State's 'monopoly' on Jehad

Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal's approach to the challenges of terrorism and militancy appears to be quite different from that of his predecessor, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. Unlike Nisar's argument that not all proscribed religious and sectarian outfits fall in the category of terrorists and militants, Ahsan Iqbal is neither ambivalent nor apologetic on the subject of violence with a religious label. In fact he is quite blunt in this regard.
In an Islamic republic, he argues, it is only the state which has the prerogative of declaring a religious wat or Jehad, because only the state has the "monopoly" on the use of force in an Islamic republic, and no citizen has the right to call for any one's killing. However, the minister ought to have delved into the Islamic concept of Jehad deeper. For example, he should have explained that although Afghanistan is also an Islamic republic, the Afghan Taliban have waged a just and legitimate struggle against the presence of foreign troops in their country; therefore, the governments in Kabul also becomes their legitimate target.
Every sane person would share the minister's concern about the clerics' Jehad rulings against one another in Pakistan's cities, towns and villages, because this could turn the country into a live war zone. His appeal to the clergy and the leaders of religious parties to denounce the "fatwas" calling for armed struggles on the social media is a step in the right direction. Here one must not lose sight of the fact that the history of Islam is replete with numerous wars of fatwas. In recent history, in the First and Second Gulf Wars, for example, those issuing fatwas, sometimes against one another, were divided into at least two camps. If one group of religious sided with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the other condemned his rule and his actions.
The minister advanced another plausible argument, that "no one has a franchise to judge anyone's faith. The terror incidents remind us that we need unity in this country." But again, he was economical in the use of words. He was expected to define the religious and sectarian outlooks or persuasions of aggressors and killers too. His remarks made on the floor of the National Assembly the other day did make a lot of sense, as did the shift in the government's stance on terrorism and extremism. The change followed the installation of Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and it indicates two broad facts: first, the unveiling of America's new policy on Afghanistan and South Asia by President Donald Trump is clearly aimed at exerting pressure on Islamabad to address the alleged issue of "safe havens" for the Haqqani Network and the supposed presence of non-state actors in the country. Secondly, the PML-N considers highly impressive the performance of a candidate from a jehadi outfit-backed in the recent by-election in Lahore's NA-120 as a new challenge to its vote bank. The message that he was trying to send across was that Pakistan's clear and principled stand on Kashmir need not be supplemented or complemented by armed non-state actors. It reaffirms its moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiris' right to self-determination, condemns all human rights abuses against Kashmiris by the occupation forces and seeks the resolution of the dispute in accordance with the United Nations' resolutions. No doubt, it is a praiseworthy step. It is, however, not known whether the government move emanates from political expediency or constitutes the first step towards introducing to the world contours of country's new narrative post-Trump speech.