What's new

Poison Spitting Spiders

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
32,585
98
38,698
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
COMMENT: Poison spitting spiders: our televangelists —Mehboob Qadir



We have been deprived of our natural goodness towards others and we have stopped seeing people from differing faiths as human beings. We are being led blindfolded to the precipice of baseness and destruction.

High priests of religious dogma and pleaders of sensible humanitarianism have always differed on how to deal with dissent and default in society. This has been an eternal and ongoing tussle between the two. Dogma and its hard crusted practitioners have invariably shown a tendency to apply their largely punitive strictures with a singular lack of care and regardless of the pain it may inflict whereas rational, sensible humanists have always pleaded for compassion, empathy and understanding of hardships and suffering.

This is how it, more or less, began in most religions. With the passage of time, as their grip over the captive followers grew tighter and wealth in their coffers piled up, these high priests graduated into self-preserving, double speaking hypocrites. They could twist their edicts to suit the status of the customer with great skill and well-polished finesse. On the other side of this unequal equation, the humanists continued to walk the same rocky path just as they had started off the first day, once in a while becoming the butt of the priests’ ire and being persecuted for lack of faith or heresy.

Mullahs are no exception, despite their hollow claims and howling speeches. Exercise of power over the lives of the caged faithful without the responsibility for the consequences of their edicts is their speciality and a favourite preoccupation. In their twisted logic, the justification for such heartlessness lies in the divine authority, albeit as interpreted by them. The other serious deformity is their complete lack of rational interpretation of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) in its historical and contemporary perspective. This discussion cannot be opened as they had shut the doors of enquiry upon themselves 700 years ago. This sorry scheme of things entire has often resulted in comic situations, but more than that in tragic consequences for our society.

Historically there has always been a conflict between the thoroughly soaked, faith-coated mullah and the empathetic, soft practitioner of faith. Mostly the spiteful mullah won but lasting victory always went to the liberal souls. The stories of Mansûr al-Hallâj, Shah Shams Tabriz, Baba Bulleh Shah and Madho Lal Hussain are proof that these great visionary men were persecuted by the ferocious mullahs of the time. Mansûr al-Hallâj was even executed. But their message of peace, solace and humanity spread. They are revered to this day, even after hundreds of years of their death. But no one remembers the unforgiving mullahs who so mercilessly persecuted them. The lesson is clear; it is not the remorseless edict of the mullah but the soulful message of the visionary that lasts.

Into this dead sea of malice and misery, a new breed of mullahs has surfaced. These are the televangelist maulanas of our electronic media. This specie is suave, fashion savvy, highly media conscious and perfect play actors. The stages they set can beat the Oscar Awards saga hands down any time. They are, however, presented in the typically traditional mould with robes and rosaries all neatly in place, in order not to startle the unsuspecting audience. Their TV performances look remarkably real but pathetically self-serving and tainted. The worry is that because of the vast outreach and real time interactivity, i.e. cell/tele calls, texting and e-mails, etc, their influence is disproportionately greater. Therefore, their ability to induce tainted or archaic notions into our religious practices is that much more fearsome. Except a few and far between noble exceptions, all of these have the capacity to inject their dark dogma into their prey with fearful precision and deadly effect. Mullah Fazlullah had drugged Swatis with his sick speeches using only a rudimentary radio transmitter; one can imagine what TV can do. Our commercial and official TV channels need to be held accountable one day for the enormous confusion in matters of faith they helped cause by letting these hate-mongers out onto their viewers.

There is this pop singer turned fervent preacher who, with all his looks of a new convert and projected zeal of a servant of faith, is trying to promote ‘halal vaccine’ by a medicines company, possibly for a hefty sum in his account. There could be nothing more ridiculous than this sick idea and more nauseating a performance after years of (sham) religiousness. On yet another channel we have a fairly well watched religious programme going, thanks to the colourful personality of the gifted host who can sing and preach within seconds of each other with perfect ease. On that channel one day a soft-spoken rotund maulana took no time to fall from grace while responding to a childless wife’s call, distressed by her husband’s intention to go for a second marriage. It appeared a real agony for her after years of marriage. Without blinking even once, this leader of the faith went to great diplomatic and religious lengths to convince the poor soul to let her husband marry again. To add insult to injury, he even suggested to her to help her husband select a suitable new bride. Utterly preposterous!

This was one of the most pathetic performances one has ever seen. Instead one had ardently expected him to counsel her husband to be reasonable and caring enough not to destroy the companionship of years for the remote hope of a child from another wife. He did not even ask if needful medical tests were done to determine deficiency and any treatment done, that modern science had the ability to treat just such a condition or present alternatives. No, he was not moved by the desperate cry of pain raised by that woman; the humanity of the appeal. He was more content with imperiously slapping on her, yet again, the ‘inviolable’ divinity of the multiple marriages allowed to men.

Sorrowfully, it is the likes of these people who in collusion with our TV channels have picked up an additional whip, entered our living rooms and are lashing the captive faithful pitilessly. Our faith is already badly mauled by their brutal brethren out in the street and is gasping for life. We need to be spared further torment. Their endless sermons and awfully circular reasoning that always tends to confirm and secure their own authority over our lives are oppressive. We have been deprived of our natural goodness towards others and we have stopped seeing people from differing faiths as human beings. Slowly we are being converted into faith-propelled, hate-filled zombies ready to pounce upon those who do not see what these mullahs have told us to see. We are being led blindfolded to the precipice of baseness and destruction. Please allow us to be simple practicing Muslims, just decent caring human beings. Leave us alone in our homes and let us live. We have had enough.

“Myself when young did eagerly frequent doctor and saint, and heard great argument about it and about: but evermore came out by the same door as in I went” — Omar Khayyam.

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
 
Poison spitting spiders: our televangelists
Mehboob Qadir



High priests of religious dogma and pleaders of sensible humanitarianism have always differed on how to deal with dissent and default in society. This has been an eternal and ongoing tussle between the two. Dogma and its hard crusted practitioners have invariably shown a tendency to apply their largely punitive strictures with a singular lack of care and regardless of the pain it may inflict whereas rational, sensible humanists have always pleaded for compassion, empathy and understanding of hardships and suffering.

This is how it, more or less, began in most religions. With the passage of time, as their grip over the captive followers grew tighter and wealth in their coffers piled up, these high priests graduated into self-preserving, double speaking hypocrites. They could twist their edicts to suit the status of the customer with great skill and well-polished finesse. On the other side of this unequal equation, the humanists continued to walk the same rocky path just as they had started off the first day, once in a while becoming the butt of the priests’ ire and being persecuted for lack of faith or heresy.

Mullahs are no exception, despite their hollow claims and howling speeches. Exercise of power over the lives of the caged faithful without the responsibility for the consequences of their edicts is their speciality and a favourite preoccupation. In their twisted logic, the justification for such heartlessness lies in the divine authority, albeit as interpreted by them. The other serious deformity is their complete lack of rational interpretation of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) in its historical and contemporary perspective. This discussion cannot be opened as they had shut the doors of enquiry upon themselves 700 years ago. This sorry scheme of things entire has often resulted in comic situations, but more than that in tragic consequences for our society.

Historically there has always been a conflict between the thoroughly soaked, faith-coated mullah and the empathetic, soft practitioner of faith. Mostly the spiteful mullah won but lasting victory always went to the liberal souls. The stories of Mansûr al-Hallâj, Shah Shams Tabriz, Baba Bulleh Shah and Madho Lal Hussain are proof that these great visionary men were persecuted by the ferocious mullahs of the time. Mansûr al-Hallâj was even executed. But their message of peace, solace and humanity spread. They are revered to this day, even after hundreds of years of their death. But no one remembers the unforgiving mullahs who so mercilessly persecuted them. The lesson is clear; it is not the remorseless edict of the mullah but the soulful message of the visionary that lasts.

Into this dead sea of malice and misery, a new breed of mullahs has surfaced. These are the televangelist maulanas of our electronic media. This specie is suave, fashion savvy, highly media conscious and perfect play actors. The stages they set can beat the Oscar Awards saga hands down any time. They are, however, presented in the typically traditional mould with robes and rosaries all neatly in place, in order not to startle the unsuspecting audience. Their TV performances look remarkably real but pathetically self-serving and tainted. The worry is that because of the vast outreach and real time interactivity, i.e. cell/tele calls, texting and e-mails, etc, their influence is disproportionately greater. Therefore, their ability to induce tainted or archaic notions into our religious practices is that much more fearsome. Except a few and far between noble exceptions, all of these have the capacity to inject their dark dogma into their prey with fearful precision and deadly effect. Mullah Fazlullah had drugged Swatis with his sick speeches using only a rudimentary radio transmitter; one can imagine what TV can do. Our commercial and official TV channels need to be held accountable one day for the enormous confusion in matters of faith they helped cause by letting these hate-mongers out onto their viewers.

There is this pop singer turned fervent preacher who, with all his looks of a new convert and projected zeal of a servant of faith, is trying to promote ‘halal vaccine’ by a medicines company, possibly for a hefty sum in his account. There could be nothing more ridiculous than this sick idea and more nauseating a performance after years of (sham) religiousness. On yet another channel we have a fairly well watched religious programme going, thanks to the colourful personality of the gifted host who can sing and preach within seconds of each other with perfect ease. On that channel one day a soft-spoken rotund maulana took no time to fall from grace while responding to a childless wife’s call, distressed by her husband’s intention to go for a second marriage. It appeared a real agony for her after years of marriage. Without blinking even once, this leader of the faith went to great diplomatic and religious lengths to convince the poor soul to let her husband marry again. To add insult to injury, he even suggested to her to help her husband select a suitable new bride. Utterly preposterous!

This was one of the most pathetic performances one has ever seen. Instead one had ardently expected him to counsel her husband to be reasonable and caring enough not to destroy the companionship of years for the remote hope of a child from another wife. He did not even ask if needful medical tests were done to determine deficiency and any treatment done, that modern science had the ability to treat just such a condition or present alternatives. No, he was not moved by the desperate cry of pain raised by that woman; the humanity of the appeal. He was more content with imperiously slapping on her, yet again, the ‘inviolable’ divinity of the multiple marriages allowed to men.

Sorrowfully, it is the likes of these people who in collusion with our TV channels have picked up an additional whip, entered our living rooms and are lashing the captive faithful pitilessly. Our faith is already badly mauled by their brutal brethren out in the street and is gasping for life. We need to be spared further torment. Their endless sermons and awfully circular reasoning that always tends to confirm and secure their own authority over our lives are oppressive. We have been deprived of our natural goodness towards others and we have stopped seeing people from differing faiths as human beings. Slowly we are being converted into faith-propelled, hate-filled zombies ready to pounce upon those who do not see what these mullahs have told us to see. We are being led blindfolded to the precipice of baseness and destruction. Please allow us to be simple practicing Muslims, just decent caring human beings. Leave us alone in our homes and let us live. We have had enough.

“Myself when young did eagerly frequent doctor and saint, and heard great argument about it and about: but evermore came out by the same door as in I went” — Omar Khayyam.


The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
 
For those who want the summary and conclusion of this post and the thread aswell.

(4 paragraph)
Mostly the spiteful mullah won but lasting victory always went to the liberal souls.
 
these money seeking private TV channels must all be finished, they have done enough harm to our society

Come on now, you are smarter than that - the channels earn their keep by selling advertisements on behalf of companies, you want the companies to stop funding these programs?? Write to them, make your voice heard in news paper letters, in OP/Ed pieces - no business wants to lose you, the customer - write to them, tell what you think, write to the TV companies, to their managers.

this is what has to be done, and it has to be done by persons such as yourself - own them, they way to do it is to amake your voice heard

---------- Post added at 12:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------

Safriz

A little knowledge is dangerous - please do some research regarding the turmoil between the Khalifa and the Ulema and the context in which Al-Hallaj was executed -- Suf from the Arabic for "wool"
 
[/COLOR]Safriz

A little knowledge is dangerous - please do some research regarding the turmoil between the Khalifa and the Ulema and the context in which Al-Hallaj was executed -- Suf from the Arabic for "wool"

yes partial knowledge is bad..and often misguides...agreed

But the moment he shouted Ana-al Haqq was discussed multiple times in front of me by well educated people in the subject and that was their understanding of why he said so..
The political context of why he was punished is what i dont know and did not comment about..

But will try to find out..
 
the fact that our media even manages to establish contact with militants/terrorists just to get a spicy story --it leaves me simply flustered.

we give those lizard-eaters the air-time which they seek.....


we havent done enough to marginalize them; humiliate and ridicule them and their illogical thinking
 
Anti-women bias in fiqh
Mehboob Qadir


Islam is a great religion and unique in the sense that it is the first ever religion which after revelation transformed into a socio-political system more than a religion. Besides matters of faith, it regulates the social, political, economic, judicial and family life of its followers. Thus it affects Muslim society and any other social system that might interact with it in a profound manner.

For such a grand sweep and irresistible outreach, ordinarily, libraries full of books and explanatory materials should be needed. But under divine wisdom, all that and much more was condensed into the world’s most well-preserved, extremely expressive and splendidly fluent single book called the Holy Quran.

A book of such depth and enormous span had to be precise, succinct, yet immensely accurate and meaningful to be explained to its followers and understood. For that a cutting edge intellect, a truer sense of history and a universal vision of humanity is required before attempting to explain the divine purpose and intent of the Quranic injunctions. That is called the level of paraphrasing the verses by expert scholars. And this is where a travesty of the knowledge of Quran may have occurred in Muslim societies.

Slowly and gradually, a select group of men called ulema (religious scholars) began to self-appoint themselves the sole keepers of the Quranic theology and deliberately monopolised it. A few voices that were raised were silenced through various means of coercion and persuasion. The result has been a huge but continuously disentitled Muslim mass, which is held hostage to the will and whims of the self-appointed and self-assigned ulema where the practice of faith is concerned.

The web has been so painstakingly designed and in such a circular manner that those ulema who are visionaries and truly enlightened find it extremely difficult to beat a sensible path in many matters of faith and modernity. They feel terribly constrained to pick up from within the same material that has rusted since the last at least 700 years without a single groundbreaking scholarly/research work.

King Saud’s official grand Sheikh had issued an edict that telephone was haram till the Saudi King arranged a surprise telephone call for him to his ailing mother a few hundred miles away. He reversed his fatwa. So much for their much feared and revered edicts.

These edicts or fatwas are not issued in thin air. They are backed up by piles and piles of books of ‘renowned’ scholars, precedents and references from fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Fiqh has come to be regarded as the sum total of Quranic teachings, the traditions and practices of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and authenticated by the ‘super ulema’ called Imams — the revered four for Sunnis and many more for other sub-sects. Fiqh is the ultimate seal of authority and a consummate instrument with which to demand and achieve instant obedience from the common believers. And then there is no appeal or reprieve against the verdict.

It is this unilateralist approach of the sole proprietors of fiqh to matters of faith in the socio-economic lives of Muslims that has given rise to certain malpractices that seem to be seriously undermining society. One such area that has a far-reaching and deeply destabilising impact on society is the way fiqh on family matters seems to treat females with lesser compassion — or at least it appears that way. Whereas Islam has been very benevolent to women, it has been a clear and full Islamic intent and design to emancipate brutalised women in pre-Islamic society and restore to them a place of dignity in the social system. It was never intended to snatch her shoe to cover her head.

I strongly believe a complete and honourable umbrella for all women was one of the major underlying social objectives in Muslim society. I also believe that Allah is never unkind or unjust, He can never err. He is wisdom in its most perfect and total sense. This then logically means, it were the craftsmen of the fiqh, the ones who attempted to translate Quranic verses into doables, and the ones who took it upon themselves to apply it to Muslim society, who injected their prejudices and imperfections into the practice of Islam. That resulted in mutilation and mutation of the faith, leading to split into split and a terrible difference of opinion among various sects.

Let us take the question of polygamy among Muslims. This is a concession that maulanas describe with great relish in their writings and vociferous Friday sermons. They take a joyous satisfaction in the divine magnanimity (conveniently overlooking the proviso and warning of doing justice to all wives which they will not be able to do) shown to Muslim men. The permission is not the real issue but how it translates into practice.

My father married three times. We were five brothers and two sisters and our mother was the first wife. He was well off, so money was no problem. But when the grand old man died, he must have been an unhappy man because he knew he had largely forfeited the affection of his children and his wives. He had effectively and quite unbeknown to him, destroyed the self-respect of our mother and those he married after her.

Our mother was a proud Yusufzai Pashtun, a tower of strength and perseverance supported most commendably by our maternal uncles in the dark days of adversity and relentless family friction. We endured this pain and torment during all of our childhood till we went our ways to begin to fend for ourselves. My parents are both dead. May their souls rest in peace together! Will any faqih (an expert in Islamic jurisprudence) be kind enough to return my mother’s self-respect that she lost to the next wife and in her own eyes? Will somebody give us back our childhood, which was destroyed by the ugly upheavals caused by my father’s repeated marriages? Will any maulana, in his pious eloquence, speak up for humanity also, please?

Speak if you have to save whatever is left of our society. But wait, the faithful have to ask you something more. The authors of fiqh have gone to hair-splitting detail of a related but even more dreadful aspect, i.e. divorce. Once again that underlying human sadism, that horrible male heartlessness, is at play. The keepers of the Muslim morality do not even give a fighting chance to a married woman to defend herself or seek remedy against a divorce that is totally and unambiguously unilateral — inflicted by man only as an established practice. It is my firm belief that this utter injustice to the unfortunate, defenceless women is neither the intention nor the spirit of this institution in our religion.

Whether married for five days or 25 years, a woman can be divorced and packed off by the majestic husband at the drop of a hat. She just has no right to stop this crime against humanity, the formidable faqih does not give her any right except a begging bowl for some money for the infant, if any, for some time. It does not stop at that, as in order to completely destroy the soul of the divorced mother, the child/children are ordered by him to revert to the callous father once they come of age. So he keeps his divorced wife practically as the maid of his children after divorce. This amounts to pathological male arrogance and chauvinism of the worst order.


There can be nothing more inhuman and degrading than this so-called approved way of smashing to pieces one of the most intimate and honourable of human relationships in the world. If there is a crime against humanity, this is it. I know of a little college girl in our lane, who was married a few months ago. Within a week she was packed off and sent back to her mother (her father had died a year earlier) because of no fault of hers. This was followed by a divorce notice, which the poor wretch refused to believe. But when she learnt her husband had remarried a few weeks latter, she committed suicide. Tell us whom should the helpless mother blame for her daughter’s murder most foul? Tell us what is the ‘effective’ remedy to this unmitigated barbarity by men? What does fiqh say other than an expression of indignation on the loss of life of that innocent girl who was not even allowed to set up her dream house with her husband and was divorced?

In another case, a faithful wife and a responsible mother of a five-year-old son was divorced by her spiteful husband on the flimsiest of excuses after nine years of marriage. The tragedy does not end here but aggravates further. Since her marriage, her mother had died and her father had remarried. Her other sisters are married too and she has no brother. This pitiless divorce has literally thrown her on the road to all kinds of devouring vultures. She has suddenly nowhere to go, yet the mighty and fully ‘entitled’ husband is happy in the knowledge that he will snatch the child too from the hapless mother once he comes of age. The pity is he has the full support of the law and the fiqh.

There is clearly a need to address this malevolence amongst us and undertake a serious study to enact laws to prevent, restrict and regulate such cases. Even though multiple marriages and divorces may be a given, yet men must be made to account for their decisions. This twin menace is destroying our society, shattering families and letting out an avalanche of untold miseries. See also the vast number of divorces in our society just because it has been made so easy for men. I firmly believe God never intended to provide a free licence to men, not for a unilateral action of this horrendous nature. Why arranging a marriage is so difficult, deliberate and apparently ‘liberal’ and divorce so easy? Does it reflect a kind of genetic aversion in our society to raising a good family? We have stigmatised our great religion. Let us reclaim its honour and true intent. Let us practise humanity, the true spirit of Islam, and not the destructive dogma of mediaeval men. Will the lordships in the sharia court please take note?



The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
 
^^I think that the true version of Islam mentioned some limitations on women. However, I am sure that Islam has a room where one can try to fit in Islamic teachings considering the time/situation. I think that it won't be a sin for women to participate equally (in terms of education not suicide bombing) in our society because that is the only way for us to survive.

*Even though I do not believe in free will.
Fate was written before we came here and that is why there is not any future, present and past for God.
 
We said earlier that there are types of religiosity - and that the Practical/Utilitarian variety is mundane, causal (not reasoned), hereditary, deterministic (not arising from choice or free will), emotional, dogmatic, ritualistic, ideological, identity-bound, external, collective, legalistic-juristic, mythic, imitative, obedient, traditional and habitual. Here, the volume of deeds is the measure of the intensity or otherwise of conviction: performing the hajj numerous times, visiting shrines, praying frequently and so on. Through these actions, the religious person feels more successful and closer to God. Mass rituals and rites nourish this religiosity more than anything else. The frequency of collective prayers, mourning ceremonies, Koranic recitations, retreats, Friday prayers, gatherings and preaching sessions, crowds of believers at shrines and mosques, hordes of fighters in the arenas of jihad amount to the glorification and splendor of this type of religiosity and serve as a source of pride to it. It both stirs up emotions and draws strength from them. Since this type of religiosity is hereditary and not based on reasoning, since emulation and obedience play the biggest role in perpetuating it, since it devotes itself to deeds rather than thought and reflection, and since it is constructed upon emotion and excitation rather than rational endeavor and inquiry, it gradually becomes tainted by dogmatism and prejudice and loses the capacity to tolerate dissent. It defends set habits and traditions dogmatically and sees people who tend to raise questions and reflect upon things as crooks and heretics. Hence, slowly but surely it goes down the path of casting out and excommunicating people.

In this way, a believer’s religion becomes their identity and they defend it in the way they would defend their homeland or property or life, not in the way a scientist would defend a truth. In other words, they want religion so that they can feel like somebody and distinguish themselves from others, not because they want to arrive at some truth.

Believers, in this type of religiosity, are the slaves and God is the master and the sultan (not the God of wisdom, nor the Alluring Beloved). And the Prophet wears the cloak of a commander, issuing orders about what a believer may and may not do, and speaking of glad tidings and ominous portents (not an insightful man of knowledge with exalted experiences, nor a wise and brilliant thinker). And sin amounts to disobeying his orders rather than being something that causes a contraction of the heart. And obedience is part of a deal aimed at accruing some gain or benefit, not something that causes an expansion of the heart, nor yet a participation in a spiritual experience. And following the Prophet means carrying out his commands. Morality is always relegated to second place in this religiosity and is considered to be decorative at best, entailing no religious burdens or duties in itself.

Since imitative believers do not have the courage and strength to look at the Exalted for themselves or to tackle difficult concepts, they look for mediators and they find what they are seeking in the form of religious personalities past and present, such that they spend more time visiting shrines than going to mosques.

In this type of religiosity, personalities are transformed into myths and lose touch with human history and geography.. