In August, an angry mob set fire to 50 houses in Gojra, killing seven people, all Christians. The incident was indicative of the ongoing persecution against Pakistan’s minorities. According to Minority Rights Group International, Pakistan had the world’s highest increase of threats against minorities last year and was ranked the seventh most dangerous country for minorities overall. Below, a blogger by the name of Rotifan [she blogs at Kiss My Roti], discusses her own experience growing up as a Shiite in Pakistan, and how the Gojra burning impacted her:
I didn’t know I was different from anyone else until I was seven. It was during lunchtime that one of my classmates began to make strange wailing noises and proceeded to beat her chest mockingly while telling everyone that this was what the kaffir Shiites did. I joined in the laughter only to realize later that she was talking about me. From that point on, I was aware that I was an outsider. The fact that I was religiously curious from a young age didn’t help either. When I was nine, I decided that I was going to go to attend mass at my Catholic school church just to see what it was like. The most interesting part of this wasn’t the mass; to be honest, I couldn’t understand a word. It was everyone else’s reaction.
Upon my return, my Islamiat teacher declared that I had converted to Christianity. Soon after, all of my classmates started to ignore me. This was also the year that graffiti began to appear on the walls on my way to school proclaiming, Shia kaffir, Shia kutta (Shiites are infidels, Shiites are dogs). It boggled my mind that people I did not even know hated me.
However, I soon moved to Canada and forgot everything. But all these experiences came back when I heard about the attacks in Gojra and the ongoing sectarian violence. As all of us know quite well, attacks on minorities in Pakistan are all too common. Despite the fact that there are between three-10 million religious minorities – both Muslim and non-Muslim – living in Pakistan, since 2000 there have been several large scale attacks leaving scores dead and hundreds injured.
Minorities in Pakistan do not only face violence and intolerance, but also discrimination at both a social and political level. As the Minorities Watch’s report on Pakistan points out, the average literacy rate for Christian’s in Punjab is 34 percent, eight percent less than the national average of 46.56%. The average literacy rates among Hindus and Sikhs, Parsis and Buddhists are 34% and 17% respectively. According to Human Rights Commission on Pakistan (HRCP) suicide rates are high among impoverished Christian and Hindu communities. Among the approximately 1000 suicides committed in Sindh in the year 2000, 25 were committed by Christians and Hindus. For minority women, the situation is much more dangerous. The HRCP notes that Hindu and Christian minority women are much more likely to be raped than their counterparts for supposed religious and political outrage.
While it is true that discrimination against minorities is institutional, it is not fair to only place blame on the legal and political spheres. The societal attitudes about minorities must change. The resounding condemnation following the Gojra attacks provides hope for a changed future, but condemnation is simply not enough. Genuine efforts must be made to integrate minorities into the public sphere on their own terms. This can only happen when there is a separation between the mosque and the state.
The problem with Pakistan as an Islamic republic is that anyone not embracing the state sanctioned belief (Sunni Islam) cannot be an equal citizen to those that do. Elevating a religion to the state level not only provides it with both legitimacy and protection not available to other beliefs (aka Blasphemy Law). And as long as this is the case, attacks on minorities similar to Gojra will continue.
The contribution is the sole opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the opinion of CHUP. If you would like to contribute a piece to CHUP, please email Kalsoom at changinguppakistan[at]gmail[dot]com. Pieces should be no longer than 800 words please. For past contributions, click here.
I think some of these statistics and conclusions are “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc”
I could say that people whose names start with the letter G and have brown hair are 40% less likely to like swimming, for example.
Doesn’t really mean anything, where are the blind and double-blind control studies?
What statistics and conclusions are you referring to exactly?
Well I just mean that the notion that a lower literacy rate amongst minorities must be being caused by oppression. I don’t believe we should make any distinctions between one human and another.
I don’t think “minorities” exist, there are only individuals. Forget races, genders, religions, and other things that do nothing but divide us. There’s no such thing as “minority rights”, only individual rights, because every individual is a minority in themselves.
This is why a republic is far superior to a democracy. A democracy can allow for individuals to be grouped together as groups and oppressed or treated unjustly. A republic only recognizes individuals and individual rights, regardless of who they are.
I think it’s difficult to make that distinction in the case of Pakistan’s Christians. Because many Christians in Pakistan were Hindus from untouchable class, they are not only a minority in terms of demographically, but also because of the prejudice that existed prior to them converting to Christianity. I’ve known people who’ve refused to eat something touched by a Pakistani Christian. Christians often change their names to sound more Muslim in order to escape persecution. And Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have often been used to justify violence against all of Pakistan’s minorities.
I actually see a similar correlation between drug use/lower literacy rates with minorities in other countries = look at Native Americans in the U.S. or Aborigines in Australia = such issues don’t necessarily stem from opression per se, but it’s a very cyclical problem.
The examples below demonstrate that correlation isn’t sufficient to imply causality. It’s one thing to say “it makes sense to me that drug use and lower literacy rates would be correlated” but it’s another thing to say there exists data to prove that.
It’s very important that we don’t jump to conclusions based on logical fallacies, because that’s exactly how terribly policies are crafted and justified to the public.
The government is entirely based on fallacies and can do nothing but destroy our liberties and our property.
Pakistan’s only hope to peace and prosperity is to get rid of the entire government apparatus and adopt a legal and economic system based on Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalism.
Consider these similar fallacies:
“With a decrease in the number of pirates, there has been an increase in global warming over the same period. Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.”
“The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is going to be. Therefore firemen cause fire.”
“Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime”
Causation requires not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence.
[…] minorities last year and was ranked the seventh most dangerous […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan angry mob, blogger, catholic school, christians, classmates, graffiti, infidels, kaffir, […]
This is ridiculous, Shiite/Sunni problem has always been there, but it has nothing to do with minorities. Shiite/Sunni who eventually are Muslims, form the major fraction of Pakistani population.
For the most part, HRCP reports are old enough to not even be worth considering. This is a acute example of how fallacies are manifested. To support a current happening if one has to link it with statistics collected 9 years ago, the article loses its point to only be a manifestation in an intent to overemphasize on an issue to support certain agenda or something.
The reality is that Shiites are a minority, in Pakistan they only make up 20% of the population – is that the same as the 3% of other minorities in the country? No, but you can’t discount someone feeling like a minority in Pakistan, and you can’t dictate the terms for them feeling that way. Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence is a VERY serious problem in Pakistan and acts of violence occur on a daily basis. More importantly, prejudice does exist – not to the same extent as other minorities, but again, you can’t discount someone’s personal experience.
Second of all, enkhan, I linked to rotifan’s contribution to a piece I wrote on Gojra that may provide more up to date statistics: https://changinguppakistan.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/commenting-on-the-gojra-burning/
The Minority Groups Int’l report was compiled this year.
If we are to consider the minority factor then we could consider the rest of the factors as well. A conclusion cannot be derived when the premise is inappropriate. Shiites have always ruled media and TV world, As of my rough estimate I reckon that over 80% people working in Pakistani mass media are shiite. They’ve always been in the mainstream. Its would be rather unfair to highlight that shiites as a minority since the report doesn’t cover the economic conditions of that fraction. Does it? The economic conditions of tribal areas are always equivalent, in some areas like Shiites are in abundance and vice versa but economic conditions are nearly almost same. But if you consider the ratio in major cities, the minority surpasses to have more-than-equal rights status to enjoy the most luxurious life, while sunni mostly fall under middle class category.
Yet again, it is argument for sake of argument. I’m not trying to defend either of them and I refuse to accept either of them as minority or majority. I believe they are both subsets of same religious background, and both adhere to the most common practices of Islam, hence Muslims. On this note, I’d like to add that we’ve to be careful on raising such issues, articles like these only stems the environment of compartmentalization in society. Whoever violates the rights of a person, violates the law of the state, once again we don’t have to shove the minority/majority issue into this thing.
I can see your argument, I was merely defending rotifan’s right to feel like a minority. Regardless of Shiites being a presence in the mainstream, there has been sectarian violence in Pakistan. Groups like the Sipah e Sahba, and many Punjabi militant groups, were first sectarian in nature – i.e. groups that targeted Shiites in the country – it was this same organization that manipulated the Blasphemy Law to stir up a mob in Gojra against the Christians.
I am with you that Shiites and Sunnis are all Muslims – I am the product of both, and I have always considered myself Muslim. So I completely agree with your point, I am just defending the author of this piece.
Totally agree, Rotifan… this is why Pak must become a secular state like India
Ideologically, Pakistan, minus its official name.. is a secular state.
No, enkhan, I beg to differ. Pakistan is not a secular state. Asides from being an “Islamic Republic”–which in my opinion is a contradictory and meaningless term, a country can either be Islamic or a Republic, not both– the constitution of Pakistan says that “sovereignity belongs to Allah alone”– this statement is inherently discriminatory to all non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan, whether they are Christian, Hindu, communist, atheist-agnostic whatever.
Also “no laws can be made which are repugnant to Holy Koran and Sunnah”…. so no gay rights etc?
We have a long way to go before Pak becomes a secular state.
Just to clarify, I have no problem with Muslims or with “Islam” in general. I just think religion should be restricted to the private sphere and not form any part of the business of the state. People are free to pray five times a day in their homes, wear burqa or hijab or whatever. What they should not be allowed to do is force this on anyone else.
Regards
I shall repeat I said ideologically not constitutionally. But if you insist, constitution does provides safeguards to people who practice other religions, I reckon you haven’t gone through the Constitution of Pakistan to actually form an opinion about it. You should consider consulting article 9, 10, 38, especially articles like 20, 22 25, 26 and 27. It also replies to almost everything that Kalsoom/Rotifian mentioned.
enkhan,
Sorry, whatever else the constitution says, as long as “sovereignity belongs to Allah alone” and “no laws can be made which are repugnant to Quran and Sunnah” , Pakistan is not a secular state.
@kabir
as long as you have no sufficient knowledge to debate with me about the Constitution of Pakistan when your prior knowledge is as scant as to be based solely on those two point, there’s no point in discussion… It’d just be a case of inadequacy of your understanding of law..
you quoted me a *rough* extract from constitution while I gave you reference to multiple articles from within the constitution, so you can spend sometime reforming your point to post back again..
Have fun!!
I think ANY policy that includes the word “minority” operates under seemingly benevolent, yet ultimately racist logic. Racism is ANY attitude which considers one group of individuals to be inherently different than any other group of individuals, divided on the basis of race or religion. So obviously “we need to help Pakistani Christians” is a racist thing to say.
Why not help ANY individual who legitimately needs help?
So would it be ok to say we need to help the people who live in Gojra? I’m trying to follow your logic here…I understand where you’re coming from, but since the world tends to box people in based on groups – religion, ethnicity, etc. – there’s often cyclical ramifications of that, and hence why we refer to them as these groups.
Yes actually I think it would be okay to say we need to help people from a specific region. Maybe they’ve suffered from a natural disaster, for example. That would not discriminate against anyone or treat any individual differently than any other. We should help anywhere that’s needed is my point, without consideration as to whether or not they belong to a “minority” or a “majority,” i just don’t think that’s useful thinking.
If a specific region suffers from violence, that’s a criminal problem of individual-on-individual violence. There is no such thing as “hate crimes,” only crimes. Violence is violence, the motive is irrelevant.
@Kalsoom
Its a highly misleading trend where we bring an individual to support recent happening and then apply generalization over it. Individualistic ideas aren’t supposed to create headlines and news or to be highlighted enough to derive generalizations. Just to assume how disastrous the journalism could get if we were to follow the trend to stem stories out of individuals: out of every ten people, one is a liar, one thinks the whole world is going to just *get* them, one would get dragged away with recent happenings, and the rest would just look at the world to what their parents/guardian/elders have made them to think. I admire your concerns with the certain individual being discriminated, but we cannot base our theory on the ideas of an individual to retort against a happening involving mass movement. Individuals who are undergoing such circumstances may consider judicial way than whining at how they’re a minority living under oppression.
@enkhan
I appreciate your comments on my piece. I agree with your stance that using individual experience to derive broad generalizations is dangerous. However, I feel that asking individuals undergoing such circumstances to stop “whining” is unfair statement on your part as it discredits these experiences and shifts the responsibility of these actions from the society to these individuals. Prejudice against religious minorities exists because it is considered socially acceptable and there is no stigma attached to those who partake in it. As for your assertion that a judicial method might be the best way to deal with such incidences, I couldn’t agree more as such an action could provide closure for these incidents. But then again, our goal as a society should be to prevent such incidences from occurring rather than dealing with them when they occur.
