SECTARIANISM (firqa parasti) is disdained by most right-thinking people. What, however, needs to be differentiated is firqa and firqa parasti. Firqa (branch or school of thought) is a historical development of a community that has a different perspective from the majority community based on the reading and interpreting of sources, upholding the key ethical principles of the faith as shared by all. Sectarianism or communalism, on the other hand, is an attitude or an orientation where one sees their community as exclusively right, holding the final truth and all others as absolutely wrong and worth condemning.

Communities of interpretation are those that are based on the acceptance of the principle that humans as individuals or as a group living at the same time or in the past, think differently. Although it is said that great minds think alike, it is also true that fools seldom differ!

Thinking differently is surely a sign of creativity based on the fact that humans see things not as they are but as they (communities or individuals) themselves are. We, as individuals or communities, perceive and interpret the outside world based on our own experiences, our internal likes and dislikes, the external influences of friends, elders, teachers, books, etc.

It is not that people create a school of thought deliberately as a result of some conspiracy. Big questions or issues always lead to many opinions and interpretations. Take the example of predestination and free will. Are humans practically predetermined, or do what they are supposed to, because they are pre-programmed? Or, are they absolutely free to do what they can without any external pressure? Can there be one answer to these questions?

Thinking differently is a sign of creativity.

When groups of people take a position for relatively longer, they, over time, form schools of thought, sects, communities or denominations. But the nature of knowledge is such that within the same group there arise people who differ with the position taken, then form their own group, leading to the formation of subgroups.

So, if we understand humans from this perspective, we do not have to be angry about groups or schools of thought coming into existence with time. If all humans were to think alike, perhaps human societies would not have developed the way they have. We need to perhaps appreciate the hadith attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) that differences among the ummah are a blessing.

Two things make a case for diversity of thought: human constitution (the way we have been made) and the way knowledge is produced. Insofar as humans will be humans, they will continue to differ, unless we all become robots to act alike.

Second, knowledge production is a process of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction. The title of the collection of Allama Iqbal’s talks is rightly titled Reconstructionof Religious Thought in Islam. Imam al-Ghazali wrote Tahafat al Phalasafa (Rejection of the philosophers), a book refuting philosophers and, lo and behold, refuting his ideas, Ibn Tufail, equally an intellectual giant, wrote Tahafa Tahafatul Phalasafa (Rejection of the rejection of philosophers). These are examples of deconstruction and reconstruction of Islamic thought.

This world is to be run by communities of interpretation, sharing their best ideas and developing feasible solutions. Expe­rience tells us that dictators with a messianic image, and the people around them, do terrible long-term damage. Similarly, there may be theological or intellectual dictators who think their ideas are ‘Urdu ke akhiri kitab’. Gra­ve­yards across the world are filled with those who thought they were super thin­kers. But the world manages to thrive without them.

So, where does this argument take us?

I think that, a) we must take differences as a natural phenomenon, and a historical evolutionary process looking at it as such; b) let us avoid thinking we have the absolute truth and others have only a pack of lies; c) do not compare yourself or your community with others and regard yourself as superior and condemn others as inferior and do not go to the extent of running after their lives just because they have a different way of interpreting things, religious or secular.

Lastly, we need to heed the advice of wiser minds: do not look at who has said something, but look at what has been said. Do not always judge, unless you belong to the judiciary. State your position but be willing to listen to a contrary perspective as well.

Exchange of ideas gives rise to finer thoughts — thesis gives rise to antithesis and both to synthesis. Hence, let us regard the different schools of thought as varieties of religious or historical experiences and call them, as Farhad Daftary, an Islamic scholar does, “communities of interpretation”.

The writer is an educationist with an interest in the study of religion and philosophy.

Published in Dawn, August 2nd, 2024