Saturday, January 31, 2015

URBAN RELIGIOUS ELITISM AND BLASPHEMY LAWS

Sharia is open to multiple interpretations. The emergence of numerous sects in Islam is a product of such interpretations at particular times and as responses to changing social and political dynamics.
At the same time, the multiplicity of possible interpretations of Sharia has also served political and religious elites well in their effort to consolidate power. The inclusion of Wahab’s thought in modern Saudi Arabia, for instance, or the role of the Ulema under Mughal emperor Akbar’s rule in India can be seen as instances of this technique of extending power under the guise of Sharia implementation. In his book Tareekh Aur Danishwar, Dr. Mubarak Ali cites various examples to illustrate how Akbar did not hesitate to use fatwas from different schools of thoughts to legitimize his royal orders and thus exercise control over his subjects.

In his books The Mughal Emperors and The Islamic Dynasties of India, and Iran and Central Asia, Francis Robinson argues that collaboration between Akbar and the Ulema of various fiqh was an integral part of the former’s monarchical power. In contrast Ulemas opposing the Emperor’s orders were often sent away on pilgrimage.

This sort of active collaboration between powerful religious and political elites has been an integral part of history. Across religions, the elite have instrumentalised religious cannon and scriptures to strengthen their hold over power. American sociologist Clifford James Geertz calls such collaboration a ‘Sanctification of Social Inequality’, a process by which religious and political elites collaborate with each other to use religion to maintain their power over people.

Another author Ira M. Lapidus in his voluminous book, A History of Islamic Societies, defines such collaboration as ‘urban religious elitism’.

In Pakistan, this sanctification of social inequality by the way of mullah-elite collaboration has been a crucial aspect of political and public life.

This collaboration reached its peak during the Zia dictatorship. In the 1980s, the partnership between Jamat-e-Islami (JI) and General Zia-ul-Haq resulted in the introduction of the Hudood Ordinance and Blasphemy laws into Pakistan’s constitution. Through this collaboration, the JI attempted to gain political influence, while Gen Zia-ul-Haq arguably sought to enhance the social base of his dictatorship.

The inclusion of JI in the Zia government multiplied the impact of such elitism and the sanctification of social inequality. It also played an important role in giving the otherwise ideological war between capitalism and communism a religious colour.

Successive governments since the Zia era, have lent support to religious groups to serve their own political ends. The creation of the Islami Jamhori Ittehad (IJI) in the late 1990s and Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) under the Musharraf dictatorship played a significant role in entrenching this process.

The growing violence in the name of religion is an expected outcome of this mullah-elite connivance, which is increasingly preying on even its own kith and kin. The case of Junaid Jamshed is its latest manifestation.

The case of Junaid Jamshed:

Born again Muslim, pop-singer turned televangelist, Junaid Jamshed was recently implicated in a blasphemy case. He had to escape to London, to the amusement of many liberals and progressives in Pakistan, for he was wont to deliver long lectures about the rotten culture of the West.  

However, the case of Junaid Jamshed indicates that the Sharia can be moulded as per requirement. Several religious Ulema came forward in support of Junaid Jamshed, saying that the door to repentance remains open in such cases. However, in the cases of two other blasphemy accused—Asia Bibi (a Christian woman) and Junaid Hafeez (a young university lecturer)—no such voices of succour could be heard.
Junaid Jamshed’s case has highlighted the deep hypocrisy that marks the mullah-elite consensus. Everything, from the Constitution to religious order, can be amended for the benefit of the powerful and to oppress the poor. 

Junaid Jamshed’s association with the Tableeghi Jamaat won him lot of sympathy from the top Ulema. The same Ulema, who had no hesitation in applying a different set of Sharia rules for Junaid Hafeez and Asia Bibi.

This farcical episode also teaches us an important lesson: contradictions cannot be reconciled merely through an elite consensus. Events intervene and disrupt the elitist scheme.

A passive government:

The other aspect yet again brought to light by the blasphemy laws is the passive attitude or worse, the irrelevance of the state apparatus.

In the past, the blasphemy accused have been killed by individual zealots (Salman Taseer, Salman Bhatti, Shahzad Maseeh and others).In other instances, charged crowds have taken to vandalising Christian neighbourhoods (Badami Bagh, Gojra and Shanti Nagar).

In all such cases, not only did the state apparatus prove to be impotent, but the government of the day could not find even the courage to condemn the incidents.

