The future is fundamentalist?

These past couple of days have been a jolting experience that has left me feeling somewhat disillusioned and pessimistic …
 

An internet newspaper in Pakistan that I read occasionally published an article in which the author called for reconciliation between the Sunni and Shia sects within Islam and a re-examination by Shia of some of their practices – not beliefs, mind you, just practices.  As the author pointed out, in all other cultures and religions, the start of a new year is celebrated with joy, but in Islam the Shia’s commemoration of the battle at Kerbala (in which the Prophet’s grandson was killed) involves not just mournful gatherings recounting the events of the episode, but elaborate and unsightly processions with a very public and bloody display of self-flagellation.  On occasion, these gatherings are also known to hurl insults at figures the Sunnis revere.  The author suggested that perhaps it was time to adopt more dignified forms of remembrance and to build bridges. 

 

I do not want to dwell on these rituals - which, by the way, are not stipulated by the religion, but added, by definition, since the battle took place several decades after the said Prophet’s demise.  What does concern me is the reaction that the article prompted.  (In case any one thinks I have an axe to grind, a quick browse through my blog will tell you what I think of religion and the Abrahamic religions in particular.)

 

Bear in mind that the article was written in English by an American university professor of Pakistani descent; and that it was published in a newspaper affiliated with the International Herald Tribune.  It was not a sermon bellowed by a mullah to a horde of supine congregants at a religious gathering.  I mention these facts so that one gets a measure of the potential audience – supposedly literate, educated, English-speaking and economically able to afford a newspaper or a computer, electricity and access to the internet!  Given the state of literacy, poverty and infrastructure in Pakistan (and the Muslim world in general), this does not amount to a large number.

 

The web-based edition of the newspaper allows for comment and had scarcely received sixteen over several hours when the storm clouds began rumbling on Twitter.  There were expressions of outrage, dubbing the article as a hate speech and accusing it of inciting hatred.  Remember, the man was talking about reconciliation!  Others were scornful of the author and of the newspaper for publishing the article.  There were calls for a boycott of the newspaper, an immediate apology from the author and editor and demands that the article be removed from the website post-haste (I think someone actually did use these very terms!). 

 

It seemed that those protesting were predominantly Shia, but I can’t be sure.  (Traditionally, names are a good indication.)  However, looking at the profiles of those protesting, I was astonished that they included university professors in America teaching science based subjects; journalists in Pakistan and elsewhere, who write for well-known national and international English newspapers; and so-called human rights activists – all people who should be used to and indeed encourage inquiry and debate.  Moreover, normally they like to portray themselves as secular, erudite and cultured, tweeting couplets by Ghalib and Sufi poets like Hafiz and Rumi (as light relief or to display their cultural credentials, who knows now).  Several are even followers of Taslima Nasreen and Salman Rushdie, both, of course, accused by Muslim fundamentalists of blasphemy and for offending Islam.  (Perhaps following them is another badge to display?)

 

However, the feverish twittering of these ‘offended’, supposedly educated people reminded me more of bearded mullahs and imams barking and stirring up illiterate mobs into frenzy over some alleged slight.  Admittedly, there was no flag or effigy burning, but there might just as well have been.  There was the same sloganeering, the same calls for boycotts and the same expressions of being outraged.  For me, it seemed a visceral primitive reaction had torn through the usual veneer of urbanity, to expose a less attractive underbelly which was no different from that seen in fist waving crowds, fulminating and frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs. 

 

But there was another side too: that of a group mindset that thought that only it had the right to decide what could and would be discussed – and by whom.  The so-called sophisticated and educated had shown their true mentality, and it was of the school playground: bullying, tribal and fascist, something one would, in fact, normally associate with the religious extremists and fundamentalists.

 

I went to sleep troubled with the following random thoughts racing through my mind:

 

mafia, bullying, mob, ayatullahs, Lord of the Flies, hypocrisy, a Sikh play in Birmingham that had come under fire a few years ago with calls for it to be banned for causing offence, the stirring up and mobilising of anger by mullahs during the Danish cartoon episode, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Taliban, fundamentalism, Catholic church, secularism and public space, enlightenment, female genital mutilation, Sati, caste system, Mary Whitehouse and the Pink Paper, Life of Brian ….