@HGW
I also appreciate your comments as well, but I have to disagree with you on a number of points.
Firstly, not using religious or ethnic distinction when describing events such as the Gojra attacks due to ideological reasons takes away from the reality of these incidents. When a mob set fire to 50 Christian houses in Gojra, it did so because these houses belonged to Christians.
Secondly, while Gojra has a sizeable Christian population, the majority of the town’s population is Muslim. By providing help to the “people of Gojra” we would also be required to help the Muslims as well, many of whom were the instigators of this incident.
and finally, I have to disagree with your understanding of racism. Racism is not “ANY attitude which considers one group of individuals to be inherently different than any other group of individuals, divided on the basis of race or religion”, but rather the belief that a group of individuals are superior or inferior to another group of individuals based on the differences between them (these can be racial, ethnic, religious, gender and age-based). The problem is not the recognition that people are different, but that these differences endow superiority to one group of people over another.
@Rotifan
I appreciate your comments as well. What I intending to express was that whining shall not be targeted on how you’re a minority living under oppression, as long as judicary allows you to have an equal right to exist and rise up against the atrocities you faced/still facing. The fundamental rights of a person and religion are to be protected by the state and the law, and until the law fails whinning is pointless to be even advocated. You cannot derive a generalization over a full country and its system when there’s no appeal to claim your rights against the actions of certain sectarians who believe in extermination of the followers of rest of the religions.
enkhan,
I may not have read the Pakistani Constitution in detail, but I can quote to you the opinion of Yasser Latif Hamdani, who’s a lawyer in Islamabad and who has studied the Pak Constitution (and who I don’t agree with about everything). Yasser says that, as a lawyer, he believes that, despite the fundemental rights chapter, the Pak Constitution is one of the most draconian he has come across and that Pak is de facto a theocracy. How can it not be when legislators can’t make laws without referring to Koran and Sunnah? Imagine how ridiculous it would be if US lawmakers had to refer to the Bible before making laws or, worse, if the US Constitution said that “No laws can be made which are repugnant to the Holy Bible”.
The US Constitution doesn’t even mention God in the beginning but rather says “We, the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union… ”
In a truely secular state, “Allah” or god has no place in public life. or in government documents. This is the accepted definition of secularism and not something I arbitrarily made up.
Regards
After debating and disagreeing to him on PTA now you decided to trust YLH when you don’t have a point of your own?
Well try believing the rest of the things YLH was saying and your former point wouldn’t exist anymore..
Edit: PTH*
Enkhan- While Pakistan’s constitution in its original form has some basis in secularism, it no longer enjoys the same level of secularism it once did. If one looks at the Islamic Provisions within the constitutions from 1956, 1962 and 1973 it is plain to see that it began with a significant level of religion and progressively intensified in its Islamization. Below are the Islamic Provisions from all three versions of the constitution. The Council of Islamic Ideology and the Federal Shariat Court (1980) are the final nails in the coffin of Pakistan’s secularism. If you still think that Pakistan is a secular state after being aware of these constitutional provisions then it can only mean that you have your own unique definition of secularism. While our society may have some secular functions, the legislative procedure in Pakistan is far from secular. And if you want to look away from the constitution than just consider the National Education Policy of Pakistan 2009 and its implementation of the teaching of the virtues of Jihad as part of the compulsory Islamiyat curriculum.
Here are the Islamic Provisions in the Constitution of 1956:
The text of Objectives Resolution was repeated in the preamble of the Constitution of 1956 without any major change.
The name Islamic Republic of Pakistan was selected for the state of Pakistan.
All citizens of Pakistan were granted freedom to profess, practise and propagate any religion and the right to establish, maintain and manage religious institutions.
According to the directive principles, steps were to be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan individually and collectively to order their lives in accordance with principles in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
No law shall be enacted which is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Qur’an and Sunnah and that existing laws shall be brought into confirmity with such injunctions. Whether a law was repugnant to Islam or not, would be decided by the National Assembly.
