HOW THE RIGHTEOUS TAUGHT THEIR CHILDREN
Maryam Sakeenah
In Surah Maryam we are told of Prophet Zakariyyah (A.S)’s invocation to Allah for someone to inherit his prophetic legacy. His prayer was stimulated by his desire to see his mission continue after him and to pass on to the future the treasure of wisdom, knowledge and faith he had acquired over the years. It reflects his responsibility to and concern for the future. Allah blessed him with a righteous, noble son to inherit his legacy and carry it on into the future, to make it live beyond human mortality. It highlights the importance and role of parenthood as a means to reach out to the future and make the best in you live beyond your limited span of life on earth.
The role of prophets and righteous people as parents and how they taught their young needs also to be understood because we suffer from patriarchal mindsets which carry an exaggerated emphasis on parents’ rights as opposed to parental duties. In a tradition, when a father approached Caliph Umar (R.A) with a complaint against his son, the Caliph questioned him instead about whether he had first fulfilled his duty to educate his son in basic values. Raised as role models to be followed, the family lives of prophets give us important insights into their role as parents. Recorded instances of this are not rare. The manifestation of Luqman’s wisdom that Allah chooses to record in the Quran is what he taught his son. These words of advice are perhaps the best example today for Muslim parents. The primary thrust of Luqman’s teaching is on belief in the Creator. His words instil pristine Abrahamic Monotheism and carry a warning against associating anything of the creation with Allah. The tone, however, is not overassertive but explanatory, describing ‘shirk’ as the ‘greatest injustice’ against the Lord of the Universe.
Parents must teach their children the Rights of Allah, His attributes of absolute uniqueness and incomparability so as to build in the consciousness of their children a recognition of Allah from their earliest years. This helps a child develop a relationship with Allah and a familiarity with His attributes. It teaches complete reliance on Him for all needs and roots out all likelihood of shirk. Luqman’s words convey a sense of the enormity of the sin of ‘shirk.’ Parents must, alongwith building a recognition of the Creator, warn against all forms of polytheism_ explicit and implicit. “O my son! Join not in worship others with Allâh. Verily, joining others in worship with Allâh is a great injustice indeed.” (The Noble Quran, 31:13).
The theme of the centrality of tauhid in teaching the young recurs yet again in the words of Ibrahim (A.S) and Yaqub (A.S) to their sons. Allah quotes them as saying: “O my sons! Allah has chosen for you the true religion, therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him)’…Ya’qub said to his sons: ‘What will you worship after me?’ They said: ‘We shall worship your God, God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishaq, One God and unto Him we have surrendered.’” (The Noble Quran 2:132-133) In this instance too, the strong concern to ensure that their inheritors are saved from misguidance is very noticeable. It emphasizes that fear of Allah’s displeasure is the most powerful restraint against sin.
As parents, it is our prime responsibility to plant in our children from their earliest years this seed of ‘taqwa’ (God-consciousness) to motivate them to do good and restrain them from evil. Yaqub (A.S) stresses the importance of staying forever in a state of submission to God by instructing his children to hold fast to faith and ‘die not, except as Muslims.’ Luqman creates this God-consciousness in his son by explaining to him Allah’s attribute of Perfect Knowledge and the eventual accountability to Him thus: : “O my son! If it be equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed, and though it be in a rock, or in the Heavens or the earth, Allâh will bring it forth. Verily Allâh is subtle in bringing out that grain, well aware of its place.” (The Noble Quran, 31:16)
Just as the Quran often instructs believers to obey parents right after the command to obey Allah, Luqman next teaches his son the importance of kindness to parents. He adds to it that the Command of God being the highest in importance, if the parents’ order violates this, they are not to be obeyed. However, in this case too kindness and gentleness in dealing with them is never to be abandoned. It is this attitude of respect towards parents unconditionally that keeps filial ties intact and vital, and hence protects the moral fabric of the society by giving every individual a personal source of authority and guidance to fall back on and seek recourse to. After sowing in the heart the seed of faith, Luqman teaches his son to worship Allah with the heart and soul fulfilling all the rites of His worship perfectly, for prayer is the best expression of submission to Him. Next he instils sincerity and a sense of responsibility towards fellow beings by enjoining him to ‘command the doing of good, and forbid evil (gently and without harshness).’ (31:17) This is holistic worship which culminates in a strong sense of social responsibility, making a child grow up with a conscientious sense of duty towards his community.
Alongwith this he prepares his son for the hardships that come in the way of the struggle to establish virtue and eliminate vice, advising him to stay steadfast, to persevere and trust in Allah: ‘Bear with patience whatever befalls you.’ (31:17) Luqman next takes up character building which is closely connected to faith in God. Faith in the heart is the fountainhead of humility and gentleness in dealing with others; the source that impels one on the path of righteousness and good conduct. He teaches moderation, gentleness, etiquette and mannerism and warns against the hateful sin of pride which does not befit man: “And turn not your face away from men with pride. Nor walk in insolence through the earth. Verily Allâh likes not each arrogant boaster. And be moderate (or show no insolence) in walking. And lower your voice. Verily the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying] of an ass!” (13:18-19)
What strikes one about Luqman’s advice to his son is not just the comprehensive nature and content of his teaching but also how it is ordered, linked and prioritized. As parents and educators we must likewise prioritize what we teach our children, keeping central to all teaching faith in Allah and a recognition of Him through His attributes, love for Him and fear of losing it. When this basis is created, it becomes easier to construct on it the edifice of a strong Muslim personality exuding righteous conduct.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) taught and trained his cousin-brother Ali (R.A) as his own son and it was under his guidance that Ali (R.A) grew into a living treasury of immense knowledge. Fatima (R.A), his youngest daughter, brought up under his love and protection became a woman of extraordinary perseverance and patience. What must be taken note of is how her blessed father insisted that her relationship with him could not guarantee salvation; it could not be taken advantage of, and that individual effort and personal sacrifice had to be made to gain Allah’s Love and find a place among the righteous. When Fatima (R.A) came to her father to request for a slavegirl to help with household chores, the Prophet (SAW) instead taught her words of remembrance of Allah to give her ease. What is obvious here is fatherly wisdom to make his children go through toil and labour and achieve a higher station of faith by facing all the rigours of life and learning to rely on Allah alone. We also see how the Prophet (SAW) rejects for his children all privilege that came with his spiritual and worldly position. Anas bin Malik (R.A) reminisces how in his years of service to the Prophet (SAW), he was never reprimanded even slightly for his mistakes, and always gently instructed and taught by example. He mentions his mildness of nature and readiness to forgive and overlook faults; it is this that makes one learn and grow without feeling one is being ordered and instructed. It creates in the learner a fondness for the teacher that makes obedience and learning a continuous pleasure.