 

The next day I was shocked to find that the newspaper had given in to pressure and taken the article off its website.  Later, an editor’s apology went up.  So much for its liberal credentials!  This morning I woke to find an apology that the author had, no doubt, been forced to issue and to learn that he had received death threats and been offered police protection.  On checking the time lines of those who had been so vocal in their protest, I was disgusted to find that some had calmly moved on to talk about other topics, others dismissed the author’s apology as mealy-mouthed and dishonest, and still others regarded the outcome as a job well done.

 

As I said, I am less concerned with the issue of Shia beliefs and more with issues of free speech, inquiry and debate and ultimately of intellectual honesty – and the old chestnuts of ‘causing offence’ and ‘inciting hate’ routinely brought up to stifle such debate. 

 

What do these professors teach their students?  How do they teach them if they can’t tolerate any dissent, any questioning?  Indeed, they should first be setting an example by responding in a mature, civilised manner; and second, encouraging just such debate and discussion.  If people like journalists, human rights activists and university professors can’t stomach and encourage a little debate and get offended by a mere article, how do they expect those practicing honour killings or female genital mutilation to consider their ways?  After all, many cultures believe these are required by their god and which to question would be blasphemous and deeply offensive.  Or do they think talking about and criticising such issues too should remain unmentioned because it too might cause offence and be an incitement to hatred?  And what of the notorious blasphemy laws in Pakistan that are supported by just such people who get prickly about any perceived insult to what they regard as sacred?  Do they think the mullahs and imams were right to call for the banning and withdrawing of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses because it was insensitive and “caused offence”?  Do they think the Danish cartoon protests were justified, again because it “caused offence”?  Do they think the authorities should have capitulated to protests and stopped a play exposing and exploring exploitation within Sikh culture because it “caused offence”? 

 

How do we progress, how do we improve if we are to refuse to examine our beliefs, lay them open to see how well they stand up to scrutiny?  If they do, so much the better, but what is the harm and why get so defensive, even hysterical?   And if so-called educated people show themselves to be so thin skinned and react with emotion rather than reason, what hope is there of tackling the ingrained attitudes, beliefs and prejudices of the illiterate masses?  Given the rise of fundamentalism in the Muslim world, how are we to bring about reform if even the educated are not prepared to examine their beliefs?  (In any case, my confidence in their education is now severely dented and I will never be able to read another missive from them without adding the proverbial pinch of salt.)

 

And so, I fear that the future in Pakistan will be with superstition and ultimately with the extremists and fundamentalists.  The educated can only pretend, for they have lost credibility and have shown themselves to be just what the fundamentalists accuse them of being – intellectually dishonest, hypocrites and cowards.   The extremist uses death as his weapon and is prepared to die for his belief.  Thankfully, education, the Enlightenment and liberalism teach another, better way and one that does not require violence.  Instead, the educated use reason and courage to examine their own beliefs and then have the integrity to change if necessary and so progress.

Unfortunately, the events of the past few days have shown that this appears to be lacking amongst some of the more vocal educated of that country; and that is why I think the extremists and fundamentalists will win: they are prepared to practice what they preach (however mad) and die if necessary.  Meanwhile, the educated suffer from cognitive dissonance.  They are happy to tell others what to do but unwilling to apply those same principles to themselves; ready to judge others beliefs, but unwilling to have the spotlight turned on their own beliefs; happy to pretend to subscribe to a liberal and rational way of thinking, while holding on to a mindset more common to fundamentalists.  And it is this moral and intellectual dishonesty that will be their undoing, for all their pretensions to culture, poetry and talk of human rights.

 

More worryingly, the educated, like the fundamentalists, have shown themselves to possess fascist tendencies, making themselves the sole arbiters of what can and can’t be questioned and discussed, how and by whom.  The extremist appeals to god and revelation.  The educated, for all their intellectual posturing, have shown that they too are chained to similar shibboleths - as well as pretension.  That being the case, I’m afraid my money is on the fundamentalists.  They at least have guts and integrity, whereas the educated have neither.  As the saying goes, I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire!

PS.  Just as I was finishing this piece, I received the following tweet:

I am truly concerned for our youth...they seem to have no tolerance for difference of opinion …

Fancy!

