On the Women Protection Bill in Pakistan...

A MIMETIC RELIGIOSITY

Maryam Sakeenah

The refusal of the Pakistani religious right to allow the criminalization of domestic violence does not just reflect misogyny and a sense of insecurity over a perceived loss of patriarchal control. On a deeper level, it shows a mindset that reduces religion to a mere mimetic replication of the first Islamic society of Arabia over fourteen centuries ago.

One of the major justifications given by clerics for opposing the Women Protection Bill prescribing punishments for domestic violence is that such a law is essentially ‘against the Shariah’, as it innovates laws not hitherto specified by the primary sources of religion.

This mindset has surfaced elsewhere too- one of its starkest manifestations is ISIS’s revival of institutionalized slavery as an ‘Islamic’ practice, as slavery had not been explicitly criminalized by Islam.

The problem with this thesis is that it is literalist in interpretation and mimetic in implementation. This literalism and mimesis vindicate and endorse as ‘Islamic’ many an authoritatian and misogynistic practices dating from the time and place in which Islam was first set, unacceptable today in the light of the fundamental rights and principles over which humanity has achieved a quiet, universal consensus.

But what needs to be examined is whether Islam actually calls for an exclusively literalist reading of its sources and a mimetic replication of seventh century Arabia everywhere and at all times?

The Quran and even its elaboration in hadith stipulate few legislations, especially for phenomena characteristic of modern society. There is a wisdom in this silence- it understands the essential condition of human society- flux. This means that as societies evolve and grow over time, their needs change, and for a law system to be relevant, it must be flexible and adaptive to novel situations and conditions as they arise. Hence there is a deliberate purpose in this silence- to allow space for lawmaking relevant to the time and place. Yet the sources of Islam are complete in themselves- because they leave pointers, guidelines and suggestions that must inspire and lead such lawmaking in the right direction.

This understanding was not lost on the earliest generation after the Prophet (PBUH) who made Ijtihad a vital institution for progressive juristic innovation, such as Umar (R.A)’s innovations in the divorce laws to cater to the trends in his time.

Secondly, the purpose of law is to safeguard values which are at the core of Islam. The legal aspect of the shariah exists to protect the ‘maqasid ul shariah’- the core values. At times such law is explicitly laid down by the sources. Often, it is not. The scholars of Islam are in agreement that to ensure the achievement of the maqasid, juridical innovation may be made within the parameters defined by Islamic sources. Hence, Ijtihad.

One of these core values is human dignity and sanctity of one’s personal integrity. When a woman goes through domestic abuse and violence, it violates her dignity and respect as a human being and her fundamental rights as a partner in marriage. There is absolutely no equivocation in Islamic sources about this being condemnable behavior. The acceptability of domestic violence as the husband’s prerogative in Arabia predated Islam. Nor is the absence in the Quran and sunnah of a fixed penal law regarding it a bar to formulating such a law. There is no equivocation in the sources of Islam regarding the reprehensibility of domestic violence. By making gentle physical admonition exclusively tolerable in extreme cases of ‘nushuz’ (rebellion/defiance as in the case of unabashed disloyalty) and only after exhausting all other preferred strategies, Islam actually rejects domestic violence as the man’s prerogative to have his way with his spouse. The strictest conditions are laid down to ensure that neither pain is inflicted nor a mark left. Islam does not really require of men to put this exceptional permissibility to action in any situation at all. Simultaneously, the Prophetic conduct shows this never really has to be done, and there are better ways to resolve marital discord. He said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then be intimate with her?” (Bukhari, vol. 8, Hadith 68)  

The Quran says that spouses are to ‘dwell in tranquility with each other’ (Ar-Rum 21). It instructs husbands to ‘Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.’ (An-Nisaa 19) 

In a society where honour killings, acid throwing, domestic and sexual violence are far too common, legislating in order to curb these horrendous practices works well to fulfill the maqasid of the shariah. Any legislation to ensure the provision and protection of the human rights recognized by Islam is commendable, just like the Prophet (PBUH)’s praise for the pre Islamic peacemaking document ‘Half ul Fuzul’ which laid down rights.

While the Women Protection Bill needs to be examined and modified to rule out its misuse and there can be a healthy debate around it, there can be no doubt that in its objective it fulfills the demand Islam makes on us_ to deter violence against the vulnerable and provide access to justice.

While constructive criticism and suggestion should be welcomed, the tirade from the religious against the law is tragic in that it seems to imply that Islam stands on the side of the male abuser and slights the issue of domestic violence. That is a dangerous and ugly untruth which ought to have been dispelled by those who claim to stand for Islam’s defence.      

Addressing the issue of the revival of slavery as ‘Islamic’, Michael Perez writes, ‘…we must refuse the position that limits our contemporary ethical horizons. To do so, we can take the Prophet’s statements against slavery as our contemporary responsibility… Such a perspective is critical today… Muslims have a role to play in the elaboration of Islam, and push forth a future in which slavery is no longer a question.’

Those who insist on an uncreative mimetic religiosity need to remember what Iqbal had meant when he wrote, ‘The movers have gone ahead… the unmoving ones have been crushed.’

Attacks on Churches and Mob Violence in Lahore

TRANSCENDING THE US VERSUS THEM PARADIGM

Maryam Sakeenah

My parents chose to send me to a Christian missionary school- a decision I have always been grateful to them for. The Convent’s ‘Character Building’ programme instilled in me values which, owing to the essential kinship of the Abrahamic faiths, facilitated my appreciation and practice of my own faith as a Muslim later in life.

Incidentally, all serving staff in my household happen to be Christians. In Ramazan they prepare the Iftar, and at Christmas and Easter we give them an extra something to partake of the family festivity. Through all my extensive and longstanding interaction with Christian friends, colleagues, subordinates, there is no unpleasant or uncomfortable memory I have. And I know I am no exception.

In fact, when I condoled with my Christian domestic help about the unfortunate recent events targeting churches in Lahore, I sensed in their comments the same sentiment I have gleaned from my experience as a Pakistani Muslim. ‘We have been brothers and sisters living together for decades- there was never a problem. And now some unknown enemies wanting this country’s destruction want to create hate. We have nothing against each other- Muslims too are under attack from the same people. We need to be together’, said my illiterate Christian kitchen helper- (translation my own).     

There was an understanding even within these unlettered members of a less privileged minority community that something had gone wrong in recent years; that violent religious hate was not the ethos of this land; and that there was a common enemy out there whose triumph was in sowing discord and hate between the two communities.