It is the same attitude we find in the Prophet (SAW)’s relationship with his beloved grandchildren Hassan and Hussain who basked in his compassion and love as they learnt from him gems of wisdom and were guided under his shade_ a guidance that directed their journeys in life long afterwards, till their noble end. Ibn e Abbas (R.A) who too was honoured to have learnt under the guidance of the Prophet (SAW) and grew up to be one of the greatest scholars of Islam reminisces hence: “I was riding behind the Prophet (SAW) one day when he said to me, ‘O son, I am going to teach you some advice: Observe Allah, He guards you. Observe Allah, you will find Him ahead of you. When you ask, ask Allah. And when you seek help, seek the help of Allah. And be certain that were the whole nation to collaborate to benefit you, they would never benefit you except in a thing which Allah has already foreordained for you, and if they were to collaborate to harm you, they would never harm you except in a thing which Allah has already foreordained against you. The pens are lifted and the sheets have become dry. Recognise Allah at times of ease, He recognises you at times of difficulty. And rest assured that whatever misses you, it would never befall you, and whatever befalls you, it would never miss you. And you should know that victory comes with endurance. And the relief comes through distress. And along with difficulty comes ease.’” (Tirmidhi) The child is being taught complete trust in Allah and submission to His Decree_ a belief which makes one courageous, steadfast, patient and full of hope.
Parenting is a sacred duty we owe to the future.The concept of ‘continuous reward after death’ (sadaqa e jaarya) is very important in this regard. According to a hadith, one of the three means of reward after death is ‘a righteous child’ (Sahih Muslim, hadith no. 3084). A righteous child is our gift to the future of the ummah. In order to instil in our children the values that can make them a means of ‘sadaqa e jaarya’ for us in our afterlife, we must follow the ways and methods by which the prophets and the righteous taught their progeny. As parents, teachers, elders we have a tremendous responsibility towards those who will live out our legacies after our time is up.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
White House Rhetoric Dissected...
THE RHETORIC OF A STAGGERING EMPIRE
Maryam Sakeenah
Elected on the ‘Çhange We Need’ card, President Obama failed to stand apart from the hyperpatriotic charged rhetorical tradition of his predecessor. Though not a psycho-linguist, I could not help but be struck by the unbecoming chest-thumping triumphalism and hubris that his Sunday night speech announcing the assassination of Osama bin Laden dripped with. It fit exactly into the array of ‘War on Terror’ rhetoric spearheaded by Dubya Bush, and which Obama had ostensibly shunned in favour of a more restrained, measured tenor. He may not have actually used the inanity of the phrase ‘War on Terror’, but the Bush Effect was ever-present. In fact, I could not see much difference in the ethos of the President’s speech and the furore in the streets as young, euphoric Americans consuming regular dosages of FOX News bulletins shouted ‘USA! USA!’ and showed fists in a berserk display of febrile jingoism. The President may have had at his disposal a greater sophistry of words and stood in a grander setting, but the sentiment was hardly distinguishable. Both danced to the same tune _ a naked, primeval wardance.
If one were to change the specific names and events, Obama’s emotional appeal calling to arms and to national unity could most fittingly come from one of the ‘terrorists’ he claims to fight. The justification for U.S policy is the same doctrine of vengeance Obama condemns about Al Qaeda. Just as the President invoked the images of 9/11 ‘seared in our memory’ and painted lesser visible images of ‘empty seats at the dining table’ and ‘children growing without fathers’, so too are those who strap bombs around their bodies haunted by spectres of the bleeding ghosts of America’s wars. There are other images also seared in other memories, Mr. President_ and these are images that do not occur in your speeches or on your news channels or in your national consciousness or in any remote corner of your mind as your drones rain death and destruction in lesser known towns and villages where those live who you excluded when you vowed to protect ‘our citizens, our friends, our allies.’ There are other hearts with gaping holes cut through them, too. Vengeance works on both sides: “The villainy you teach me I shall execute. And it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.”(Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice). But your victims don’t wear the alluring face of the civilization you champion, the values you extol. Their ire makes them your despised evil enemies, while yours makes you the impregnable empire you think you are. It is the same old vengeful spiral you have not grown out of, even as you celebrate the supposed greatness of ‘who you are’ and ‘what you stand for.’ You gloat in triumphant, satiated vengeance as you celebrate dead bodies whisked-out-of-sight even as you lecture us on justice, peace and sacred values.
