Web Exclusive
girl next door

Faiza S. Khan relocated to Karachi from London three years ago, specifically not to find herself. She is the administrator of a short story prize and editor-in-chief of literary journal, The Life’s Too Short Review.

EMAIL AUTHOR

Leap of Faith

To look to Islam for answers to why Pakistan’s dispossessed, brainwashed militants are carrying on in the name of religion is to fall for the greatest red herring of this age.
5
Tagged Under | Pakistan | Islam | terror

It’s been a harrowing few months here, there’s simply no good spin to be put on it. It’s got to the point where one looks back to the halcyon days of Baitullah Mehsud with loving nostalgia. In the last month, attacks have taken place at crowded marketplaces, the army headquarters, a university canteen, the motorway, the offices of the World Food Programme, a bank (doing away with a queue of old men waiting to collect their pensions), the list goes on. Hundreds are dead. In terms of psychological warfare, the worst of it was probably the threat to schools, which saw them close across the country for days, and gingerly reopen to understandably low attendance. Prior the recent burst of carnage, but terribly sad in its own way, one of the country’s finest academic institutes, closely following Neville Chamberlain’s Idiot’s Guide to Appeasement, decided to issue a code of conduct regarding the banishment of public displays of affection, i.e., kisses on the cheek. It’s all looking very grim, but life goes on, and remarkably unchanged, for some of us.

I dined, following a recent art opening, with a charming London-based gallery owner who asked me, following a polite preamble over the new face of the Mughal miniature, why ‘moderate’ Muslims such as myself aren’t educating people as to what their religion is supposed to stand for. Quite apart from the fact that I’ve been lapsed ever since I discovered Muslims were responsible for the scourge upon ‘O’ level students that is Algebra, I’ll wager that this line of questioning misses the wood for the trees. If I trot out the standard bit about how Islam was the great cultural middleman that made the Renaissance possible (a fact tragically absent from too many western scholarly texts), or how anyone in their right mind in medieval Europe should have longed to be invaded by the enlightened Moors, then I’m simplifying a sophisticated socio-economic-cultural situation to people’s choice of faith. In the same way, to look towards Islam for some sort of revelation as to why Pakistan’s methodically dispossessed, uneducated, brainwashed, livid militants are using religion as a smokescreen, a legitimised excuse to seize power, is surely succumbing to the greatest red herring of this age. The incident, all in all, reminded me of a great line from Pakistani author HM Naqvi’s debut novel Home Boy, culled from a scene where a character, on the basis of being Muslim, is being questioned by the FBI for the possible reasons behind the attacks of 9/11: “As a Muslim, he figured, I would have special insight into the phenomenon… But like everybody, I figured the hijackers were a bunch of crazy Saudi bastards.” The standard complaint ‘everyone’s a critic’, I can confirm, has now been updated to ‘everyone’s an amateur theologian’.

I visited Vietnam for the first time this year (largely so I could go on to announce at parties that I was having ’Nam flashbacks), with my only cultural reference to the place being the effect it had on American society, the controversy, the introspection, the protests, the giant push for freedom of expression, the fact that it brought down the Administration and, on another note, was the last time mainstream Hollywood studios produced thinking, daring cinema—The Deerhunter, Apocalypse Now etcetera. I’m not comparing the War on Terror to the Americans in Vietnam and I strongly suspect America’s intellectual response would have been vastly different had the Vietnamese brought down the Twin Towers. But it’s a great shame, nonetheless, that nearly thirty-five years on, this war, instead of advancing critical thought, has the world’s most eminent intellectuals pondering over whether Islam Is a Religion of Peace (Yes/No, tick a box), with Hollywood’s artistic response being Iron Man.

At the risk of stating the obvious, (only so that other people would kindly stop doing it) religion, as far as I can see, is what you make of it. In terms of religions of peace, if such a thing exists, Buddhism springs to mind, with its nucleus being altruism and ethical conduct. But would you care to snuggle up to Burma’s military junta, or spend a week at a Thai prison, the only place in the country where people don’t charge at you with massage tables and orchids to pin to your lapel? Didn't think so. I’m not a theologian, I don’t have all the answers, but I can say with some certainty that we’re still asking the wrong questions.