And yet ironically I find a complete absence of this simple understanding in the opinions of vociferous social media commentators both from the secular-liberal and conservative perspectives. In fact, the polarity in their views is striking whenever I browse through my newsfeed. While sadness over the attack on the churches was palpable among all shades of opinion, there was a callous lack of sympathy for the innocent Muslim victims of the post-bombing mob-lynching by Christians, and a brazen attempt to paint the ensuing violence by Christian mobsters as ‘but natural.’ This selective sympathy shows our own deeply rooted prejudices. On the other extreme there are outrageous calls for indiscriminate reprisal against the Christian community of Youhannabad where the lynchings happened.

The problem with the narrative that emerges from these polarized, clashing perspectives is that it sees the recent events through the blood-stained lens of ‘Us versus Them’; as a ‘Christian versus Muslim’ issue which is both inaccurate as well as dangerous. In fact, the terrible mob violence that occurred in the wake of the church bombing was also a tragic result of dangerously viewing the attack on the church as ‘Muslim’ violence against ‘Christian’ victims. More accurately, it was violence by an extremist militant minority group for whom all who do not share their violent ideology are potential targets.  This is why the anger was directed at Muslims who had been engaged in routine business in the Christian locality. The two innocents picked for the barbaric lynching were lighter skinned (a characteristic of the Pashtuns) and at least one of them bearded. The mob violence was hence fired by ethno-religious stereotyping and the blind hate born of such prejudices.

In response to the ensuing violence by the Youhannabad locals there is brewing anger amidst neighbouring Muslim communities which sets the stage for potential clashes waiting in the wing. In the climate of fear and anger many families in Youhannabad are planning to relocate or have done so already. This is the triumph of the real enemy as it fulfils the malevolent agenda perfectly. The victory of the enemy is when its victim turns into a savage perpetrator like itself, continuing the cycle of violence.

Violent incidents targeting the Christian community in Pakistan in the recent past certainly fuel the anger by creating genuine and understandable grievances. However, it has to be understood that such targeting of the Christian community has always been resented and rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population of this country; and that the extremists involved in terror attacks on Christians are a fringe element rejected by the mainstream public opinion. Terrorist outfits are all out to exact vengeance that spares none- mosque, imambargah, church- Muslim, Christian, Shiite- all are fellow sufferers in this great calamity that has gripped us as the terrible cost of owning the US’s Great War on Terror.

The Christian community of Pakistan never has been, is not and should never be an oppressed minority hated and targeted by Pakistan’s Muslim majority. Those trying to reinforce this idea- whether extreme rightwingers, conservatives or the secular liberals- are utterly wrong. This is a false picture that will fuel more rage and blind hate.

What is required in the wake of this frenzied violence is a communal introspection by both communities. The Christian community needs to examine why its young members descended into such rank savagery, and must take responsibility to curtail simmering violence that utterly betrays the Christian spirit of forbearance and compassion. The Muslim community must also engage in a serious endeavour to root out the ire and vengeful streak building up in its ranks in this charged atmosphere.       

The pulpit and the minbar both must take up their vital roles to defeat this false ‘Us versus Them’ narrative. Both religions contain voluminous and powerful content on tolerance and compassion which needs to resonate to drown this madness in the name of faith. Faith must be the healing, the mending and the force inspiring peacemaking. The Quran questions the validity of a faith that justifies and inspires evil. "Say: "Worst indeed is that which your faith enjoins on you- if you indeed are believers." (2:93) It reminds us with a vital message that has never been as relevant as it is today. “Let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety... Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.”  (5:8)

In the midst of this senseless melee of wrathful hate, the words of Islam’s blessed Prophet (PBUH) for his Christian citizenry from Najran become a beautiful encore played to a deaf audience.

"This is a message from [Prophet] Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion [in religion] is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate...
...Their Churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (of Muslims) is to disobey this covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)." (Text of the Charter of Privileges, Treaty of Najran)

Rejoinder to the trending 'Open Letter to Moderate Muslims'

‘REFORMING’ ISLAM?

Maryam Sakeenah

Notwithstanding its stated agenda, ISIS has managed to put the conversation on Islam right at the centre of the global discourse. From celebrities to con artists to apologists and Muslim scholars, all have their two cents to share on Islam. Mr Ali A.Rizvi in his ‘Open Letter to Moderate Muslims’ published in The Huffington Post  has called for ‘reforming’ Islam. He writes that Muslim moderates inadvertently defend ISIS when they attempt to defend Islam against allegations of violence and backwardness- because ISIS follows most closely and literally the contents of Islam’s most sacred texts. Moderates are at pains to explain away ISIS’s actions as ‘unIslamic’ through interpretation and contextualization of the sources of Islam. Given the accessibility of information in this day and age, religion is no longer shrouded in sacred mystery. Once the awareness of the sources of religion explicitly sanctioning violent practices spreads, Rizvi argues, sustaining faith in the indubitability and infallibility of the Quran would be difficult.

There is a problem at the heart of Rizvi’s thesis: for starters, he presumes that faith in Islam survives and thrives because its adherents are unaware of its actual content due in part to the unfamiliarity with Arabic and inaccessibility of information about its literal content. In one fell sweep Mr Rizvi declares all faithful Muslims to be largely unaware of the violent and diabolical contents of their religion- which, if brought into the light of day, will expose the degenerate ethos of their religion and put its naive believers to abject shame.

Most Muslims as a matter of faith do in fact take their religious sources quite literally, yet do not conclude from it what ISIS does. Moderates like Reza Aslan who call for a liberal reinterpretation and metaphorical/allegorical reading of religious content are but few. And yet these billions of faithful and several hundreds of trained Islamic scholars who take the Quran and hadith quite literally hold firmly to the conviction that Islam is indeed ‘a religion of peace’. How do they arrive at this generalization in the face of the actual literal texts of Islam that seem to imply everything but that?

 The problem with both Rizvi’s thesis as well as ISIS is that both have lost sight of the ‘middleness’ that defines Islam. Muslim moderates too, when they put modernist interpretation over the letter of the Quran to explain away violent meanings the extremists may derive, lose sight of this. The essence of Islam is ‘adl’ and ‘tawazun’: (balance and middleness). The sources of Islam have contents endorsing the use of force such as in the sources Rizvi cites in his article- however, these very same sources also contain teachings that command and celebrate peacemaking, justice, kindness, upholding of rights among other things. Looking at it purely quantitatively, the latter far outweighs the former. The balance between these two sets of teaching is to be found in order to develop the true Islamic worldview which mediates between the two. This poised, comprehensive understanding does not need the prop of reinterpretation, but understands that religion defines for us the extremities- conduct in warfare through teachings of firmness and courage against the enemy in war and strife, as well as, on the other end, teachings on forbearance and kindness and mercy at all other times.