The otherized few are the bad guys, the terrorists. And thus you strip away dignity and humanity from those who challenge your might to show them as mere despicable moronic villains. Michael Scheuer, former CIA bin Laden expert insisted that to consider bin Laden as a murderous ‘terrorist’ reflected America’s naivete and inaccuracy in understanding its enemy, as he was a personage with far greater credibility personifying what many saw as a legitimate struggle rooted in an ideology far more popular and authentic than the U.S would have us believe. While his method may be one that many in the Muslim world reject, his standpoint and its appeal was what many saw as both genuine and deep rooted. Scheuer clarified it was a mistake to consider bin Laden a pathological murderous maniac ‘committed to killing innocents_ men, women and children’ as the President informed us. He was committed instead (in his own words), to the defence of his community against American expansionism and interventionism and to avenge the millions of victims of America’s wars and proxy wars. And just as the U.S dismisses the tremendous civilian damage its warmongering incurs as ‘collateral’ and not intended, so too did bin Laden make clear that innocents never were the target, though his strategy of attack may inevitably include damage to them. The identical logic of the ‘nation under God’ and its loathsome evil enemy is only too clear_ while the former claims to champion all civilized values and all that is good and true, the latter is condemnable and barbaric. Chomsky wrote that the failure to apply to ourselves the same standards we use for others is an arrogance of power and a perversion of democracy by those purportedly defending it_ those who place themselves as judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.
The President showed off the feathers in his cap at a good time, mentioning ‘disrupted terrorist attacks and greater homeland security.’ This does not however talk of the great cost at which it came- the loss of civil liberties in the United States and an officially imposed Hollywood-style national paranoia. What the U.S may successfully have done however is to deflect the war off the shores of the United States to the mountains of Pakistan_ somebody else’s dirty work.
Former president Bush was not just present in spirit, he even occurred in Obama’s speech as the President attributed his clarification that this was ‘not a war against Islam’ to his senior. The need to reiterate arises only when the action belies is. The ‘clarification’ would do little to alleviate and redress the grievances of much of the Muslim world increasingly irate about the continuity of the former administration’s myopic and exploitative policies towards the Muslim world. The recent crisis in Libya has only made clear how little the U.S has learnt from the Iraq quagmire and from the many fiascos of the previous administration, whose official line the President meticulously toes.
The muted warning by the President to Pakistan that it was ‘necessary for Pakistan to continue to join us in the fight’ was reminiscent of President Bush’s 2001 telephonic threat to the Pakistani premier, ‘you are either with Us or against Us.’
Having trumpeted enough bravado, Obama next tries a hand at playing victim, insisting that the war was ‘brought to our shores.’ This does not explain away the carefully laid down global network of American military bases in the Middle East and beyond, its many wars of occupation, intervention and exploitation, its numerous bloody misadventures many of which pre-date Al Qaeda. Chomsky reminds us that all concentrations of power at all periods of history have behaved in the same way, and all demand historical amnesia so that earlier atrocities can be forgotten. ‘If exposed as crimes, our atrocities can then be viewed as aberrations or mistakes rather than as part of a consistent pattern.’ (Neil Smith, reviewing Noam Chomsky).
Just as the president takes refuge in a sense of victimhood to justify his ‘defensive’ war, so do his enemies act out of their sense of injury and victimhood which they believe justifies their defensive war against the relentless American empire.
Relentless indeed, in the President’s own words: “We will be relentless in defence of our citizens and our friends and allies.” The fiction of America’s ‘defensive war’ wears thin with the rumble and roar of the doctrine of pre-emption that Obama inherits like a dutiful heir from his predecessor. According to Robert Jensen, “Obama’s comments keyed into the concept of American exceptionalism and the generalized fetishism of military force evident throughout American culture.”
“We will do whatever it takes”, Obama continued, while praising the work and the devotion of American counter-terrorism and intelligence officers. The message is that ‘All do Good who serve towards This End.’ The ends justify the means. The notorious ways and tactics of American counter terrorism and intelligence officers are only too well known with the laying bare of prison cells where evidence of brutal torture clothed as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ has often surfaced, leaving one’s senses reeling. If it takes Gitmo-style waterboarding seventy or more times to get Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to utter what may be a lead to the bin Laden trail, Gitmo and all that its dark recesses conceal stands justified ‘towards This End.’
As the moral bankruptcy of the argument begins to gape, it seeks refuge in louder rhetoric celebrating ‘values.’ The echo of Bush’s black-and-white dichotomies of ‘good and evil’ and ‘our values and theirs’ rings clear as the President invokes American superior identity and values_ not once but twice: “We will be true to the values that make us who we are.” The constant references to superior American values and their centrality to the war remind one of Bush’s ‘they hate us for our freedom’ masterstroke. Towards the end, the President’s repetition of ‘our’, ‘ours’, ‘us’ and ‘we’ becomes a drumroll of jingoism and narcissism. In fact, it dwindles into naked hubris as Obama celebrates in the death of an unarmed enemy through unilateral military assault in another’s country the ‘greatness of our nation.’ That the nation did not question the official version of the great story with all its discrepancies and even lies as statements were circulated and retracted makes the state of the nation’s integrity self-evident.
The hubris turns megalomanic as the President of the Most Powerful Nation on Earth grandly announces: “America can do whatever we set our mind to.” The pattern falls into place. Bush the Senior had said years ago, “What We Say, Goes.” Grandiose rhetoric disguises the plain fallacy of the myth of ‘making sacrifices to make the world a safer place’, and ‘standing up for our values abroad.’ The counter-productive, valueless and hopelessly myopic American counter-terrorism policies only contribute to perpetuate America’s war against an enemy it created and now helps sustain. It only serves to keep the vicious cycle of fear and hate going. Al Qaeda has already warned of reprisals. The paranoia of a foreign monster lying in wait for innocent American ‘men women and children’ does not give Americans any sense of security, nor do the drone strikes in Pakistan and American vows that ‘the war has not ended’ serve the interests of peace anywhere. The ‘world becoming a safer place’ is yet another rhetorical ploy to win an indefensibly weak case.
