Fundamentalism And A Civilized Society.

First of all, let us be clear what we mean by fundamentalism. Among several forms, I’ll be dealing with religious fundamentalism here in particular. Fundamentalist was a term coined for the Christians of late 19th and early 20th century who insisted on the literal truth of the Bible (more specifically the Protestants/evangelicals believing in the inerrancy of Bible, especially the four Gospels), and from there it moved on to the Muslims. Broadly speaking, fundamentalist is a person who insists that each and every word written in his religious book, that he claims to be from a Deity, is literally true and there is only one interpretation, literal. So, Mahateer Muhammad was technically wrong when he said that a fundamentalist is someone who acts upon the fundamental principles of a doctrine.

Religious fundamentalism, which in practical sense is akin to extremism, happens to be one of the scourges of a modern civilized society. How does this deranged phenomenon effect a civilized society? Let’s analyze.

A religiously motivated fundamentalist believes in the literal implementation of a book which was written thousands of years ago, in societies with a totally different social, political and religious backgrounds compared to today’s world. Man has evolved psychologically and so have the societies. It’s a natural phenomenon that with the psychological evolution of man, his morals and individual and collective priorities keep changing. That’s the requirement of the natural and perpetual progress. Keeping this in view, demanding the imposition of ancient morals and implementing them discreetly in the manner they were implemented in those times is something any person not blinded with religious prejudice would deem totally unreasonable and rather naïve.

Let’s deal with the single case of the punishment of theft in Islam. According to the notorious Shariah law, the punishment for any person who commits theft is to cut off his hand, as per Qur’anic verse:

“The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut-off their hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will relent on him. Truly, God is Forgiving, Merciful.” [5:38-39]

In consideration with the extreme severity and savageness (again, by the standards of a modern society) of the matter, as it happens very often in irrational religious matters, a platoon of apologists [1] has emerged who try to interpret the verse metaphorically and hence maintains that Islam does not order the ‘literal’ cutting off of the hand(s). Although this interpretation would be much more sensible and acceptable in a civilized society, the general consensus happens to be in favor of the literal implication of this punishment. According to the prominent scholars and classical jurists, and various accounts of the hadiths, it’s an almost agreed-upon decision that if a person commits theft that happens to be more than the price of an armor[2], his right hand should be cut off, if he again commits theft, his left foot should be cut, if again he does the same act, cut off his left hand and finally if he retains his attitude, mutilate him completely by cutting off his right feet as well! (Astounded? Look up the references, this is quite authentic.)[3]

A fundamentalist who advocates the literal cutting off of a thief’s hand(s), generally has the excuse that this severe punishment would be a perfect deterrent for further such acts and hence would be an efficient expedient in the betterment of the society. The severity of this punishment indeed serves as a lethal deterrent, but does it really guarantee a better society? Aren’t there other ways to punish a person without crippling him for the rest of his life, hence making a person entirely dependent on the social alms and thus actually creating a burden for the society? Wouldn’t this actually result as an impediment rather than being an expedient for the progress of the society? A fundamentalist needs to egress out of his religious prejudices and consider the matter on these, more humane lines.

This was just one example to depict the narrow-mindedness and irrationality of a religious fundamentalist. Countless other examples exist.

The advocates of literal interpretation and implication of ancient religious books not only exist in Muslim societies, they are quite abundant in Christian/Jewish/Hindu societies, especially, among the allegedly civilized countries, in the constitutionally secular state of America. Religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson (This man, by the way, stood as a serious candidate for the Republican party nomination for President in 1988, and generated more than 3 million volunteers to work for his campaign which can give you an idea about the influence of these people in American politics), Jimmy Swaggert, Garry Potter and alike[4] not only advocate extremely narrow and radical interpretation of Bible, they actually exert and possess wide influence in American media and politics and through it, in the public. The situation is further aggravated when the politics of America is dominated by the religiously motivated neo-conservatives, who, just like their Muslim counterparts, happen to be staunch believers in each an every word of their extremist religious texts. These are the people who advocate the clash of the civilizations, Greater Israel and the ridiculous concepts of Armageddon and the ‘returning of the Messiah’. Rigid belief in such doctrines induces them on small-scale clashes and large-scale wars with people of other faiths and hence “accelerate the second coming of the Messiah/Christ”. They cannot tolerate freedom of speech and expression and every person who contradicts with their ideas faces threats of physical/social infliction and even death by their Armies of God and Lashkers[5]. No matter Steve Weinberg was prophetic when he said: “It only takes religion for a good person to do bad things.” Religion, or let’s give the devil it’s due and say radical and literal interpretation of religion, leads people to believe in and commit insanely dreadful things and it’s this very thing that happens to be the biggest threat to a civilized society.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] A couple of websites advocating the metaphorical interpretation is as follows, but the number of such people is negligibly small: http://www.universalunity.net/Punishment_For_Theft.htm
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm
[2] An armor’s price in the time of Muhammad was 3 Dirham or 10 Dinar according to various harith accounts.