(My response was that it was not just the youth that I was concerned about.)

And as I post this, I have just received this from Richard Dawkins:

Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644179-journal-axes-gene-research-on-jews-and-palestinians

Apparently, people complained.  Were they too offended by the results?  Is there any hope for the future?

 

Note: I have not mentioned the newspaper or the author in question because I do not want to risk endangering the poor man, but believe me, this all did actually happen!  And yes, these people are teaching and working in universities in the west.  Oh dear!

The Saudi Menace: an abuse of wealth and authority

I want to write about the pernicious international influence of Saudi Arabia that threatens the lives of people not just in Muslim countries but also here in the West.  The Saudi influence is particularly worrying for three reasons:

-    first, it is brain washing on an industrial scale and with negative consequences, especially for developing countries which need investment in decent education, not 7^th century propaganda; in the West, it is encouraging Muslim immigrants and their children to adopt a counter subculture that in many respects is not only opposed to western values, but seeks to replace them with Saudi-interpreted Islamic ones;

-    second, it is backed not just by huge financial resources, but comes laden with religious symbolism and self-proclaimed religious authority which gives it a false legitimacy; and

-    third, it is curiously schizophrenic and contradictory: within a western environment, it claims to celebrate  the achievements of Islamic, usually Arab, civilization (although it is not as if the Gulf Arabs are renowned for their enlightened views or respect for human rights); however, in Muslim communities (even within western countries) it is directed at projects that preach a narrow, fundamentalist and orthodox interpretation of Islam that is intolerant and brooks no opposition or debate.   Moreover, it seeks to enforce itself through the use of force. 

The latter view, unsurprisingly, is the obnoxious Saudi invented view of Islam called Wahabism and dominates the teaching in Quran schools, Islamic centres and madressas that the Saudis fund across the world. While in the Muslim third world this propaganda and brainwashing goes unchallenged, in the west it plays out under the guise of cultural institutions or charities.  In both instances, these projects are funded by Saudi financed cultural ministries.

The investment operates rather differently within a western environment, however.  The Saudis, and the Gulf Arabs, are a very insecure lot culturally, given their sparse contributions to world civilization compared to other nations and cultures.  (Even the 1001 nights are not really Arabian, but a compilation of stories from various other cultures.)  The Gulf Arabs reserve their most fervent insecurity for their old enemy, the Persians, who of course far surpass anything the desert Bedouins have ever come up with.  (No, I am not Persian, a Shia or from a Shia background!)  It is perhaps for this reason they are so keen to project themselves as ‘cultured’ to the West and eager to invest in centres such as the one in Oxford University.

While much was made of Libyan gifts to the LSE, Saudi donations towards the Islamic Centre in Oxford University have gone largely unnoticed.  No one has stopped to ask why if that civilization is worth promoting, the Saudis don’t invest in such projects in their own country or why they choose to support financially and ideologically religious schools that preach intolerance, fundamentalism, the disregard of human rights and any debate or investigation.  If the Saudis brown nose the Brits, the Brits are equally good at brown nosing the Saudis.  Money and oil lubricates this sordid mutual flattery.

I feel that these projects, whether in the Muslim world or in the West, need to be seen for what they are: an unwelcome interference and a cynical manipulation of what people within those communities think.  Ultimately, this impacts on all our lives and in a negative way.  This is especially the case in the third world, where education is grossly neglected by corrupt governments.  Here, it is not a case of a modern/progressive versus an orthodox/backward looking Islam, but rather two competing orthodox backward looking ideologies (the Saudis and Al-Qaeeda) – although sometimes I think they are two sides of the same coin.  In one respect, I think, the Saudi madressas provide the necessary mental preparation that makes its graduates so vulnerable to Al-Qaeeda/Taliban overtures.  In the West, this orthodox, backward ideology is trumpeted as a religious revival, a reclaiming of lost or stolen identity – and worse, political power. 

Unfortunately, Saudi authority rests on potent symbols: religion and wealth.  They (the Saudis) have successfully usurped religious authority through a mix of historical, cultural and geographical coincidence: they come from the same region as the Prophet Muhammed and so the cradle of Islam; are ethnically and culturally of the same stock as  the Prophet and have, within their borders, two of the holiest places of worship in Islam- Mecca and Medina.