It is a case of an empire careening towards doom, screeching piquantly on its way down the hill. Its delusions of grandeur and its insistent hubris is more dangerous than any ragtag group of ‘terrorists’ hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. Frank Smecker writes of what terrifies him more than Al Qaeda, “The most terrifying culture ever to exist... a culture that wholeheartedly and without question believes in the fantasy that it can continue to live on a finite planet while practising a way of life predicated on the assumption of infinite growth; a culture that will do anything within its means to reinforce this fantasy... And so when an empire attempts to send a message to other communities... a message that says- we need what you have and we will take it if you do not hand it over-, well, the message better be pretty convincing and ensure success... But what it does is also that it leaves an impression on those it hurts, and some people who are deeply hurt indeed reach a point of rage; and to foment rage and to show those who are left with nothing but these feelings of enmity and vengeance creates a ‘death spiral.’ It is fanaticism against fanaticism, a way of life versus another way of life, all dancing the same dance_ a pas de deux of terror... it merely reveals that this culture has always been that monster we are attempting to fight.”
Maryam Sakeenah
Elected on the ‘Çhange We Need’ card, President Obama failed to stand apart from the hyperpatriotic charged rhetorical tradition of his predecessor. Though not a psycho-linguist, I could not help but be struck by the unbecoming chest-thumping triumphalism and hubris that his Sunday night speech announcing the assassination of Osama bin Laden dripped with. It fit exactly into the array of ‘War on Terror’ rhetoric spearheaded by Dubya Bush, and which Obama had ostensibly shunned in favour of a more restrained, measured tenor. He may not have actually used the inanity of the phrase ‘War on Terror’, but the Bush Effect was ever-present. In fact, I could not see much difference in the ethos of the President’s speech and the furore in the streets as young, euphoric Americans consuming regular dosages of FOX News bulletins shouted ‘USA! USA!’ and showed fists in a berserk display of febrile jingoism. The President may have had at his disposal a greater sophistry of words and stood in a grander setting, but the sentiment was hardly distinguishable. Both danced to the same tune _ a naked, primeval wardance.
If one were to change the specific names and events, Obama’s emotional appeal calling to arms and to national unity could most fittingly come from one of the ‘terrorists’ he claims to fight. The justification for U.S policy is the same doctrine of vengeance Obama condemns about Al Qaeda. Just as the President invoked the images of 9/11 ‘seared in our memory’ and painted lesser visible images of ‘empty seats at the dining table’ and ‘children growing without fathers’, so too are those who strap bombs around their bodies haunted by spectres of the bleeding ghosts of America’s wars. There are other images also seared in other memories, Mr. President_ and these are images that do not occur in your speeches or on your news channels or in your national consciousness or in any remote corner of your mind as your drones rain death and destruction in lesser known towns and villages where those live who you excluded when you vowed to protect ‘our citizens, our friends, our allies.’ There are other hearts with gaping holes cut through them, too. Vengeance works on both sides: “The villainy you teach me I shall execute. And it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.”(Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice). But your victims don’t wear the alluring face of the civilization you champion, the values you extol. Their ire makes them your despised evil enemies, while yours makes you the impregnable empire you think you are. It is the same old vengeful spiral you have not grown out of, even as you celebrate the supposed greatness of ‘who you are’ and ‘what you stand for.’ You gloat in triumphant, satiated vengeance as you celebrate dead bodies whisked-out-of-sight even as you lecture us on justice, peace and sacred values.
The otherized few are the bad guys, the terrorists. And thus you strip away dignity and humanity from those who challenge your might to show them as mere despicable moronic villains. Michael Scheuer, former CIA bin Laden expert insisted that to consider bin Laden as a murderous ‘terrorist’ reflected America’s naivete and inaccuracy in understanding its enemy, as he was a personage with far greater credibility personifying what many saw as a legitimate struggle rooted in an ideology far more popular and authentic than the U.S would have us believe. While his method may be one that many in the Muslim world reject, his standpoint and its appeal was what many saw as both genuine and deep rooted. Scheuer clarified it was a mistake to consider bin Laden a pathological murderous maniac ‘committed to killing innocents_ men, women and children’ as the President informed us. He was committed instead (in his own words), to the defence of his community against American expansionism and interventionism and to avenge the millions of victims of America’s wars and proxy wars. And just as the U.S dismisses the tremendous civilian damage its warmongering incurs as ‘collateral’ and not intended, so too did bin Laden make clear that innocents never were the target, though his strategy of attack may inevitably include damage to them. The identical logic of the ‘nation under God’ and its loathsome evil enemy is only too clear_ while the former claims to champion all civilized values and all that is good and true, the latter is condemnable and barbaric. Chomsky wrote that the failure to apply to ourselves the same standards we use for others is an arrogance of power and a perversion of democracy by those purportedly defending it_ those who place themselves as judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.
The President showed off the feathers in his cap at a good time, mentioning ‘disrupted terrorist attacks and greater homeland security.’ This does not however talk of the great cost at which it came- the loss of civil liberties in the United States and an officially imposed Hollywood-style national paranoia. What the U.S may successfully have done however is to deflect the war off the shores of the United States to the mountains of Pakistan_ somebody else’s dirty work.