As a teacher on Islam, I often feel the need to explain to my students the apparent discrepancy between the examples of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)’s forgiveness and mercy like the one at the Conquest of Makkah in which he declared general pardon, and the instances when retributive justice and execution of penal law or punitive measures were carried out. The two instances stand for and delineate the two extremities of what our responses to wrong can range from. The former stands for Ihsan (unconditional good, more than what is justly due) and the latter for Adl (absolute justice). While the latter is a necessary element a society must be based on, the former- Allah tells us- is the superior virtue. The variation in the Prophetic example leaves it to his followers to decide when and in what circumstances each of the two is to be chosen as our response. Wisdom is to be able to make that choice correctly, depending on the nature and gravity of the situation one needs to respond to, the context and the likely consequences of our choice.

To glean this holistic, seasoned vision is what Islam calls ‘hikmah’ (wisdom). When ‘hikmah’ is absent, the resultant understanding is superficial, errant, flippant and unfair. That is precisely the mistake both ISIS and Rizvi’s ‘Open Letter’ have made.     

Another vital insight is that law and commandments exist for and are bound by core ethical principles and values. Penal laws do not operate detached from the ethical base and moral foundation. The laws of Islam have to be understood holistically as guardians of the values that are the very heart of the matter. Dissociated from the ethical content, they seem to be the brutal and barbaric edicts that ISIS and Rizvi make them out to be.

The Quran says, ‘So give good tidings to My servants; those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.’ (39:17-18) Innumerable Quranic verses and ahadith are very explicit- whether taken literally or figuratively- about the doing of good, delivering justice, making peace, holding firm to what is true, keeping promises, being kind and gentle etc. It is injustice to the Quran to pick out a few of its verses revealed in specific circumstances - which are to be applied in those specific circumstances within certain conditions, and take them to represent the entire ethos of the Islamic religion, eclipsing its much larger content on humane and egalitarian values. If these values were put at the core and followed as zealously as the letter of the law is feverishly applied by fanatical groups, Muslim societies today would come to epitomize the highest and worthiest in human civilization. With reference to these much more numerous and substantive contents of Islam, would following the very literal teaching of the Quran and sunnah engender anything but universal justice and goodness? Rizvi’s premise is clearly one-eyed. It does not hold ground.

Yet another problem is when Mr Rizvi calls for an Islamic Reformation on the pattern of the Jewish and Christian Reformation in the secular modern West. He is impressed with the fact that Christians and Jews can reject the violent contents of their scriptures and still retain faith and be considered part of their religious communities. There always have been serious doubts and questions about the authenticity and credibility of the contents of these scriptures even from within those religious traditions, and this takes away the concept of their infallibility. Yet there has been no such challenge of any serious proportions to the authenticity of the Quran’s content. The Quran begins hence: “This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah.” (2:2)

The call to ape the secular reformation model is fundamentally problematic as it reeks strongly of eurocentrism built on the neo-imperialist belief of the inherent superiority of the Western model. Karen Armstrong has taken issue with those in the developed West who criticize ISIS while failing to understand the dynamics and lessons of history that have led to the rise of groups like ISIS. She writes, ‘Many secular thinkers now regard “religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant, and an irrational, backward and violent “other” to the peaceable and humane liberal state – an attitude with an unfortunate echo of the colonialist view of indigenous peoples as hopelessly “primitive”, mired in their benighted religious beliefs. There are consequences to our failure to understand that our secularism, and its understanding of the role of religion, is exceptional... when we look with horror upon the travesty of Isis, we would be wise to acknowledge that its barbaric violence may be, at least in part, the offspring of policies guided by our disdain.’

The broken lens Mr Ali A.Rizvi views the world from is a tainted one. This takes away from him credibility as a well-meaning reformist offering prescriptions and fixes for the ailing Muslim world. The prescription for reforming Muslim society lies within Islam’s own ethos. 

'HAPPY MUSLIMS': to be or not to be...

A CLASH OF FRENETIC HAPPINESSES

Maryam Sakeenah

While the ‘Happy British Muslims’ video would not have in itself elicited a response more than a fleeting bemused scepticism, it was impossible to get over it and move on, given the 2 million youtube views, the reams of commentary and discussion it generated. The short clip apparently became the biggest issue in the issue-ridden Muslim world, judging by social media ratings. Ardent supporters of the attempt to showcase Muslims in the West as adaptable and ‘happy’ people, as well as bitter opponents of such meaningless and inappropriate depiction of Muslims, all jumped into the fray- soon enough, there was a raging storm in a teacup.

It all signifies the contradictions, polarities, sensitivities and contentions rife in the Muslim world- like a bubbling, gurgling, steaming cauldron.

The video aims to present an image of Muslims in the West as flexible, creative, adaptable, well-integrated, cheerful and positive-minded, so as to dispel negative stereotypes that have dominated public imagination in the West since 9/11. Imam Johari Abdul Malik from the US comments on the video: ‘The narrative about Muslims is so often about being hungry and angry, people have started turning it around using the social media...’

Underlying this, however, there can also be sensed a desperate attempt to assure that ‘we are like you, too’- a desire to be accepted, owned and integrated into Western society. This desperation can be understood in the context of the consistently rising Islamophobia in these societies.

However, the problem with this appeasing, placatory attitude is not so much with Muslims as it is with Western societies. These societies seem to be growing increasingly ethnocentric, losing willingness to embrace diversity and to allow distinct ethnic, cultural and religious identities to survive and thrive without either being compelled to Westernize to be able to integrate, or being socially marginalized. This goes against the essence of the values of pluralism, tolerance and coexistence at the heart of Western liberal tradition that it prides itself in. It is ironical and interesting to note that while the ‘Happy British Muslims’ video was doing the rounds, Tony Blair reminded the leaders of the Western nations to ‘move the battle against Islamist extremism to the top of the political agenda.’ The same day that the video was released, the English Defence League held a demonstration outside London’s largest mosque against Islam in Britain. On this backdrop, given the very grave challenges that beset the Muslim world, attempts like the ‘Happy British Muslims’ video appear little more than pathetic. The efficacy of the video message as a response to a pervasive anti-Muslim campaign is highly questionable.

But that is not the only troubling thought. Equally disconcerting, if not more was the impulsive and inane, utterly dispensable video rejoinder to ‘Happy British Muslims’ video, made by some Islamic groups on the internet titled ‘Happy Muslims, HALAL version.’ This video removed the images of all women and re-released it as acceptable by Islamic standards- minus the laughing, clapping, singing females. This reflects a lopsided, immature and almost obsessive fixity on juristic intricacies of Muslim law without even a cursory understanding and appreciation of the spirit of Islam. Such fiqh-obsessed shallow-mindedness is often manifested in moral panics among Muslims over the visibility of Muslim women.

