Islam and Modern Times: Is There a Case For Reinterpretation?

It was a day in 1994. I picked up the Daily Jang to have my daily dosage of information and news. In those PTV dominated pre-internet days newspapers were the chief source for somewhat objective and independent coverage of the events. The front page was full of news about ongoing political battle between PPP and PML(N). The decade of 1990s was characterized by constant political tussle between the two major political parties. While glancing down, my eyes suddenly caught hold of a two column new article. It described an incidence which had taken place in Gujranwala.

According to the article a mob in Gujranwala, had burnt a Hafiz Quran, Hafiz Sajjad alive on suspicion of desecrating the Holy Quran. According to the details, Hafiz had burnt Quran and as soon as the nearby Mullah got the whiff of it, he issued a fatwa. A mob gathered and dragged the individual out of his home and started beating him. As they were beating him, someone in the mob stopped the others and suggested that the culprit should be meted out proper Islamic punishment of stoning. At that point, police reached the spot and took the individual into what under normal circumstances would have been a protective custody. However, soon an even larger crowd gathered in front of the police station and started to demand that Hafiz should be handed over to them. Due to the huge size of increasingly vociferous mob, the police inspector buckled under pressure and handed over the guy. They started stoning him mercilessly and thereafter set his body on fire. If this were not enough, they tied his corpse to a powerful motor-cycle and dragged it through the streets for two hours. I felt a strange revulsion and just put the newspaper down. After two days, another article appeared which gave details about the initial inquiry. It was established beyond doubt that Hafiz Sajjad was a traditional devout Muslim and while reciting Quran accidently dropped it on the stove. Although it was pure accident but someone reported it to the nearby mosque as a deliberate act. Needless to say, the Imam did not even bother to ascertain the facts and started to agitate the nearby community to take action. This agitation “convinced” people to do what they did. Although it was shocking but the reaction to all that barbarism was even more tragic. There was hardly any agitation or debate and no political party even raised that issue.

That incidence is not an isolated incidence. Our country and for that matter Muslim world has witnessed many such incidences, the most recent being what happened at Gojra. However, the reason I have quoted this particular incidence is that it demonstrated the religion’s role in perpetuating violence, venting out of core violent instincts, complete inability of anyone near the mob to even raise a dissenting opinion, impotence of the state apparatus to give protection at the time it was taking place; and lastly, but perhaps most importantly the reluctance of political parties to stir any debate on failure of administration to give protection and on controversial blasphemy laws in Pakistan. The last point also demonstrated that the issue perhaps did not register as an issue with the populace. After all, by design political parties try to stir debate on issues where there is some political meat which in turn emanates if there is some genuine concern for it in the public. That incidence, flurry of subsequent incidences and complete inability of the general public to denounce such acts coupled with a strange tendency to knit weird conspiracy theories, have made me a far more thinking person with the result being that I have eventually ended up being on the liberal side of the political spectrum with an unshakeable belief in its ideals. Pakistan in my opinion has to shake off religious conservatism to be in conformity with the modern times and to have a chance of being a progressive society with some credible record in human rights.

And yet, apparently Pakistan looks to be a relatively moderate country particularly when compared to the likes of Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc. Here the hardliners have never been voted in power through the ballot box. It has an independent media and relatively loose censorship standards. Anyone coming from abroad for the first time is generally bewildered at the contrast between what he actually sees and the ultra conservative picture often portrayed in the western media. However, at the critical points the ultra conservative streak riddled with a hate filled insensitive violence surfaces leaving all bewildered over the strange contradictory behaviour. It also reminds us of the menace which is always lurking below. However, the issue is not only restricted to religious inspired violence but extends to virtually all facets of society from discriminatory laws against women to financial affairs (where we are still locked in a battle whether present day interest is anti Islam). Virtually every major issue in society is seen through religious paradigm with an objective to see whether it “adheres” to real Islam or not. Moreover any violence or atrocity committed in the name of Islam will either have support or“understanding” behaviour in the form of apologetic defence. The similar pattern of making use of others (whether in terms of assigning blames or making excuses) is always order of the day.

