impossible.

That is not true

The Pakistani identity was created by Zia, it has nothing to do with pakistan other then being used as a political weapon and to hold on to power.

Even before that, Islam being used in politics was first done by Bhutto, before that no leader (military or civilian) used islam to rule or create an identity.
The founder picked urdu as a national language and english as an official language and rejected arabic, because he wanted to create a national pakistani identity and not an islamic one.

secondly you say pakistan was created to be a muslim state, which again is nonsense created by the current mullahs, the same ones who rejected Jinnah and pakistan.
Pakistan was created to be a secular state for indian minorities, its just that sunni represented the majority. I suggest you read 'The Sole Spokesman' by pakistans biggest historian ayesha jalal who has taught at harvard and cambridge or 'From Jinnah to zia' written by pakistans first chief justice of the supreme court on what pakistan was suppose to be and what it became.
Also there is no such thing as an islamic state when you are divided into many sects. Its either a sunni state or a shia state, and even if its a sunni state, you then have more divisons with deobani or brelvi and so on, in its current form, islam in pakistan is ruled by the deoband class, who openly rejected pakistan and were bought into power by Zia, the current rise of TLP has nothing to do with whats going on with protecting the prophet, its to defeat deobanis, as there founder claimed, who had taken over the country from brelvis.

As you mention what the cricketers do and why people chant takbeers after victory is a culture created by Zia and his deobanis, no one did such stuff before.

 

[Justcrazy]

No , religious schools should not be shut down in Pakistan or any other part of the world.

 

[street cricketer]

That is not true

The Pakistani identity was created by Zia, it has nothing to do with pakistan other then being used as a political weapon and to hold on to power.

Even before that, Islam being used in politics was first done by Bhutto, before that no leader (military or civilian) used islam to rule or create an identity.
The founder picked urdu as a national language and english as an official language and rejected arabic, because he wanted to create a national pakistani identity and not an islamic one.

I'm assuming you're referring to the religious identity in the bolded part. Anyway that's way off the target if you're saying that the Pakistan movement had nothing to do with religion. It's not like Pakistan was a secular state before Zia and only turned an islamic republic after Zia. Pakistan had Islam as its official religion in the early 1950s and I mean there's a huge crescent in the flag right from the inception of Pakistan. Why would there be a crescent in the Pakistani flag if the Pakistani identity had nothing to do with religion at the start. It's like the Indian flag having a big "om" symbol and me saying that the Indian identity has nothing to do with the hindu identity.

Islam was always intertwined with the Pakistani identity right from the start, the national flag being a symbolic representation of that. Zia's rule was only the "Iran moment" for Pakistan when it started taking steps of turning into a theocratic state.

secondly you say pakistan was created to be a muslim state, which again is nonsense created by the current mullahs, the same ones who rejected Jinnah and pakistan.
Pakistan was created to be a secular state for indian minorities, its just that sunni represented the majority. I suggest you read 'The Sole Spokesman' by pakistans biggest historian ayesha jalal who has taught at harvard and cambridge or 'From Jinnah to zia' written by pakistans first chief justice of the supreme court on what pakistan was suppose to be and what it became.
Also there is no such thing as an islamic state when you are divided into many sects. Its either a sunni state or a shia state, and even if its a sunni state, you then have more divisons with deobani or brelvi and so on, in its current form, islam in pakistan is ruled by the deoband class, who openly rejected pakistan and were bought into power by Zia, the current rise of TLP has nothing to do with whats going on with protecting the prophet, its to defeat deobanis, as there founder claimed, who had taken over the country from brelvis.

As you mention what the cricketers do and why people chant takbeers after victory is a culture created by Zia and his deobanis, no one did such stuff before.

Jinnah's views are not the representation of all Pakistanis. Jinnah was a rebel even in the 1900s. If you air dropped Jinnah into the current year in the 21st century, he will still stand out from the average Pakistani and will make the modern day Pakistanis look conservative in comparison. He was wine drinking, bacon loving and didn't care much about the pan islamic identity like most Pakistanis do. He was a western educated barrister and almost settled in England before being brought back to the subcontinent on Iqbal's persuasion to re kindle the Pakistan movement. It was believed that even after founding Pakistan, Jinnah wanted to retire in his lavish bungalow in the Malabar hills in Bombay where his heart truly resided. Heck it was believed he didn't really want a separate muslim state but just autonomy:

As Sri Prakasa writes in his memoir, Pakistan: Birth And Early Years: “A British journalist in Karachi, representing an important English paper, once told me that the greatest shock of Mr Jinnah’s life was the conceding and establishment of Pakistan. He really never wanted it; and when it came, he did not know what to do with it. He found it almost impossible to manage it." Others agreed, including the then chief minister of Sindh, M.A. Khuhro, who told Prakasa: “Nobody had really wanted the partition of the land and a separate Pakistan." Prakasa writes: “He himself, he said, had been in the inmost counsels of the Muslim League, and should know what he was talking about. They were asking for Pakistan only in a spirit of bargaining, so that Muslims might have larger and still larger place in the scheme of things in the united India as she was."

There may be some Pakistanis that drink alcohol. Even Bhutto was one and many Pakistani generals do. It's very rare to see a Pakistani who loves his bacon though. And almost every Pakistani believes in a true pan islamic brotherhood in the spirit of the ummah but Jinnah had nothing but scorn for the Khilafat movement. When Gandhi encouraged his followers including hindus to support the sentiments of muslims and support the Khilafat movement wholeheartedly, Jinnah was apathetic to the movement.

As a confirmed secularist he was against the use of Hindu and Muslim religious terminology adopted by Gandhi to mobilize the populace. He was opposed not only to the use of references to Hindu idioms such as Ram Rajya but even more strongly to the Khilafat movement that he scorned as antediluvian. He warned Gandhi that the use of religious idioms to mobilize people against British rule would lead to perpetual division between Hindus and Muslims and jeopardize the unity of India. He refused to refer to the leader of the Khilafat movement Muhammad Ali as "Maulana" for which he was hooted down at the Nagpur session of the Congress in 1920 and left in disgust. This was the immediate reason why he resigned from the Congress.

It was not that Jinnah was secular till his death. But he was certainly a misfit among the people he led. Sentiments towards blasphemy were as strong if not stronger among pre partition muslims as it is now among Pakistanis. Ilm-ud-din was revered as a ghazi, shaheed and even a saint after his hanging. Nearly 6,00,000 attended his funeral and Iqbal said "This uneducated young man has surpassed us, the educated ones" in his eulogy. So while Jinnah's views might not have been pan islamist and even secular in some ways, it's wrong to say that those were the views of the muslim society then too. It was not even the views of Pakistan's other founding fathers as Iqbal was favoured towards a muslim state that was not based on secularism. In his 1930 Allahabad address to the Muslim League, he emphasized that "unlike Christianity, Islam came with "legal concepts" with "civic significance," with its "religious ideals" considered as inseparable from social order. therefore, the construction of a policy on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim".

The muslim society, in East Pakistan, had a lot of cultural similarities with their Hindu Bengali brethren and therefore they were never really fully "islamicised" in terms of culture in the same way Pakistani society got over the years. They fought when Jinnah wanted to replace the Devanagari script of Bengali to arabic script, and it is pretty common to see a muslim lady wearing the bindi and saree in her marriage in Bangladesh even today while it's hard to see Pakistani women wearing sarees let alone the bindi which would be deemed to have hindu connotations. So it was probably easier for Bangladesh to take the secular route designing their flag devoid of religious symbolism. Similarly Indonesia got influenced by hindu and buddhist culture in the past very much and therefore they have managed to create a secular democracy. Similar is the case of central asian states like Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan due to their communist influence during their time in the Soviet Union. But it would be very hard to replicate the same in Pakistan as the bengali identity of Bangladeshis and the Indonesian identity of Indonesians are not fully dependent on their islamic identity, but it's not the same case with Pakistan.

 

[Ashmal]

Molestation happens everywhere, at universities, non- religious schools, workplaces as well.

So if we are going to shut down religious schools because of molestation cases then all of the above should be shut down too.

What we need is to give harsher punishment to the culprits to set a precedent as quickly as possible... rather than closing/banning organisations.

 

[OMB]

Silent victims

THE deafening silence of political authorities, including leaders from the religious right, on the Mufti Azizur Rehman case, demonstrates yet again the low priority that is accorded in this country to justice and human rights and dignity.


The fact that a septuagenarian cleric, suspected of sexually molesting a madressah student, is on the run with his whole family and that not a single word of condemnation has been uttered by Maulana Fazlur Rehman who heads the political party to which the alleged abuser reportedly belongs, is simply appalling.