It is deplorable that the makers of the ‘Halal’ version who deservedly educed ridicule and censure utterly failed to grasp the idea of true happiness in Islam. For one, given the plethora of grave predicaments we are caught in, the despondency, frustration, defeatism, confusion and hurt, the cluelessness about the future, the directionlessness and leaderlessness, the wars, civil wars, socio-political crises and the rising monster of sectarianism- these aren’t the happiest of times for Muslims anywhere in the world. Empathy is an essential component of Islamic brotherhood- the fact that a Muslim must feel the pain of another Muslim (no matter how geographically distant) as his own. I wonder how I, as a Muslim, can clap and cheer my deep sadness away? Brecht writes,

‘Truly I live in dark times!...

A smooth forehead

 Points to insensitivity

He who laughs
Has not yet received
The terrible news

What times are these, in which
A conversation about trees is almost a crime
For in doing so we maintain our silence about so much wrongdoing!’

 The prospect of declining life and time and the impending oblivion of death, and the eventuality of accountability in the eternal life is the grave and inescapable truth one must confront. The Prophet (SAW) said, ‘If you knew what I know, you would laugh little and weep much.’

Happiness in Islam is not the be-all and end-all. It is not to be pursued, but in its deepest sense, it comes to those who discover and live out their purpose in life. Orwell writes, ‘Men can only be happy if they assume that the purpose of life is not happiness.’ Fun and entertainment as temporary relaxation have a place- and a significant one- but happiness in Islam is gained by tasting the sweetness of faith through complete self-surrender to God. It is attained by giving and selfless sacrifice. ‘By Time! Man is in Loss. Except those who believe and do righteous good deeds and exhort one another to the Truth and exhort one another to patience.’   (The Quran)

Imam Johari quoted earlier, was perturbed by the image of Muslims as ‘hungry and angry’, but one cannot wish that away or pretend that is not the case by cheering and smiling away into the camera. Yes, Muslims writhe in the throes of poverty, starvation and crippling oppression, but happiness is attainable to those who do their small bit to help alleviate some of that.

This idea was tried to be conveyed in another video rejoinder titled ‘Happy Muslims: Sunnah Version’. It is a brief, beautiful and simple message that reflects the Islamic ethos of happiness- it shows clips of Muslims rescuing and saving lives of the calamity-stricken, and ends with the line, ‘This, my friend, is happiness.’ However, this video was blurred and poorly made, and circulated briefly in a few closed Muslim circles. It never went viral. And here is the very heart of the problem: the voicelessness and disempowerment of the Muslim visionary, and that ‘the worst are filled with a passionate intensity.’ (Yeats)    

The Stasis of the Muslim Mind

THE STASIS OF THE MUSLIM MIND

Maryam Sakeenah

“Lost in the loneliness, we turn inwards- with a knife in our hands and a lump in our throats”, writes Muhammad Fadel describing the deep crisis in contemporary Muslim consciousness. The loss of the Khilafah has imbued Muslim sensibility with a deep and haunting nostalgia for a bygone glory. The direction of foreign policy taken by Western nations vis a vis the Muslim world has not helped assuage the raw sentiment, leaving Muslims to harbour the supposition that the ascendant West is locked in a crusade against the Muslim world in the throes of despondency imposed by a malevolent external enemy. The frustration this engenders often makes itself felt in spasmodic bouts of violence like the gasps of an etherized patient laid across on the table.

The experience of long-drawn colonial rule across Muslim lands intensified the nostalgic longing for a lost glory as well as the need to hold on ever more strongly and exclusively to religious fundamentals as a means of self-preservation and protection of religio-cultural identity. This exacerbated the disconnect between ‘deen’ and ‘dunya’ in Muslim consciousness in general and education in particular. Aurangzeb Haneef notes in his article, ‘Learning from the Past’, that one of the most important effects of European imperialism in Muslim society was that the pursuit of rational sciences (maqulat) was abandoned in favour of transmitted sciences (manqulat)in the spirit of preservation in an attempt to re-center and standardize the traditions of religious knowledge. Madrassas ceased to be the training grounds for the intellectual and cultural elite and increasingly came to be identified with religious education only, which was an aberration from the tradition.

The rising popularity of Salafism is a reactionary response out of a prevailing sense of defeatism, victimhood, vulnerability and insecurity over what is seen as the encroachment upon Muslim identity and culture by an ascendant Western civilization. The call for a puritanical ‘return to the sources’ down to the letter shunning the accretions of theology and jurisprudence over centuries is distressingly ahistorical, uncreative and mimetic. It refuses to recognize the need to creatively and rationally respond to the exigencies of the times. Ironically while it claims fidelity to authentic Muslim tradition, it actually betrays the essential dynamism of the same. This dynamism is the defining trait of Islamic jurisprudence which traditionally accorded space to diversity. Muslim jurists were remarkably tolerant of ‘ikhtilaf’(difference of opinion), and were adept at the ‘adab’ (etiquettes) of ikhtilaf. Towering jurists of the sunni school like Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik discouraged blind following (taqleed) of their opinions, encouraging critical thinking and research.

These Muslim groups demonstrate all or most of the traits of fundamentalism, that is: ‘a sense of chosenness tied to the demonizing or damnation of all others who refuse to get behind the truth subscribed to by the subject himself.’ (Farid Esack) By refusing to defer to historical understandings of Islam in theology and law, these Muslim groups place themselves at the fringes of Islamic tradition they claim to be guardians and restorers of.

Due to a radical subjectivism that confers quasi-divine authority to a certain set of literalist opinions these innovation-resistant groups refuse to subject their opinions to rational inquiry. In so doing, they implicitly refuse to recognize intrinsic human diversity as well as the status of individuals as rational subjects imbued with the Divinely-bestowed gift of intellect and free will. “Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.” (5:48)

At a subconscious level, the deep realization of the untenability of opinions that refuse to defer to critical examination has resulted in an inward-looking stasis characterized by an uncompromising exclusivism and exceptionalism.

Muslim exceptionalism betrays the Quran’s universal embrace of humanity with its consistent appeal to mankind as the creation of God, a single family. ‘O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all knowing, all aware.” (49:13) The Quran attaches sanctity to all humankind when it narrates how God blew of His own spirit into the first created person. Muslim exclusivism refuses to recognize the fact that our well-being as a species on a finite planet is tied to the well-being of all others we share it with, and that in the face of this reality, all labels and artificial boundaries are secondary. It is only the extremely narrow-minded and short-sighted who would refuse to recognize the fact that our well being is inextricably tied to the well being of all others.