Former president Bush was not just present in spirit, he even occurred in Obama’s speech as the President attributed his clarification that this was ‘not a war against Islam’ to his senior. The need to reiterate arises only when the action belies is. The ‘clarification’ would do little to alleviate and redress the grievances of much of the Muslim world increasingly irate about the continuity of the former administration’s myopic and exploitative policies towards the Muslim world. The recent crisis in Libya has only made clear how little the U.S has learnt from the Iraq quagmire and from the many fiascos of the previous administration, whose official line the President meticulously toes.
The muted warning by the President to Pakistan that it was ‘necessary for Pakistan to continue to join us in the fight’ was reminiscent of President Bush’s 2001 telephonic threat to the Pakistani premier, ‘you are either with Us or against Us.’
Having trumpeted enough bravado, Obama next tries a hand at playing victim, insisting that the war was ‘brought to our shores.’ This does not explain away the carefully laid down global network of American military bases in the Middle East and beyond, its many wars of occupation, intervention and exploitation, its numerous bloody misadventures many of which pre-date Al Qaeda. Chomsky reminds us that all concentrations of power at all periods of history have behaved in the same way, and all demand historical amnesia so that earlier atrocities can be forgotten. ‘If exposed as crimes, our atrocities can then be viewed as aberrations or mistakes rather than as part of a consistent pattern.’ (Neil Smith, reviewing Noam Chomsky).
Just as the president takes refuge in a sense of victimhood to justify his ‘defensive’ war, so do his enemies act out of their sense of injury and victimhood which they believe justifies their defensive war against the relentless American empire.
Relentless indeed, in the President’s own words: “We will be relentless in defence of our citizens and our friends and allies.” The fiction of America’s ‘defensive war’ wears thin with the rumble and roar of the doctrine of pre-emption that Obama inherits like a dutiful heir from his predecessor. According to Robert Jensen, “Obama’s comments keyed into the concept of American exceptionalism and the generalized fetishism of military force evident throughout American culture.”
“We will do whatever it takes”, Obama continued, while praising the work and the devotion of American counter-terrorism and intelligence officers. The message is that ‘All do Good who serve towards This End.’ The ends justify the means. The notorious ways and tactics of American counter terrorism and intelligence officers are only too well known with the laying bare of prison cells where evidence of brutal torture clothed as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ has often surfaced, leaving one’s senses reeling. If it takes Gitmo-style waterboarding seventy or more times to get Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to utter what may be a lead to the bin Laden trail, Gitmo and all that its dark recesses conceal stands justified ‘towards This End.’
As the moral bankruptcy of the argument begins to gape, it seeks refuge in louder rhetoric celebrating ‘values.’ The echo of Bush’s black-and-white dichotomies of ‘good and evil’ and ‘our values and theirs’ rings clear as the President invokes American superior identity and values_ not once but twice: “We will be true to the values that make us who we are.” The constant references to superior American values and their centrality to the war remind one of Bush’s ‘they hate us for our freedom’ masterstroke. Towards the end, the President’s repetition of ‘our’, ‘ours’, ‘us’ and ‘we’ becomes a drumroll of jingoism and narcissism. In fact, it dwindles into naked hubris as Obama celebrates in the death of an unarmed enemy through unilateral military assault in another’s country the ‘greatness of our nation.’ That the nation did not question the official version of the great story with all its discrepancies and even lies as statements were circulated and retracted makes the state of the nation’s integrity self-evident.
The hubris turns megalomanic as the President of the Most Powerful Nation on Earth grandly announces: “America can do whatever we set our mind to.” The pattern falls into place. Bush the Senior had said years ago, “What We Say, Goes.” Grandiose rhetoric disguises the plain fallacy of the myth of ‘making sacrifices to make the world a safer place’, and ‘standing up for our values abroad.’ The counter-productive, valueless and hopelessly myopic American counter-terrorism policies only contribute to perpetuate America’s war against an enemy it created and now helps sustain. It only serves to keep the vicious cycle of fear and hate going. Al Qaeda has already warned of reprisals. The paranoia of a foreign monster lying in wait for innocent American ‘men women and children’ does not give Americans any sense of security, nor do the drone strikes in Pakistan and American vows that ‘the war has not ended’ serve the interests of peace anywhere. The ‘world becoming a safer place’ is yet another rhetorical ploy to win an indefensibly weak case.
It is a case of an empire careening towards doom, screeching piquantly on its way down the hill. Its delusions of grandeur and its insistent hubris is more dangerous than any ragtag group of ‘terrorists’ hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. Frank Smecker writes of what terrifies him more than Al Qaeda, “The most terrifying culture ever to exist... a culture that wholeheartedly and without question believes in the fantasy that it can continue to live on a finite planet while practising a way of life predicated on the assumption of infinite growth; a culture that will do anything within its means to reinforce this fantasy... And so when an empire attempts to send a message to other communities... a message that says- we need what you have and we will take it if you do not hand it over-, well, the message better be pretty convincing and ensure success... But what it does is also that it leaves an impression on those it hurts, and some people who are deeply hurt indeed reach a point of rage; and to foment rage and to show those who are left with nothing but these feelings of enmity and vengeance creates a ‘death spiral.’ It is fanaticism against fanaticism, a way of life versus another way of life, all dancing the same dance_ a pas de deux of terror... it merely reveals that this culture has always been that monster we are attempting to fight.”
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Tinkering with Ideology: A Rejoinder
TINKERING WITH IDEOLOGY
Maryam Sakeenah
George Orwell wrote of the past as malleable and ever-changing in his celebrated work ‘1984.’ In Pakistan this is particularly true, given the attempts_ quite commonly projected by the liberal-secular popular media_ to tinker with Pakistan’s ideological premise in order to make it fit the narrow framework of thought subscribed to by a clique of Pakistan’s liberal intellectual elite.