What is also beyond comprehension is that the administration at the madressah where the mufti taught thought it best to dismiss him, telling him to pick up his belongings and leave, instead of handing him over to the law. Did his political affiliation play a part in this?

There are all too many examples of madressah students who have been sexually assaulted or beaten within an inch of their lives. The state seems to have turned a blind eye to these cases and many others like them. For instance, the perpetrators of the Kasur child pornography ring still remain at large, and the real criminals behind the Balochistan University scandal remain unscathed by the law.

Meanwhile, the cries for help are getting louder. According to the latest report by NGO Sahil, at least eight children were abused every day last year, an increase of 4pc from the previous year — but these have just been the reported cases, with social and cultural taboos, or the fear of reprisal, preventing victims or their families from coming forward and reporting a range of abuse — from rape, pornography to sodomy, etc. Besides there is little public awareness of child protection laws and the families of the young victims are reluctant to turn to the police that itself is a product of the same cultural milieu, and not trained to treat such cases with the seriousness and professionalism they merit. The state must wake up.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1630432/silent-victims

 

[Bewal Express]

Silent victims

THE deafening silence of political authorities, including leaders from the religious right, on the Mufti Azizur Rehman case, demonstrates yet again the low priority that is accorded in this country to justice and human rights and dignity.


The fact that a septuagenarian cleric, suspected of sexually molesting a madressah student, is on the run with his whole family and that not a single word of condemnation has been uttered by Maulana Fazlur Rehman who heads the political party to which the alleged abuser reportedly belongs, is simply appalling.

What is also beyond comprehension is that the administration at the madressah where the mufti taught thought it best to dismiss him, telling him to pick up his belongings and leave, instead of handing him over to the law. Did his political affiliation play a part in this?

There are all too many examples of madressah students who have been sexually assaulted or beaten within an inch of their lives. The state seems to have turned a blind eye to these cases and many others like them. For instance, the perpetrators of the Kasur child pornography ring still remain at large, and the real criminals behind the Balochistan University scandal remain unscathed by the law.

Meanwhile, the cries for help are getting louder. According to the latest report by NGO Sahil, at least eight children were abused every day last year, an increase of 4pc from the previous year — but these have just been the reported cases, with social and cultural taboos, or the fear of reprisal, preventing victims or their families from coming forward and reporting a range of abuse — from rape, pornography to sodomy, etc. Besides there is little public awareness of child protection laws and the families of the young victims are reluctant to turn to the police that itself is a product of the same cultural milieu, and not trained to treat such cases with the seriousness and professionalism they merit. The state must wake up.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1630432/silent-victims

Dawn built Fazlu and gave him support in the PDM and the hypocrites are now complaining about the power thugs like him possess. Dawn is part of the mafia.
As far as the main question goes, shutting down would cause too much chaos in the short term but there needs to be legislation and protection with the children at its heart. The children should always be put 1st

 

[OMB]

Shutting down (even for a month) will expedite the change in attitudes for the perpetrators and give voice to the victims. Poor kids are burning inside with rage and hopelessness and it is all a bit hard to take in really.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Yes it should be. If you want to learn Quran, go online

 

[Justcrazy]

Yes it should be. If you want to learn Quran, go online

If there is molestation in colleges, should that also be closed?

 

[Itachi]

If there is molestation in colleges, should that also be closed?

There's a difference though.

religion in most cases, depends on faith. and in the wrong hands, this aspect can be exploited to a dangerous level.

So religious schools are more susceptible than traditional ones.

 

[rockyboy2018]

Eye rape/molestation is a part of Pakistani culture. Pakistani men literally pick up a woman from the streets and drop it off at her house with their eyes. But nobody talks about that as every man does it in Pakistan. However, this is not the teaching of Islam. Even I remember my mulvi he used to come at home to teach me koran and most of the time he was interested in talking with my elder sister and focusing more on "khana" like "Roti" etc.His eyes were full of sexual frustration.
Nevertheless, I realized that in order to communicate with God - just raise your inner self- God will communicate with you by himself in your own language. You do not need mulvis or religious schools to connect with him. Trust me, my spiritual experience has confirmed to me that "do not underestimate his power" he knows a lot more about each and every human place on this place than they can perceive. When he reveals an inch of his power, your mind just boggles at it.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

No religious schools should not be closed. Only thing the government needs to do is ensure that they are also teaching non religious subjects as well. However its hard for the government to have much control over these schools when government schools are awful themselves. If anything at least in the religious schools, the school actually exists, teachers show up. Unlike the government schools where those jobs are doled out to political supporters.