OLDER COMMENTS FIRST

5 COMMENTS

Permalink

Unfortunately, what you make of any religion depends on the nature of the religion itself. Christianity was steeped in orthodoxy and tyrannical regimes in the medieval times, but when light dawned on them in the form of science, they paved the way for a secular, tolerant world order. This was because Christianity offered some room for such an attitude -- it was better to be tolerant because tolerance upholds the notion of biblical love.
However, Islam has been a political and fundamentalist religion to the T, from its very inception in the deserts of Arabia. Why, the Koran was not even allowed to be translated into any other language till recently!! And the ideas of justice, struggle and war resonate more frequently in the Koran than the ideals of love and peace.
The brainwashing methodology in both Christianity and Islam is almost the same, except that Islam uses violence to achieve its ends. Christianity has had its share of violence, but they're calmed now.
So when we have a pretty volatile religion that offers plenty of room for deviant minds to achieve their ulterior ends, is it really wrong to condemn the religion? That the vice is in the religion itself is proved again and again from what you hear in the news these days.
The truth is, even if all Islamic states get their political, geographical and economical agendas fulfilled, they will still shed blood in the name of converting all kafirs to Islam!!

21 November 2009 | Khayyam The Great

Permalink

It is silly to say that Rajiv Gandhi's brutal blowing up in 1991 was done to send a brother in the wrong to his next life (or for a "change in clothes") because the soul is eternal and this action is recommended in a holy book, and so this religion is faulty and all people reading this book or following this religion should be condemned. It is equally silly to use parallel arguments in the case of other religions and their holy books to condemn them and their beliefs which have been understood only scantily and even that through badly prejudiced sources.

21 November 2009 | Discovery of India

Permalink

Deeply dismayed at this dangerously lax attitude to Hollywood's greatest film of the decade. 'Iron Man' has no equal.

1 December 2009 | roswitha

Permalink

I'd argue the case for the Bourne Identity but even so, you make a fair point. I myself have seen Iron Man some five times...

2 December 2009 | Faiza S Khan

Permalink

In absence of the subject matter experts, the arm-chair theologians start filling-in the void!

Perhaps...it is not so complex!

Here are two fresh statistics: there are 1.6 Billion Muslims on this planet, and 70% of them are illiterate! This means 1 in 6 persons on this planet is a Muslim-illiterate, lacking options and good judgment. Worldly education is not a priority (relatively speaking) in Islam: niether in Quran nor in Hadith -- besides a few prayers and one encouragement to go to China! It's also counter-intuitive to expect Mullahs to encourage Muslims to get educated; they can not dilute their own power.

A quick query into an on-line Quran will yield 'Ayah' after 'Ayah' about the high priority of Jihad and its reward: the short-cut to 72 Virgins. Then pick up the writtings of Maudoodi and Bunna, the foundation stones and ground philiosophy of almost all Jihadi movements, and a pattern begins to emerge.

The Insta-Militant formula: Imbibe an illiterate with the passion of Jihad; reinforece the promises of rewards in Heaven, and Voila... we have a martyr-to-be at hands. Of course, during these brain-washing and indoctrination sessions, slip in the they-are-with-us-or-against-us idea and the Jihadist would gladly blow himself blow up in Islamabad or Peshawar.

Please see, its not important how you and me understand religion, and what we call the Jihadists ... the important thing is what these people call themselves? and what they believe in? From my personal experience (based on actively resisting them) it's always Islamic Sharia and it's always Jihad.

So these are two internal factors.

Externally we have the usual suspects compunding the amplifying the cycle of violence -- be it Afganistan or Palestine -- but there is really no need to elaborate on this point; the onus to break the cycle is not on the _external_ players; it is clearly and flatly _our_ (read Muslim) burden.

So here is a question: how can we attract muslims away from Sharia/Jihad and towards education and peaceful co-existance with other religions, or even non-religion.

My impression is that we will have to break the bridge between Islam as a Value System, and Islam as a Political Ideology. That bridge, I believe, is built on two pillars: Sharia and Jihad. And the final solution would look like what emerged from 1000 years of christian history: the secular democracy.

What's your take?

5 December 2009 | Sireen Malik

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

CAPTCHA
NOTE: Please enter letters [case sensitive] in the box provided before you submit your comment. This is to prevent automated spam submissions
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.