| 07 March 2004 | Sunday | 15 Muharram 1425 |
So many campaigns doing so little
After the events of September 11, 2001 'moderate Islam' is the buzz term in western capitals. What is it? Generally Muslim peoples, particularly Arab ones, are seen to be autocratic and intolerant of dissent. Polygamous, misogynist and dedicated to the proposition that women are created inferior.
Excessively puritanical in behaviour with particular emphasis on prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Not a very flattering portrayal, nor all that untrue.
In addition a view is propounded that Islam and democracy are incompatible. This is a self-serving assertion to keep existing oligarchies in power. The political history of early Islam, as should be expected, is silent on the subject. The first four Khalifa's (Caliphs) were selected in various ways. After the assassination of Hazrat Usman, the third Khalifa, Hazrat Ali became Khalifa of the southern Arabs. In the north, Muaviya proclaimed himself Khalifa at Damascus. In the end there were two competing Caliphates.
Amongst the first four caliphs only Hazrat Abu Bakr died a natural death. The three following him were assassinated. It does not follow from this that assassination should be regarded as the law of succession in Islam.
The Ummayyad caliphate which followed was for all practical purposes a dynastic monarchy as also were subsequent caliphates under the Ummayyads. It saw Muslim rule spread towards the east and also the west where it went across the whole of North Africa until it jumped the straits of Gibraltar around 710 of the Christian Era A.D. and soon occupied the Spanish peninsula up to the Pyreness, and perhaps a little beyond.
Although they were a successful dynasty the Ummayyads were overthrown in the middle of the 8th century. They faced serious opposition from the Arab tribesmen of Iraq and the pious elements centred on Medina, many of whom favoured the claims of Ali's descendants. Abu Muslim, the leader of the revolution exploited these discontents to gain the caliphate for the Abbasids as descendants from the family of the Prophet's uncle Al-Abbas. Since the Abbasids faced opposition from the descendants of Ali, in self-defence they proclaimed dependence on God and sought religious support for their rule.
This brings us to the Sharia. It is in practice an amalgam of various elements - directions or elements from the Quran and actions or statements of the Prophet claimed to be recounted by various 'companions'. These are of varying degrees of authenticity and include prejudices of various caliphs, opinions of jurists and prevailing tribal custom. On top of this over the centuries there has been a substantial overlay of disputable tradition largely puritan in inspiration.
As far as the main elements of the Sharia are concerned, those with a secular bent of mind can find similarities in the Code of Hammurabi. From these precedents one can only conclude that it happened to be the manner in which societies regulated themselves in that region at that time.
The attraction of a return to the perceived Islam of the seventh century A.D. is understandable. In an ecstasy of atavism a return to the (presumed) customs of that time promoted the belief that by doing so the internal dynamism of the Muslims of that period could be recaptured. This belief is about the equivalent of a belief by the Italians that if they assumed Roman dress and began to observe their customs and adopt their beliefs, they could once again become rulers of the known world.
It also happens that pink faced, alcohol drinking men, who can be seen cavorting on the world's beaches with their slightly clad porcelain beauties, have been kicking the Ummah around for the last 250 years and will probably continue to do so in the foreseeable future unless the Ummah pulls up its socks and faces the reality.
To meet this challenge, apart from superficial westernization, no serious attempt has been made to learn anything from adversity. There has been no centre of excellence or any institution of higher learning worth the name in any Muslim country. As a matter of fact Saudi Arabia has been using its petro-dollars in exporting its version of Islam to as many countries as possible through a proliferation of madressahs preaching an orthodox brand of Islam based on the puritanical teachings of Abdul Wahab claiming a return to the first 100 years of Islam.
There is a school of thought which believes that Abdul Wahab was a creation of the British. Whether it was a coincidence or a mephistophelean British Gambit, Fundamentalism and the fundamentalists served the interests of the empire. The destruction of the Twin Towers a few years ago brought this line of imperial thought to an abrupt end, at least for the time being.
The only example in modern Muslim history is Kamal Ataturk's attempt to turn Turkey into a secular state. He banned the Fez, outlawed the head scarf for women and curbed the mullahs from broadcasting the call to prayers with the help of loudspeakers. He replaced the Arabic script with Latin lettering and urged Turks to adopt European dress. An anti-religion bias continues to be espoused by his most devoted followers. But by European standards, Turkey is still not considered a functioning "secular" democracy.
However, Ismet Inonu Ataturk's most trusted lieutenant is reported to have always carried a miniature copy of the Quran in his pocket. After 70 years, religious belief which went underground has resurfaced. It is being faced by Turkey's generals through a strong disapproval of the head scarf for women.
