OF MOB LYNCHINGS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE

ROOTS OF RAGE

Maryam Sakeenah

How does one move on with all this deep, searing pain over the mob lynching of a body that bore a beautiful heart and a precious mind? And with our senses still reeling, we hear of at least two more horror stories of blasphemy related violence. Grueling as it is, one has to navigate a path out of the all-consuming despair, shock and horror.

Self righteous anger over suspicions of irreligion are all too familiar here. But the roots of the rage go deep; into histories, ideologies, politics and lawmaking. The roots are hard to extricate, but understanding can prevent us from consciously or unconsciously watering and nurturing this poison tree with our words and actions. And so, with this terrible burden of shame to bear as a Pakistani and Muslim, I attempt an understanding.

It is unquestionable that a number of violent crimes are driven by religious zealotry. Desperate attempts to deny that, supposing that this would ‘save’ Islam’s image are pathetically delusional.  In doing what the students of Mardan university did in the name of religion, they lynched their own professed faith; and when we take the bait and draw all the wrong conclusions- either haplessly proving that ‘religion has nothing to do with it’, or directly blaming faith and religious doctrine itself for the atrocity, we fuel the blind hate further, becoming the lynch mobsters sinning against a faith that has equal potential for beauty, peace and healing.

While the mobsters let themselves be swayed and drunken by righteous anger, deep within somewhere, there was an uncomfortable knowledge that this was a sacrilege, an atrocity that no religion, no god, no prophet can condone. But mobs don’t pause and reflect; they veer into madness. While the zeal was religiously driven, it was not inspired or guided in any direct way by religious doctrine. That distinction is important to make.

But equally important is the need to address why our mass behavior descends into mob zealotry and fanatical violence driven by and in the name of religion? The reasons go very deep.

While allegations of blasphemy in the Mashal Khan case are far from proven, it is clear that he professed progressive views, a critical and questioning mind. The local mass religious mindset, however, does not allow questions and cannot withstand intellectual challenge. This is in large part because the religious discourse in our society is largely anti intellectual to the extent that even an intellectual approach to religion is sneered at as deviant, threatening and disrespectful. This simplistic, anti intellectual discourse is asserted by wielding power and instilling fear by religious leaders, and the use of threat and violence by those who lack the privilege of authority.

This decadence of religious discourse in this part of the world is rooted in the colonial past when the prestigious madrassah was systematically  marginalized and disempowered as part of the colonial education policy of ‘schooling the world.’ The cornered madrassah took refuge behind a defensive, protectionist, insecure religious discourse, trying to hold on in a rapidly changing milieu. In an attempt at self preservation, this defensive discourse refused to engage and became airtight and obscurantist. This still characterizes the madrassah and those who emerge from the system: a stubborn refusal to intellectually engage with alternative discourses that the modern world is teeming with. But we cannot insulate our youth from the tide of intellectual assault from modern ideas and new patterns of thinking. There will be questions raised, and our refusal to engage or even bother with articulating responses will alienate thinking minds.

 At the other end of the spectrum, this anti intellectualism teaches conservative minds to take an intellectual challenge as an audacious affront- hence violence becomes the only ‘language’ to respond with.

In more open societies in the West, Muslim communities have no option but to engage and adapt, hence one sees an increasing realization of the need to come up with an intellectually robust spirituality that does not cave in or go berserk on encounter with difference.

Religious scholars as well as secular voices need to realize that this is not just about having or not having the blasphemy law. It is about the need to develop a new religious discourse that addresses and accommodates the genuine questions that the modern mind is full of- a discourse that arms itself with reason, not fear and violence.

The many passionate condemnations of the incident by religious leaders and action against hate speech as well as public demonstrations in solidarity with the victim family are welcome developments that help to restore one's faith in ourselves despite this awareness of the terrible darkness engulfing us. But a deeper and more farsighted approach for religious leaders and educators would be to guide a new discourse on religion that contends with alternative perspectives and intellectual challenges with maturity, wisdom and openness; a discourse that accommodates diversity and makes respectful space for difference.