What Pakistan should do is give vouchers to parents to pay for private schools. Let the private sector run education. In Pakistan everyone middle class and above attends private schools. Lets give the poor the same opportunity.

 

[Last Monetarist]

They serve a purpose for a large cross-section of working class society, however, there must be some kind of regulation or an element of oversight by the state over these schools.

 

[Itachi]

No religious schools should not be closed. Only thing the government needs to do is ensure that they are also teaching non religious subjects as well. However its hard for the government to have much control over these schools when government schools are awful themselves. If anything at least in the religious schools, the school actually exists, teachers show up. Unlike the government schools where those jobs are doled out to political supporters.

What Pakistan should do is give vouchers to parents to pay for private schools. Let the private sector run education. In Pakistan everyone middle class and above attends private schools. Lets give the poor the same opportunity.

man.... vouchers is a very bad idea. You are practically marketing for private schools for their profits by putting the liability on the govt.

 

[Justcrazy]

There's a difference though.

religion in most cases, depends on faith. and in the wrong hands, this aspect can be exploited to a dangerous level.

So religious schools are more susceptible than traditional ones.

Who did the research that religious schools are more susceptible?

 

[Justcrazy]

Yes it should be. If you want to learn Quran, go online

What about molestations that happen outside religious setting ? There also your parameters are same or you have issue only with religious setting ?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Here's the issue though. Pakistan is a unique case among nations. It is one of the only two nations (along with Israel) in the world that was created on the basis of religious identity and not on ethnic basis like most other nations or on a geographical basis like a few island nations. Pakistan's identity starts with the advent of Islam in the subcontinent and is fundamentally inseparable from Islam. Pakistani identity is islamic identity.

This is different from even most other muslim nations. The Egyptian identity doesn't start and end with the islamic part of their history only. The pyramids are very much a part of the Egyptian identity too. Likewise when we talk about Persian history, we include its Archaemenid and Sassanid past too. The Egyptian and the Persian identity didn't come into existence only with the advent of Islam. The Pharaohs were Egyptians too as were the muslims who succeeded them. Similarly the Zoroastrians were Persians too, as were those who converted to Islam afterwards. In other words, the history/identity of Egypt and Iran is not tied to the muslim part of its history only.

Their are some differences between Egypt and Iran that i think you are not seeing.

1 - Iran went from 100% Zoroastrian to 100% Muslim. Same way how Europe went from 100% Pagan to 100% Christian. Once 100% of the population became Muslim/Christian, their was no more rivalry with those other religions population. They are one people. So of course the Persian identity would include the pre Islamic history the same way that European's history includes the pagan history.

2 - Egyptian Muslims indeed view the Pharaonic era as part of their cultural heritage. Same way how Pakistanis view the Indus Valley Civilization as part of their cultural heritage. Do you know why this is? Because the religions practiced by those civilizations no longer exist, and therefore neither Egyptian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims see any problem with those civilizations. You might not know this but, Pakistan has hundreds of things named after the Indus Valley Civilization.

3 - Before Egypt became Muslim, it actually used to be Christian majority. How do Egyptian Muslims & Copts see the Muslim rule of Egypt? How do they see the Christian period? Would it be the same way they feel about ancient Egypt? Those are the questions you should think about, as that more closely relates to the situation in the subcontinent between the Muslims and Hindus.

4 - So unlike Iran and Europe, the Muslims and Hindus of the subcontinent, of the same ethnic groups were divided into two separate religious groups after the 7th century. And even though they have a lot in common, 1,000 years does create differences as well. Especially as the Muslim elite and Hindu elite looked to different parts of subcontinent history for inspiration. Muslims looked naturally to the Muslim empires of the subcontinent, and Hindus looked towards the pre-Islamic ones.

You had mentioned the crescent flag in another post. That indeed is a Muslim symbol, however its not necessarily an Islamic symbol. We view it as a cultural symbol, as the crescent flag was used by various Muslim empires in the subcontinent.

Same way Indians choosing the Mauryan flag, choosing satyameva jayate as the motto, etc, has nothing to do with religion, it was simply that they looked at pre-Islamic heritage of the subcontinent to choose their cultural symbols.

5 - Also i would like to add most countries outside of Europe were not created on an ethnic basis. Instead they were created due to European colonialism.