A further corollary of such exclusivism is the tendency to view ideas as mutually exclusive, with an either/or approach. The middle ground, the many grey areas of overlap are lost sight of. This generates a characteristic intellectual extremism that infects Muslims en masse. It is not understood that neither of the extremes is an acceptable alternative to the other, hence the world appears all black and white, like an arena for a clash of ideas. The ‘Us versus Them’ psyche translates into ‘Islam versus The West.’ This is dangerous as it understands both Islam and the West as monoliths and glosses over the many instances both historical and contemporary, of coexistence, intercultural exchange, common grounds and shared values. It denies the universality of commonly held values, viewing them as ‘Western’ or ‘Islamic.’ The actual confrontation as recognized by Islam, is between Haqq and Baatil (Truth versus Falsehood), and before deciding if anything that passes for Islam is the whole truth, we need to ask ‘whose Islam?’, given the fact that the Quran and sunnah are open to diverse readings and interpretations and the self-appointed spokespeople of Islam are as many as the possible interpretations. Nor is Falsehood equivalent to all that the West is about, given the fact that the military-industrial complex and the clique of influential policy-making elites are responsible for the highhandedness of foreign policy decisions and the injustices that have wreaked havoc and provoked backlash among Muslim populations.

Muslims often invoke the ideal of Islam comparing it to the reality of Western society which often betrays its own values such as freedom and liberty, to show the degeneracy of the latter as compared to the Divine system they have been denied- unmindful of the many ways Muslim societies consistently betray the values of Islam.  

The myth of ‘Islam versus the West’ also denies the collective heritage of Islamic and European civilizations and the instrumental role Islam had in making the Enlightenment possible. “Arab science altered medieval Christendom beyond recognition. For the first time in centuries, Europe’s eyes opened to the world around it- Arab science and philosophy helped rescue the Christian world from ignorance and made possible the very idea of the ‘West.’” (Jonathan Lyons, ‘House of Wisdom’) Aime Cesaire beautifully and powerfully reminds us of this collective human heritage and that attempts to claim a monopoly over the achievements of human civilization are a form of intellectual dishonesty, whether done by scholars in the West or the Muslim world. "But the work of man is only just beginning, and it remains to conquer all the violence entrenched in the recesses of our passion, for no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force. And there is a place for all at the rendezvous of victory." - Aimé Césaire 

In the same vein, there are other binaries like ‘Islam versus Democracy.’ In the recent Pakistan elections numerous religious groups propagated that casting a vote was an act of ‘kufr,’ because democracy is based on the sovereignty of the masses over the sovereignty of God. While the system of electoral politics in Western societies has elements that are incompatible with Islam, the values of democracy are universal and are part and parcel of Islamic governance. Following the majority opinion a standardized practice in Muslim tradition (‘Ijma’ has many forms, the last of which sanctions general voting by the public to settle questions that bear upon the interests of the general masses and can be put to a public vote). Moreover, respecting popular sentiment and being accountable to the public are fundamental Islamic political values. The procedural rules of electoral politics can and should be reformed to conform to Islamic standards and shari’ rulings made exclusively the job of a panel of qualified ulema, beyond the purview of general voting- and it no more is ‘an affront to God’s sovereignty.’ Numberless Islamic scholars have talked of the compatibility between democratic principles and Islamic politics. Sameen Sadaf notes the irony in ‘The Dynamism of Islam”: The alternative, they say, is ‘Khilafat’ (which in many ways is democratic in its ethos). However, since there is no comprehensive system and candidature for khilafat at the time, one can suppose that all we can do is wait for a savior while the forces of actual ‘Kufr’ take over and ruin us.” Pro-Sharia activists seem to assume that mainstreaming the Islamic way of life through dialogue and dawah can be discounted without any loss and they can march straight to an Islamic Khilafah state that will somehow miraculously tame the Muslim masses into believing slaves of God. 

The binary thinking pattern and exclusivism has made Muslim consciousness be preoccupied with narrow, parochial concerns considered ‘Islamic.’ It is forgotten that being slaves of Allah means being good human beings first and that as Muslims everything in the universe is our business. Zaid Hassan writes of the need to ‘reclaim our relationship to the whole’ in his wonderful article, ‘Notes towards an Incomplete Manifesto for Liberating the Muslim Mind.’ The growing distance between ‘deen’ and ‘dunya’ in Muslim consciousness has made Muslims unconcerned about aspects that belong to the secular domain as profane and unworthy. Hence there is an intellectual degeneracy, and a clear absence of contemporary Muslim discourse in science, philosophy and the humanities, a near-absence of Muslim contribution to research.  In the recent elections, Islamic parties in Pakistan exclusively talked of the need for a return to rule by Islam, invoking Shariah, the Islamic identity and ethos of Pakistan. Talking of issues that resonate with the masses like poverty or the energy crisis was considered redundant given their ‘Islamic’ credentials. The growing unpopularity of these parties and their less-than-expected performance comes as no surprise.  

This ghettoization of Muslim thought threatens to make us dwindle into a cult at the margins of civilization. Religious discourse that fails to take account of the modern mind and appeal to the youth with their voracity for rational argument cannot be shoved down people’s throats. It is condemned to survive as no more than a fringe-cult.  

Still more lamentable is the fact that Muslims are failing to realize the need to introspect in these critical times. Any manifestation of the deep crisis in Muslim consciousness is dismissed as ‘unrepresentative of Islam’ at best, and ‘propaganda against Islam’ at worst. Self-criticism is noble, highly needful and the essential trait of the faithful. Muslims have abandoned it altogether, and any voice helping us to examine ourselves critically or calling for a reform is disdainfully rejected with suspicion and sneering self-righteousness. The belief that terrorists or criminals or misogynists ‘use’ the name of Islam to justify their deeds is comforting but unhelpful because it does not recognize the fact that many interpretations of the Quran and sunnah actually give some grounds to sanction such acts and that therefore there is great responsibility on Muslim thinkers to expose and oppose the textual basis of such arguments.

The stasis of the Muslim mind is a daunting project before us. Muslim society is terribly fragmented and polarized between the extremes of the secular and the religious. So much of Muslim scholarship today is pitiably out of touch with the vicissitudes of contemporary society, rationally indefensible, in a language far removed from and inaccessible to the mass man and incognizant of the psychology of modernity and post-modernity. ‘Maqulat’ must be brought at par with the ‘Manqulat’ as central to a holistic Muslim education, precisely because that is how it had always been and was supposed to be before things went awry. The need today is for Muslim scholars to negotiate between entrenched extreme positions, address issues of the here and now in a language that appeals to the common man, and to appeal to modern sensibility in a manner that is faithful to the ethos of Islamic tradition. Such voices need to collate, organize and rise to a crescendo that can drown out the clamour of extremisms. It is a grand project and an urgent one, but cannot be begun until we first realize the need for such effort today and cease to live in denial of the terrible crisis that threatens to rob our faith of its very soul and reduce it to perpetual irrelevance.

