Monday, September 05, 2005

"Enlightened Moderation" explained!

Salam alaikum!


The website of the Tanzeem-i-Islami organization, founded by renowned Islamic scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed has an excellent "Articles" section, where articles on current affairs and Islamic philosophy are posted and updated. Due to my high regard for Dr. Israr Ahmed, his views, his ideologies, I often visit the website of Tanzeem-i-Islami.

Ubaidullah Jan writes regularly at this website and his articles are very informative. I was, thus, delighted to see that he updated his "Current Affairs" section with an article on the concept of "Enlightened Moderation in Islam" which Pervez Musharraf has been propounding for quite a while now.

Though I have my own criticisms and comments regarding "Enlightened Moderation", I believe Tanzeem-i-Islami presented an excellent analysis. I'm posting it here for anyone interested in Musharraf and his pro-American, anti-Islamic, opportunistic, degrading policies.
You can also see the article here.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Moderate Islam or Effective Subservience" by Ubaidullah Jan

On the opposite ends of the broad spectrum of anti-Islam views, there are two very general and deep-rooted misconceptions: one that the Holy Qur?an preaches intolerance, and the other that Islam is a religion of peace alone. Misrepresentations on the part of both Muslims and non-Muslims could go no further.
The basic principle of Islam, a faith in all the prophets of the world, is enough to give the lie to the first misconception. The Qur?an that preaches not only love and respect for the founders of the great religions of the world, but much more than that — faith in them — could not shrink down to the narrowness of intolerance for those very religions.
Zero tolerance for zulm — injustice and oppression — in Islam negates the second misconception that it is a religion of peace alone.
To demystify this pair of grand misconceptions, we need to study words and deeds of the present day self proclaimed “moderates” who are exploiting the second misconception in their favor, which indirectly leads to consolidation of the first.

Analysis of Musharraf?s approach

Musharraf?s adding “enlightened” to “moderation” gives an impression as if other opportunists are preaching some kind of inferior or benighted moderation. However, his best explanation could hardly tell the difference between the confusion which several others are spreading in the name of moderate Islam for their self-interest.
[1]
According to Musharraf, the “suffering” of his “brethren in faith” at the “hands of militants, extremists, terrorists, have inspired” him to come up with “the strategy of Enlightened Moderation.” Here we must note that Musharraf: a) tries to kill two birds in one shot, i.e., to please both Muslims and the enemies of Islam; b) presents ?enlightened moderation? as a strategy not a value or a form of Islam to avoid annoying Muslims; c) confirms Islamophobes perspective that the root of the global turmoil lies with Muslims alone; d) gives legitimacy to the Islamophobes classification of Muslims and Islam e) attempts to show that Islam and secularism are compatible, and f) hides the source of his inspiration — his self interest.

This article is very long to be posted in full here. Please check it out at the link below:
Enlightened Moderation or Effective Subservience

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine sent me this article by legendary Pakistani cricket player Imran Khan who is now anactive politician and MNA.Tis is what he says:

"My Generation grew up at a time when colonial hang up was at its peak. Our older generation had been slaves and had a huge inferiority complex of the British. The school I went to was similar to all elite schools in Pakistan. Despite becoming independent, they were, and still are, producing replicas of public school boys rather than Pakistanis. I read Shakespeare which was fine, but no Allama Iqbal. The Islamic class was not considered serious, and when I left the school I was amongst the elite of the country because I could speak English and wore western clothes. Despite periodically shouting Pakistan Zindabad (“long live Pakistan”) I considered my own culture backward, lslamn outdated religion. Amongst our group if anyone talked about religion, prayed or kept a beard he was immediately branded a Mullah. Because of the power of the Western Media, all our heroes were western movie or pop stars. When I went to Oxford already burdened with this hang up from my school days, things didn't get any easier. In University not just Islam but all religions were considered anachronism. Science had replaced religion and if something couldn't be logically proved it did not exist. All supernatural stuff was confined to the movies. Philosophers like Darwin who with his half baked theory of evolution was supposed to have disproved the creation of man and hence religion. Moreover, the European history had an awful experience with religion. The horrors committed by the Christian clergy in the name of God during the Inquisition had left a powerful impact on the western mind. To understand why the West is so keen on secularism, one should go to places like Cordoba in Spain and see torture apparatus used during Spanish Inquisition. Also the persecution of scientists as heretics by the clergy and convinced the Europeans that all religions are regressive.
However, the biggest factor that drove people like me away from religion was the selective Islam practised by most of its preachers. In other words, there was a huge difference between what they practised and what they preached. Also, rather than explaining the philosophy behind the religion, there was an over emphasis on rituals. I feel that humans are different than animals where the latter can be drilled, humans need to be intellectually convinced. That is why the Quran constantly appeals to reason. The worst of course, was the exploitation of Islam for political gains by various individuals or groups.
Hence, it was a miracle I did not become an atheist. The only reason why I did not was the powerful religious influence wielded by my mother on me since my childhood. It was not so much out of conviction but love for her that I stayed a Muslim. However, my Islam was selective i.e. I accepted only parts of the religion that suited me. Prayers were restricted to Eid days and occasionally on Fridays, when my father insisted on taking me with him. If there was a God I was not sure about it and certainly felt that he did not interfere with my life. All in all I was smoothly moving to becoming a Pukka Brown Sahib [Totally Anglicized Pakistani]. After all I had the right credentials in terms of the right school, university and above all, acceptability in the English aristocracy, something that our brown sahibs would give their lives for. So what led me to do a lota [turn your back to] on the Brown Sahib culture and instead become a Desi? Well it did not just happen overnight.
Firstly, the inferiority complex that my generation had inherited gradually waned as I developed into a world class athlete. Secondly, I had the unique position of living between two cultures. I began to see the advantages and the disadvantages of both the societies. In western societies, institutions were strong while they were collapsing in our country. However, there was an area where we were and still are superior, and that is our family life. I used to notice the loneliness of the old-age pensioners at Hove Cricket ground (during my Sussex years). Imagine sending your parents to Old Peoples' Homes! Even the children there never had the sort of love and warmth that we grew up with here. They completely miss out on the security blanket that a joint family system provides. However, I began to realize that the biggest loss to the western society and that in trying to free itself from the oppression of the clergy, they had removed both God and religion from their lives. While science can answer a lot of questions, no matter how much it progresses, two questions it will never be able to answer: One, what is the purpose of the existence and two, what happens to us when we die? It is this vacuum that I felt created the materialistic and the hedonistic culture. If this is the only life then one must make hay while the sun shines-and in order to do so one needs money. Such a culture is bound to cause psychological problems in a human being, as there is going to be an imbalance between the body and the soul. Consequently, in the USA, which has shown the greatest materialistic progress and also gives its citizens the greatest human rights, almost 60 per cent of the population consults psychiatrists. Yet, amazingly in modern psychology, there is no study of the human soul. Sweden and Switzerland, who provide the most welfare to their citizens, also have the highest suicide rates; hence, man is not necessarily content with material well being, he needs something more.
Morality has it roots in religion, once religion is removed; immorality has progressively escalates like since the 70's. The direct impact of it is on the family life. In UK, the divorce rate is 60 per cent, while it is estimated that there are over 35 per cent single mothers. The crime rate is rising in almost all western societies, but the most disturbing fact is the alarming increase in racism. While science always tries to prove the inequality of man (recent survey showing the American Black to be genetically less intelligent than whites) it is only religion which preaches the equality of man. Between '91 and '97, it was estimated that total immigration into Europe was around 520,000, and there were racially motivated attacks all over, especially in Britain, France and Germany. In Pakistan during the Afghan war, we had over four million refugees, and despite the people being so much poorer here and in the NWFP, they suffered a considerable loss in their standard of living as a result of the refugees yet, there was no racial tension. No wonder, last year in Britain religious education was reintroduced in their schools.
There was a sequence of events in the 80's that moved me towards God as the Quran says: "There are signs for people of understanding." One of them was cricket. As I was a student of the game, the more I understood the game, the more I began to realize that what I considered to be chance was, in fact, the will of Allah, the pattern which became clearer with time. But it was not until I read Salman Rushdie's “Satanic Verses” that my understanding of Islam began to develop. People like me who were living in the western world bore the brunt of anti-Islam prejudice that followed the Muslim reaction to the book. We were left with two choices: fight or flight. Since I felt strongly that the attacks on Islam were unfair, I decided to fight. It was then I realized that I was not equipped to do so as my knowledge of Islam was inadequate, Hence I started my research and for me a period of my greatest enlightenment. I read scholars like Ali Shariati, Mohammad Asad, Iqbal, Gai Eaton and of course, a thorough study of the Holy Quran.
I will try to explain as concisely as is possible, what "discovering the truth" meant for me. When the believers are addressed in the Quran, it always says, "Those who believe and do good deeds." In other words, a Muslim has dual function, one towards God and the other towards fellow human beings. The greatest impact of believing in God for me meant that I lost all fear of human beings. The Quran liberates man from man when it says that life and death and respect and humiliation are God's jurisdiction, so we do not have to bow before other human beings. As Iqbal puts it, Wo aik Sajda jisay tu giran samajhta hai, hazaar sajdon say deta hai admi ko nijaat. [The bowing that you despise is such that it frees you from bowing down before millions.]
Moreover, since this is a transitory world where we prepare for the eternal one, I broke out of the self-imposed prisons, such as growing old (such a curse in the western world, as a result of which, plastic surgeons are having a field day), materialism, ego, what people say and so on. It is important to note that one does not eliminate the earthly desires rather instead of being controlled by them, one controls them.
By following the second part of believing in Islam, I have become a better human being. Rather than being self-centered and living for the self, I feel that since the Almighty gave so much to me, in return I must use that blessing to help the less privileged. By following the fundamentals of Islam rather than becoming a Kalashnikov-wielding fanatic, I have become a tolerant and a giving human being who feels compassion for the under privileged. Instead of attributing success to myself, I know it is because of God's will, hence humility instead of arrogance. Also, instead of the snobbish Brown Sahib attitude towards our masses, I believe in egalitarianism and detest the injustice done to the weak in our society. According to the Quran, "Oppression is worse than killing." In fact only now do I understand the true meaning of Islam which is based on attaining inner peace by submitting your will to Allah.
Through my faith, I have discovered the strength within me that has released my potential in life. My education programme that I intend to announce is far more ambitious than the cancer hospital project. I feel that in Pakistan we have selective Islam. Just believing in God and going through the rituals is not enough .One also has to be a good human being. I feel there are certain western countries with far more Islamic traits than us, especially in the way they protect the rights of their citizens, or their justice system for that matter. In fact some of the finest individuals I know live there. What I dislike about them is their double-standards in the way they protect the rights of their citizens and yet consider citizens of other countries somehow inferior to them, e.g. dumping toxic waste in the Third World, advertising cigarettes that are not allowed in the west and selling drugs that are banned in the west.
One of the problems facing Pakistan is the polarization of two reactionary groups. On one side is the westernized group that looks upon Islam through western eyes and has inadequate knowledge about the subject. It reacts to any one trying to impose Islam in the society and wants only a selective part of the religion. On the other hand is an extreme group that reacts to these westernized elite and in trying to become a defender of the faith, takes up such intolerant and self-righteous attitudes that are repugnant to the spirit of Islam.
What needs to be done is to somehow start a dialogue between the two extreme. In order for this to happen, the group on whom the greatest proportion of our educational resources is spent in this country must study Islam properly. Whether they become practicing Muslims or believe in God is entirely a personal choice; as the Quran tells us that there is "no compulsion in religion." However, they must arm themselves with knowledge as a weapon to fight extremism. By turning up their noses at extremism is not going to solve the problem. The Quran calls Muslims "the middle nation", i.e. not of extremes. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) was told to simply give the message and not worry whether people converted or not, therefore, there is no question in Islam of coecing your opinions on any one else.
Moreover, we are told to respect other religions, their places of worship and their prophets. It should be noted that no Muslim missionaries or armies ever went to Malaysia or Indonesia. The people converted to Islam due to the high principles and impeccable character of the Muslim traders. At the moment, the worst advertisements for Islam are the Muslim countries with their selective Islam, especially where the religion is used to deprive people of their rights. In fact, a society that obeys fundamentals of Islam has to be a liberal one.
If our westernized class starts to study Islam, not only will it be able to help our society fight sectarianism and extremism, but it will also make them understand what a progressive religion Islam is. They will also be able to help the western world by articulating Islamic concepts. Last year, Prince Charles accepted that the western world can learn from Islam during his speech at the Oxford Union. But how can this happen if the group that is in the best position to project Islam gets its attitudes from the west and considers Islam backward? Islam is a universal religion and that is why our Prophet (PBUH) was called a mercy for all mankind.
The Death of Lady Diana was very touching and was felt by all races and religions. As far I would like to comment on the subject goes that she had a great interest and admiration for the religion of Islam. She would always be inquisitive about it. After my marriage to Jemima she saw the wonders of Islam and how it had reformed Haiqa. As I look at it, her marriage to Dodi and the possible threat it posed were strongly felt in the west, of Diana’s converting to Islam, or even carrying an Islamic name, as she would have still been the mother of the future King. Only Allah knows the Truth".

What's Diana got to do with the selective Islam in Pakisatn!

Ameera said...

Actually, I was quite interested in this! He's written it well, but somehow, he's being a little hypocritical about "selective Islam".

Jihad is a very important part of Islam. The last stage of Jihad is 'armed struggle'. Somehow, I get the feeling that Imran Khan totally cut it out. The image that such people portray of 'peace-loving Muslims who would never, ever slay another person' is wrong. Armed struggle, even if it is not applicable in the current times, until we undertake the more important Jihads, is still a major part!

I would have appreciated it if he'd have mentioned that, "Yes, there does come a stage when even a Muslim has to fight for his religion but the other aspects of Jihad are given priority in Islam - to become a just person, to work to establish the laws of Allah on land, to be of benefit to every person, Muslim or Non-Muslim." That would be accurate! And ofcourse, when I say 'fight for his religion', I mean in the Islamic way - army against army, not random slaughter of all human beings.

Yes, the Diana comment was totally out of place!