In the eyes of many, therefore, they represent an embodiment of Islam and so to be Muslim is to be Arab, specifically Saudi Arab.  Arabic is the language of the Quran and any discourse on Islam is littered with Arabic phrases as if to couch them in local vernacular is being sacrilegious.  The most poignant example of this for me is the virtual eradication of a beautiful greeting that I grew up with: khuda hafiz (God protect you). Instead, in the narrow minds of many now it is more Islamic and more correct to say Allah hafiz, something that even an Arab wouldn’t dream of saying.  But Khuda is Persian, Allah is Arabic and god you see is – you guessed it - an Arab it seems! 

In this context, it is hard not to view as anything but cynical the adoption of an overtly religious flag with its Islamic declaration of faith, and more recently the adoption by their king of the title of “The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, a title historically associated with the Caliph in Islam (and one ironically adopted by the very Ottoman Sultans that the Saudis disliked so much and helped bring down).

I think for some these associations and symbols make criticism of the Saudis synonymous with criticism of the religion – and so blasphemous.  This keeps the Saudis safe, while the power they wield through oil keeps any criticism from the West at bay.  They like to play the great mediators, when in fact they are part of the problem not the solution.  It is noteworthy how they are always at the ready to offer support or give refuge to vile dictators or corrupt politicians from Uganda to Pakistan – and strangely silent over crises such as Darfur to name just one. 

Of course, what the Saudis do in their own time is their business – it is the negative effects of their interference and their hypocrisy that irks me.  Under the guise of education, they are spreading a narrow, rigid and fundamentalist ideology that comes close to being fascist in its outlook and forced implementation, easily degenerating into terrorism.  Of course, for the Saudis this matters not a jot – it is not they who are being killed.  In the meantime, while they support the preaching of a strict, puritanical Islam, they themselves escape to the West to indulge in the very decadence that their brand of Islam condemns. 

The hypocrisy of ‘converts’ or born again Muslims in the West is no better.  While enjoying the economic and social benefits of a liberal, enlightened society they see fit to not only criticise and mock it, but then to lecture on the virtues and benefits of Islamic societies, societies that their parents fled from and which these critics are welcome to return to if they consider the West so awful.  They see it as their human right to adopt their odious (and in my opinion, ignorant) views which in turn seek to deprive those same rights to others.  The contradiction is beyond their intellectual competence – or perhaps neatly pushed to one side by their hypocrisy. 
 

It reminds me of a silly Asian schoolgirl in London who took her school to court for not allowing her to wear ‘Islamic’ dress to school.  The school had allowed her to wear the shalwar-kameez common throughout the Indian subcontinent, but the misguided girl insisted the dress was not modest enough for Islam!  She wanted to dress like an Arab – the hallmark of a true observant Muslim in her eyes.  Who had put these silly notions into her head, I wonder?  Rightly, she lost her case. 

But it is time to stop tolerating such behaviour.  Enough is enough!

In a very small way I think this is beginning to be realised by the Pakistanis in London at least.  In a previous post I recounted my visit to a London mosque financed and run by Pakistanis.  At the time, I chose to emphasise a different aspect of this effort (an aspect that I think is still valid), but now I also see it as an attempt to take control of their religion rather than remain beholden to Saudi paymasters with their pernicious agenda.  I congratulate the Pakistanis on this awakening and wish them well. 

I admit I am not enthusiastic about their religion-focussed outlook - and while there I noticed that several of the men folk and children were attired in the Middle-eastern jalabiyah – a garment foreign to the Indian subcontinent, but no doubt worn in the mistaken belief that it is somehow more religious. But at least it's a start. 

And then, just this week I heard about a case in Pakistan where a woman had taken on two jobs - both menial - to pay for her children's schooling rather than send them to the free madressas on offer.    

But these are isolated incidents.  More is needed and on a bigger scale.  Until people, and the Muslims specifically, realise this and begin to see the wood for the trees, they will continue to be locked in a downward spiral of ignorance and servitude.  And until the West continues to turn a blind eye to the Saudis because it suits them they will be seen as colluders and hypocrites.  Worse, if they choose to ignore it through a misguided definition of and blind allegiance to plurality/multi-culturalism, they will have allowed the rot to set in their own societies.