 

[street cricketer]

Their are some differences between Egypt and Iran that i think you are not seeing.

1 - Iran went from 100% Zoroastrian to 100% Muslim. Same way how Europe went from 100% Pagan to 100% Christian. Once 100% of the population became Muslim/Christian, their was no more rivalry with those other religions population. They are one people. So of course the Persian identity would include the pre Islamic history the same way that European's history includes the pagan history.

2 - Egyptian Muslims indeed view the Pharaonic era as part of their cultural heritage. Same way how Pakistanis view the Indus Valley Civilization as part of their cultural heritage. Do you know why this is? Because the religions practiced by those civilizations no longer exist, and therefore neither Egyptian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims see any problem with those civilizations. You might not know this but, Pakistan has hundreds of things named after the Indus Valley Civilization.

3 - Before Egypt became Muslim, it actually used to be Christian majority. How do Egyptian Muslims & Copts see the Muslim rule of Egypt? How do they see the Christian period? Would it be the same way they feel about ancient Egypt? Those are the questions you should think about, as that more closely relates to the situation in the subcontinent between the Muslims and Hindus.

4 - So unlike Iran and Europe, the Muslims and Hindus of the subcontinent, of the same ethnic groups were divided into two separate religious groups after the 7th century. And even though they have a lot in common, 1,000 years does create differences as well. Especially as the Muslim elite and Hindu elite looked to different parts of subcontinent history for inspiration. Muslims looked naturally to the Muslim empires of the subcontinent, and Hindus looked towards the pre-Islamic ones.

Think you have misunderstood my argument. Your point is that the Persians and the Egyptians identify with their pre islamic past because the pre islamic culture is non existent now. But the Egyptian muslims don't identify with their christian history and christians with the muslim history because both religious groups are in direct confrontation with each other. This is true. But I am not talking from the pov of the religious groups. I am talking from a historical academic pov.

Take Lebanon for example. It has christians and muslims in more or less equal proportions with muslims slightly higher. And Lebanon has seen numerous riots throughout its history, so there's definitely no short of confrontation there. But the history of Lebanon includes its pagan history, christian history and muslim history as well. The Lebanese identity does not start and end with when muslims conquered the region. It does not matter whether they hate each others' history, they cannot run away from the fact that their identity includes the history of Lebanon from the very beginning. Similarly even though hindu nationalists might want to dissociate themselves from the muslim history of India as much as possible, the fact of the matter is that the Indian identity is shaped starting from the Indus civilization, then hindu, buddhist, sikh and islamic history of the subcontinent along with some colonial influences (Portuguese in the case of Goa, French in the case of Pondicherry, etc). The Taj Mahal at Agra, the Sun temple at Konark, the Ajantha and Ellora caves, the Golden temple at Amritsar, the Meenakshi temple at Madurai are all parts of the Indian identity regardless of what the hindu nationalists think.

Now when you strictly talk about the history of the region encompassing present day Pakistan, then of course it includes the Indus civilization, the hindu and buddhist history of the region followed by Islam entering the subcontinent and then sikh influence as well. But this is not much different to the overall Indian identity isn't it? Then what's the difference between the Pakistani identity and the Indian identity..

The "Pakistani identity" is strictly a subset of the Indian identity (not referring to modern Indian identity but the overall history of the Indian subcontinent) which includes only its islamic past. I mean the very reason a "Pakistani identity" was created was to differentiate muslims from the overall Indian identity and religion was the framework on which the Pakistani identity was created. When people think about Indian identity or history, numerous hindu temples, intricate mughal architecture and probably the sikh golden temple comes to the mind of the outsider. Similarly when we think about Egyptian identity, we think of the Pyramids and Egypt's muslim and christian history. However when people think about Pakistan and its identity, the hindu temples or the buddhist viharas don't come to the mind of the outsider. The Pakistani identity strictly includes the subset of islamic history of the subcontinent.

You had mentioned the crescent flag in another post. That indeed is a Muslim symbol, however its not necessarily an Islamic symbol. We view it as a cultural symbol, as the crescent flag was used by various Muslim empires in the subcontinent.

Same way Indians choosing the Mauryan flag, choosing satyameva jayate as the motto, etc, has nothing to do with religion, it was simply that they looked at pre-Islamic heritage of the subcontinent to choose their cultural symbols.