This problem has its genesis in: power, importance and hold of religion; the way religion is interpreted; the structural authority of the power brokers of religion such as clergy; and the way the state has patronized and promoted religion.

First, the importance given to religion has virtually made it impossible to have any type of debate on it. Culturally religion has been a very dominant aspect in the entire Islamic world and has created a kind of uniformity across various nations. There will always be a raging debate on the criterion of what essentially constitutes a nation and whether Islamic world can be defined as one, but the fact remains that Islam nevertheless lends commonness across globe to the Muslim world. The importance of religion is dominant in every sphere of life and even those who may not be religiously inclined nevertheless do subscribe to Islam as an important part of their identity. Due to this importance and extremely revered status of religion, it becomes difficult to even question anything related to religion. The importance is chiefly a cultural factor and though protected and promoted by state will still be there even if state removes its patronage, though to some extent it will be diluted. I will support this argument by referring to colonial era where under the British rule, the state was not patronizing any particular religion nor the education curriculum was designed to such an end. Yet the colonial times did not see any decline in Islamic fervor and in fact saw creation of Pakistan which in principle was a religiously inspired state (though we can argue to death whether Jinnah was a secular or whether he had secular vision for Pakistan). Moreover, often overlooked factor is that state’s patronage is partly due to cultural dominance of religion though of course it’s a reciprocal relationship where both draw strength and reinforce each other.

Second is the way religion has been traditionally interpreted. Historically religion has been interpreted as “complete” and suitable for all times and this makes any independent discussion on it extremely difficult with rousing the violent passions. Moreover, literalism dominates the interpretation where by the holy text is interpreted literally and no attempt is made to understand the context. Allegorical interpretation is virtually nonexistent which in turn makes interpretation time bound in 7th century and suited for those circumstances. This practice of literal interpretation has actually proven detrimental to Muslims as it has become an effective propaganda weapon in the hands of critics of Islam. Whenever Muslims try to argue that Islam is a religion of peace, the opponents would actually quote verses about Jihad and point to the fact that Islamic religious scholars interpret these as literally. Literalism thus becomes an extremely effective tool for the opponents and they exploit it well.

Third, the way religion is interpreted owes a lot to the people responsible for interpreting it which are the clergy and religious scholars. Broadly across Islamic world and also in Pakistan, Muslims can be compartmentalized into two groups: devout and deeply conservative; and relatively moderate. The former adheres closely to both ideology as well as rituals and is the major source of Islamic scholars and the clergy. This category is by and large inflexible and glued to literalism. They may be small in number and at times may not hold political offices (though in countries like Iran, they do), but nevertheless they are firmly in charge when it comes to matters pertaining to religion. Since they derive their power through religion, therefore it suits them that religion is always given extreme importance and the mantle of interpretation remains with them. Anyone trying to reinterpret-particularly when that reinterpretation is different from conventional one- at a PUBLIC forum is blasted and severely criticized and in some cases may end up being dead. This group has historically resisted Ijtihad and has stressed on literal and at times completely inflexible interpretation. That interpretation coupled with extraordinary supreme importance to religion creates a general mindset which is devoid of independence of thought and impotent to question anything done in the name of religion. Even people who are not deeply religious, and at least in Pakistan, they are perhaps a majority, are completely unable to question any law imposed in the name of religion.

Now this “moderate” majority may not be strictly adherent to Islamic rituals and some deviation can be observed in their behaviour from universally accepted Islamic principles. Within this group, which largely constitutes of urban population, some may invest in interest bearing instruments, not observe veil, not regularly pray, attend mixed gatherings, listen to music, drink and even indulge in sex outside (though secretly). However, a substantial bulk of this group considers religion an extremely important component of their identity. Moreover, despite not observing every ritual, this category will not debate the opinion of the clergy where modernity and religion are in conflict. This group will not vote for religious right but at the same time will not challenge their interpretation. Most importantly although this category will not vote for introducing strict Islamic laws but also will not raise voice for removal of existing controversial ordinances such as hadood and blasphemy laws. This category will feel aggrieved when fellow Muslims are in problem anywhere in the world and is quite an expert in knitting weird conspiracy theories to absolve the Muslims of anything. It is this majority which despite not strictly compliant, constitutes the “soft” and perhaps invaluable support to the clergy and hardliners at critical points. And this moderate majority is spearheaded by urban middleclass. Since the Media originates from urban middle class and targets it, therefore what this class thinks becomes the dominant opinion. Right now this class though not ultra religious is by and large conservative. A substantial segment of this class has learnt to live with the status quo and the rest even if not happy is too passive to challenge it.

