A Secular State for Muslim Societies?

THE CASE FOR THE SECULAR STATE

Maryam Sakeenah

In a country plagued by violence in the name of religion and sect and infested with decadent religio-political outfits, secularism as a pillar of statehood comes to be seen as an ideal. The typical response by the religious to the eulogization of secularism in Muslim societies is to warn their followers that secularism is equivalent to unbelief and is a great evil against religion.

In understanding the secular state to be an ideal polity free of the tyranny of religious politics and based on pluralism and egalitarianism, we gloss over both its nuanced history and its practice in the present. On the other hand, viewing secularism as unbelief and as hostile to religious belief is not only inaccurate but also ignorant of the great ravages religious politics is capable of and has often unleashed, especially in European history.

More accurately, a secular state ideally entails the dissociation of religion from the state, guaranteeing religious liberties to all groups without prejudice and discrimination on religious grounds. It does not mean the elimination of religion, but its privatization.

In the European experience, the achievement of the secular state was indeed a liberation from the religious oppression of the Church throughout much of what is described as the Dark Ages. In pre Enlightenment Europe, religious politics were indeed unregulated and unaccountable, exploiting with impunity under the ‘Divine Right of Kings.’

Having said that, the universalization of the European secular experiment is a mistake we often fall into making, given the well entrenched Eurocentrism of education in postcolonial societies. Non Eurpoean societies had radically different approaches to and experiences with the question of religion and state.

Even a cursory glance at Muslim history makes it clear that the religious state was not always an instrument of corruption and abuse. It is difficult to contest the progressive and prosperous character of religious rule in the earliest history of Islam before the monarchical takeover of the Caliphate.  There is evidence attesting to how rights and privileges were accorded justly, the supremacy of law held high and protections extended to non Muslims.

In most of Islam’s history, involvement of religious scholars and religious leaders in politics checked, regulated and held governments accountable. In fact, religious leaders- specifically the great Imams of both the Shiite and Sunni tradition often became active forces of resistance to political excesses and abuse of religion. The example of Hussain R.A and the Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt as well as other Companions and Tabiyeen is a powerful legacy. 

The example of Al Andalusia under Islamic rule shines through history as a model of pluralism as well as intellectual, cultural and social progress. This is why the thesis that the secular values of egalitarianism and pluralism can in fact be accommodated within the ideal Muslim state exists. What needs to be understood here is that given this history, Muslims are entitled to conclude that the achievement of what are understood as secular ideals does not require the liberation of the state from religion. In other words, while standing as a refreshing exception, Andalusia shows that the achievement of a progressive, diverse and tolerant civilization is possible and has been achieved without going through the separation of church and state- unlike in the European experience.

In the Middle East, quite contrary to Europe, one finds that secularism has been a foreign implant and secular regimes have been backed by Western states with their own neocolonialist agendas. Such secular regimes in the Middle East have often been brutal and oppressive, corrupt, high-handed and even undemocratic. They have never really represented the popular will. This reality of secularism in the Muslim world is far from the ideal of secularism that fires our imaginations.

In fact the reality of secularism even in the West is anything but. It has assumed the character of a totalitarian ‘ism’ aggressively fanatical in its intolerance of religious belief.  According to Phillip Bond and Adrian Pabst writing for the International Herald Tribune, "European societies enshrine the primacy of secular law over and against religious principles. Far from ensuring neutrality and tolerance, the secular European state arrogates to itself the right to control and legislate all spheres of life; state constraints apply especially to religion and its civic influence.”

Karen Armstrong, referring to the concepts of ‘dharma’ in Hinduism and ‘deen’ in Islam asserts how secularism is a radical modern innovation as religion was always understood by human beings as a way of life without the public/private schism. She writes, ‘Questions like social justice or rights have always had sacred import.’

Whether we believe in the establishment of secular states in Muslim societies or not, we must accept that the case for secular states in Muslim societies is not only ahistorical, it is stridently Eurocentric at best, and neocolonialist at worst.  

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. 

 

   

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. 

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. 

Lessons from Egypt

LESSONS FROM EGYPT

                                                                Maryam Sakeenah

Given a similar baggage from the past, the social spectrum in Egypt and Pakistan is built on ideological polarization as a result of political decisions- on both domestic and foreign policy- by leaderships unrepresentative of the public sentiment. These were unguided by understanding of social reality, creating a gaping split between religious and secular-liberal extremes over ideology, opinion, identity, worldview, lifestyle and affiliation: both strongly entrenched in passionate ideological commitments, feeding off one another and unwilling to budge.

Both nations suffered years of unscrupulous authoritarian rule directly or indirectly supported by the United States and allied Western nations. In Egypt, the resentment this created boiled over in the Arab Spring last year. Heartening and exciting, yet it also was in many ways a detonation of pent-up feeling with little organized political planning behind it. That should not however, take away the deep admiration the resilient protesters at Tahrir Square inspire. However, a huge question stared in the face: where to, and what now?

It still haunts the mind. While the Muslim Brotherhood has won an historic electoral win, for many the options were limited between a pro-Mubarak military man and the Brotherhood’s candidate. The vote was more against the continuation of a dictatorship many had given blood sweat and tears to defeat, than in favour of what the Brotherhood symbolized. Ruling over a populace so diversified in level of religious affiliation, Morsi faces huge challenges to bring to fruition the Brotherhood’s Islamist dream. The opposition against the attempt to increase presidential powers and the eventual success of the referendum approving the  draft-constitution by an Islamist-dominated council resonates with vital lessons Islamists in Pakistan have much to learn from. 