The need of the time is to review these laws. The urban religious elite might show willingness to do so in the context of the Junaid Jamshed affair. However, a mere repeal of the laws is not enough. There is also a need to create an environment where the ‘sanctification of social inequality’ and ‘urban religious elitism’ becomes less an instrument of state policy.

The clerics supporting Junaid Jamshed should also have the moral courage to speak for the less fortunate victims of the blasphemy laws.

One may also suggest that the government breaks its silence. 

Originally posted here

Thursday, January 29, 2015

PAKISTAN AND THE CASE OF MODERATE ISLAM

The brutal assassination of 146 children in Peshawar on 16th December 2014, the attacks on the French newspaper on 7th January killing 11 people and injuring 10 and the flogging of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi has again generated a hard debate about moderate Islam and Islamic militancy.
The opinions vary widely among those who believe the issue is of the interpretation of Quranic verses and those who believe the divine source itself contains texts openly inviting Muslims to kill the apostates.

Soon after the Paris attack, the British evangelist Anjum Chaudhry was quoted by The Independent saying that ‘Muslims don’t believe in freedom of expression’. Similarly, after the attack on Army Public School-Peshawar, the Lal Masjid cleric openly refused to condemn the Taliban who claimed the responsibility of killing 146 children.

This is the lethal interpretation and mind set of Muslim clergies.  Having numerical strength in almost 50 countries, Islam today is the second largest religion. Its growth is multiplying fast in Europe. How to understand it all?

Rationalism defeated:

The earliest Islamic tradition was based on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. It was a time when religion and government was under the command of the Prophet in a very traditional setting suited to the Arab world primarily based on Oral Culture that had still to witness the reading and writing system, according to Walter J. Ong. Ong has written in detail about aspects of oral cultures in his famous book Orality And Literacy.  

The religious decrees were conceptualized and implemented by the Prophet. Richard Osborne notes that such teachings were not philosophical but ‘a simple monotheism full of the chivalrous Bedouin sentiments of the desert - kindliness, generosity and brotherhood.’

After the demise of Prophet, the internal clashing among Muslims caused a heterogeneous Islamic society deriving its impulse from multiple interpretations of the holy text. Verses from Quran were interpreted on sectarian footings. Large Hadith corpuses were developed under various Islamic dynasties for their own political motives. Dr. Ghulam Jilani Barq has shown in a very detailed way the politics behind Hadith literature in his works.

Exposing prophetic orders and the Quranic text to multiple interpretations caused a huge fragmentation among Muslims. The emergence of Islamic orthodoxy: the Asharriats, and Islamic reformists: the Mu'tazilites,  shaped the Muslim society’s intellectual and traditional narratives both of which are equally appealing to the Islamic societies currently.

Both the Orthodox and Rationalist moment competed for survival. However, for a number of reasons, the rationalist movement that started with Kundi in 830 ended soon in 1100 with Averroes (Ibn-e-Rushd).

The philosophical world that emerged in Arab lands ended in Arab world. Unfortunately, the deep philosophical ideas emerging from Arab world could not get the attention they deserved in other Islamic countries.

On the other hand, the Orthodox interpretations also emerging from the Arab lands were accepted much rapidly by other Islamic countries. The most notable among were the ideas of Muhammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahab and Hassan-al-Banna. Both these thoughts - deeply orthodox in their manifestation -- deeply affected the social, religious and economic rubrics of the Islamic world. Moderate Islam was replaced by orthodox Islam, which further played a significant role in creating all the Islamic fundamentalist groups in Muslim countries like TTP, Al-Qaida, ISIS, Boko-Haram. They all have a global agenda of the Islamic Sharia system. There are also local militant outfits that have local agendas of uprooting Islamic minorities.

While the rationalist Muslim thoughts in the Islamic world survived for a very brief time period, the orthodox thoughts were successfully exported/imported among the Islamic countries enthusiastically for a greater time period.

Whereas the Greeks were formulating ways for a sustained democracy in the 6th century BC, the majority of Muslim societies are still governed through monarchic rule and limited democracies. Thus dealing with a wider society that lives in the 21st century but lacks the refine ideas of governance and democracy of the 6th century BC, needs a different approach towards reconciliation and accommodation.  

Today, Muslim orthodox scholars are trying to control women. This could be witnessed in the case of Boko-Haram’s kidnapping schoolgoing girls; Taliban’s bombing girl schools, and Laal Masjid’s attacks on ‘sex workers’ in Islamabad. Such teachings were frequent during the dark ages. Christian missionaries wrote similar treaties to force women. For example St. Jerome penned down detailed treatise about decent living of women.