Bangladesh Tribunal Prosecution

LETTING SHADOWS FALL BEHIND

Maryam Sakeenah

When a friend from Bangladesh gifted me a jute bag with the Bangladesh flag motif painted on it, I asked her to explain the symbolism. She told me it stood for the rising sun over the green fields, reddened with the blood of liberation martyrs.

After the terrible atrocities in 1971 in which many innocent Bengalis lost their lives, retributive justice to the perpetrators of brutal crime needed to be carried out by Pakistan. This was never done, consumed as the country was in an unseeing jingoism. George Orwell wrote in his memoirs of the Spanish Civil War, ‘Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side.’

Resultantly, in Bangladesh, these atrocities have become over the years part of the collective memory and the national narrative. The hurt and anger has festered to the beat of nationalistic fervour and has turned into an unrelenting, bitter hate and hardened prejudice against the enemy.

On the backdrop of this charged nationalistic sentiment, in 2010 the International Crimes Tribunal was established by this government, though its legitimacy and capacity to deliver justice have been put to question by objective observers.  (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21568349-week-chairman-bangladeshs-international-crimes-tribunal-resigned-we-explain)

There is also the concern that the much-awaited decision announced recently was more a political than judicial decision. The Jamat e Islami is an important part of the political opposition against the current regime. The primary accused belong to the Jamat, widely considered to be complicit in Pakistan army’s violence against the Bengalis in 1971.

Justice is a great thing and often a vital part in healing and reconciliation. The events in Bangladesh carry the pretence of a justice that gratifies the strong national desire for vengeance. Whether real justice can be delivered given the lack of integrity and transparency about the proceedings, is open to question. The presiding judge Nizamul Huq resigned following questions over the publication of private conversations which cast doubt on the court proceedings. The Economist writes, “The e-mails and phone conversations we have seen raise profound questions about the trial... the government tried to put pressure on Mr Nizamul... he worked improperly with a lawyer based in Brussels, and that the lawyer co-operated with the prosecution_ raising questions about conflicts of interest. In Mr Sayeedi’s case (head of JI, given a death sentence this week) it points to the possibility that, even before the court had finished hearing testimony from the defence witnesses, Mr Nizamul was already expecting a guilty verdict.”

Held under the thumb of mass public furore and the voracious appetite for vendetta, the verdict seems to have been preordained. Justice is blinded under pressure of emotionally charged public sentiment, and the hand of blind justice has a fell sweep. George Orwell adds, “As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on...  are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis." Doling out death sentences in such an environment is a travesty of justice.  In a conversation of October 14th, between Mr Nizamul and Ziauddin, the Brussels-based lawyer of Bangladeshi origin, the judge refers to the government as “absolutely crazy for a judgment. The government has gone totally mad. They have gone completely mad, I am telling you. They want a judgment by 16th December...it’s as simple as that.” December 16th, known as Victory Day in Bangladesh, is the anniversary of the surrender by Pakistani forces in the war of independence. (The Economist)

While the demand for justice to war criminals is understandable and legitimate, the concern is about whether this public sentiment has been used for political opportunism. Given the traumatic birth of Bangladesh and the horrific memories haunting public imagination, a regime credited with bringing offenders to book will win hearts. Given the many failures and weaknesses of this regime as well as the fact that the Jamat is a vital member of the opposition alliance, there seems to be a method to the madness. 

The social consequences have been grave with violence spiralling out of control. The long-term repercussions are graver still. Opposition to the verdict has been brutally crushed by the state machinery and violent reprisals have victimized hundreds. The crowds calling for a death sentence are led by secular-liberal segments of the society and have massive support from members of the civil society. The opposition to the death sentence comes from the Islamists led by the Jamat e Islami which has sizable following. The scars this will leave will drive a wedge between these two segments along ideological lines. It will accentuate and intensify a dangerous polarization which in the long run shall be in the interests of none. With the two opposed camps locked in confrontation against each other, a state eager to use force and one or both groups- having deep roots into the society-  often violently lashing out against the other, the future looks grim. A gaping split across the social spectrum with a spattering of violence is the perfect recipe for disaster- the same disaster that Pakistan is mired up in. This dampens down the hopes for a stable, peaceful, progressive Bangladesh. 

In this wider context, it becomes apparent that it is not vengeance but clemency that Bangladesh needs. Violence begets violence and sets off a vicious cycle. That vicious cycle needs to be broken. Forgetting bitter memories is hard, but sometimes, a bit of voluntary historical amnesia makes the future clearer and brighter for us. Justice and peace are great ends to be striven for. But the tribunal and its decision is at best a pretense and at worst a grave travesty of justice. Bangladesh is a rapidly progressing country and has risen out of the blood and fire it was born in- I hope its great people would prefer to look ahead, refusing to let their sentiment be used for political purpose. For, when you look towards the sun- which, as my friend explained- is the proud national symbol of a country that deserves to rise out of a bloody past- you let the shadows fall behind you.  

The Clash of Extremisms

THE CLASH OF EXTREMISMS

Maryam Sakeenah

“Do not go to excesses in your religion.” (The Quran, 4:171)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember the first time long ago I had listened to Dr. Zakir Naik speak on extremism. I had been enthralled by the brilliant ‘turning the tables’ logic with which he spoke refuting the charge of extremism against Muslims: ‘Yes, Muslims are extremists in the sense that they are supposed to be extremely good, extremely peace-loving, extremely honest, extremely kind etc.’ I remember how I had quoted it afterwards. Years later, I feel I have lost the naive idealism. I miss now that juvenile conviction I had drawn from Dr. Naik’s words.

In the long years of my association with various Islamic groups, I have had quite the opposite thrown in my face. The spectre of extremism lurks very really at the heart of contemporary Islamism.