In his article ‘At Ideological Crossroads’ (Daily Times, March 14, 2011), Yasser Hamdani has underscored the need for Pakistan to shun ‘retrogressive religiosity’ in order to find its place in the comity of civilized, progressive nations. He believes the concept of Islamic statehood has been injected into Pakistan’s historical narrative and assumed a virulent character of a Shariah-based Islamic theocracy under the dictatorship of Zia ul Haq in the eighties. The pre-Zia constitutions of 1956 and 1962, he states, did not set down with any clarity that Islam would be the state religion. However, the untenable and disposable nature of these documents becomes obvious given their inability to survive beyond the tenures of their wily architects. One also wonders if it is by mere oversight or something more deliberate that Mr. Hamdani glosses over a much more significant constitutional development, one that was by far more authentic, reflected a broad national consensus and set an important direction for constitution-making in the country_ the Objectives Resolution of 1949 which sets down the highest goals of all political endeavour and the principles state and government would be directed by: “1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust. 3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed. 4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.”
Throughout his article, Hamdani has used the term ‘liberal’ as something exclusive and in fact diametrically opposed to the concept of Islamic statehood. The ‘liberal values’ he advocates in opposition to an ‘Islamic theocracy’ are in fact intrinsic and central to political Islam. Jinnah had understood this when he had referred to Islamic social justice, democracy, human rights and tolerance. Yet Hamadani dismisses it as a secular Jinnah’s attempt to play up to his mass audience, to ‘speak in a language comprehensible to his constituency.’ Zia ul Haq’s controversial ‘Islamization’ agenda may have undermined these universal liberal values, but what Hamdani does not appreciate is the fact that these very values are at the core of what Islamic scholars have called the ‘maqasid ul shariah’ (values and objectives of Muslim law). It is erroneous to conclude from the failure of Zia’s clumsy experiment the undesirability of Islamic law in this day and age.
The writer also seems to be confused about theocracy in Islam. A theocratic state is odious to Islam, as Islam rules out clerical monopolization of religion, or the prospect of a clergy heading the state. Throughout Islamic history, Islamic scholars have never assumed political roles or government offices, but have acted as advisors and guides and operated as agents to bring into effect a system of checks and balances for the Islamic state and its rulers. This dissociation of theologians and jurists from the state machinery is important to protect the laws and principles of Islam from political abuse, exploitation and manipulation; to maintain their independent character. In ruling out theocracy in the state of Pakistan, Jinnah showed this astute understanding he shared with his mentor Dr. Muhammad Iqbal: “…I am sure that our constitution is going to be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, these are as applicable in modern times as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught us equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody…in any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocracy to be ruled by a priest...’
Iqbal and his contribution so central to the Pakistan ideology in fact is conspicuously missing from Hamadani’s analysis of Pakistan’s ideology. It demonstrates ignorance of the fact that while Jinnah was instrumental in materializing the Pakistan idea, spearheading its struggle and leading the Muslims, the ideology of the nation does not have its genesis in Jinnah’s thought. It is more far-reaching, more deep-rooted. The vision of Iqbal clearly the ideological ‘father of the nation’ for Pakistan is unequivocal and very eloquent on the role of Islam in the new Muslim state: “... I am not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of man from his geographical limitations. I believe that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the lives of individuals as well as states. I believe Islam itself is Destiny and will not suffer a Destiny... Is religion a private affair? The nature of the Prophet (PBUH)’s experience as disclosed in the Quran is wholly different... it is creative of a social order . Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled... Therefore the construction of a polity on national lines displacing Islamic principles is simply unthinkable to a Muslim.” (Allahabad, 1930)
This too was the theme and undercurrent in all Islamic reformist endeavours in the subcontinent since the decline of Muslim rule in India_ to restore political ascendancy and autonomy to the Muslims of India. Writers patronized by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan all wrote of the return to glory of the Muslims of India, of their self-determination and realization of a state where they could live by the law of Islam. Iqbal said in his 1930 address: “It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal and a polity_ by which I mean a social structure ruled by certain legal principles and animated by an ethical ideal_ has been the chief formative factor in the life history of the Muslims of India.” That the masses took up the theme with vigour and passion is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as the streets resounded with ‘Pakistan ka matlab kia, La ilaha ilallah.’ It is incorrect and unfair to give a character to the Pakistan ideology that betrays the popular sentiment of those who made innumerable personal sacrifices in the pursuit of that national dream.
Hamdani’s ‘group nationalism’ theory fails to take into account the strongest and most powerfully articulated sentiment of the ‘group’ he claims to speak for. Besides, the socio-economic factors which according to Hamdani were more significant than ideological reasons, actually stem from the distinct religious identity of the Muslims which they were not prepared to dilute in a united secular India. This is also a necessary understanding in order to make sense of the ‘Two Nation Theory’ which Hamdani interprets as based upon cultural, historical and linguistic distinctions more than religious identity. This again fails to see religion as the basis of cultural, linguistic and historical distinctness, especially in the context of pre-partition India. The role of religion as the primary force shaping identity, infusing nationhood, shaping tradition/culture and directing the course of history goes entirely unappreciated by Hamdani.