Moderate Islam --- as argued by many scholars--- in fact is either the individual quest of a few rationalist Muslim individuals who paid the highest price for their progressive attitudes or dynastic patronage of intellectual traditions in Islamic societies. The two important factors that led to fall of this intellectual tradition were the gradual decline of Islamic ruling dynasties and the persecutions of Muslim intellectuals.

 Many of the Muslim scientists and rationalist thinkers were declared heretics and they were punished accordingly. Just imagine in the context of Pakistan the case of Syed Sibt-e-Hassan, who spent most of his life in jail under the Zia regime. Likewise, Dr. Fazl-ur-Rehman and Dr.  Abdus Salam were forced to leave the country. In more recent times, people like Jibran Nasir demanding Madressah reforms are being declared western stooges and Ahmadi agents. Such is the price for taking steps to promote rationality and moderation. It is not only in Pakistan, but the case of Muslims who stand and speak for modernity, liberty and separation of state and religion is the same all over the Muslim world: intimidations, threats, persecution and what not!

Blurred case:

The case of moderate Islam is blurred. The Quran is interpreted in line with sectarian, political and personal attachments. Ahadith are controversial, each Islamic sect believing in a different version of them. Minute details of prayer methods, fasting times, Azans wordings are creating greater controversies. Acceptance of each other is eroding and license to kill the lesser Muslim is getting dramatic popularity.

The scholars who have written extensively on reformation and enlightenment attribute four main factors to its origination: (a) gradual erosion of the church and monarchial power-relation, (b) North European Christian’s agitation against church exploitation, (c) the rise of humanism in Italy, and (d) scientific discoveries and philosophical debates against the Christian teachings.

Can these four conditions apply to Islamic countries today? The answer is a simple ‘No’. The power nexus between states and religious clergies is stronger. In certain Islamic countries, in fact, state affairs are dictated by religious clergies. Their power is maximizing with the passage of time. Challenging their monopoly leads to death. As far as challenging the indoctrinated false teaching is concerned, even a modest demand of curriculum reform in seminaries creates a storm. The recent ‘Reclaim Your Mosque’ campaign in Pakistan shows the dangerous consequence of such demands. A recent report in Pakistan's leading newspaper Dwan notes that even the seminary teachers confess their graduates’ involvement with terrorist outfits, yet the reform is unacceptable to the majority of these teachers.

On a parallel side, we have the most dangerous fatwas coming from the noted Muslim scholars having a large following. The fatwas include Saudi Grand Mufti’s concept of ‘The Sun revolving around the Earth’Convicting 15 Men, Women for Mingling at Partybreast feeding the co-workers, ‘Necrophilia to be Halal’, and the Iranian fatwa blaming ‘scantily clad women for earthquakes’.

The scholars commenting on renaissance and reformation, however, ignore the common people in this intellectual process. Without their acceptance of the philosophical debates; the reformation would have perished away. The common masses in the West also disposed of their mediaeval thoughts and accommodated the ongoing philosophical debates. The western educational institutes highly appreciated teaching philosophy as a subject. These two factors are also missing in Islamic societies where a majority of people still believe their religious ideas to be the final source of truth. Philosophy is a highly ignored subject in Islamic countries.  In the case of Pakistan, philosophy is taught in 9 out of 49 universities in which social sciences and humanities is being taught. Islamic studies is taught in 29 universities, by contrast.

Today, the glorious Islamic period of scientific revolution has been replaced with the organizations that promote a myopic and tunnel vision of both Islam and the world. Hope for a moderate, reformed Islam is hard to entertain. 

