Be critical
-Illustration by Khuda Bux Abro
In spite of the gradual infiltration of ubiquitous religious symbolism and mentality in the social spheres of everyday life, Pakistan has managed to remain afloat as a dynamically pluralistic society comprising various ethnicities, religions and Islamic sects.
However, starting in the late 1970s, an anti-pluralistic process was initiated by the Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship that soon spiralled beyond mere posturing and sloganeering.
With the ‘Afghan jihad’ raging against the former Soviet Union, Zia, his intelligence agencies, and parties like Jamat-i-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam started embracing a narrow and highly political version of Islam.
This was done to radicalise large sections of the Pakistani Muslims who had historically been a part of more apolitical strains of the faith — the kind that over the centuries had evolved within the largely pluralistic milieu of the subcontinent.
Most Pakistanis were historically related to the mazaar and sufi traditions of the subcontinent, and thus, were least suitable to fight the ‘jihad’ that Zia was planning to peddle in Afghanistan. Their beliefs were not compatible at all with Zia or Abul Ala Maududi’s version of Political Islam.
To compensate this ideological ‘deficiency’, the Zia regime sprang up indoctrination centres in the shape of thousands of madrassas. Almost all of them were handed over to radical puritans. These were preachers and ‘scholars’ who had become critical of those strains of Islam that most Pakistanis adhered to. After accusing these strains of being ‘adulterated’, they fell instead for the assertive charms of the Political Islam of the likes of Maududi, Syyid Qutb and Khurram Murad.
What was worse was the eventual degeneration of this Political Islam which, by the late 1980s, had steadily regressed to become the kind of totalitarian dogma we now associate with monsters like the Taliban and al Qaeda.
The impact this process had on society was catastrophic. The dividing lines between various Muslim fiqh (sects) in Pakistan had for decades remained blurred due to a vague consensus of tolerance between the sects. But these divides became politicised when they were exploited to put forward a prejudiced line of thought. This thought now propagated ‘real Islam’ to mean violent jihad, xenophobia, isolationism, coercion, and at times sheer barbarism that was proudly explained as acts replicating the mythical ways of ancient Muslim heroes.
Since this new meaning of the faith did not exhibit any tolerance whatsoever for any debate or self-critique (scholarly or otherwise), the tradition of meaningful debate on matters of religion too got lost. The open debate culture was now labelled as ‘a conspiratorial secular tool to defame Islam’.
Pakistanis eventually gobbled up a myopic and unthinking brand of religious logic. So much so, that today the overall intellectual faculties of critique in the society have been overpowered by loud discourses that are incapable of ever venturing outside the jaded clichés about the faith that has been fed to us since the 1980s.
These clichés and notions were cleverly engineered into our system by years and years of misinformation on the subject. That’s why most Pakistanis today, both young and old, become like social time bombs, always going off the moment anyone dares question these notions. The truth is, these retaliatory sparks are nothing more than what has been uncritically lapped up as Islam and Islamic history.
Political Islamists and their followers have a habit of invoking events and memories from the early Islamic history, but none of their listeners bother to realise that this history that is taught to us in schools and via the TV is mostly derived from documents written by men who were writing this history as a way to guard the political and dynastical interests of the caliphs that these men were serving.
In such a distorted scenario, when certain disturbing events start taking place in the name of faith, how can one expect Pakistanis to react accordingly? Most of us just distract ourselves by blaming the ‘enemies of Islam’.
By continuing to tolerate a rabid fringe for so long, we have actually helped it metamorphose into an unrestrained monster that has zero tolerance for what most of us think or do.
To tackle and face it, we will have to liberate our minds from the concoctions we’ve been fed in the name of faith and history. We need to become critical again, so we can escape the unfounded guilt many of us feel in responding rationally to anyone calling for the implantation of ‘divine laws’ and ‘holy writ’.
Today this insecure, uncritical and yet arrogant thought has only created grave social and political dichotomies between not only the Pakistani Muslims and other religions, but among various Muslim fiqh and sects as well.
Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
Any religion to move with time requires reformers.However when Muslims shout that their religion is the last word & needs no revision it stagnates & does not meet the needs of its followers.Just closing your eyes does not solve the problem.What is required is deep introspection which is lacking in the followers of Islam.Open debate is a must.More power to the pen of NFP & others like him who are few but are giving a wake up call to the asleep Muslims.
Political Islam is a dangerous phenomena, especially for the South Asians, who have been generally more tolerant and had a pluralistic society.
That is why the partition of India was a good thing. If Political Islam and Political Hinduism had co-existed, it would have greatly marginalised the secular forces in India.
Now, India doesn’t have to worry about either and continue on its merry way. The problem with Political Islam is its hungry nature and quest for dominance. Political Hinduism is dormant now, doesn’t threaten the secular fabric of the country, but Political Islam does.
Religion IS the opium of the people…..and when , from a matter of personal faith, it becomes one which rules the political and social needs of the faithful anywhere, it becomes as arrogant as the “corrupt politicians” we love to hate.
So it is with Islam, going through a revival of sorts last 25 years, as preached by a reactionary, medieval bunch as “true” or “correct” Islam as per, say Tableeghi, and against the basic belief systems of personal faith.
This has also happened with organised religion elsewhere, whether the extra piety and fanaticism of christians during the renaissance and post it, or in spurts, in other religions organised around becoming ideologies and politics as against personal faith.
It is going to take some more head butting by the medieval priesthood to finally draw out the reaction of irrationality rejection by a tired faithful, give or take a decade. Post that, hopefully, more moderation and self analysis as well as critical thought on how the faith should act upon the faithful, shall take force. Till then, expect extreme reactions including “kill the apostate” for those who do not agree that the faith be apolitical. And, oh, watch the next elections for the chest thumping by some of the religion to justifty their piety and “purity” as against the rest of the “corrupt politicans”
).
Way things are happening around the world, now I am really afraid. Whether we are moving toward 3rd world war of different kind.
ZIA and ZAB are no more. Don’t talk about them. Now its the turn of the new generation to set things right. Now, the question is; Are pakistanis ready to acnowledge their mistakes, stop blaming others for their misery and take corrective measures?
Please NFP for God sake forget history for a while. you should have written something about those people who died and how their lives could be saved.
Any dogma that is inflexible cannot and should not be allowed to be political. A political system has to allow for change based on changing circumstances, cultures, technology and time. A system that attempts to impose the inflexible dogma of a vocal minority over a passive majority or the will of a powreful majority over a helpless and powerless minority should be brought into check before it spirals out of control. If debate and reform are crushed the populace is doomed to a system that results in stagnation while the world moves on. A dogma that causes violent hurt feelings at the slightest slight is ripe for reform. The Hindus were fortunate to have reformist leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy that resulted in the elimination of Sati and the gradual change in attitudes toward the caste system. fortunately it was not allowed to become an inflexible political system. A political system needs to create laws based on the people’s needs that are a result of intense debate by the people’s representatives. Fear a dogma whose adherents are so insecure that that cannot civilly counter criticism.
The ‘rabid fringe’ does need confronting, but here is the difficulty: the media machine is the most effective way of doing it but those dominating many key areas are unsuited to the task. You have to isolate the truly rabid from the deeply conservative from whom they receive varying degrees of support. These conservatives see both the ‘rabid fringe’ and the secuarists as a threat – but the secularists worry them more. Just like the middle classes of Germany sided with Nazi thugs to prevent a communist takeover, the conservatives can see that once the ‘rabid fringe’ are gone, their own way of life will come under sustained attack by the secularists.
The secularist who are fed up of pariah status for their lifestyle are understandably pushing to become the new mainstream. Neither side sees an easy compromise.
No easy solution to this but the problem needs to be acknowledged.
Let me share this experience of mine with others. Returning from my recreational visit to Jamaica, at the airport I saw a Jamaican who was in a outfit of a Maulvi. On my inquiry he said he is a Jamaican Muslim Maulvi. During a discussion he said that Shia and Sunnis have no problem with each other, however, Salafis are creating lot of problem for other Muslim sects and Fiqhas. I think extremists must reset their priorities; do they want a (extremists) minority against all Muslims or all Muslims united?