Another more personal lesson for me is to remind myself that while self righteous consciousness of professed faith charges mobs to blind rage, a deeper rooted faith also inspires some like Ibn Ali Miller- or closer to home, that nameless Imam from Chitral- to stand in the midst of the storm of hate and violence to save, make peace and heal. It is up to us to make the choice. In our capacities and within our spheres, those who still value faith must  resolve to passionately impart compassion, empathy, tolerance and respect for difference as part of and through faith- otherwise, our proclaimed belief cannot prevent us from committing excesses and injustices in religion’s name. 

On the Legalization of Homosexual Marriage in the United States

RAINBOW TINTED LENSES AND BLACK N WHITE UNIVERSES

Maryam Sakeenah

An interesting clash ensued in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing homosexual marriage. While the supporters of the cause celebrated having finally broken free from the bondage to regressive conservatism, there was on the other end of the spectrum, anger and bitterness over the mainstreaming of what is seen as a violation of God’s law and the ‘natural’ order of things.

Pakistan’s vibrant social media also reflected these divergent trends with a furious melee between those sporting rainbow coloured profiles and those invoking the wrath of God over the supporters of the new law.

The anger on both sides is quite misplaced and irrational. The clash between secular liberalism and conservative religion is inevitable and there to stay. The verdict coming from secular USA which prides itself in its liberal values is not surprising or outrageous. It is also understandable that those who subscribe to traditional religious faith would have a different opinion. It is all a matter of what one believes and how one looks at society and the wider world.

The problem, however, is with the attitude of moral superiority by the secular liberals. The twitter hashtag ‘#Lovewins’ for the sexual equality movement reeks of it, among other things. As if those who hold a different opinion do so out of hate; as if believing in traditional values and holding on to religious convictions is anti-love and against all that is humane and compassionate and egalitarian.

This presumption of moral superiority by the secular liberals at home and abroad is based on the idea that the conservative dissenters merely hold on with blind and ignorant stubbornness to outmoded and archaic religious convictions that pull humanity back from its path to progress laid out by the liberal reformist programme. This presumption is based on the widespread inability (even among Muslims) to understand the rationality of religious sexual ethics.

Parallels with the animal kingdom in which sporadic homosexual behaviour can be observed is often invoked to prove that homosexuality occurs in nature hence the religious idea that it is a violation of God’s order is incorrect. This comparison with the animal kingdom fails to understand the fundamental premise of religion: that human existence has a Divinely ordained purpose and goal, and that human civilization is to be ordered on values and principles to facilitate the individual and collective pursuit of the purpose of human life. A number of patterns exist in the animal kingdom which, if mainstreamed in human society on the pretext that they are ‘natural’ in the jungle, can lead to chaos and perhaps extermination of human civilization.

According to the religious understanding, man has been endowed with the sexual instinct for several purposes- the most obvious is of course procreation and the continuation of the human race. However, it is also the sexual instinct that forms the most basic of human relationships which is the foundation of the human family. The family unit is the fundamental building block of human society, the oldest and most universal pattern of the human community; it is a means to engender and socialize individuals, a support system and a natural means to provide a number of vital social functions. Daniel Haqiqatjou writes, “Before modernity, family organization was the primary communal structure upon which people relied. Everything went through the extended family, e.g., business and one’s livelihood, education, health care, dispute mediation, and much more. Today, all these areas of life fall under the purview of the nation state and its corporate extensions, so we lose this sense of the importance of family cohesion and, correspondingly, how dangerous and disruptive a violation of it really is and was for past societies.” 

The human family is sustained on the concept of masculine and feminine complementarity. This means that the individual characteristics, roles and responsibilities of the male and the female gel together the marital bond and become the basis for the family to flourish. As parents, both men and women have clearly defined roles and responsibilities and the children they give birth to, benefit from both in specific ways.