The combined effect of these factors resulted in a mindset of the general populace which is too rigid, devoid of the faculty of independent thinking, subservient to the interpretation handed down by the clergy and extremely prone to a strange of denial where every atrocious act committed in the name of religion is either endorsed or if it is too grotesque is conveniently blamed on the grand conspiracy of the West. It is that mindset which has made clergy stronger than what the electoral results may suggest and moreover has ensured that religious bigotry remains imbedded in the population. It has also made population passive on matters where the dominant conservative religious opinion is clearly in contradiction of basic human rights and demands of the modern times. Moreover this mindset has contributed towards violence committed in the veil of reaction against blasphemy.

For the religion to become functionally effective and progressive rather than static and time trapped, it has to be reinterpreted metaphorically and the mantle of interpretation has to be taken away from the existing ultra conservative clergy/religious scholars. It is an extremely tall task as the importance given to religion and generational literal interpretation has made minds extremely unreceptive to any such idea. Moreover such suggestions would be branded as “kufr” and opposed by hardliners with such ferocity that even those who find the idea appealing would be afraid to raise any counterarguments as they fear being branded as kafirs. Moreover an effective tool in the hand of hardliners and their supporters is “lack” of religious knowledge in critics. Anyone trying to raise an argument would be challenged as not being “qualified” or not having diplomas in religious study. The fact that all religious curriculums are ultra conservative and any one qualified would naturally have the same ultra conservative static beliefs is conveniently ignored.

However, fortunately Islam-contrary to what these ultra conservative scholars are projecting- is a progressive religion. The counterarguments do not need to come from outside the religion but from within. There are two important facts which need to be brought out when making a case for this: 1) the spirit of Islam which is progressive; 2) concept of Ijtihad which allows independent thinking in interpretation of religious text.

Islam is a progressive religion because right from its origination it has tried to challenge status quo. Today the insistence on the Holy Quran’s verses without context has unfortunately obscured this fact. It becomes progressive as soon as you apply your mind and SEE THE CONTEXT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES. It has to be remembered that those times were very different and what seems harsh today was in sync with those times. This fact has to be understood both by the hardliners and also by the critics who have a tendency to quote out of Quran to prove their point that Islam is a regressive religion. What is needed is the emphasis on this spirit and cultivation of understanding that insistence on interpretation without context and on literal terms is proving to be counterproductive to acceptability of Islam as a moderate religion. Moreover this also jeopardizes religion’s conformity with modern day ideals of human rights, tolerance and international cooperation.

Second is the concept of Ijtihad, which is very much a part of Islamic Philosophy and has been practised by Muslim scholars in ancient times. There is, I understand a considerable amount of debate about the scope of Ijtihad and also on who is legally allowed to indulge. However, the concept exists in Islam and therefore allows a basis for presenting an argument against literalism and can be subsequently used as a modus operandi for bringing the interpretation more in line with the modern times.

Now scepticism about the success of such efforts would not be misplaced here but these efforts have to be initiated. Focus has to be on the soft support, i.e. urban middle class, as it is the dominant class in media, armed forces and civil services. Though largely passive, conservative and offering soft support to the hardliners, this class is not religious in ultra conservative sense. Pakistan despite the presence of Taliban in its Northern parts is still lucky that compared to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, it does not have thoroughly radicalised middle class. This class has to be mobilized through media to begin this effort. Islamic reformists like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi have to play a critical role as they can counter the conservatives effectively on Media thus paving the way for the reform. We have to start from somewhere if we want to come out of the status quo and restore our great religion’s image in front of the outside world.