Only a Muslim could be qualified for election as President.
The President should set up an organisation for Islamic research and instruction in advanced studies to assist in the reconstruction of Muslims society on a truly Islamic basis.
Teaching of the Qur’an was to be made compulsory for Muslims.
The purchase and sale of alcohol was banned and prostitution was prohibited.
No person should be compelled to pay any special tax, the proceeds of which were to be spent on the propagation of any religion other than his own.
The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries.[7]
Here are the Islamic Provisions in the Constitution of 1962:
The preamble of the Constitution of 1962 was based on the Objectives Resolution.
The Constitution laid down simply that the state of Pakistan shall be a republic under the name of Republic of Pakistan’. The word ‘Islamic’ was dropped in this Constitution. But when the National Assembly met in June 1962, there was a demand that the word ‘Islamic’ should be re-introduced. There was some justification for this demand. If Islamic provisions were to be maintained there was no reason why the republic should not be designated an Islamic republic. The first amendment (December 1962) therefore rectified this article.
According to the principles of policy, steps were to be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam, and should be provided with facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to those principles and concepts.
No law shall be enacted which is repugnant to the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Qur’an and Sunnah and all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Only a Muslim could be qualified for the election as President.
Teaching of the Quran and Islamiyat to the Muslims of Pakistan was made compulsory.
Proper organisation of Zakat, waqf, and mosques was ensured.
Practical steps were to be taken to eradicate what were seen as social evils by Islam, such as the use of alcohol, gambling, etc.
A novel Islamic provision in the 1962 Constitution had introduced an ‘Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology’ to be appointed by the President. The functions of the Council was to make recommendations to the Government as to means which would enable and encourage the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives in accordance with the principles and concepts of Islam and to examine all laws in force with a view to bring them into conformity with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
There shall be an organisation to be known as Islamic Research Institute, which shall be established by the President. The function of the Institute was to undertake Islamic Research and Instruction in Islam for the purpose of assisting in the reconstruction of Muslim society on a truly Islamic basis.
The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries
Here are the Islamic Provisions in the Constitution of 1973:
The name ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ is selected for the state of Pakistan.
Islam is declared as the state religion of Pakistan.
Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually or collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam.
Steps shall be taken to make the teaching of the Qur’an and Islamiyat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language and to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Qur’an.
Proper organisation of Zakat, waqf and mosques is ensured.
The state shall prevent prostitution, gambling and consumption of alcohol, printing, publication, circulation and display of obscene literature and advertisements.
Only a Muslim could be qualified for election as President (male or female) and Prime Minister (male or female). No restriction as to religion or gender on any other post, up to and including provincial governor and Chief Minister.
All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Qur’an and Sunnah and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions.
A Council of Islamic Ideology shall be constituted referred to as the Islamic Council. The functions of the Islamic Council shall be to make recommendations to Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies about the ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of the Pakistan to order their lives in accordance with the principles of Islam.
The President or the Governor of a province may, or if two-fifths of its total membership so requires, a House or a Provincial Assembly shall, refer to the Islamic Council for advice on any question as to whether a proposed law is or is not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
For the first time, the Constitution of Pakistan gave definition of a Muslim which states: ‘Muslim’ means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and does not believe in, or recognise as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad.
The state shall endeavor to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries.
The Second Amendment (wef 17 September 1974) of the 1973 Constitution declared for the first time the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (Qadianis) or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam (Lahoris) as non-Muslims, and their leader, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who had styled himself as a so-called prophet of Islam, as a fraudster and imposter Nabi.
Shehryar, thanks for quoting the constitution of 1954 while it’s no more applicable, suits your point maybe.. but if you are to consult Article 227 of constitution in practice, you’d get the answer. Here’s how it goes:
“All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.
….
Nothing in this Part shall affect the personal laws of non- Muslim citizens or their status as citizens. ”
This is why I said kabir to have inadequate knowledge of Constitution of Pakistan. I did say Pakistani constitution provides safeguards to non-muslims, besides my original point was that Pakistan is ideologically a secular state, while kabir redundance to quotation from the constitution only proved his inadequacy of his prior knowledge to debate on this topic.
enkhan,
I disagree with YLH about a lot of things, but I do agree with him that Pakistan needs to be a secular state and that we’re not there yet. That’s what the evidence tells me.