Religious belief intrudes in the daily lives of the Muslims through what is often described as "Islamic ideology." It is something which is thrust on us by the ulema who have been prisoners of 'Taqleed' for the last five hundred years; they are not the beneficiaries of a wide education; their expertise being an extensive knowledge of tradition. The importance of ideology has been inherited by us from the Abbasids. It sprang from their need for religious support to compensate for the weakness of their claim to the caliphate.
Over the years the ulema have developed a marked puritan bias. The result can be seen in the over-demonization of the demon alcohol and in the proposition that music and dance are prohibited in Islam or at least severely discouraged. It even extends to disapproving anything which people may conceivably enjoy. Pakistani ulema have attempted to proscribe the Basant festival in Lahore, as if flying kites and generally having a bit of fun enrages the Almighty.
Alcohol is mentioned three times in the Quran. The first mention says that there is both good and bad in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. But the bad outweighs the good. Sometime later it is reported that a member of the congregation was too inebriated to rise from his prostration during the prayer. Muslims were, thereafter, prohibited from coming to prayers in a state of intoxication. Unfortunately, this incident was repeated. Thereafter, Muslims were told not to drink.
As far as music and dance is concerned there is no mention in the Quran. The Prophet himself was probably not averse. Nevertheless, a tradition has been developed which implies religious disapproval if not an outright ban. The Prophet is claimed to have said "I had no inherent attraction for all those pleasant pastimes that the Makkan pagans indulged in so fondly.
On two occasions even when I intended to enjoy these recreations God intervened in between me and my desires... As I neared the very first house sweet melodies of flute and tambourine struck my ears... I had hardly started enjoying the music when God suddenly shut my ears. Sound slumbers of sleep overwhelmed me completely... only the rays of the following morning sun would wake me up."
Quoted from "Stories from the Prophet's Life" by Dr Abdur Rauf, published by Ferozesons. The blurb at the back says "Dr. Abdur Rauf holds a distinctive PhD in child psychology from London University. Simultaneously he has full grasp over the religion, history and culture of Islam". From where did Dr. Rauf obtain such a detailed account? Since it is "stories for children" disclosure was probably not considered necessary.
General Musharraf has been propagating moderate Islam. Prior to 1977 Pakistan was in practice a moderate Islamic state. Since Mr Bhutto had been opposed on the Nizam-i-Mustafa ticket, General Ziaul Haq thought that he could rule the country forever by propagating Islamization. However, so far nothing supported or condoned by General Zia has been rolled back. The Hudood Ordinance remains in place.
Even a minor amendment to the blasphemy law has been shelved. Karo-Kari continues unabated. Women can be paraded naked in villages by the strong to insult the weak. Qisas and Diyat still stalk the land. The payment of blood money makes some sense in a tribal setting: otherwise it merely gives licence to the rich for killing the poor. Foreign visitors can still only drink bad local whisky closeted in their hotel rooms, etc. etc. Not much has changed.
Will the future produce a breed of Islamic scholars who bring to religion a wide background of knowledge and culture and are capable of analysis, and interpretation unshackled from Taqleed. Probably the greatest force for moderation will come from a revolt of Muslim women. There are already signs of this in the writings of Leila Ahmed, Fatima Mernissi, Amina Wadud et al. They challenge the male chauvinist interpretations of dogma and belief propagated through the centuries by - could you believe it - male chauvinists.
According to many accounts Arab women had a much more robust attitude during the Prophet's time; subsequent centuries of indoctrination has produced a conviction in Muslim women that submission to their men is a religious duty. They now suffer from a collective "Stockholm Syndrome".
So many campaigns doing so little
Now let's face it squarely, how many people in this society really believe in these public welfare campaigns that are launched periodically, as if with a vengeance. Or rather why anyone should actually believe in these campaigns, that often make a mockery of the subject that they seek to handle? Or in other instances, does one always agree with the assorted themes that these so-called public interest campaigns launch with agendas that are often undisclosed and kept in shrewd, low profile?
Before one looks at this subject in the light of some current and recent campaigns that are on the canvass, let us bear in mind that there was a time when they were taken seriously. The campaigns used to be genuine and earnest, and public opinion was willing to accept things on face value.
If the traffic police said there was a traffic week on, there would be some evidence on the streets, pertaining to the claim, that was convincing. If the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation said there was a cleanliness campaign on, or an anti-mosquito campaign was being conducted, there was a public willing to believe it all. Suspicion was low.
It is not so now. We have come a long way in this journey of disbelief and even despair. Now there is a cold-blooded and ready distrust of such campaigns that are ostensibly in public interest. Why has this happened, is a good question? The ready answer is that these campaigns have, in many many instances, simply failed to deliver, and to live up to public expectations.
