Sterile public debate

AT Davos (Switzerland) on January 27, 2006, General Pervez Musharraf spoke of a conflict between westernization and Islam, saying that “we have our different values.” On the same occasion, Hajim Alhasani, president of the Iraqi National Assembly, made the interesting observation that we “see more of Islam’s core values in the West than in Muslim countries,” where corruption of all kinds prevails.

One of Pakistan’s TV channels has launched a discussion on whether Islam, in any way, keeps us from meeting the challenges of our modern age. The ulema among the discussants assert that Islam is inherently progressive, and that none of its tenets stands in the way of advancement. If certain ground realities brought about by modernity do not jibe well with Islam, then these ground realities, not Islam, should be made to yield. If, for instance, some of our young people are given to song and dance, the thing to do is to teach them to stop liking music and be content with chanting of the Quranic verses. Once in a while, one of the ulema, or a layman on the panel, will bring in the matter of recourse to ijtehad.

Discussions on this programme remain hypothetical, abstract, airy-fairy, and therefore singularly sterile. The host never identifies the problems that new times have thrust upon us and which we have to sort out. Nor do the participants identify any particular Islamic injunction that will not let us meet a problem that has to be met. Nor does any of them name the matters with regard to which ijtehad may be in order.

I propose first to examine the alleged conflict between Islamic and western values and then move on to some of the major problems that afflict the Muslim world. It should be understood that the values which many Muslims actually practise, being the opposite of those they profess, are not under consideration here. We are concerned only with the professed values.

I wrote of values several weeks ago and listed the ones that we profess. Allow me to recall some of the more important ones from that list. They are: (1) pursuit of knowledge, (2) commitment to truth, (3) honesty in both private and public transactions, (4) justice, including the distributive kind, (5) respect for the law, (6) modesty, (7) self-denial, (8) frugality and avoidance of ostentation, (9) avoidance of accumulation, (10) generosity, (11) dedication to duty, (12) hard work, (13) punctuality, (14) dedication to the public interest (15) freedom of belief, opinion, expression, and movement, (16) equality before law, (17) deference for age, (18) loyalty to family and friends, (19) patriotism. (20) tolerance of the dissident, (21) brotherhood of man.

In listing these values I remain within the domain of religion; each one of them has come to us from God and His Prophet (PBUH). The more “liberated” among western men and women may have a different concept of modesty insofar as issues of sexuality are concerned. One may also point to accumulation with regard to which Islam and the West may be said to have conflicting attitudes. Actually there is more to it than meets the eye.

Early and mediaeval Catholicism disapproved of accumulation as did Islam. More recently Protestantism endorsed it. But the more intriguing is the fact that our own ulema have lately held that accumulation of wealth is fine if it has been cleansed by the payment of zakat. The injunction against accumulation was a cardinal feature of the Islamic ethic that distinguished it from other value systems, but our ulema have knocked it down.

Leaving women-related issues aside, where then is the conflict of values between Muslim and western peoples? As far as I can tell, each of the above-named Muslim values is a western value as well.

It would then seem to follow that the assertion of an inherent conflict between the Islamic and western value systems is misconceived and misdirected. There is indeed a conflict, but it is a conflict between western neo-imperialist expansionists and its Muslim opponents. It is a political struggle, not a conflict of values.

Those who want to insist that the western people and Muslims are radically different may argue that they are “secular” while we are not. This distinction too is more apparent than real. First, a great deal of obfuscation is being spread about the meaning of secularism. In my own view, which I may have stated once before, secularism need not be understood to require any more than that the state will refrain from using its police power to enforce religious law.

It may incorporate some of that law in its own body of laws, as many western states have done, but it will, in that event, claim to have done so not because God requires it but because its people want it.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and a couple of other Muslim polities reject secularism thus understood, for they do enforce Islamic law. But the majority of Muslim states do not share their disposition. Pakistani politicians have been ambivalent, if not downright hypocritical, in this respect. They have insisted upon calling the country an Islamic republic in spite of the fact that it is reckoned among the most corrupt in the world. Most of them, as well as the greater proportion of the society at large, disregard or violate all of the Islamic values listed above in their actual conduct. Pakistan’s designation as an Islamic state is, thus, nothing less than an insult to Islam.

That the Islamic parties want to “Islamize” Pakistani government and society, each according to its own lights, is true. A substantial number among the educated classes may accept the idea of an Islamic state if it means that the state will implement Islamic principles and values, but they do not want the state to use its police power to enforce the Islamic law. This is evident from the frequent calls for repealing the Hudood ordinances that Ziaul Haq had imposed upon the nation.

The facts noted above should suffice to establish that the so-called conflict between the West and the Muslim world is largely hypothetical or theoretical, and that it is of no practical consequence.

Let me now say a word about ijtehad. Let us set aside the question of who may undertake it. Let us say that a representative assembly, or even any well-educated individual, may engage in an innovative interpretation of the relevant texts.