To be fair, however, it has to be clarified that extremism is not an exclusive enterprise of believers in religion. Extremist patterns of thought are clearly decipherable both among the secular-liberals who see all religion as regressive and among the religious who espouse extreme fringe interpretations of religion, very often not warranted by their own sacred texts. Both kind of extremists hold on to a dogmatic belief in the absolute rightness of their own worldview in total opposition and exclusion to all others. This rigid adherence may be a reaction to the pluralism and fluidity of postmodern society where nothing seems to hold ground and there is no generally accepted transcendent absolute truth to live by. Often, there are inherent contradictions at the core of the extremist sensibility: the secular extremist for instance, while believing in pluralism and tolerance, is convinced of the wrongness and inferiority of all differing worldviews. Similarly, the religious extremist very often betrays the essence of what he claims to believe in.   The Quran says, “Be steadfastly balanced witnesses  for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty.” (The Noble Quran, 5:8)

Certainty is a human need, and as societies modernize and become more pluralistic, certainty becomes harder to find as doubt and scepticism of traditionally held ideas grows among the proliferation of contending perspectives. This need to anchor oneself in what is believed to be universally true is therefore intensified and stances harden. The subject takes comfort in adherence to what gives him certainty and makes the universe meaningful for him. In a diverse milieu where ideas struggle for ascendancy, this often becomes fanatical adherence and grows exclusivist and at times even militant, especially in the case of the religious extremist who takes cover under religion to sanctify his ‘righteous anger’ against the degenerate out-group. However, as Peter Berger states, the psychological profile of the dogmatic secularist is remarkably similar to the religious extremist. While ostensibly being averse to and rejecting each other, both actually thrive on the other’s extremism. They seek justification of their extreme positions by citing the unreasonable, degenerate and dangerous agenda of the other which cannot be left to seek converts. They fan hatred and hostility through suspicion and threat-perception, feed off one another and fuel each other in a vicious cycle of provocation and reaction. Extremists of both the secular and the religious kind work wonderfully well as cohorts.

In her article ‘Our Dogmatic Liberals’, Humeira Iqtedar takes on Pakistan’s (pseudo) liberal elite: ‘The Islamists may have their own agenda but to continuously define themselves in a reactive opposition to their stances would be a fatal mistake for groups that claim a stake in progressive politics. By remaining stuck in a static definition of progressive and regressive and allying themselves ever more closely with oppressive power, the liberals may ultimately render their cause irrelevant. For those of us committed to a just and democratic Pakistan, these dogmatic liberals are as great a danger as the militants.’

The defining characteristic of extremist thought is a social imagination based on binary opposition of ideas, that is, defining and understanding concepts as diametrically opposed mutually exclusive terms. For instance, ‘democracy’ and ‘Islam’, even though a number of democratic values like equality of opportunity, public accountability and consensus of opinion are not alien to Islamic tradition and history. Similarly, secularism and Islam are seen as water-tight, fixedly opposing ideas, even though secular values like tolerance and pluralism and discouragement of theocracy are recognized by Islam. Understanding ‘secular’ to mean ‘that which pertains to the world’ (its literal meaning) makes it have a fundamental orientation akin to Islam which chooses to describe itself as ‘Deen’ and not ‘religion.’

The world is seen as black and white with the extremist’s colourblind vision- a battleground of ideas and ideologies. To minds like these, theories like the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ have strong appeal and make a perfect fit. During my research on the responses to the said theory, I discovered remarkable similarity between the stances of Islamist thinkers and Western neoconservatives. If the jargon was interchanged, one would not be able to tell if it was coming from Abu Hamza Al Masri or Daniel Pipes or Anjum Chowdhry or Bill Maher. 


However, it has to be mentioned here that many feared Muslim religious extremists and militants notably Osama bin Laden clearly do not aim rhetoric at belief, values and ideology, but at politics and policy. Secular extremists on the other hand are often virulently Islamophobic, aiming vituperative rhetoric at a belief system, a faith, a people. This kind of an attack aimed at identity and what is most sacred to human beings is intensely provocative and has whipped up a strong backlash from Muslim communities. When secular societies tolerate in their midst maniacs like Terry Jones and Geert Wilders, they add insult to injury, aggravate the hurt and anger and utterly betray the secular principles they claim to uphold. It will not be inaccurate to say that religious extremism in the Muslim world is reactive in nature- a response to the calculated imposition and relentless onslaught of the Western secular order on non Western societies in a reckless manner that disrespects religio-cultural sensitivities, hurts in the softest part. The rise of religious extremism among Muslims has only followed the attempts by developed nations in the Northern-Western hemisphere to globalize what was perceived as a 'superior'culture, civilization and way of life. Understanding this gives an important insight into religious extremism- that it is a response and a reaction articulated by restive conservative populations smothered under the sway of an imposed 'superior' secular order. 

This said, religious extremists in Pakistan are distressingly out of touch with contemporary reality and unfamiliar with its nuances. With a naive faith in their simplistic black-and-white thinking, alternate perspectives and counter narratives are met with disdainful rejection and self-righteous condemnation. A discomfiting ‘cognitive dissonance’ is created when an idea that does not fit into the subject’s familiar thought pattern is introduced. This leads to strong reactionary responses to defend and vindicate one’s own thinking.

This is not only with regard to the religious extremist’s rejection of secular ideas but also those coming from other denominations and schools of thought within the extremist’s own religious tradition. Denunciation of diverse religious opinions is at times so extreme that the one holding differing views is ‘excommunicated’ and accused of heresy and serious infidelity. The poet-philosopher Iqbal wrote in a moment of distress, ‘Waaiz e tang nazar ne mujh ko kafir jana / Aur kafir samajhta hai Musulman hoon mein.’ (The narrow minded preacher considered me an infidel / While the unbeliever insists that I remain Muslim.) 

In the midst of an array of contending ideas, within the recesses of the extremist’s mind there is perhaps an unconscious awareness of the untenability of the ideas he blindly holds on to, and this leads to a strong sense of insecurity and vulnerability which develops into victim psychology as the subject imagines himself to be pitted against a hostile world that is out to eradicate the belief that gives him meaning. The following is part of a post circulated in an Islamic group, pertaining to the USAID photographic exhibition in Lahore in June this year. The sense of perceived threat is strong enough to be palpable, as is the urgency to fight back and defend: “...This is the most dangerous attack on us. Now, they are going with well directed plan to take the reactionary factor from our souls!
This is the part of NEW WORLD ORDER strategy. Their final goal is to create a world free of religion and highly secular. This campaign is the part of BIG PLAN.”

The extremist responds to cognitive dissonance in one of two ways: aggression, militancy and violence; or a stiff and unrelenting exclusivism. Exclusivist trends lead a religious community to ghettoize, shelter itself from corrosive external influences and strengthen an internal sense of community. This also explains the proliferation of world-rejecting Islamist groups all over the world.

The extremist takes comfort in erecting barricades of religiosity to create an insular comfort zone. This leads to intensified and exaggerated personal assertions of piety that enable the individual to set himself apart from what is profane with a comforting sense of moral superiority. Rafia Zakaria studies the revival of the burqa in Pakistan’s wealthy elite as a symbol of pious exclusivity, which has dwindled into the ‘most fashionable route to paradise’: ‘The revived burka of the rich begum can, it seems, traverse all the boundaries of unfettered spending and showmanship, sport crystals and pearls, cost more than the salaries of maids, chauffeurs and maybe a couple of office clerks combined, and yet magically invest its wearer with instant purity and piety.’ Exclusivism leads to a sense of moral responsibility to separate oneself from the depraved and wanton. This separatism leads to an exaggerated emphasis on the outward, an assertion of externality and a shift away from the necessary inner spirituality one expects from the religiously oriented. During my association with religious groups, I was consistently and unfailingly disillusioned with many apparently religious individuals who inadvertently displayed a most abysmal inner moral condition.

