A few years ago, I wrote a theoretical reply to the "Letter to would be Mujahid" written by Imam Zaid Shakir. I was criticising the main theme of moderation that the Imam was propagating but funnily enough, some took it to be a reply on behalf of the extremists. My reply is still available at a website that promotes a more extremist view on matters Islamic (as of today, 25/03/2012). Had they understood the gunpowder that lies within the theoretical reply, they would have shredded the paper it was printed on, than burnt it and then sprinkled the ashes over the Arabian Sea on a windy day. Here is the original letter to a would be Mujahid and here is my theoretical answer as published on the website. I have concentrated the ideas below.
Religious Moderation is in vogue now a days. The murderous routines of our more extreme co-religious have turned it into a badge of honour that is proudly displayed and frequently patted. More and more it is thought of a default position to take on matters religious and one expects no further criticism once within the safety of this fortress. And how exactly does one qualify to be labeled moderate enough to enjoy this safe haven? By retreating from literalist approach to problematic holy texts and proclaiming tolerance for beliefs of others, no matter how unjustified or even dangerous.
While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, can it offer a bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence, a chronic problem facing us for the last few decades? A careful analysis reveals moderation to be part of the problem instead of providing a solace.
The first thing to note is that Moderation in Islam (and in any other faith) is nothing but an attempt to loosely interpret or simply ignoring much of the holy texts in the interest of living in the modern world. The retreat from scriptural literalism is not due to a new light that has suddenly been discovered from the holy texts on a fine morning but it is the result of blows coming from the demonic achievements of modernity that have put certain tenants of the faith to doubt. Scientific advancements, concern for human rights, fruits of liberal-democratic politics, an end to cultural/geographic isolation and the emergence of a general tendency to value a proposition in proportion to the evidence for it, has led to religious moderation. The door did not open from inside, it was rather a result of these ideas steam-rolling in with a force. Put plainly, a moderate is simply unhappy at the personal and social cost a full embrace of scriptures imposes on him/her.
Similarly, the unhappy marriage of scriptural retreat and tolerance results in another wiggly by-product, namely, denialism. When no amount of contortion is enough why not just bury the head in the sand and create a bogey? There is a genuine attempt to create an illusion of a debate where none exists. The result is that the opportunity for correction or improvement is lost and even a fair critique is diluted at best or neutralised at worst. Think of how many still believe the epidemic suicide bombings in Pakistan to be a result of American presence in Afghanistan. In the process, a more direct link between violent interpretations of scriptures and violent actions of the perpetrators is denied or ignored. No explanation is offered as for the additional motivation of a select few presumed victims of aggression that go on a suicidal killing spree, although hundreds of murders take place across the land every day.
Moderation in Islam has its own sweeteners for those with a weakness for it. It is called "Ijtihad". Cherished as an ultimate slayer of resistance to progress, it turns out to be rather blunt when wielded on an extremist red in tooth and claw. Firstly, the room for Ijtehad will be microscopically small as an extremist's understandings about designs of god is generally unrivalled. The moderate's rainforest of issues requiring Ijtehad would have shrunk to an indoor-plant grown in a pot when seen through some extremist eyes. And then, who is to say that the extremist's Ijtehad is any less valid? We got the permissibility of suicide bombing using this very tool. For every Ghamadi using Ijtehad, there will be a Zawahiri throwing his weight around.
It may all begin with the best of intentions but moderation has an eternal, damned dilemma to contemplate with. Once a certain bridge is crossed without using the tools of intellect, reason and logic, you simply cannot invoke them later on to save yourself. It is nonsensical to think that believing in certain things without evidence and through recourse to religious texts is a virtue but when another uses the same processes and ends up wrapped in a suicide-belt, rationality and logic should come to rescue.
Moderation is a survival tactic and the first line of defence for a very illogical view of the Universe and the matters within. It feeds on a myth that terrible things committed in the name of religion are not the product of faith per-se but are the result of human imperfections (greed, lust for power, ignorance etc). The result has been an unreasonable discourse on matters public and private. Humanity will eventually get to the truth like it always has. Perhaps the best religious moderation has hoped of is to delay it by a thousand years.
No comments:
Post a Comment