Haroon Moghul June 20, 2003

Tags: Philosophy , Education

Harnessing Islam's Permanent Revolution

href="/tag/Islam">Islam and trumpet all things Western, as if civilization can only come in one form and progress consists in the march of years and no more. Such are most bothersome to me because an Islamist’s rhetoric, at the least, reflects facts on the ground and the long-term trends of the wider Islamic world. Those who argue the other extreme have not even this.

Indeed, these arguments rest upon the flimsiest foundations. Their continued survival only promotes a continuation of radical Islam – which would not be cause for remorse, but only if such arguments were likely to have any impact or struck upon manifest correctness.

It is said that Muslims are mired in ignorance, whereas the West is a beacon of light and progress. Sadly, the beacon has become too bright, preventing or at least hampering debate and democracy (in the United States). One only has to take several minutes pause over CNN, MSNBC – or, God forbid, FOX News – to understand that ignorance, backwardness and prejudice are not the exclusive province of the East.

While disturbingly large numbers of Muslims continue to believe that 9/11 was the product of a Zionist conspiracy, a similarly high percentage of Americans believe, incredibly enough, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Soon enough, as America prepares a possible attack on Syria (which would make the invasion of Iraq look challenging) or even Iran, a much more troublesome venture, Americans on the whole will become magically convinced that Bashar al-Assad and Ayatollah Khamene’i were behind 9/11 as well. Soon enough, it will become the cooperative effort of dozens of countries otherwise apparently at each other’s throats.

All those who contrasted, in absolute and Manichean terms, the West and the Islamic world, can no longer hold to such prejudgment. While America has much to be proud of, there is much to be worried over and disgusted by in its current civilization. For one thing, her taste for violence, satisfied by CNN and other channels that have made this invasion – and occupation – no more than a video game. Secondly, the incredible censorship accepted and promoted by American media; America is, among all industrial democracies, by far the least free. Thirdly, and here I shall stop, only for want of space, American arrogance and racism, barely alleviated since times of old – I refer to centuries past, from Crusades and onwards. This hatred simply finds new targets. And then bombs the hell out of them. How else can we explain the maddening cable news headlines, such as “The War In Iraq”? Yes, “in.” As if America was just another party in the conflict, rightfully inside a sovereign state.

Thus, when I hear that some Pakistanis see their country’s navigation possible only upon a course mapped by the West, and will in course of such argument reject out of hand the relevance of Islam, I am agitated. Yes, much is wrong with the world of Islam. But for those of us who have paid any attention to America in the last two years, we must consider that there is much wrong with America and her democracy. What, indeed, has such democracy done for the peoples of the world? Much good. But perhaps more evil.

The maps of every Muslim state, whether colonized or not, have been drawn by foreign powers. Among these states, the only ones that have succeeded in any way have been those that have been driven by a developed political ideology, some vision for themselves beyond simplistic tribalism. That is, Turkey, Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan are by far the most successful Muslim states (though, in this case, successful is a highly relative term). Hence, we can say that for a Muslim state to be successful, it must have a developed political ideology. But I would clarify this further: Such political ideology must be 1) Relevant and adaptable to this day and age; and, 2) Relevant for, and understandable and attractive to, the population of the state under consideration.

It is my contention that Islam can provide for Pakistan just such a political ideology – and it is the only worldview that can. Furthermore, in the entirety of the Muslim world, Islam will come to play such a role. Though I support such an outcome, I also say it out of conviction of its coming to pass. The challenge now is to explain, firstly, why Islam is relevant to Pakistan’s political structure – and why Pakistan belongs as part of a world that is consciously Islamic.

But perhaps my assertions do not assuage serious skepticism. For example, it is often asked, “How can Pakistan function in modernity if it defines itself off of a 7th century Arabian ‘import’?”

I can understand that many Muslims are frustrated by Islam’s leaders and their articulations of Islam, among which the greatest faults are the development of authoritarian discourses (common not only to Wahhabis but to many Sufis, both of whom practice – if not preach – a worrisome exclusivist discourse) and the lack of concern for the real problems of the day. But this is not reason to discard the religion altogether, not only because as an argument it fails, but also because it ignores the reality and scope of the religion.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence for the United States, he did so by taking liberally from the ideas of John Locke: the goals of life, liberty and property were transformed into the protection of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by which Jefferson, no small landowner himself, would have doubtless felt properties played a significant role.

