About 1435 years ago, a struggle had already
begun; a change of faith that soon swept the Arabian Peninsula, a faith that
many say was the epitome of righteousness, fairness and tolerance. Fast forward
to present day and you'll find many 'versions' of Islam, each although centered
on the belief in a Supreme Being, having its own set of traditions, practices,
esteemed leaders and so on.
The ordinance* prohibits eating and smoking
at public places and restaurants are not allowed to serve food after sehri and
before iftaar. Theatres and cinemas can only open for three hours a day after
iftaar. Cafeterias and restaurants in hospitals, railway stations and bus
stands, however, are exempted under the ordinance. Any violations can be
punished with a fine and a maximum of three-month prison term.
There are many issues to be highlighted
regarding the abovementioned ordinance. Fasting, one of the five pillars of
Islam, is the ultimate test of self-control where Muslims must practice
patience and tolerance while temporarily being subject to trying conditions of
hunger, thirst and restraint, just
to name a few. Therefore, the fact that those claiming to propagate Islam are
adopting a dogmatic attitude of utter intolerance towards those of other faiths
seems essentially hypocritical. Refraining from consuming food publicly should
be an act that stems from within an individual out of courtesy, rather than
being enforced by legislation. The Holy Qur'an itself states:
“…There is no compulsion in religion…”
(2:256).
If not from the Holy Book, why not take an
example from the life of the Last Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H.), the man whose
qualities are the benchmark for all Muslims. The same man who prayed for the
forgiveness of the people of Ta'if, after they had chased him out of the city
by hurling stones and the same man who stood up in reverence when a funeral
procession of a Jewish woman passed by. Can no parallels be drawn here?
More disturbing is the fact that in the
original text of the ordinance, a public place is made to include “…any hotel,
restaurant, canteen, house, room, tent, enclosures, road lane, bridge or other
place to which the public have access.” Yes, even a ‘house’ and ‘room’ are
included; a clear sign that religious policing does not care to respect the
privacy of our homes. No government should have the freedom to exercise such
policing as it takes away from the sanctity of the act; as I mentioned earlier,
wanting to do something and being forced to do something involve two very
contrasting thought processes.
But wait, wasn’t Pakistan made based on
Islamic principles with a focus on the Muslim majority? Yes, but Islamic
principles neither discriminate against non-Muslims nor do they dictate a need
for such a law. Now with this statistical approach to legislation in mind, that
so many Pakistanis have come to accept, why was there an uproar then, when the
‘burqa’ was banned in France? The majority of the citizens of France feel
uncomfortable by the garb and needless to say, Muslims there are indeed a
minority (this is not to say that I agree with the ban; merely citing a
reference for comparison). But anyway, that topic warrants its own article.
And let’s not forget that although the law is supposedly only for
Muslims and excludes all non-Muslims; however, in 2009 two Christian men were
arrested from the city of Silanwali for eating in public. There is little in
this news bite that comes as a surprise; with the prevalent poverty and
corruption, there is little (if any) anyone can do to prevent some of the law
enforcers from making a quick buck or two. Protection of minorities is already
almost non-existent and during Ramadan, there is an additional possibility of
falling prey to the misuse of the ordinance by those who have suddenly become
religiously devout.
Other than an irrational religious basis, the
ordinance is also impractical. Consider, for example, those individuals who
suffer from chronic illness or injury and women who are in their final stage of
pregnancy or are nursing mothers; for them, fasting is not an obligation. Why
must they refrain from consumption of food when they are in a condition beyond
their control that prevents them from fasting? There may be emergencies where a
fasting individual may require food and water with no hospital nearby. Should
they be denied dietary requirements which they may possibly need to survive? To
put things in perspective, imagine the sale of sugary foods being banned due to
the presence of many diabetics in the populace. Clearly, most of us would
disagree with the rule.
One might even say that a sound argument may
not even be required for the ordinance to exist, simply because religion, just
like any lifestyle, boils down to individual choice. Choosing to be Muslim is a
matter of choice and with it, comes all the duties and responsibilities that
the religion entails. Surely, no one else must be held accountable for it, nor
must their freedom be curtailed simply because they do not follow a lifestyle
that the majority takes pride in.
Put simply, it is not the abstinence from
food and beverages that captures the essence of Ramadan, it is the constant
struggle to be good human beings and practice righteousness even in the most
challenging of circumstances. Here's hoping to a month filled with the true
essence of Islam instead of mindless religious fervor. Ramadan Mubarak!
*The original print of the ordinance can be
found at http://goo.gl/vW3YnW.
By: Ashhad Qureshi
0 comments:
Post a Comment