The star and the crescent in the context of muslims very much takes its influence from islam. Globally, the star and the crescent is viewed as an islamic symbol and there's a reason why most muslim countries have it in their national flag. You go to any mosque in the subcontinent, you are bound to find the symbol somewhere. You say that muslims view it as a cultural symbol, but what similarity is there between the culture of a sindhi muslim and a north african arab other than religion uniting them. Religion is the culture for muslims, you can't dissociate one from the other as Islam is a way of life for muslims.

And no, the Ashoka chakra is not the same as the islamic star and crescent. For starters, it is mainly a symbol of the Buddhist religion, which is a very minor religion in India (almost obsolete barring some Dalits who converted to Buddhism with Ambedkar). If India were to use a more majoritarian symbol like Pakistan (the star and crescent to represent Islam/muslims) or Sri Lanka (the lion to represent the Sinhalese), it would've used either the swastika (the hindu one!) or the om symbol to represent hinduism/hindus. And the phrase satyameva jayate has zero religious influence. It simply means truth alone triumphs.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Here's the issue though. Pakistan is a unique case among nations. It is one of the only two nations (along with Israel) in the world that was created on the basis of religious identity and not on ethnic basis like most other nations or on a geographical basis like a few island nations. Pakistan's identity starts with the advent of Islam in the subcontinent and is fundamentally inseparable from Islam. Pakistani identity is islamic identity.

This is different from even most other muslim nations. The Egyptian identity doesn't start and end with the islamic part of their history only. The pyramids are very much a part of the Egyptian identity too. Likewise when we talk about Persian history, we include its Archaemenid and Sassanid past too. The Egyptian and the Persian identity didn't come into existence only with the advent of Islam. The Pharaohs were Egyptians too as were the muslims who succeeded them. Similarly the Zoroastrians were Persians too, as were those who converted to Islam afterwards. In other words, the history/identity of Egypt and Iran is not tied to the muslim part of its history only.

But this is not the same case with Pakistan. The Pakistani identity came into existence only because of Islam and not because of any other reason. Pakistan was created so as to be a muslim state and not to be governed by any other ideology, be it secularism or communism or whatever 'ism. This is not like a switch which you can turn off and suddenly people will start wanting a secular state instead of an Islamic Republic. You can never decouple the islamic identity with the Pakistani identity because it is because of Islam that Pakistan came into existence. So while for many other nations and even for many muslim states, their religious identity might not necessarily be their entire national identity, but in the case of Pakistan, their national identity is synonymous with their religious identity. It is why you see nearly every Pakistani cricketer do the sajdah after every milestone and chant the nara-e-takbeer after a memorable victory.

Good post.

Although I would just like to add that while Pakistan came into being because of a said "Islamic identity", this Islamic identity also had its own unique culture, an example of this being Urdu. Islam has nothing to do with Urdu yet it formed the fabric of the "Islamic identity" of the Muslims of India.

Unfortunately, Pakistani society for some decades now has been spiralling into a fundamentalist identity over an Islamic identity.

 

[street cricketer]

Good post.

Although I would just like to add that while Pakistan came into being because of a said "Islamic identity", this Islamic identity also had its own unique culture, an example of this being Urdu. Islam has nothing to do with Urdu yet it formed the fabric of the "Islamic identity" of the Muslims of India.

Unfortunately, Pakistani society for some decades now has been spiralling into a fundamentalist identity over an Islamic identity.

Well that's my criticism with religious states. Once you go down the route of religion governing the society, it's always a one way path and it's very hard to go back to the "moderate" route. The problem is not so much during the establishment of the religious state, but the real problems come after it. Once the religious state is established, then comes the question who's following the more "purer" version of the said religion. And this sends the society down the lane of stricter and stricter curtails in a bid to follow the religion to the tee, exactly as it was revealed in the scriptures and never to a "moderate" version according to the modern societal standards. And that is what fundamentalism really is.

When the Taliban say that they want to establish a state governed by islamic jurisdiction and law, with punishments exactly as prescribed in the shariah, they're only following what they feel is the most correct and "pure" form of their religion, which is what fundamentalism really is. And my critique is not only for islamic states. Any state that chooses to govern its society based on ANY religion, no matter how much they feel that said religion is "liberal" and "just" in its nature (the followers of every religion feels their religion is the most just anyway), it is bound to go down the route of fundamentalism. Take India for example. It has only just included the beef ban. When and if India decides to go fully the Hindu rashtra way just like other religious states, you will start hearing ministers calling for a ban on Valentine's day as it is against our culture and more silly things like that.