Only on Friday, it was reported that there was a "new campaign to control prices." Even this headline contained an implicit failure of the previous ones. Lobbyists and experts in these sort of affairs will argue that the struggle must go on. So it does, therefore, perhaps, self-deceit or hypocrisy?
Now in the case of this campaign, it is reported that the city government will soon launch a vigorous drive to check and control prices of essential commodities, especially atta, meat and milk! (by the way these are among the three items where prices have risen and where the consumers have been hard hit). This announcement from the City Nazim Naimatullah Khan was intended to comfort and console poor consumers.
It was further reported that there would soon come about a strategy (another favourite word of clever, profiteering media planners and campaigners, please note) for strict action against those indulging in profiteering by unilaterally increasing prices of essential food items". (Would there be a single Karachiite who would believe that this can happen under our prevailing conditions?)
Take another campaign that has been launched only last week, when declared a newspaper headline that "anti-smoking campaign launched." One resident said laughing "campaign launched only in the newspaper headline."
Regarding the recent anti-smoking campaign, said a generous APP report, "the committee constituted by the federal health ministry to monitor the implementation of the Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-smokers Health Ordinance-2002, launched random checks against the practice at public places on Friday afternoon" (in Karachi that is). Non-smokers health? What? It is good to hear this for non-smokers like myself, but in reality, neither the authorities nor the lobbyists and the smokers themselves believe that this is ever possible.
This team, comprising the ministry, WHO, UNICEF and Sindh government representatives, went round the Jinnah Terminal (the easiest option) and God alone knows what happened there. No details were made available, and about the results of the campaign, which as we all know, would not bear fruit in that solitary "well meaning" way.
I have realised that the Jinnah Terminal is one place where the violations are committed by the very staff posted there, and passengers therefore cannot be checked. Committee or no committee!
Let me only underline with a certain sadness that the mass media itself plays a leading role in the promotion of cigarette smoking; the Pakistan Chest Society in January "strongly criticised the recently launched campaign by multinational tobacco firm through electronic media and print media in the country." It is interesting how glamorous and steady is the tobacco advertising, and feeble and faint the case against it. How vigorous the emphasis on how much revenue the government gets from it. The lure of revenue.
One is reminded here of anti-polio campaigns, that are carried out all over the city, country. Many silent voices are skeptical of their utility, with reference to their scale; and others refer to how hollow the efforts are. I remember how these polio vaccination teams have been going round in such residential city areas, affluent and educated, and wasted their resources and efforts (spoiling people's walls) instead of focusing on areas, low income and less educated, if at all.
As to the recently-born campaign against HIV and AIDS, that has been assuming full blast proportions on our television channels also, supported by the Ministry of Health, with an amazing variety of commercials, one wonders whether its theme is the number one health problem of the country or has it the potential to become the number one health problem. If at all, the health ministry or campaign's foreign or local sponsors are interested in the health of the Pakistani people, there are several other health and medical aspects that need their urgent attention.
One citizen, on these HIV/AIDS TV commercials, wondered whether it was realistic to focus with equal emphasis on disposable syringes, as against using safer ways of going about "intimacy" and intimate relationship.!!
But the familiar tree-plantation campaigns evoke a different stance. For all the tree plantation that has been going on, and the media focus the chief guests have got, the question that strikes repeatedly is where have the 'planted' trees gone! A caustic comment was that where has the money gone? That was allocated for this purpose, in the city and the country, both remaining short of trees and forests.
Or for that matter, for all the traffic campaigns that have been launched, and the weeks that have come and gone, the state of the city's traffic has deteriorated to an abnormal degree, and the state of police, dismal when it comes to their getting respect from the ordinary people they claim to serve, despite being poorly paid.
Then there are campaigns against illegal structures and encroachments, and in the residential and commercial areas. Not all of it is in vain. But the general futility is obvious and the city is deluged by ugly and blatant violations.
Or do not remind me of how smelly and unclean the city is despite the cleanliness campaigns that are launched from time to time. Or the fact that the number of beggars (and various forms of beggary at that) have risen despite anti-beggary campaigns that have been launched all through the decades. In fact, we have now reached a stage when beggary is suspected to be a cover for different kinds of criminals in the Sindh capital. Especially, those who are at traffic lights. Now car snatchers and beggars are in connivance at times, warns my friend who always keeps his doors and windows closed when driving.
But there is a philosophic interpretation that comes from a senior citizen here, who says "have you noticed how demanding is the beggar, he is impatient now. And his anger is rising." Note.
Really, so many campaigns in this weary society, and with the number, variety, mandate and mission of the NGOs also rising, it is hard to do justice to them all here, now. Justice?