Regards
Interesting debate. All I want to say in defense of enkhan is that looking at the US Constititution, the Pledge of Allegiance specifically includes the phrase “under God”. This doesn’t necessarily mean that America is a theocracy since religion and state is seperate but it does mean that they do give deference to religion, be it Catholicism or Islam or any monotheistic religion.
On the other hand, The Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was struck down by the US Supreme Court when Newdow said that his children (brought up agnostic) should not have to state “under God”.
My point being that the constitution doesn’t necessarily signify how society should react but it is open to interpretation.
On a side note, minorites are definitely not treated equally in Pakistan but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re burnt at the stake. I know a lot of Hindus and Christians who lead satisfied lives right here in the Islamic Republic.
Yawer,
Thanks for joining in the debate. The difference between Pakistan and the US, is that while the US does give deference to religion, and the Pledge of Allegiance does include the phrase “under God”, the principle of seperation of Church and State is very strong in public life. The US doesn’t have a state religion. It is not the “Christian United States of America”, just the “United States of America”.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has a state religion: Islam (and argubly Sunni Islam). It is the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. Here, the contrast with India is especially telling. India is a Hindu-majority state, just as Pak is a Muslim-majority state. Yet India does not constitutionally define itself as the “Hindu Republic of India”. I would be equally appalled if India were to do this, and criticise the Indian government just as much as I’m criticizing the Pak one now.
I do agree with you that many Pakistani Hindus and Christians are leading satisfied lives. Yet they are being institutionally discriminated against by such things as Blasphemy Laws and the fact that they cannot run for the office of President or PM.
@ Shaheryar: Thanks for quoting the Constitution in detail and making my case for me.
Having a state religion doesn’t mean it is been enforced to every citizen nor that it means being discriminant to other religions. It merely a representation of a religious majority.
Blasphemy Laws, are a crucial part. When people representing different religions are living together in a land, they should respect each other to avoid problems.. Freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to blasphemously demean other religions, one has to follow the social code of conduct to live in a society..
I can’t belive that you’re actually defending Blasphemy Laws. I really have no idea what to say except that I’m disturbed that someone would defend the indefensible, especially we have been witness in the last few months to so many incidents of Blasphemy Laws being misused to settle grudges. Not only do minorities live in fear but also “Muslims” like me who question the official ideology.
No civilized and modern state should ever have such regressive laws on the books.
I’d request you to align your ideas and develop some comprehension skills, the misuse of blasphemy law should be condemned and I wasn’t defending it at all. Try rereading my post..
Muslims who question official ideology?? Seriously have you ever been to Pakistan lately??? Just try visiting here now before you come up with something of that sort.. People with poor comprehension skills as you are, make estimations on Pakistan’s conditions from sitting in US when they are 90% wrong..
On case of India, it’d collapse if they introduce themselves as Hindu state, and what we are forgetting is that Hindu and Muslim both are in majority over there and even if they wanted to declare themselves as Hindu state they can’t. Eventually, they had to take the Hindu prefix out, from the country name but we all know it is known as Hindustan. We don’t hear much of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan here and we’re already aware of the Shiv Sena and public display of hindu contempt against muslims in Ahmedabad and other areas.
India is more than 80% Hindu and maybe 15% Muslim. I don’t know the exact numbers but no way can anyone argue Muslims are in a majority.
It’s just that India is committed to being a secular- and not a Hindu–state.
Yes the official count says Hindus are 80% but if you’ve ever actually been to India, you’d know how the in-house politics goes with the statistics. Even Jain and other minority religions(which are close to Hinduism) are counted as Hindus as well. Sticking to the topic, this gives us one more counter-argument to what Rotifan was saying that Shiite are discriminated, they’re considered Muslims and included in the official count of Muslims. Hindus have always been in business in subcontinent, declaring the country to be secular was in the business interest as well as it could avoid the Hindu-Muslim ‘fasaad’ .. While Pakistan decided to provide equal rights to all minorities, and not allowed any minority or majority to blasphemously ridicule any religion.