Originally published here

فتوے ، فتنے اور جدیدیت


گزشتہ دنوں اسلامی نظریاتی کونسل کے چیئرمین محترم مولانا شیرانی نے یہ بیان داغ ڈالا کہ کوئی بھی مسلمان مرد اپنی بیوی سے پوچھے بنا اپنی مرضی سے دوسری شادی کرنے کے جملہ حقوق محفوظ رکھتا ہے ، موصوف اس سے پہلےریپ کے مقدمات میں ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کو بطور شہادت ماننے سے بھی انکار کر چکے ہیں۔زرداری حکومت میں مفاہمتی سیاست کی پالیسی کے تحت اسلامی نظریاتی کونسل کے چیئرمین منتخب ہونے والےپچاسی سالہ مولانا محمد احمد خان شیرانی جمعیت علما اسلام فضل الرحمن گروپ کے اہم سیاسی رہنما ہیں جو بلوچستان میں اپنی پارٹی کے صوبائی صدر اور سینٹر بھی ہیں ۔مولانا کےچیئرمین منتخب ہونے میں ان کے علمیت سے زیادہ ان کے سیاسی عمل دخل کا کردار ہے۔
23ستمبر 2013 کو مولانا صاحب اپنے ایک بیان میں توہین رسالت کے موجودہ قوانین میں موجود نقائص کے خاتمے کی مخالفت بھی کر چکے ہیں ، پاکستان میں توہین رسالت کا قانون غیر مسلموں کے خلاف بدلے کے قانون کے طور پر استعمال ہوتارہا ہے، ابھی چند روزپہلے ہی ایک حاملہ خاتون اور اسکے شوہر کو مبینہ توہین قران کے کیس میں اذیت ناک تشدد کا نشانہ بنانے کے بعد زندہ جلا دیا گیا ۔
سعودی مفتی اعظم کا ‘ٹویٹر کو حرام قرار دینے کا فتوی’ ، ایران میں ریحانہ جباری کی پھانسی اور پاکستان میں مولانا شیرانی کے بیانات مسلم دنیا کے قدامت پسند مذہبی جمود کی نشاندہی کے لیے کافی ہیں ۔
6 نومبر2013کو مولانا نے کلوننگ اور جنس میں تبدیلی کو حرام قرار دیا ۔ جدیدیت کے حوالے سے مولانا نے فرمایا کہ اسے اسلام کے مطابق ہونا چا ہیے ۔اب یہ ایک بحث طلب معاملہ ہے کہ جدیدیت کو اسلامی سانچے میں کیسے ڈھالا جائے اور اسکے بنیادی لوازم کیا ہوں ؟ سوال یہ بھی ہے کہ کیا جدیدیت کو فرسودہ مذہبی تشریحات کے ساتھ ہم آہنگ کرنے کی ضرورت یاہے یا پھر مولانا شیرانی جیسے علماء کو جدید دنیا کے اصولوں کے مطابق اپنے انداز فکر میں تبدیلی لانا پڑےگی ؟ امید ہے کہ اسلامی نظریاتی کونسل کے محترم مولانا اس مسئلے پر بھی کسی دن تفصیلاً روشنی ڈال کر اہل ایمان کی ذہنی کشمکش دور فرما ئیں گے ۔
جدیدیت کے موضوع پر کوئی فتویٰ دینے سے پہلے شاید مولانا صاحب کے لیے ویٹیکن میں ہونے والی عیسائی مذہبی رہنماؤں کےحالیہ اجلاس کی روداد پڑھنا بھی ضروری ہے۔ موجودہ پوپ کی جانب سے بلائے جانے والے اس اجلاس کا مقصد بائبل کے اندر موجود ان احکامات پہ غور کرنا تھا جن پر برطانوی عوام اپنے تحفظات کا اظہار کر رہے ہیں – بی بی سی کی رپورٹ کے مطابق کئی والدین یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ عیسائیت کی تعلیمات انکی خاندانی زندگیوں پر منفی اثرات ڈال رہی ہیں ۔اسی تشویش کو مدنظر رکھ کرپوپ نے پادریوں کا اجلاس بلا لیا تھا تاکہ مذہبی تعلیمات کو جدید خاندانی نظام کے ساتھ ہم آہنگ کیا جا سکے – رومن چرچ اور پوپ نے گزشتہ دنوں نظریہ ارتقاء کو بھی درست تسلیم کیا ہےاور یہ وہی نظریہ ہے جس کو پیش کرنے پر چرچ نے ڈارون کی مخالفت کرتے ہوئے اسے عیسائیت کے خلاف ایک سازش قرار دیا تھا ۔