For starters, governing a society divided between the fiercely secular and the warmly religious is to have a hand in the hornet’s nest, unless one realizes that as human beings we all share in common the need for justice and basic freedom, for dignity and a decent life and two square meals a day. And if rulers set about delivering these, schisms and ideological affiliations do not stand in the way of achieving the common human good. The secular-liberals and the conservative Islamists are united by their basic human need for a dignified existence. In fact, for a government aspiring to rule by Islam, providing bread and rights is not about expediency, but a primary moral responsibility.

The Muslim Brotherhood with its well articulated prioritization of economic welfare, egalitarianism and social justice seems to have reached political maturation. In his first address after the referendum, Morsi said,"The coming days will witness, God willing, the launch of new projects ... and a package of incentives for investors to support the Egyptian market and the economy,"

Islamic political groups in Pakistan and abroad have made the mistake of putting the achievement of political ascendancy as their prime goal while ignoring the social project that must accompany it. Groups calling for a return to the Khilafah believe the establishment of Islamic government is the panacea, while religious parties often claim that the promulgation of the Shariah law shall crystallize a veritable Utopia. This runs contrary to the  precedent we have from the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) whose epic spiritual and social mission preceded the establishment of the Shariah.

Both law and political policy are means to greater ends. Religious political groups make the mistake of seeing them as ends in themselves. The Shariah of Islam is the guarantor of the maqasid e Shariah, the guardian of Islamic values by which life is to be lived. Similarly political power is a means to establish an order that guarantees rights indiscriminately. Islamist groups in Pakistan have not so far proven themselves here. The talk of Shariah and the dream of Khilafah cannot be sold to a public writhing in the throes of poverty, ignorance, oppression, disease.  

Before launching a political struggle, Islamist parties need to embark upon the social project to mend a broken society, moderate between the dangerous ideological polarization and address social injustice. Such an effort can act as a secure launching pad for a political movement and a support base for a stable government. Without demonstrating this ability, political struggles of Islamic groups will be stillborn.

So far, an intellectually robust discourse mediating between the ideological polarization has not emerged from Islamic scholars in Pakistan. A comprehensive strategy to address the real problems has not been presented. 

As long as polarization between the religious and the secularized exists and grows, any religious group winning power will have to deal with stiff opposition leaving its hands tied.  That is the lesson from Egypt’s dilemma which the ruling Islamists seem to have dealt with skilfully. With a council including sizable diverse groups like Coptic Christians, leftist social activists and women, the draft constitution referring to the centrality of the Shariah managed to scrape through. The president has assured that the concerns have been taken seriously and that the constitution offers protection for minorities. The decision to put the draft to vote by a public referendum demonstrates the Brotherhood’s commitment to democratic process and its inclusive vision. Opposing groups quit protests in the wake of the Brotherhood’s conciliatory gestures, settling for a ‘wait and see’ approach.

Most ordinary people protesting in Egypt’s streets in 2011 and now have always been more interested in liberty, equality and rights than Shariah or the lack of it. Those calling for a return to the Shariah or actively opposing it will always be at the fringes, even if loud. The mass man wants things more tangible than legislation. As long as religious parties fail to take on social ills, they will remain unattractive to the man in the street.

Putting the cart before the horse by making Shariah law precede the provision of basic justice has proven disastrous. When the letter of the law is imposed without first actively promoting the value it exists to protect, this becomes brutal and spiritless. The experiment with the Hudood laws in Pakistan in the 80s allowed Islamic law (or the pretense of it) to fail by not creating the necessary conditions for it to work. Such disasters are likely to be committed by those seeking to win legitimacy by appealing to religious sentiment.

Islamic groups must also be conversant with modernity. Both freedom and democracy are part of the inevitable modernizing process in societies today. Egypt is livid over what is perceived as Morsi’s attempt to curtail both these hard-earned gifts. While the democracy package bred in Western society may certainly not be suitable for Muslim societies, the values of governance by popular will, decision-making involving public participation and accountability before the public and the law are values Islam vigorously promotes. Certainly, the intricacies of how these democratic values can best be ensured is something scholars and leaders have to work out given their social contexts. Other than that, the implementation of laws must be done in a manner that does not encroach upon personal liberty. While an Islamic society will facilitate and promote the values of Islam, it must not call for moral policing that trespasses the line between the public and the private. Individual morality in an Islamic system is promoted through education and gentle ‘dawah’ and no imposition is acceptable in the private lives of individuals as that is between a man and his God. Islamic groups in Pakistan are still unclear and uncomfortable with both these aspects of modernity and what these mean to them: freedom and democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood seems to be learning the right lessons and growing in the right direction. Josh Rogin writing for Foreign Policy terms the Egyptian government an ‘honest broker in the Middle East.’ Morsi’s aide Essam Haddad makes it clear that the Muslim Brotherhood does not want to create a theologically based state in Egypt, but that it does want shariah to inform governance and law going forward. The Brotherhood's religious leader, Mohamed Badie, tweeted on the eve of the referendum approving the constitution by a 64% vote: “Let's start building our country's rebirth... men and women, Muslims and Christians."

Their Pakistani counterparts, while in awe of their victory, still have a long way to go- with a good deal to be unlearnt and a good deal to be learnt. 

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]