[3] Punishment of cutting off of the hand is not applied in certain cases like the theft of edibles like fruits, vegetables etc. or things that cost less than an armor’s price. If the price of fruit exceeds the price of an armor, the punishment would be applied otherwise double price would be fined (Abu Daood: Book of Hudood, under the chaper about the ‘ordinance of cutting and not cutting hand of a theif’)

Interestingly, according to shariah law, if a thief is forgiven by the trampled, he would be forgiven according to the law, but once the matter is brought in the court, it would be dealt with according to the law. (Nisai: Book of Cutting of the Hand of a Thief)

Apparently, this “mutual forgiving” applies on all crimes/punishments that come under the hudood law. (Abu Daood/Nisai: In reference to Mishkaah, Book of Hudood, ch.3)

[4] For a detailed discussion, exposition and analysis of the ideas and ideals of these lunatics refer to The God Delusion’s chapter 8: “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” And Paul Fundley’s book “Silence No More!”.

[5] Army of God is an extremist religious group the advocates the killing of doctors and burning of hospitals who operate people for abortion, and further similar lunacies. Larshkar-e-Tayyabah happens to be an extremist religious group in Pakistan, which now operates under the name of Jamaat ud Dawah.

Self-righteousness : The Ailment of Humanity

The beginning of the new millennium brought along with it some drastic changes on the world scenario. Most important of them being the war on terror under the leadership of the US, the allies raided Afghanistan on the accusations of terrorism but underlying were several other serious charges being imposed on Talibans, most important being their barbarism, their violation of human rights and their uncivilized ways of running Afghanistan. The excuse for similar intervention in Iraq, initially, was the alleged production of the weapons of mass destruction by the dictator, Saddan Hussain. Later on, when this bubble got busted, new alibis surfaced, elevating them all, again, was the agenda for the promotion of democracy in Iraq and freeing the innocent people of Iraq from a cruel dictatorship.

This scenario is not new at all. Through out the history of mankind, the marauder has presented, more or less, similar kind of excuses for paving the way of plundering the weaker nations. Discussion of ancient and middle ages is out of the scope of this article, for the wagers of those religious wars and crusades are already not considered too civilized and their brutality is openly condemned. However, from the recent past, the colonizing of the third-world countries by the Western imperial powers can be considered a classic case of this ‘self-righteous’ psychology. The declared reasons for colonizing these nations were not because they were the enemies, or because they had any political or economic clashes with the civilized western nations. In fact, according to the perpetrators and their ideological defenders, the nations being invaded, were too backwards, uncivilized, illiterate and intellectually so unstable that they were unable to formulate any firm basis on which to run the political and economic arrangements of the people. Hence, for the sake of their own well being and hefty survival, civilized nations of the West should colonize them. When Napoleon invaded the Oriental Egypt, the reasons being presented were accurately the same that were used by other imperial powers like United Kingdom, Portugal and the Dutch to invade the near and far East. They could not even imagine that the colonized masses would not appreciate their presence on their soil, or that their being the master of their destinies would be a cause of trouble for the local populace. Huge describes Napoleon’s Egyptian expedition in his famous poem “Lui”:

“Victor, enthusiast, bursting with achievements,

Prodigious, he stunned the land of prodigies.

The old sheikhs venerated the young and prudent emir.

The people dreaded his unprecedented arms;

Sublime, he appeared to the dazzled tribes

Like a Mohamet of the Occident. “

-Huge, Les Orientals, in Oeuvres Poetigues, 1:684.

Napoleon, actually, did have some support from the local tribal leaders due to his policies of ruling people by appealing their religious sentiments. However, in the case of British rule, the most effective policies remained those of ‘carrot and stick’ and ‘divide and conquer’. On June 13, 1910, Arthur James Balfour, while lecturing the House of Commons about the problems that the British rule had to deal in Egypt specifically and East generally, commented:

“Is it a good thing for these great nations – I admit their greatness – that this absolute government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I think that experience shows that they have got under a far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilized West….We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large.”