Far prior to this, in the 7th and 8th centuries, Muslim jurists declared that the goals of Islamic Law were the protection of life, honor, property, intellect and religion, with respect to the ethics and morality of Revelation. And this is only one example of the output of Islamic law, in the time when its education was geared towards a critical and thoughtful perspective – as opposed to current times. However, Islam is somehow faulted nonetheless, as if it must be irrelevant to our time because its founder had not utilized the steam engine or been aware of its possibilities.

If one is to argue that an ideology, philosophy or religion is not relevant simply because it is not absolutely current, then the guiding systems of the West, the East, and all that is in between, would have to be cast off. If one on the other hand claims that Western philosophies that emerged in the 16th and 17th century are relevant, but Islam – having its origins in the 7th century – is not, then I know not what to say. Such division is wholly arbitrary, and beyond that, incorrect. Though Western philosophy and culture as we know it now was born in the period between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, it was in direct reaction to and thus inseparable from Christianity, much older than Islam.

There is also the supposed problem of Islam’s Arab “origins.” The position is forwarded that Pakistan, a South Asian state, has nothing to do with Arabia. Not only is this wrong (consider Urdu’s script, or something as significant as the names we choose for our children), but often, it is racist as well. Among other refutations, I have heard this: “Look how Arabs treat Pakistanis!” Unless the maker of such claim has visited every single Arab, and has looked into his or her heart, I do not understand how such position can be held. While doubtless some Arabs exhibit racist attitudes towards Pakistanis, many others do not, and in fact, I have been on the receiving end of incredible hospitality from Arabs of numerous countries, and that because I was a Muslim like them. That I was of Pakistani origin made no difference.

A person complains of racism and then argues that reducing the influence of a religion that, ideally, rejects racism, will somehow fix the problem. We would not be able to take such a person seriously. Were we to remove Islam from the picture (however this is possible, I do not know), there would still be cause for racism and prejudice. People will divide themselves from each other on any reason – this is a moral fault and not necessarily the immediate fault of ethnicity, culture or religion. If not religion, then region. If not region, then language. If not language, then tribe. And one could go on forever.

Furthermore, were one to review the texts of Islam, one would find little reference to Arabism. The Qur’an’s most common forms of address are as follows: “O Humanity!” “O Believers!” “O People!” Never once does the Qur’an say: “O Arabs!” At most, it says, “We have sent this book down in an Arabic [literally, clear] tongue, that you might understand it.” While this poses difficulties for non-Arabs, it does not automatically exclude them. Consider that many readers were born in India or Pakistan, whose first language might have been Punjabi or Hindi, yet who are conversant in English simply because it is helpful for them to be so. Are we so small as human beings that the learning of a second language is offensive and degrading? I would rather consider it a wonderful broadening of horizons.

Islam’s Arab origins have in fact stamped themselves on non-Arab Muslim societies, but only because many of the pioneers of Islam were Arabs and could not wholly separate their culture from their religion. But does that not show that Islam strengthens and advances a culture? Consider that Pakistan’s Islamic traditions are so different from Iran’s, or the Arab world’s, in part because much of Pakistan’s Islam has been molded by Turkic and also indigenous influences. That is to say, Islam’s forces of diffusion share their own cultures, producing in Pakistan what I consider to be a deeply attractive mix of indigenous, Turkic, Iranian and Arab influences.

Nor is it possible to say that any society is free of such influence. While Islam was birthed in Arabia, its rapid progress necessarily brought the world to the Arabs and changed the Arabs forever. Consider the incredible variety of Arabic dialects and cultures, the product of Arab interaction with, and exposure to, numerous different regions. Were the first Islamic armies forces of Arab imperialism, they would have imposed a Hejazi (Western Penninsular Arabian) culture in uniformity – or they would have attempted to do so. But instead, their Arabic and their culture, even in contact with other Semites, also changed to a large extent, so much so that an Arab from Morocco cannot understand an Arab from Qatar, unless they speak in formal Arabic. The vernaculars are all but unintelligible.