جہاں ایک طرف عیسائیت جدید دنیا کے ساتھ مطابقت پیدا کرنے کی اپنی مقدور بھر کوششوں میں مصروف ہے ، تو دوسری طرف مسلم دنیا اپنے مذہبی رہنماؤں کی وجہ سے جدید دنیا کے ساتھ ہم آہنگ ہونے میں بری طرح ناکام ہو رہی ہے ۔حال ہی میں سعودی مفتی اعظم کا ‘ٹویٹر کو حرام قرار دینے کا فتوی’ ، ایران میں ریحانہ جباری کی پھانسی اور پاکستان میں مولانا شیرانی کے بیانات مسلم دنیا کے قدامت پسند مذہبی جمود کی نشاندہی کے لیے کافی ہیں ۔حقیقت تو یہ ہے کہ مسلم دنیا اپنے مذہبی ناخداؤں کے ہاتھوں یرغمال ہے۔
مسلم معاشروں اور اسلام کی جدید دنیا کے ساتھ مطابقت پیدا کرنے کے حوالے سے مستشرقین کی رائے یہی ہے کہ اسلام کے اندر جدید دنیا کے ساتھ ہم آہنگ ہونے کی گنجائش نہایت کم ہے –خلافت اور اس کے عروج و زوال کے مصنف سر تھامس مور کے مطابق ‘عیسائی قومیں وقت کے ساتھ ساتھ تہذیب، آزادی، سائنس اور فلسفے میں برابر ترقی کرتی جائیں گی لیکن اسلام جہاں کھڑا ہے ، وہیں کھڑا رہے گا’۔ اسی طرح کی پیشنگوئی فرانسیسی مفکر رینان نے بھی کی تھی جسکے مطابق ‘اسلام اور سائنس کبھی اکھٹے نہیں چل سکتے ۔’ مستشرقین کی رائے سے قطع نظر مسلم فکر میں جدت اور ترقی پسندی کی گنجائش دیگر مذہبی معاشروں سے زیادہ ہے۔اجتہاد کی گنجائش کے باعث مسلمانوں کے لیے یورپ کی بنسبت مسلم معاشروں کی تشکیل نو کہیں زیادہ آسان ہےلیکن معاشی پسماندگی اور قدیم معاشرت کے باعث جدیدافکار کی ترویج کا عمل متاثر ہوا ہے۔
مگر ایسا بھی نہیں ہے کہ ریاستی طور پر مذہب کی سرپرستی تمام اسلامی ممالک کر رہے ہیں یا یہ کہ مذہبی جنونی اپنے ذاتی عقائد کو اسلام کے غلاف میں لپیٹ کر ہر مسلمان ملک میں بیچ رہے ہیں ۔ گزشتہ چند سالوں کے دوران ترکی کا رجحان اسلامی نظام کی طرف مائل دکھائی دیتا ہے مگر کئی سالوں تک ترکی ایک روشن خیال اسلامی مملکت کے طور پر ایک کلیدی کردار ادا کرتا رہا ہے ، ماضی قریب میں ایسی ہی ایک مثال تیونس کی ہے جو اپنے لیے ایک متوازن آئین تشکیل دے چکا ہے۔
مستشرقین کی رائے سے قطع نظر مسلم فکر میں جدت اور ترقی پسندی کی گنجائش دیگر مذہبی معاشروں سے زیادہ ہے۔
اتاترک کے ترکی کی کامیاب مثال سامنے رکھتے ہوئے مسلم ممالک اب بھی مذہب اور ریاست کو علیحدہ کرسکتے ہیں۔اس ضمن میں پہلا قدم ان ممالک میں بسنے والی اقلیتوں پر مذہبی تشدد اور ان کے خلاف موجود امتیازی قوانین کا خاتمہ ہو سکتا ہے۔پاکستان کے حوالے سے یہ اس لیے بھی ضروری ہے کہ یہاں پر مذہبی علماء مذہب کی دقیانوسی تشریح میں مکمل آزاد ہیں اور مذہبی مدارس میں پروان چڑھائے جانے والی شدت پسند فکر پر کسی قسم کا ریاستی کنٹرول نہیں ہے۔ یہ شدت پسند فکر اور مدارس فرقہ وارانہ اور مذہبی دہشت گردی کو جواز فراہم کر رہے ہیں۔ وطن عزیز میں ایک محتاط اندازے کے مطابق پچاس کے لگ بھگ دہشتگرد تنظیمیں فعال ہیں اور متحدہ عرب امارت کی مرتب کردہ چھیاسی دہشتگرد تنظیموں کی فہرست میں چھ پاکستانی تنظیمیں بھی شامل ہیں ۔ایسی شدت پسند سوچ اور تنظیموں کی موجودگی میں پاکستان کا ایک فلاحی یاست بننا ممکن نہیں تاہم ریاست اور مذہب کی علیحدگی اور ملک میں بسنے والے تما م لوگوں کو زبان، نسل، رنگ اور مذہب کی تفریق کے بغیر تمام بنیادی انسانی حقوق برابری کی سطح پر مہیا کرنے سے یہ منزل حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے ۔


Originally published here