In other words, Britain was the leader and representative of the civilized world and their intervention and colonization of the uncivilized third world countries was a duty to be performed for the sake of the entire civilized world. It doesn’t really matter if you kill a few thousand innocent people during this imperialistic process or if you damage the local civilization and culture, for that is worth it. Almost similar, if not worse, attitude was depicted by the civilized immigrants of the Europe towards the barbaric and savage natives of the North America and Australia. During the process of imposing civilization upon them, millions of them were brutally wiped out off their homeland, for the sake of the sacred duty cultured nations had to perform.

Even the proponents of equality of the masses and severe opposes of imperialism confined their intellectual and ideological pursuits within the civilized nations and when it came to the destiny of the poor nations of backward areas of the world, they supported, if not willingly and openly, the intentions of the imperial powers. Karl Marx, in his ‘Surveys from Exile” suggests:

“England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive and other regenerating – the annihilation of the Asiatic society, and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in India”.

-Karl Marx, Surveys from Exile, ed. David Fernbach (London: Pelican Books, 1973), pp. 306-7.

Sounds quite similar to the price ‘Red Indians’ had to pay for their ‘civilization’ process.

After World War II, Britain and France lost their role as the leading imperialists and America stepped forward to play this role efficiently. America invaded several third-world countries and the principle allegation was their transgression of the principles of democracy (in this case, Capitalism). Invasion of Vietnam proved to be the worst nightmare for both the preacher and the preached. Russian encroachment in Afghanistan was, more or less, due to the refusal of the masses to accept what the Soviet Union decreed as the right path i.e Communism. Thus, by rejecting the doctrinal instructions of the mighty, the Afghans actually were themselves responsible for the havoc that wrecked upon them.

Hence because of the right given to them by the virtue of their superiority, they may question the entire civilizations and cultures, modify them and if they find it appropriate, eradicate them. Annihilation of the colonized civilization and replacing it with that of the imperial lords is what has been and even today is the mission of the imperialist powers. This has always been the actual bone of contention. The self-righteousness of nations is what ails humanity and what propels them to thrust upon the ‘inferior’ nations and bring them under the humane wings of what they consider is civilization. During this process, no matter if a few thousands are killed or an entire civilization is wiped off, it’s simply worth it!

The Scourge of Religious Extremism

Ever since the creation of the state of Pakistan, this country has been more of a theological state, publicly more than officially. Sectarian violence, religious politics and extremism hatched by the religious schools known as madrasses and ignited by the clergy has been the cornerstones of Pakistani society. However, since the turn of the new millennium, religious extremism, fanaticism and terrorism has reached at it's culmination.

Historically, the main perpetrator of sectarian violence and religious extremism in Pakistan has been General Zia-ul-Haq. In the name of Islam, liberation fighters were invited from all over the Muslim world to fight against the evil empire of communist Russia in Afganistan. The result of this holy proxy-war was the drugs and gun culture that broke out all over Pakistan like a volcanic eruption. The overwhelming flood of the Afghan refugees caused further managerial and social mayhem. Further experimentation of islamization by the general added insult to injury in a long run and the vermin that attacked the nation drug that era resulted in consuming cancer that severely damaged the social and political stability of entire nation. The roots of religious extremism have since then only flourished.

The primary reasons of this chaos and confusion are illiteracy, poverty and extremely irresponsible attitude by the religious authorities and clergy. Besides, education has never been among crest priorities of authorities.

Illiteracy is, perhaps, the biggest cause and the root problem. An illiterate person is far easy to manipulate than a poor but literate man. Lack of education causes the intellectual and cogitative horizons of a person to shrink to the extend that he ceases to have any opinion of his own. His mind can be washed and attitude moulded in any direction. That's exactly the phenomenon that takes place in the religious schools known as madrassas. Students who come to these madrasses belong to extremely poor families and have practically no education at all. In fact, many of them are brought there in the very early years of their lives. They live their throughout the formative and productive years of their lives under the patronage of the clergy-men who themselves have passed through the same vicious phase of existence.