Asserting Jinnah’s secular credentials, Hamdani refers to the fact that no attempt to refer to Islam as the state religion was made in the making of constitutional documents. Again, the political context is totally ignored. The fact that the new state was thrust into a feverish battle for survival dealing with an ocean of crises under the leadership of an ailing, exhausted, lone Jinnah is utterly ignored. As Pakistan grappled with survival issues and dealt with the shock and horror of the partition bloodbath, rehabilitation of millions, controversial boundaries, trouble in the princely states and war in Kashmir, struggling for resources, infrastructure development, establishment of an administration to name a few, constitution making had to be put on the back-burner, and never could assume priority in these maddening times. Soon after, Jinnah left the world. To then point out the absence of visibly ‘Islamic’ constitution-making endeavours is unfair and uninsightful. Besides, there is no dearth of speeches and statements by Jinnah both before and after Pakistan, referring to the law and values of Islam as central to statehood: “It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet (SAW) of Islam.” And again, “Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties… everyone except those who are ignorant knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civilizational, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code, it regulates everything… and our Prophet (SAW) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Quran and be his own priest and guide. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life collectively and individually.”
Maulana Maudoodi chose not to side with Pakistan for his own reasons and accused the new state of having an ‘infidel government.’ While it may reflect Maudoodi’s inaccuracy in this particular matter, it does not reflect Jinnah’s ideological rift with the Muslim ulema of the age, many of whom including the learned Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani were close associates of Jinnah till the end of his days. It was Usmani too whose efforts_ tacitly endorsed by Jinnah_ materialized in the Objectives Resolution of 1949. A man of spine and principle hating political theatrics and demagoguery, Jinnah would never advertise or go public with his deep religious convictions he became firmly attached to in his later days, as attested to by his close affiliates.
Quoting M.J Akbar, Hamdani calls for ‘dropping Pakistans excess ideological baggage’ in favour of ‘ideas universally acceptable as the basis for nation-building.’ This approach is again symptomatic of an inability to appreciate the values of Islam as universal and essentially liberating. The social justice, egalitarianism and sanctity of human life that Islam upholds and emphasizes perhaps more than any other philosophy of life are essentially ‘universal’ and ‘liberal’ in character. The inability or unwillingness to admit it reflects the writer’s own tainted perception and deep-seated bias that goes loud when he terms it ‘retrogressive.’
The writer underscores the urgency of making our ideological choice out of ‘retrogressive religiosity’ by referring to the mass frustration of extremist religious elements in Pakistani society. While extremist tendencies need to be shunned and the role of religious scholars is immense in this regard, one must also take into account the deeper causes of the trend_ of a polarized society where the conservative majority is under-resourced, underprivileged and disempowered by a liberal-extremist elitist minority parasitizing on resources and empowered by state institutions and the powerful ‘free media.’ Writers like Hamdani would be better advised to respect the sensitivities of the deeply conservative population in order to be part of the healing process, to seek solutions within and not without the clear ideological premises and parameters of the state. An approach of this sort only helps the polarization and widen the ideological divide between the Westernized and privileged intellectual elite and the marginalized, conservative Muslim majority. And it threatens to rend us apart.
Maryam Sakeenah
George Orwell wrote of the past as malleable and ever-changing in his celebrated work ‘1984.’ In Pakistan this is particularly true, given the attempts_ quite commonly projected by the liberal-secular popular media_ to tinker with Pakistan’s ideological premise in order to make it fit the narrow framework of thought subscribed to by a clique of Pakistan’s liberal intellectual elite.
In his article ‘At Ideological Crossroads’ (Daily Times, March 14, 2011), Yasser Hamdani has underscored the need for Pakistan to shun ‘retrogressive religiosity’ in order to find its place in the comity of civilized, progressive nations. He believes the concept of Islamic statehood has been injected into Pakistan’s historical narrative and assumed a virulent character of a Shariah-based Islamic theocracy under the dictatorship of Zia ul Haq in the eighties. The pre-Zia constitutions of 1956 and 1962, he states, did not set down with any clarity that Islam would be the state religion. However, the untenable and disposable nature of these documents becomes obvious given their inability to survive beyond the tenures of their wily architects. One also wonders if it is by mere oversight or something more deliberate that Mr. Hamdani glosses over a much more significant constitutional development, one that was by far more authentic, reflected a broad national consensus and set an important direction for constitution-making in the country_ the Objectives Resolution of 1949 which sets down the highest goals of all political endeavour and the principles state and government would be directed by: “1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust. 3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed. 4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.”
Throughout his article, Hamdani has used the term ‘liberal’ as something exclusive and in fact diametrically opposed to the concept of Islamic statehood. The ‘liberal values’ he advocates in opposition to an ‘Islamic theocracy’ are in fact intrinsic and central to political Islam. Jinnah had understood this when he had referred to Islamic social justice, democracy, human rights and tolerance. Yet Hamadani dismisses it as a secular Jinnah’s attempt to play up to his mass audience, to ‘speak in a language comprehensible to his constituency.’ Zia ul Haq’s controversial ‘Islamization’ agenda may have undermined these universal liberal values, but what Hamdani does not appreciate is the fact that these very values are at the core of what Islamic scholars have called the ‘maqasid ul shariah’ (values and objectives of Muslim law). It is erroneous to conclude from the failure of Zia’s clumsy experiment the undesirability of Islamic law in this day and age.
The writer also seems to be confused about theocracy in Islam. A theocratic state is odious to Islam, as Islam rules out clerical monopolization of religion, or the prospect of a clergy heading the state. Throughout Islamic history, Islamic scholars have never assumed political roles or government offices, but have acted as advisors and guides and operated as agents to bring into effect a system of checks and balances for the Islamic state and its rulers. This dissociation of theologians and jurists from the state machinery is important to protect the laws and principles of Islam from political abuse, exploitation and manipulation; to maintain their independent character. In ruling out theocracy in the state of Pakistan, Jinnah showed this astute understanding he shared with his mentor Dr. Muhammad Iqbal: “…I am sure that our constitution is going to be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, these are as applicable in modern times as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught us equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody…in any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocracy to be ruled by a priest...’