That is to say, there is no such thing as a pure civilization. I am worried by those who wish to extract Islam from Pakistan. For neither do they have replacement (how can one replace what is perhaps the only factor that holds Pakistan together?), but also, their obsession with “purity” holds traces of ugly racialism and tribalism. Ataturk attempted to cleanse Turkey of non-Turkic influences, and as a result, produced a country torn to this day over a conflict with Kurds over language. That is, some Turks are so insecure about their identity, though they claim Ataturk elevated and salved them ethnically and linguistically, that they cannot stand the idea of a different language in public forum.

But there are also those who do not attack Islam outright, but propose that Pakistan belongs to the Indian sphere, or the Western sphere, or basically any sphere except the one that the vast majority of its inhabitants consider themselves a part of, and are culturally, politically and historically most intimately connected to. Islam is the face of Pakistan, its past stretching back a millennium, its present and doubtless also its future.

The bigger question, to which I now must forward myself, is: what kind of future?

Wrongly, many argue that Islam refuses alternative explanations and enforces singular narrow-mindedness. In fact, Islam is one of the most vibrant religions in existence, with such a mind-bending divergence of opinions that it has rendered itself almost entirely fractured and incapable of unity. Though I regret this social, political and intellectual reality, I am proud of the facts behind it: As sociologist Ernest Gellner noted, “Islam is [in a state of] permanent revolution.”

In Iran during the 1980’s, Islamic parties spanned the economic, social and political spectrum. Even among those groups that were allowed to run for office were parties arguing, on the one hand, for third worldism, state-run industry and heavy nationalization, pitted against capitalist Ayatollahs who even opposed a minimum wage, arguing that wages would define themselves in what they termed an “Islamic free market.” If this is not proof of the seeds of a Muslim pluralism, I do not know what can be. But granted, Iran to this day suffers under a form of theocracy. Tellingly, however, the most significant opposition to this development is in the name of Islam, and led by clerics. This stems from Islam’s emphasis on universal clerisy, to an extent unseen in any other world religion.

Some argue that Islam legitimizes monopolization of power. It has and often does, but at the same time, it cannot guarantee it and will in fact opposite it, for Islam cannot and has not ever been monopolized, but always creates conditions for resistance to inroads against its independent – that is, temporally and politically – influence and authority. This is why Islam shows so much extremism and fundamentalism, and why no matter how hard the Saudi family tries to impose itself in the name of religion, there will always be rejection and opposition – whether moderate, in the form of the CDLR, or radical, in the form of Bin Laden.

More than any other religion, Islam’s permanent revolution is as a defense mechanism against the weakening of the religion itself. That Islam has no clergy, and places the onus of leadership (khilafat, or vicegerency) on the individual, is cause for Islam’s radical individualism. Different from a secular conception and understanding of the term, yes, but visible still in that Islamic movements will simply not bow completely to worldly authority.

Should we ignore this often overlooked reality, we will continue to watch the Islamic world prey to constant conflict. Should we, on the other hand, accept this and legitimate Islam’s inherently autonomous and independent nature within an authoritative framework, capable of balancing such differentiation and channeling it in positive directions, we will create the capacity for a society more engaging and balanced (though not democratic in the secular sense) than anything else in existence.

The challenge for Pakistan then is to develop an Islamic critique of authoritarianism while simultaneously respecting and allowing for an Islamic basis to society, in light of what we must understand as Islam’s permanent revolution. Should this be accomplished, the natural institutions of Islamic life, such as mosque, Sufi order, school of thought, class of jurists, extended family, free trade and commerce, and the rights ideally guaranteed by Shari’ah, could create a remarkable society – however distant this may seem.

Perhaps I am a fool for believing it is possible in Pakistan. But despite Pakistan’s many ups and downs, and the counter-arguments of some who seem not to understand the direction of history, there is great potential and promise. Pakistan will find her future in her past, as will the rest of the Islamic world. This is not so much suggestion and consideration as it is prediction and expectation. What lies in the hands of people, all of whom are made by Islam to be responsible for such, is how this development paces itself and how it unfolds.