Homosexuality and adulterous heterosexuality do not fulfil any of these purposes why Allah has created the sexual impulse in human beings. This leaves only a single purpose behind such sexual behaviours: sexual expression, indulgence and adventurism. Islam does not recognize this as an unconditional human right to be freely carried out in society, because human beings are capable of functioning on a level higher than a mere pursuit of the carnal drives. Even heterosexuals cannot express their sexual instinct except in a relationship of marriage with all the responsibilities it entails. Islam envisions an ordered society in which moral behaviour is regulated for the well being of all. Homosexuality and all other sexual behaviour which does not fulfill the purpose why Allah has put the sexual instinct in us is therefore discouraged.

The problem with legalizing homosexual relationships is that such recognition and acceptance of this sexual practice facilitates and encourages it. The soaring rates of homosexuality in some societies are largely because social acceptance of this incites many to experiment with it and indulge in it.

If a human being is put in a trial by Allah through an abnormal sexual orientation or through absence of opportunity to establish a legitimate sexual relationship, they are required to be patient through finding strength in faith. Self restraint and self control of our animal drives is something Islam requires from all Muslims. Some people are tested harder with this, and homosexuals fall in that category. A believer who is faced with this must direct his focus to other aspects of human life and develop himself spiritually and otherwise to live a fulfilling, productive life. In order to make this easy for them, psychological counselling, rehabilitation and support should be provided in Islamic societies. However, those who refuse to restrain themselves and pursue their carnal instincts (hetero or homo sexual) go against the spirit and teachings of Islam. If such behaviour is indulged in openly and shamelessly without restraint, then it is punishable by Islamic law as well.

The ethics of sexuality in Islam prescribe limits even for heterosexual relationships within marriage. Not only do these conform to Islamic standards of hygiene, health, safety and physical well being, but also uphold human dignity and a minimal standard of modesty. As homosexuality is not the typical sexual behaviour for which the human body is designed, it often involves methods and means which fall short of Islamic sexual ethics and regulations. It is scientifically proven that homosexuality (just as promiscuity) is a primary cause of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Homosexuality being a natural urge to someone is no justification in Islam for permitting it. Sadism can be natural to some people; so can serial killing or kleptomania, and these urges can only be recognized as a basic human right to the detriment of human society.

True freedom entails mutual respect of divergent views, which is quite ironically, absent in the sneering condescension with which secular liberals view the religious position on homosexuality. Believers in religion in this day and age are challenged with holding on to their convictions in a secular milieu which betrays its own ideals of liberty and tolerance of difference. The challenge is to refuse to be part of the melee, accept that the difference exists and is there to stay and yet being firmly poised in a profound conviction in the ‘hikmah’ of the Divine scheme of things. 

 

   

The Need for Empathy in these times...

THE MURDER OF HUMAN EMPATHY

Maryam Sakeenah

Following the reprehensible attack on Christian homes in Lahore, a spine-chilling, grotesque image of an arsonist cheering over the burning flames went viral. One wonders what sort of man thumps his chest over destroying innocent lives and how human beings can become capable of such naked, audacious sadism that seeks justification in a faith that decrees ‘Whosoever harms a non Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I shall be the complainant against him on the Day of Judgement.’ (Sahih Bukhari)

Throughout history human beings have shown themselves to be capable of wreaking terrible destruction and causing great suffering- from burning ‘witches’ at the stake, crucifying God’s noble messengers, butchering refugees in sacred precincts, gassing Jews at Auschwitz, to the nationalistic wars of the twentieth century, the liquidation of millions in nuclear destruction and poisoning of the biosphere through relentless commercial-industrial activity.

Yet Jeremy Rifkins in his phenomenal book ‘The Empathic Civilization’ insists that human beings are ‘Homo Empathica’, that is, defined and distinguished for the ability to empathize. He writes, ‘Human beings are soft-wired to experience others’ plight as if we were experiencing it ourselves.’