Iqbal and his contribution so central to the Pakistan ideology in fact is conspicuously missing from Hamadani’s analysis of Pakistan’s ideology. It demonstrates ignorance of the fact that while Jinnah was instrumental in materializing the Pakistan idea, spearheading its struggle and leading the Muslims, the ideology of the nation does not have its genesis in Jinnah’s thought. It is more far-reaching, more deep-rooted. The vision of Iqbal clearly the ideological ‘father of the nation’ for Pakistan is unequivocal and very eloquent on the role of Islam in the new Muslim state: “... I am not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of man from his geographical limitations. I believe that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the lives of individuals as well as states. I believe Islam itself is Destiny and will not suffer a Destiny... Is religion a private affair? The nature of the Prophet (PBUH)’s experience as disclosed in the Quran is wholly different... it is creative of a social order . Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled... Therefore the construction of a polity on national lines displacing Islamic principles is simply unthinkable to a Muslim.” (Allahabad, 1930)
This too was the theme and undercurrent in all Islamic reformist endeavours in the subcontinent since the decline of Muslim rule in India_ to restore political ascendancy and autonomy to the Muslims of India. Writers patronized by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan all wrote of the return to glory of the Muslims of India, of their self-determination and realization of a state where they could live by the law of Islam. Iqbal said in his 1930 address: “It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal and a polity_ by which I mean a social structure ruled by certain legal principles and animated by an ethical ideal_ has been the chief formative factor in the life history of the Muslims of India.” That the masses took up the theme with vigour and passion is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as the streets resounded with ‘Pakistan ka matlab kia, La ilaha ilallah.’ It is incorrect and unfair to give a character to the Pakistan ideology that betrays the popular sentiment of those who made innumerable personal sacrifices in the pursuit of that national dream.
Hamdani’s ‘group nationalism’ theory fails to take into account the strongest and most powerfully articulated sentiment of the ‘group’ he claims to speak for. Besides, the socio-economic factors which according to Hamdani were more significant than ideological reasons, actually stem from the distinct religious identity of the Muslims which they were not prepared to dilute in a united secular India. This is also a necessary understanding in order to make sense of the ‘Two Nation Theory’ which Hamdani interprets as based upon cultural, historical and linguistic distinctions more than religious identity. This again fails to see religion as the basis of cultural, linguistic and historical distinctness, especially in the context of pre-partition India. The role of religion as the primary force shaping identity, infusing nationhood, shaping tradition/culture and directing the course of history goes entirely unappreciated by Hamdani.
Asserting Jinnah’s secular credentials, Hamdani refers to the fact that no attempt to refer to Islam as the state religion was made in the making of constitutional documents. Again, the political context is totally ignored. The fact that the new state was thrust into a feverish battle for survival dealing with an ocean of crises under the leadership of an ailing, exhausted, lone Jinnah is utterly ignored. As Pakistan grappled with survival issues and dealt with the shock and horror of the partition bloodbath, rehabilitation of millions, controversial boundaries, trouble in the princely states and war in Kashmir, struggling for resources, infrastructure development, establishment of an administration to name a few, constitution making had to be put on the back-burner, and never could assume priority in these maddening times. Soon after, Jinnah left the world. To then point out the absence of visibly ‘Islamic’ constitution-making endeavours is unfair and uninsightful. Besides, there is no dearth of speeches and statements by Jinnah both before and after Pakistan, referring to the law and values of Islam as central to statehood: “It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet (SAW) of Islam.” And again, “Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties… everyone except those who are ignorant knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civilizational, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code, it regulates everything… and our Prophet (SAW) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Quran and be his own priest and guide. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life collectively and individually.”
Maulana Maudoodi chose not to side with Pakistan for his own reasons and accused the new state of having an ‘infidel government.’ While it may reflect Maudoodi’s inaccuracy in this particular matter, it does not reflect Jinnah’s ideological rift with the Muslim ulema of the age, many of whom including the learned Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani were close associates of Jinnah till the end of his days. It was Usmani too whose efforts_ tacitly endorsed by Jinnah_ materialized in the Objectives Resolution of 1949. A man of spine and principle hating political theatrics and demagoguery, Jinnah would never advertise or go public with his deep religious convictions he became firmly attached to in his later days, as attested to by his close affiliates.
Quoting M.J Akbar, Hamdani calls for ‘dropping Pakistans excess ideological baggage’ in favour of ‘ideas universally acceptable as the basis for nation-building.’ This approach is again symptomatic of an inability to appreciate the values of Islam as universal and essentially liberating. The social justice, egalitarianism and sanctity of human life that Islam upholds and emphasizes perhaps more than any other philosophy of life are essentially ‘universal’ and ‘liberal’ in character. The inability or unwillingness to admit it reflects the writer’s own tainted perception and deep-seated bias that goes loud when he terms it ‘retrogressive.’
The writer underscores the urgency of making our ideological choice out of ‘retrogressive religiosity’ by referring to the mass frustration of extremist religious elements in Pakistani society. While extremist tendencies need to be shunned and the role of religious scholars is immense in this regard, one must also take into account the deeper causes of the trend_ of a polarized society where the conservative majority is under-resourced, underprivileged and disempowered by a liberal-extremist elitist minority parasitizing on resources and empowered by state institutions and the powerful ‘free media.’ Writers like Hamdani would be better advised to respect the sensitivities of the deeply conservative population in order to be part of the healing process, to seek solutions within and not without the clear ideological premises and parameters of the state. An approach of this sort only helps the polarization and widen the ideological divide between the Westernized and privileged intellectual elite and the marginalized, conservative Muslim majority. And it threatens to rend us apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)