Pakistan’s CII: Championing Oppression at Home and Abroad

In an interesting move that has puzzled human rights advocates and religious freedom supporters worldwide, Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) – a constitutional body tasked with advising the government on Islamic issues – has praised China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang as a paragon of religious liberty. This endorsement comes from the very same institution that routinely advocates for intensified persecution of Pakistan’s own religious minorities, particularly the Ahmadi Muslim community.

The Council’s recent actions highlight a disturbing pattern of supporting authoritarian control over religious expression, both domestically and internationally. The Council recently dispatched an 11-member delegation to China, including a visit to the Xinjiang region, at the invitation of the Chinese government. Upon their return, the Council’s chairman, Dr. Muhammad Ragheb Hussain Naeemi, made a series of startling declarations. He asserted that Muslims in Xinjiang have achieved “economic and religious freedom” thanks to Chinese policies, and went on to commend China for purportedly eradicating extremism and terrorism in the region.

This rosy assessment stands in contrast to the findings of governments, human rights organizations, and international bodies worldwide. Extensive documentation has revealed China’s systematic campaign of mass detention, pervasive surveillance, forced labor, and cultural suppression targeting Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. Many experts and governments have characterized these actions as genocide or crimes against humanity. The willingness of Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology to parrot Chinese propaganda raises serious questions about its integrity, independence, and true purpose.

The Council’s controversial stance on Xinjiang, while alarming, is hardly surprising given its history of advocating for regressive and discriminatory policies within Pakistan. Established as a constitutional body in 1962, the Council has increasingly become a platform for hardline clerics to push their agenda under the guise of official religious guidance. Its 20 members, predominantly religious scholars from conservative backgrounds, wield significant influence despite their recommendations not being legally binding.

In recent years, the Council has repeatedly called for harsher treatment of Ahmadi Muslims, a minority sect that Pakistan declared non-Muslim by constitutional amendment in 1974. The persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan is already severe, with the community facing legal, social, and economic discrimination. Yet, the Council consistently pushes for even more draconian measures.

Read More

Held at Dragonpoint: Impeding Democracy in BRI Nations

A recent example of the Council’s extremism came after Pakistan’s Supreme Court ruled that Ahmadis could at least practice their faith inside their homes and places of worship. The Council protested vehemently, issuing a statement that shocked many for its blatant disregard for basic human rights. It demanded that Ahmadis “must not be allowed to profess or preach in any manner even within their houses, community centers or in places of worship” and should be “unequivocally declared as apostates.” Such rhetoric from an official government body not only serves to further marginalize an already persecuted minority but also potentially incites violence against them.

The Council’s extremist positions extend far beyond targeting Ahmadis. It has consistently opposed legislation aimed at protecting women’s rights and combating domestic violence. In a particularly controversial move, the Council argued that girls as young as nine years old can be married, drawing widespread condemnation from child rights activists and progressive elements in Pakistani society. Perhaps most infamously, the Council suggested that husbands should be allowed to “lightly beat” disobedient wives, a recommendation that sparked outrage both domestically and internationally.

In the realm of economics, the Council has made equally outlandish proposals. It once called for abolishing Pakistan’s paper currency system in favor of gold and silver coins, a suggestion that economists dismissed as impractical and potentially disastrous for the country’s already fragile economy. These examples illustrate the Council’s tendency to prioritize a narrow, fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law over practical considerations and modern human rights standards.

While the Council’s recommendations are not legally binding, its constitutional status lends significant weight to its pronouncements. This often leads to confusion among the public and provides ammunition to extremist elements within Pakistani society. Critics argue that the Council has become a tool for hardline clerics to legitimize their regressive agenda, using the veneer of official religious guidance to push Pakistan towards greater conservatism and intolerance.

The Council’s praise for China’s Uyghur policies reveals a deeply cynical worldview – one in which religious freedom is defined not by the ability of individuals to practice their faith freely, but by the power of the state to control and dictate religious expression. By endorsing China’s approach, the Council tacitly admits that its vision for Pakistan is one of authoritarian control over religious life rather than true pluralism and tolerance.

This stance is particularly troubling given Pakistan’s own struggles with extremism, sectarian violence, and the persecution of religious minorities. Instead of promoting interfaith harmony and protecting the rights of all citizens, the Council of Islamic Ideology appears more interested in exacerbating these problems. Its willingness to turn a blind eye to the well-documented oppression of Muslims in China, while simultaneously advocating for oppression at home, exposes the hollowness of its claims to defend Islam and Muslim interests. The Council’s actions also highlight the complex and often contradictory nature of Pakistan’s foreign policy, particularly its relationship with China.

As a self-proclaimed Islamic republic, Pakistan often positions itself as a defender of Muslim rights globally. However, its strategic and economic ties with China have led it to remain conspicuously silent on the plight of Uyghurs. The Council’s endorsement of Chinese policies in Xinjiang takes this silence a step further, actively legitimizing oppression in the name of combating extremism.

Calls for reform or abolition of the Council have grown louder in recent years, with some parliamentarians and civil society activists arguing that it has outlived its purpose. They point out that Pakistan already has a parliament and judiciary capable of ensuring that laws comply with Islamic principles, making the Council redundant at best and harmful at worst. However, dismantling or significantly reforming the Council faces significant obstacles.

Religious conservatives in Pakistan view the body as a crucial safeguard against secularization and Western influence. Any attempt to limit its powers or alter its composition is likely to be met with fierce resistance from Islamist parties and their supporters. As Pakistan grapples with the challenges of the 21st century – including economic development, social cohesion, and regional stability – the role of institutions like the Council of Islamic Ideology becomes increasingly questionable. Its recent endorsement of China’s policies in Xinjiang, coupled with its history of promoting discrimination and intolerance at home, suggests that it is more of an obstacle to progress than a force for positive change.
(From 'Greek City Times')