Empathy allows us to stretch our sensibility to another so we can cohere into larger social groups. It is curbed and limited by defining these social groups through narrow, parochial banners of ethnicity, nationalism, race and creed so that the empathic drive does not extend to the out-group. The Prophet (SAW) said: "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah’, (prejudiced, parochial association)" (Abu Daud.) The out-group is then ‘otherized’, made out of the reach of our empathy. This creates indifference and apathy towards the suffering of people belonging to a different classification. However, a more severe form of limiting and deflecting the empathic impulse is dehumanization of the other ‘as flies to the wanton boys’, often institutionalized by the social superstructure: state and government, media, education, religion. Through stereotyping, essentialism, ethnocentrism, prejudice and propaganda as well as censorship and selective relaying of information to the public, minority groups and those whose interests clash with or threaten one’s own are systemtically dehumanized  and even demonized to appear less than human despicable, lower-order bestial ‘others’ whose eradication may not be of any great loss to human civilization. In the process we forget that as members of the human family, we all share a common, precarious existential predicament- our ‘little lives rounded with a sleep’- on a little finite planet in the mystifying universe.

Der Spiegel carried a report last year on the psychology of American drone operators whose button-clicking while reclining in plush chairs in air-conditioned offices decrees death to anonymous distant targets. The method of modern technological warfare seems to be designed to keep empathy at bay- the victim is invisible and remote, represented by a red dot on a laser screen, annihilated by a light, single click. Drone pilot Vanessa Meyer said, “When the decision had been made, and they saw that this was an enemy, a hostile person, a legal target that was worthy of being destroyed, I had no problem with taking the shot." (Nicola Abe: ‘Dreams in Infrared’) Gitta Sereny writes of Fratz Stangl, the annihilator of thousands at a Nazi camp: “Prisoners were simply objects. Goods. “That was my profession,” he said. “I enjoyed it. It fulfilled me. And yes, I was ambitious about that, I won’t deny it.” When Sereny asked Stangl how as a father he could kill children, he answered, “I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. … [T]hey were naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips. …” (Chris Hedges: The Careerist)

Few and far between, there may be those whose empathy grows militant and unkillable. Brandon Bryant was able to humanize his victims in his drone operations_ he noticed the details of their lives and patterns of behaviour akin to his own. "I got to know them. Until someone higher up in the chain of command gave me the order to shoot." He felt remorse because of the children, whose fathers he was taking away. "They were good daddies," he says. He felt ‘disconnected from humanity’ while at his job, going through terrible unease and remorse. Having quit his job, he wrote in his diary, "On the battlefield there are no sides, just bloodshed. Total war. Every horror witnessed. I wish my eyes would rot." (Nicola Abe: ‘Dreams in Infrared’)   

Perhaps the most integral parts of this institutionalized dehumanization embedded in the superstructure of modern industrial society are the ‘Careerists’- the good men and women efficient at their jobs that make the system function. Chris Hedges describes them as ‘...armies of bureaucrats serving a corporate system that will quite literally kill us. They are as cold and disconnected... They carry out minute tasks. They are docile. Compliant. They obey. They find their self-worth in the prestige and power of the corporation, in the status of their positions and in their career promotions. It is moral schizophrenia. They erect walls to create an isolated consciousness. They destroy the ecosystem, the economy and the body politic... They feel nothing. And the system rolls forward. The polar ice caps melt. The droughts rage over cropland. The drones deliver death from the sky. The state moves inexorably forward to place us in chains. The sick die. The poor starve. The prisons fill. And the careerist, plodding forward, does his or her job.'