Wars are usually political not spiritual, despite the word we like to use, JIHAD. The early history of Islam is heavily punctuated by wars. Thats why it has been difficult t to separate religion from politics.
All Pakistani must forget what happened in past and move forward.They must embrace Science,progress and adopt tolerance towards their fellow Pakistani.If they can be less Anti Indian or more really does not matter,it does not matter to India.It is my gut feeling it does more harm to Pakistan being Indian centric.Ignoring would be better option,they do,why not reciprocate?What have they done for you? ,Zilch.I’m not anti India,just practical,if I had any thing,I would advocate strongly,America all way advises India to be friendly with you,it all eye wash,nothing will come out of your detant with them,you are oil and water,they do not mix,that is why Pakistan was founded,the mistake you have made so far is,you not for any good reason started engagement,war etc,etc with them,I’m sorry to tell you,the truth,they are too big,you will come out second best,it no win situation,whatever is your problem,India in a weird way lot to do with it,you got to sit down and chill out and calmly figure it out,you will come to same conclusion.I will not give you any consul on Kashmir,that is also one factor you must think seriously over.You have wasted good 64 years,there are no more time left,before it is too late.Friends warn,enemy strikes.
By the way, does anyone know how many of these Muslim rulers spoke any Indian language (I know Bahadur Shah Jafar II did and I do know Baba did not, how about the rest), ate any Indian food, read any Indian book. I am not a historian, but I believe all their lives they remained foreign minority rulers ruling over the majority by force. Exactly same as the British, except they did not have an England to go back to. Please correct me if I am wrong, but with historic evidence not just shouting.
Farsi had become the official language for almost one thousand years in India uptil 1832 when the British replaced it with Hindi-Urdu (then called Hindustani). Although the local folks in and around Delhi and modern day Hindi belt spoke Hindustani and its cousin dialects, the official court language remained Farsi. There used to be a ‘muhawra’ , Parhe likhe ko Farsi kya…meaning for the educated there is no ‘Farsi’ because the educated people knew it…just like today almost all educated people know atleast some amount of English (in the subcontinent). Infact few generations prior to Zafar, Hindi-Urdu had already grown as a common lingua franca and lot of colloquial phrases, eg. “Shah Alam Dilli Se Palam” became commonly used, indicating the growing popularity of Hindi-Urdu
Eh?
Are you serious? Jinnah was of Gujarati birth. His ancestors had been forced out of Afghanistan because they were Hindu – Hence his ancestors Hindu community was called Lohana ( Loha meaning Iron)
I understand that he spoke Gujarati and Hindi.
The reason that they turned to Shia Islam is because his Grandfather’s trrade in Fish was not accepted by the Lohanas who are staunchly vegetarian but more accepting today
Very frankly I am sure living in India they did eat Indian food, I mean they did not have macdonalds delivery back then to the best of my knowledge but then again I am not a historian. And please don’t shout I am still recivering from last nights hangover
Interesting observation., with a thought-provoking conclusion.
I do not have any answer either, but would be very interested to know more about this
The rise of a political Islam is a process which is linked to modernity and has been ongoing in the whole Muslim world. Like political/reformist Islam, Sufi Islam is not a monolithic entity. However certain strains are steeped in superstition, culture and have been manipulated by certain leaders/families as a means of control. It is apolitical, does not really address the issues modern society and the educated. Therefore it remains confined to rural areas and not the small urban centres in Punjab/Karachi, where reformist political elements are stronger as result of migration and modernity.
Sufi Islam is romanticised by those such as NFP because it is apolitical, not concerned about scripture/regulation therefore allowing Liberals to reconcile it with their lifestyles, by relegating these matters to the personal sphere. I am generally receptive to political Islam; however I do find the narrow minded strain as described by NFP as abhorrent.
Can you name one strain of political Islam that has led to a ‘happy ending’.
I cannot.