Commenting on the amputation of hand and foot imposed by a judge in the NWFP upon a man found guilty of robbery, an editorial writer of Dawn spoke like a “mujtahid” the other day (January 29, 2006). He wrote that “the enforcement of Hudood punishments presupposes the existence of an Islamic society based on social and economic equality and justice.” It follows that in his view enforcement of Hudood penalties is to be postponed until an Islamic welfare state materializes, which is to say, indefinitely. Maulana Maudoodi had taken the same position in one of his earlier works. It is clear to me that in each case the author was engaging in ijtehad, which in this particular context turned out to be commendable.

I should like to emphasize, however, that ijtehad is a very serious business that should be undertaken with a great deal of circumspection. I would not want to send anyone on a wild goose chase, messing with the texts. The first order of business should be to identify the crises that we face and which require reinterpretation of specific Islamic tenets or attitudes.

The crisis we confront is that of ignorance on the part of far too many persons in our society, and that of insufficient understanding of the world environment, both physical and intellectual, in which we live. The quality of education our young people get is poor. It may not be bad in some of the humanities (for instance, literature), but it is abysmal in the hard sciences and unacceptably low even in the social sciences.

Several explanations, or excuses, for this state of affairs can be offered. The foremost reason, I think, is an ingrained bias in favour of the conventional wisdom, discouragement of the inquiring and questioning mind, disapproval of doubt and sceptisism. High class scholarship, innovation and inventiveness are impossible without these dispositions. They — not song and dance and modes of sexuality — form the essence of modernity.

I see nothing whatever in Islam that keeps us from understanding our universe, mastering science and technology, and excelling in other fields of knowledge. Not Islam but an archaic and sterile type of training, and the resulting attitudes, of our ulema are in the way. Moving them out does not require ijtehad.

The word of God and His Prophet does not assign the ulema a governing role or a veto in the conduct of human affairs. They should simply be ignored when they step outside the domain of worship.

Two other potentially vexing issues may be mentioned. There is first the matter of taking and giving of interest on loans, which the Quran forbids. Yet the generality of Muslims in most places and their governments give and take interest. One may argue that the forbidden thing is not the same as interest. This will probably involve tedious and forced reasoning and do violence to the text. A better way would be to invoke the law of necessity, that is, to argue that the global economic order, of which we are inescapably a part, does not allow us an option in the matter, that we have to pay interest (and in that case we might as well receive it also) if we are to do business with other nations, which we must do unless we wish to return to some pre-historic state of nature.

There is then the matter of the role and status of women in society. Advocates of women’s liberation in Pakistan are not calling for sexual “freedom,” and we may thank God for that. In all other respects our women are going forward, and they will continue to move ahead, regardless of what the more conservative among us may say.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, US. Email: anwarsyed@cox.net

Cartoons: extreme reactions

TRADITIONALLY, Muslims living in the subcontinent have been more sensitive about the unassailable, beyond-reproach status of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) than Muslim communities elsewhere in the world. The anger that the publication of the Danish cartoons aroused and their wide condemnation in Pakistan, therefore, was hardly a surprise.

The irony of this painful episode, however, is that instead of renewing our faith in the Holy Prophet as the bearer of the final message of goodwill and compassion for all of mankind, it has made Pakistan appear, more than ever before, as a land of extremism where hatred and terror flourish.

Arson and murders on the streets aside, the rhetoric of the religious leaders, the reasoning of the theologians and the threats held out by the underground militants have all combined to pitch Muslim societies — Pakistan more than others — against some friendly governments for the despicable act of an individual.

Leaders of every religious party in Pakistan insist that we must sever diplomatic relations with Denmark (Sweden, too, is thrown in for good measure) and boycott Danish goods. In their emotional outbursts they tend to forget that Denmark as a percentage of its national income donates more to the Third World than any other country. It is also among the few countries who have already paid what they had pledged for Pakistan’s earthquake victims while the pledges of for many friendly and Muslim countries have yet to materialise.

Alienating Denmark may deprive Pakistan of its impending large investment and technical assistance in wind energy in which it is a world leader and Pakistan desperately needs cheaper and renewable energy more than before now that the construction of dams is in doubt and oil prices continue to rise. The continuing protest and violence might drive away other investors too. For reasons of sentiment, howsoever strong and valid, we are once again cutting our economic feet.

The world, living in fear of Al Qaeda, believes that its commanders receive support and sympathy from Pakistan’s large clerical establishment and get shelter along its long and rugged frontier with Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda’s deputy commander and spokesman, Ayman al-Zawahiri, a few days ago issued an ultimatum from Osama bin Laden’s hideout to the countries publishing the cartoons that they would soon face strikes that would remind them of 9/11. Some other extremist Islamic organisations too have called upon the faithful to massacre all those who may be involved in such blasphemy.