In Pakistan religion is increasingly used as one of the most powerful means of deflecting empathy from those outside the faith and sectarian affiliation. Religious intolerance in a culture of violence and anger is a fatal mix and has gone on a bloody rampage.  While the causes, factors and agents responsible for the ongoing madness are complexly intertwined, the resistance, rejection, counternarrative and healing that ought to have come from the representatives of religion in this part of the world has been inadequate, half-hearted, ambiguous and equivocal. The voice of condemnation from the pulpit is faltering, and this has been extremely damaging in a number of ways. The contemporary discourse of political Islam in Pakistan is heavily lopsided, selectively highlighting the plight of victims of American, Israeli and Indian misdemeanours (which certainly are important human rights issues), while keeping mum or issuing periodic enfeebled and rhetorical statements of condemnation over the plight of minorities and other innocent victims of those committing violence in the name of religion.

For Islamist groups, the cost of this silence has been and will be crushingly enormous. The disappointment felt by members of the civil society and educated youth over a criminal silence and inability of the religious leaders and scholars to rise to the occasion and give clarity to the public with a single voice has been shattering. This has not only alienated scores of good, intelligent people belonging to Pakistan’s educated urban middle and upper classes from Islamic groups and organizations but in many cases from the faith itself.  A colleague posted the picture of the gleeful arsonist with the comment, ‘Happy mob rightfully burns down Christian homes. Another great day for Islam. Another victory against the forces of evil.’ While this is an extreme reaction showing inability to draw a line between despicable, crazed fanatical elements and the faith itself, but it increases the onus on spokespeople of religion to address the burning issues that blur the lines.

Going to college in Pakistan shortly after the U.S declared all-out ‘war on terror’ and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, I witnessed scores of young people around me turning to Islam, primarily out of empathy for the Muslim victim, the underdog. In this country, the Islamist persona has now understandably metamorphosed into a perpetrator devoid of compassion, rationality and empathy, and this has alienated and repelled hundreds of thousands, resulting in a completely opposite trend that I, now an educator, see around me: a clear de-Islamization of Pakistan’s urban educated youth. While there also is a swing in the opposite direction, but the de-Islamization trend is clearly on the rise, understandably fuelled by the aforementioned.

Islamists in Pakistan are not cognizant of this terrible loss as they perceive themselves to be locked up in a crusade against the onslaught of the West, the secularists, the Zionists et all. Any voice calling for the need to provide clarity, answers and solutions is dismissed as ‘Westernized’, ‘secularized’, ‘liberalized,’ hence misguided and insincere, unworthy of serious consideration.

The narrative in Pakistan needs a rethink: the ethos of the Quran is the extension of identity to embrace the human race as fellow sojourners held together by a common human nature and destiny: ‘Mankind is but a single nation, yet they disagree.’ (2:213) Secondarily, we are taught to understand our responsibility towards those outside the faith fraternity not merely through divine directive but lived example and established paradigm.

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai:

“This is a message from 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 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.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
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 (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

Empathy humanizes and civilizes. Its suppression intensifies secondary drives like narcissism, materialism, violence and aggression. The task of religion, education and the media must be to bring out the empathic sociability stretching out to all of humanity and prepare the groundwork for what Rifkins has called an ‘empathic civilization.’

Mercy and gentleness, said the Prophet (SAW), are defining traits of believers: ‘Allah is gentle, and He loves those who are gentle.’ (Sahih Muslim)   Mercy and gentleness beautify the spirit: "Whenever kindness is in a thing it adorns it, and whenever it is removed from anything, it disfigures it." [Muslim]

Empathy is engraved into the core of our consciousness as human beings- that softest part inspired from the Divine Ruh (Spirit). Those who confine or deflect it are on the wrong side of humanity and history. In the long run, their narrative will lose out and history’s merciless verdict against them shall be ineradicable.        

Long March, January 2013.