The extremist also has no penchant for self-criticism. The readiness to introspect and engage in self-examination and personal reform is at the heart of all moral systems and spiritual doctrines, a hallmark of humility that is central to faith. I can comment with some credibility on this point, having tried several times in the recent past to express alternative perspectives on extremist forums on social networking sites. Invariably, the dissenting voice is beaten back with indignation, and jeered at in most obscene and unethical ways. Often, the commentator is suspected of harbouring malafide intentions.  Initiating a discussion on such forums therefore is impossible because the conditions for genuine conversation almost never exist. Members feel insecure and threatened by alternative perspectives, and respond brashly often in swaggering and demeaning tones, failing to let go of preconceived notions and prejudices. The ‘Us and Them’ divide sets to work and seems to be the defining premise for any discussion. Stubbornness and self-righteousness, coupled with an unwillingness to listen to another on their own terms, utterly rules out genuine communication and healthy debate, and makes all such groups terribly stunted, suffocating and unpromising.

One cannot exclude from the picture the crucial influence of global politics and contemporary international affairs which fans extremist sentiment- both religious and anti-religious. Political leaders in the West have done little to assuage rife sentiments in the Muslim world after US military adventurism in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its continued support to Israel which has relentlessly oppressed Palestinians. Misgivings against the West understandably increase and a reactionary sense of victimhood is exacerbated given the bare fact of heinous crimes against predominantly Muslim populations committed by the US and its allies as well as their insidious politicking that has inflicted terrible damage in Muslim lands. Terms like ‘Islamic terrorist’, ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ etc have been used liberally with careless indiscrimination by the global media alongwith biased rhetoric and stereotyping of the Muslim persona. Shlomo Avineri traces this back to the ancient mistrust and fear of Islam that has haunted the Western imagination since before the Crusades: “The underlying assumption has always been that Islam- as a culture and not just a religious creed- was primitive, underdeveloped, retrograde, at best stuck in the memory hole of a medieval splendour out of which it could not disengage itself without a radical transformation; and this could only be based on Western, ‘rational’, ‘progressive’ values.”

 Muslim societies in general and youth in particular seethe with a strong sense of injustice and bitterness which makes them anchor all hope in the revival of the Islamic Khilafah. The shadow of a Khalifa who would embody the glory and ascendancy of Islam haunts the Muslim imagination, and its absence transforms the Khilafah in their collective consciousness into a surreal Neverland from which Muslims have been exiled through the machinations of the enemy. History is selectively narrated to reinforce this, ignoring the fact that even a divinely instituted system is established and driven by far-from-perfect human beings, and Muslims have done little to raise themselves up to the pristine, almost otherworldly ideals they nurture.

This selectivity is not just present in the Muslim historical narrative but also in the juristic tradition of Islam, and in the scholarly enterprise of the interpretation of religious texts. The aspects of religion traditionally highlighted and disseminated generally reflect the sensibility and values of the religious elite and their attitudes which have over much of Islamic history been patriarchal and parochial. On the issue of divorce, for instance, two prophetic traditions of equal authenticity are unequally emphasized: the first which masses know by rote is of how divorce is the most disliked of the permissible things; the other very rarely known is how the Prophet (SAW) termed one of the worst sins to be the refusal of divorce leaving the wife trapped in an unhappy marriage. It is not difficult to guess why the former tradition enjoys far greater import and is propagated vigorously while the latter is kept obscured. Which values and whose are privileged through this selectivity is also obvious. In a book of hadith explanation I came across the tradition that commanded men not to stop or discourage women from going to the mosques. The medieval commentator had subtitled it ‘Women must seek permission from husbands for visiting mosques’, which by any stretch of imagination was not the explicit order of the hadith, though it clearly was the preferred inference made by the male commentator.

Berry-picking from religious texts by ulema makes them guilty of a dishonesty towards the sacred tradition they have been entrusted with as well as towards the ordinary Muslim who readily and uncritically accepts what the cleric has to offer.

The problem of clashing extremisms is not amenable to a simple solution, and is likely to remain for a long time. However, for the survival of human society, both camps will have to learn to make major compromises. Both will need to realize that ours is a jostling planet and that the survival of any group or community lies in learning to give space, to tolerate and accept the fact that there can and always will be several contending worldviews, and this diversity characterizes human society in the postmodern world. The Qur’an also notes that people will remain different from one another until the end of human existence. It also states that the reality of human diversity is part of the divine wisdom and an intentional purpose of creation: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people, but they will not cease to dispute . . .” (11:118).

Khalid Abou El Fadl writes, "The Qur’anic celebration and sanctification of human diversity incorporates that diversity into the purposeful pursuit of justice and creates various possibilities for pluralistic commitment in modern Islam. That commitment could be developed into an ethic that respects dissent and honors the right of human beings to be different, including the right to adhere to different religious or nonreligious convictions. At the political level it could be appropriated into a normative stance that considers justice and diversity to be core values that a democratic constitutional order is bound to protect..."

We have to learn to agree to disagree and yet not lose sight of the common thread that runs through and knits up the colourful human family regardless of religious or secular orientation. ‘And mankind is but one family. But they disagree.’ (The Noble Quran, 10:19) The way we educate our young must be informed by an awareness and appreciation of this commonality and the ethics of disagreement. In this regard, the ‘Charter of Compassion’ project undertaken by Karen Armstrong is right on target given the chaotic and frightening times we are living through and the dark clouds gathering on the horizons. The ‘Us versus Them’ narrative of political policymakers backed by the military-industrial complex and echoed by the media needs to be enthusiastically rejected. An academic study of Islam needs to be undertaken and encouraged very seriously so as to develop a deeper, insightful and informed understanding of the evolution of Muslim identity and consciousness, and the roots of extremism. This will expose and defeat the black-and-white discourse of the traditionalist seminary, the simplistic nature of which exercises seductive power on gullible mass mindsets. Scholars who understand the dimensions and vicissitudes of contemporary society and how religion can effectively engage with the secular order, who see a vibrant constructive role for religion and have not lost sight of its potential to harmonize and help create the necessary consensus of values needed for any society to function must be heard in this hysterical bedlam of extremisms.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Prophet (may Allah bless him) stated, “Beware of extremism (or excess) in religion for those before you only perished due to extremism (or excess) in religion.” [Ahmad, Musnad]