The migration of the Hindu families from Pakistan to India has become a burning question now-a-days. Their migration or “visit” diverted the attention of all the concerned people and the authorities to the serious problems being faced by the minorities.
Regarding their status in Pakistan, there has always been a difference of opinion. There is a religiously extremist school of thought that is not in a mood to give equal status to the non-Muslims here. On the other hand, there are people who consider the minorities as respectable citizens like the other Muslim Pakistanis. However, on supporting the minorities, these people are called secular, liberal or moderate (or not Muslims) by the extremists.
The question is, if the voice is raised for the rights of the non-Muslims, what is wrong with it? If someone says that being Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist is one`s personal matter and that there should not be any discrimination on this basis, should it be called secularism? Moreover, if it is really secularism, it is against Islam?
As per the literary meanings, Secularism stresses on the universal respect for all the religions in the world; it discourages any prejudice based on religion. So, does Islam ask us any where to prejudicially target any community following other religion? When no, then why to criticize people who are speaking on the discrimination on the basis of religion?
It is the part of the history that the Muslims of the undivided India had to form All India Muslim League as a reaction against the religiously biased policies towards them. The prejudice was the result of the hatred with Islam. That was the reason why all the Muslims despite pertaining to different ethnicities, cultures, languages and regions got together as a community of the followers of Islam.
If the British government as well as the Hindu leadership had not been biased towards the religion of the Muslims, but had shown equal respect for Islam, would the division of the undivided India have taken place then? If the policy of “live and let to live” had been followed, the Hindus might not have come a cross the division of their country in 1947. In other words, it was the discriminating policies on the basis of the religion by the majority against the minority, the division of the sub-continent emerged.
Taking into account all these facts, should the Muslims repeat the same mistake by making Pakistan a Muslim-extremist country for the religiously minority communities? Can Pakistan afford any sort of religious or sectarian disturbance? Would it be wise to incite such kind of unrest in our society? When no, then why should we not give similar importance to other religious communities that the Muslims of the un-divided India were demanding from the Hindus and the British government before 1947?
Perhaps, due to facing the same religiously based discriminating attitude in India, the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his speech on 11th f August 1947, gave the non-Muslim Pakistanis the equal rights like the other Muslim Pakistani citizens. In the speech, he said,
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”
He further said,
“We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.”
Do these words not clarify the vision of the father of the nation in respect of the status of the non-Muslim Pakistanis in the country?
Can we ignore the fact that the Last prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) was called true and trustworthy due to being kind and honest with the same totally misled non-Muslim people pertaining to different religions? Have we forgotten that the last Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) left no stone unturned to lead the misguided people towards Islam in the most lenient way? In this process, he had to confront countless obstacles from them. The evil acts of oppressions on him especially in the Taef Valley are true example of the same. But, in spite of those ill-deeds, he remained very kind to the non-Muslims and kept preaching politely. After the great victory of Makah, he did not take revenge from them, rather unconditionally forgave them. That was the kind attitude of our Last Prophet (PBUH) due to which hundreds of the same deniers (Kuffar) embraced Islam and strengthened him.
In contrast to all this, if the prevailing (Taliban type) attitude had been adopted that time, would Islam have spread that way? Could Islam have got the twinkling stars (Sahaba_RA) of Islam then? Could the Muslims have been able to claim that Islam spread through preaching not by sword?
In short, being kind to non-Muslims is the sunnah of the Last Prophet (PBUH). So, unless we give due importance to the non-Muslims, we cannot expect them to come near to Islam. Moreover, when they do not approach us, will we preach teachings of Islam to our Muslims only? In fact, they are also the creatures of God whom He loves very much and does not want them going towards the hell. That is the reason why Allah sent about 124,000 Prophets to lead them to the right path. After the Prophets, we are supposed to do the same.
Therefore, we need to revisit our policies relating to other religions and should change our mindset. That is not only our Last Prophet (PBUH), but also the Quaid-e-Azam wants us to do. Then, why to be hesitant to speak for the rights of the non-Muslim Pakistanis? Why do only a few NGO`s and MQM`s Quaid Altaf Hussain have to raise this issue? Why are the other political parties not seriously taking up this issue?
All of us will have to show respect towards all the religions by collectively standing against any injustice to the non-Muslims so that not only the religious harmony can be developed in the country, but also the true picture of Islam can be presented before the world that is the need of the time.
(Originally at Dunya News : http://blogs.dunyanews.tv/?p=5218 )
No comments:
Post a Comment