AN INSTRUCTIVE ABSURDITY

Maryam Sakeenah

Much has been written about the Theatre of the Absurd in Islamabad on the Ides of January. I wouldn’t dignify it with comment on the agenda, the proceedings, the success or the lack of it. But I am interested in examining how it could have happened, with the support of the many thousands who braved the cold and the rain and stood their ground. Hope is a great thing. What drove the many to Islamabad in the face of security threats under the grey skies was hope. But what makes it ironic and poignant is how unworthy was that which they pinned their dreams and expectations to.

But when deprivation, helplessness, desperation beat hope up to a frenzied furore, and when you add to this the ignorance and gullibility of the average Pakistani, you have what you saw in Islamabad: men women and children risking all to lend strength to a controversial cult figure ensconced in his well-furnished mobile cabin crying hoarse about justice while the devotees that had made his absurd drama happen shivered in the cold in the open, given the ever-present fragile security situation in this country.

While the parallel with how the Lal Masjid crisis was brutally dealt with brings out the merits of democracy- any democracy, even as bad as this one- there are other lessons to be learnt. With crowds cheering to the sensational rhetoric emerging from the Hallowed Container, I wondered why the many far less controversial veteran Islamic scholars that have lived and died in this country, could never manage to call the shots or muster up a following as large or as willing to brave the billows to rally to their leader’s call. Yeats wrote: ‘The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.’  

There are lessons to be learnt by Islamically inclined leaders and organizations. Qadri’s inclusive appeal, his embrace of diversity and reaching out to minority groups and sects has been clearly articulated. In the wake of 9/11, his masterstroke was in managing to emerge as one of the few voices from this part of the world categorically rejecting extremism and the Taliban’s misuse of religion to justify violence. The voluminous treatises on tolerance in Islam, virtues of non violence and the fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombings was an instant hit for the very fact that it was presented from this part of the world by a beard-sporting individual in religious headgear, when others of the kind busied themselves criticising US policies solely and exclusively, deflecting criticism away from the malaise within. The international acclaim and support he has garnered is something to speak of.

One can compare this to the fact that many religious groups and individuals had in this time produced article after article and delivered sermon after sermon almost entirely focused on refuting deviant innovative practices among other sects, democracy as a kufr-based system and the media as a vicious propaganda-machine. Islamic institutions produced work on the intricacies of theology, the curse of nationalism and the need for ruling by Islam, all in a language and manner that relates little to the average Pakistani Muslim. When the nation was beset with challenges to its very integrity and survival at the hands of those operating in the name of Islam, Islamic scholars busied themselves in traditional theological discourse, occasionally issuing fiery critique of American policy and the Zionist and secular lobby. Few voices rose to reject the rise of extremist religiosity that took up violence against non combatants and had the audacity to sanctify it in the name of Islam. Few voices reached out to the public confused between the extremist and the secular-liberal discourse, seeking a satisfying, middling narrative. Few addressed with precision and clarity the problems of the mass-man. Few addressed growing concerns in the rest of the world about violence in the name of Islam on the rise in this part of the world. It is a fundamental principle of conventional morality that self-criticism is nobler. By failing to rise to the occasion, they have reduced themselves to utter irrelevance, ceding ground to ambitious opportunists wearing the ravishing guise of religiosity like Qadri in a nation peopled by the religiously sentimental semi-educated and illiterate.

And this brings us to the most vital point- in the final analysis, the grandiose Theatre of the Absurd in Islamabad highlights like never before the fact that the greatest challenge we confront is the ignorance and lack of awareness among the common man- and this threatens to make a mockery of our still nascent democracy. It reduces a nation of 180 million to slogan-chanting, gullible, hero-worshipping rabble taken in with whoever can play the Promised Messiah best. And as long as we do not take on this enemy within, demagogues and those practised in the art of publicity-seeking theatrics will continue to claim attention they do not merit- by the sheer numbers of their ignorant, juvenile, emotionally charged and intellectually naive fan-following. 