Even if not carried out, the whole Muslim world would suffer the consequences of Al-Zawahiri’s and others’ threats. Pakistan would suffer more than the others on account of the Taliban who constitute the hard core of Al-Qaeda straddle its frontier with Afghanistan.

The interpretation of the scope and application of the rule of blasphemy by some theologians has also made Pakistan more vulnerable to violence at home on the one hand, and to greater economic hardship on the other. The chief of an orthodox political party, Prof Sajid Mir, writing in an Urdu daily holds that any detractor (shatim) of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) may he be a man or a woman or even a child must be put to death — there can be no forgiveness nor lesser punishment.

He has instances to quote from the lifetime of the Prophet but in recounting them he overlooks the case of Abdallah bin Ubai who habitually used a language most foul and irksome against the Prophet but the latter did not allow either Hazrat Umar or even Abdallah’s own son to kill him. Instead, when Abdallah died a natural death the Prophet gave his own shawl to serve as shroud for this meanest of his slanderers.

A view expressed by some scholars is that no one was killed in the lifetime of the Prophet for blasphemy though a blasphemer may have been executed for other capital offences.

Prof Mir also fails to take into account the conduct of some Jews who while greeting the Prophet would curse instead of bless him and then ask why God did not punish them if they were in the wrong. It was on one such occasion, Imam Ahmad bin Hambal testifies, that it was revealed to the Prophet: “And when they come to thee, they salute thee, not as Allah salutes thee (but in crooked ways) and they say to themselves ‘why does not Allah punish us for our words’. Enough for them is hell, in it will they burn, and evil is that destination”.

The punishment or forgiveness for those who insult or abuse the Prophet is thus in the hands of God alone as it was for the slanderers of the prophets before him. In a reference to it is made in Ayat 43 of Sura Ha-Mim: “Nothing is said to thee that was not said to the apostles before thee: that thy Lord has at His command all forgiveness as well as a most grievous penalty”.

Then, above all, in the penal code (Hudood) laid down in the Holy Quran the penalty of death is only for murder and for no other offence. All the subsequent views and events are to be interpreted in the light of this fundamental Divine law.

A number of individuals and organizations from Pakistan and elsewhere, some of them possessing little means and no credentials, have offered rewards running into millions of dollars to any one who kills the blasphemous cartoonist. That is an open invitation for lawlessness and terror. The Prophet came as a blessing for all mankind, not Muslims alone. The message going out in his name should be one of mercy and not murder.

In the face of it all, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz should not be heard complaining of unjustified vilification of Muslims by the West. The Muslim world, Pakistan in particular, will continue to be vilified, and exploited, so long as its democrats and dictators alike pander to the reactionaries to perpetuate their own power. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves that we are underlings.”

A snub to Arabs

THEY spend drunkenly, they fail at oversight and they can’t stop the administration from abusing detainees or tapping phones.

But never call the members of Congress powerless: on Thursday, in the exalted name of anti-terrorism, the Senate rebelled against its Republican leadership and joined the House in a vote to prevent a company based in a moderate, friendly Arab country from making a minor investment in the United States.

When it became clear that some such blocking measure would pass, Dubai Ports World threw in the towel, announcing that it would sell all of its US operations, including the management operations of six US ports it recently acquired, and do business elsewhere.

Of course, the speed of that announcement illustrates a critical point: that this investment always was a business decision, not the early stages of a covert attack on Baltimore. Quite rightly, the company and its Dubai-based owners — who are stunned, apparently, by the unexpected reaction to what they thought was a routine business deal — didn’t want their country’s and their company’s names dragged through the mud, so they cut their losses.

Besides, it seems that the European port operations that Dubai Ports World acquired when it bought Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British company that has run the six US ports, are more profitable anyway.

The result: Dubai Ports World will now run only ports where cargo is packed and sent to the United States, instead of managing ports where that same cargo is unloaded. But our brave new Congress has achieved more than the irrational spiking of one business deal. It has also sent a clear message to the Arab world: No matter how far you move along the path of modernization and cooperation, Americans may be unable to distinguish you from Al Qaeda.

Dubai welcomes hundreds of ship visits every year from the US Navy and allied ships. It has worked with US agents to stop terrorist financing and nuclear cooperation. But none of that mattered to the craven members of Congress — neither to the Democrats who first sensed a delicious political opportunity, nor to the Republicans who then fled in unseemly panic. As to long-term damage to the United States’ security, economy and alliances? Not of concern to the great deliberative body.

No one should underestimate the potential damage. Any government in a Muslim-majority country will have to ask itself: Why take the risk of friendship? If governments find no good answer to that question, the fight against radical Islamic terrorism will suffer.

Meanwhile, Arab investors may think twice before putting their money in a country where their companies risk expropriation. With the price of oil so high, Arabs are rapidly becoming a major supplier of foreign capital. This isn’t a good moment for Americans to discourage foreign investment, given the nation’s dependence on foreign capital.

— The Washington Post