When I was a child I once asked my mother why almost everybody I knew had pet names. This included both the boys as well as the girls in our family, and among family friends. She gave me an interesting answer that has stayed with me for all these years. What she told me was that since many children were named after the Prophet (PBUH), his family and other important Muslim figures, parents could not yell at the children calling them those names, so they also gave them ‘pet names’ to make it easier. As I went on to school and then college I realised that when boys and then young men had a disagreement, they rarely used first names during an argument, obviously for similar reasons. During most arguments either minor obscenities or else derogatory terms were used instead. However, growing up in Lahore where the primary language of communication was Punjabi, the other thing I realised was that Punjabi as a language was not very conducive to polite arguments, making the need to avoid the use of first names quite necessary. The other thing that became pretty obvious while growing up was that there was a significant difference of opinion about the ‘laudatory’ poems either in praise of Allah, the Prophet (PBUH), and revered religious figures, which were sung by devotional musicians. This difference of opinion, especially in our part of the world, went back a century or so to the doctrinal differences between the ‘ecstatic’ and the ‘sober’ brand of Sufism. Frankly, I found the poetry and its rendition by the ecstatic Sufis and their followers quite endearing. Just listening to the ‘qawwals’ (devotional singers) like the Sabri brothers or Aziz Mian, and later on most famously Nusrat Fateh, explains the point adequately about how singers and poets personalise their relationship with Allah, the Prophet (PBUH) and other Muslim figures like Hazrat Ali. Of course, those who oppose the ecstatic brand of Sufism, especially members of the Deobandi denominations, among the Muslims were not at all pleased by these ‘panegyrics’. During the earlier years of Pakistan, religion was still very much a personal matter and the government had not taken a stand on how it should be practiced. During this time, since followers of the Sunni Barelvi-Hanafi denomination were a majority in Punjab, ecstatic Sufism was quite acceptable and as such, public singing of the highly personalised devotional poems of Sufi saints as well as their followers was quite the norm. Even though much has changed, many of these poems are still very much a part of our life, and ‘qawwali’ a very normal part of many of our public and private functions. That brings me to two controversies that have been consuming much ink and airtime in our media over the last few weeks. The first is about a television channel that broadcast a qawwali about the marriage of two important religious icons during a stylised presentation of the wedding of a rather ‘infamous’ actress. In my opinion, this presentation was definitely within the accepted range of devotional music played, especially for Shia weddings. However, the setting was clearly inappropriate. So, as far as I am concerned, the television programme is, at best, guilty of bad taste. But then, if we start banning television channels for presenting programmes in bad taste then we just might have to shut down almost all the commercial television channels. Bad taste sadly is ubiquitous in our electronic media. It is an accepted fact that most commercial programming on television is dependent on viewership and ratings. So, it would seem that the bad taste of our television programmes reflects a similar predisposition among the majority of our television viewers in the ‘land of the pure’. Many of these programmes might even border on the ‘immoral’ but then personal morality can neither be legislated nor enforced by law. The second controversy is about the ‘blasphemy’ case registered against a bunch of lawyers for using derogatory language for a policeman with an ‘exalted’ name. In my opinion, the real blasphemers in this case are those that conflate this policeman with the person he is named after. And that brings me to where I started from: the use of pet names for individuals named after important religious figures. Considering the ever increasing religious sensitivity and expressions of public piety of our population, and what were once called the ‘religious divines’, it is becoming increasingly necessary to defuse the issue of people named after important religious figures being derogated in public. Perhaps reason will prevail and such accusations will not lead to any serious consequences. But then, as things are going in Pakistan, it is quite possible that some member of the judiciary, under pressure from religious enthusiasts, might come down on the side of blasphemy accusations in such a case. That is sadly quite possible. So, I strongly believe that our higher courts and other bodies like the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) ought to take preventive measures about such things. The most important single step that the CII can take is to recommend that religious figures that people are named after should not be in any way equated with the people carrying those names in the present. And to facilitate such an action the CII should also prepare a list of all names that fall into this category. Clearly such a list will have to be quite exhaustive to please all Muslim denominations. Failing such recommendations, the next best thing would be that the executive branch instruct the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) that no first names that otherwise belong to important religious figures should be registered in the future and that all those that already have such names should be told to add a non-religious first name. This might seem onerous but then considering what is going on and what might happen, such action would seem most propitious. The writer has practiced and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com