A Profane Spirituality

A PROFANE SPIRITUALITY

Maryam Sakeenah

Pakistani private television channels glamorously sport sensational televangelists to satiate the public appetite for spirituality amidst tawdry entertainment galore. The trend rockets in Ramadan when popular media faces don sobriety in cotton shalwar kameezes of subdued hues, skull caps and most alluring beaded scarves and chiffon dupattas. It sells.

This year once again we have on screen with all his guns blazing one of these popular televangelists known for his versatile talents in speaking, singing, making dramatic invocations and tear-stained supplications as well as skills one cannot mention at the family dinner table. The latter came to light in a leaked video that had recorded this ‘aalim’s behind-the-camera antics and escapades. There was great shock and horror at this most dramatic volte face from a simple-minded populace that loves hero-worship. The wiser ones chuckled, saying, ‘I told you so.’ The 'aalim' carried on with classic composure, invoking divine retribution for the liars behind the scandal in his usual flowery and flamboyant language. The dexterous televangelist  carries on with his repulsively seductive religious rhetoric aimed at the simplistic mass mindset.

Notwithstanding the public humiliation he underwent and the aggravated sentiment of his massive fan-following (largely female), the aalim stuck to his guns and emerged unscathed. There you have it- the aalim graces the screen of Pakistan’s most popular private television channel this Ramadan with an unbelievable audacity. In your face. What adds a flabbergasting twist to the tale is the fact that the earlier video had been allegedly publicized on youtube and elsewhere by this very channel which now advertises his program as its Ramadan highlight. The channel also must be credited with putting up this ignoramus of abysmal moral standing and dubious background as an 'aalim' before the Pakistani public in the first place. After his metamorphosis into an ‘Aalim Online’ thanks to this channel, the so-called aalim reappeared on a similar evangelical show on another channel having quit his mentors in the previous one. That is when appalling off-camera clips from his programs recorded for the first channel went viral. In a mind-boggling move, the aalim returns to this channel he had quit, reaffirming his loyalties and once again using his odious eloquence to seduce gullible minds.

The entire episode reeks of a most worrying and dangerous trend in Pakistani society. The commercialization of the mass media has taken a heavy toll on our most sacred values, marketizing the sacred, commodifying spirituality. Religion too is to be sold, like soap or whitening creams or cheap powder. It is embellished with a deliberate spirituality calculated to keep the viewer glued to the screen, packaged under brand names, presented by alluring faces in lighter shades of lipstick framed by an oceanic-blue-green or pristine white sequined scarf. For a more dramatic touch, the camera captures a little tear droplet streaming down the lightly painted face at the precise time when the camera zooms in. It is a winning advert- sure to guarantee a sizeable viewership of semi-literate housewives from all over the country.

The ethos of Islamic culture is simplicity. Spiritual practice is an intensely private matter, and when it is brazenly flaunted by exhibitionists it loses all sanctity. The individual’s faith is a matter between him and his Creator, and humility is the defining trait of the believer. Religiosity dripping from phony appearances, hairy faces appropriate for the occasion, titles, headgear exposes the emptiness, superficiality and hypocrisy of the trade. According to a hadith, ‘Allah does not look at your appearances, but He looks into your hearts.’

The Pakistani media has reached the lowest point of depravity with this marketization of spirituality. It steers directionless, blinded by the commercialist and competitive imperative, leading a nation wired into the matrix, frozen into a hypnotic trance like sleepwalking starry-eyed zombies.

The artifice, pretentiousness and even shameless hypocrisy of it all is a damning verdict on our collective morality as a society. I fear for the generation that grows up in and is socialized into this morass of values. When the persona of the 'religious scholar' is tarnished with debauchery, hypocrisy and showmanship; when spirituality is worn and flaunted for appropriacy according to the occasion; when our most sacred values are presented in such blatantly superficial and distasteful ways, I shudder to think of what we are dwindling into as a society and a nation, what papier mache ‘role models’ and inspiration we are leaving behind for our children.    

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]