Rather than absorbing the actual essence of religious philosophy and theological sciences, these unfortunate and ignorant children are made rote-learn the Qur'aanic verse without slightest understanding. The empty slates of their brains are impregnate with manipulated history and distorted interpretations and strictly rigidly literal teachings that narrows down their thinking and induces in them intolerance towards opposing views. Their understanding is constructed by the spiritual teachers, their though process is formed by the sermons of hatred and violence and that's how they themselves are treated in these schools. To them, any person who possesses beyond the very basic necessities of life is committing sacrilege, anyone who studies in co-educational institutions should be condemned and anyone who refuses to follow their interpretation of religion is straightaway struck off the books of religion. He's an apostate and the punishment of an apostate is execution!

Studying only religious scriptures practically makes them grossly unfit to exist in a modern materialist society, which ensues grudge against the society. The best most of them can do is to teach Qur'aan to the children and live from hand to mouth. This results in frustration and unconscious hatred against the social class structure, especially against those living with high-standards. Distancing them from scientific knowledge and one step ahead, instilling emotions of hatred against the scientific inventions and discoveries paralyzes their creative spirit. On the whole, the graduates of these schools prove to utter burden on society.

Although Pakistanis have never enjoyed a completely peaceful and prosperous era, today this nation stands severely bruised and humiliated by the scourge of religious extremism. Recent fiasco in Swat and the resulting awakening of the common masses against the spectre of fanaticism are signs of the surfacing frustration and anger the society feels against those who misrepresent and defame the religious identity of this nation. However, with the proper and sincere projection of the authorities, the nightmare of extremism would keep haunting the future generations.

On History.

Of all the studies by which one acquires the membership of the intellectual community, not a single one is as inevitable as the study of the past - the study of History. But the dilemma is that, for each nation, the sole purpose of teaching history at schools is self-glorification.

Throughout history, history has been manipulated and propagated to mould the minds of younger generation into stubborn adult patriots according to the demands of national pride. Out past leaders are depicted as impeccable beings, innocent of any vices and follies. For each war we fought, our opponents are the transgressors. For each nation we conquered, we are the redeemers and for each war we lost, we are the betrayed.

History, no doubt, whether one accepts or not, is not an utterly pure collection of the incidents that actually occurred. The course of events as it actually occurred, had been and has been tempered, while being scribbled, according to the will of those in power or the desires of those with knowledge. Parallel to it’s use as knowledge or social science, history has been used as a psychological weapon. But still, negating history as a whole on the sheer basis of mere doubt would be an example of terrifying skepticism.

Eluding the discussion whether history is wholly true or not, it is a source of guidance for individuals and nations alike, and equally for present and future. Tempering this asset to instill few patriotic feelings in the immature minds would result in nothing fruitful, the consequences would be rather devastating. The obscure foundations of lie and cheat can never generate the pinnacles of glory. Distortion of harsh realities into sugar-coated fairy fantasies would bring about nothing other than intellectual havoc and mental disorder.

History is one of the very basic cornerstones in the fulfillment of the intellectual community. It is reflection of the past and the indication of the future - A lesson to be remembered at every milestone to eternity. It should be given and treated with due respect.

Commencing The Charity

Politics is a notorious profession, there won’t be two opinions on the credibility of this statement . Whenever we talk about politics the environment is usually very pessimistic, bleak, sarcastic and nonetheless angry. But of course, we can’t blame politicians alone for these circumstances. In fact, there part in this vicious circle would be rather less than masses themselves. It’s very hard to face the harsh realities of life and vrey easy to throw the burden of responsibility on others and free ourselves.

I happen to know people who curse the Govt. and authorities in power. They cry about the inflation, about the law and order situation, about the pathetic health and education system and overall, the deteriorating circumstances of their ‘beloved country’. But same people, before every election, confirm before voting a particular candidate that he belongs to their sect, their tribe or their ‘baradari’, these ‘virtues’ are enough to erase all his corruption and ignore all the defects of his personal character. In my not-very-humble opinion, such people do not have any right to speak against the authorities every time they are fucked up by them.
There’s another group of those who like to declare themselves ‘gentle’ people, and politics, for them, is a sin. Politics, in their views, belongs to the rogues, rascals and looters. These people, very much like the other group above, do not have any right to shout against the oppression and injustice of the ‘rogues of politics’. What are they for? Just to eat and shit? At a bit higher level, What’s their purpose of life? Just to earn and spend? To me an ignorant person who serves his people righteously while (being in politics, with reference to the context) is far more better than the saint chanting prayers in his hut!

What we need is devoted and sincere people, with a passion to serve not only their country and their country men, but humanity as a whole. We beings humans, owe a huge debt to humanity and blessed are those who step up to bear this heavenly glorious responsibility.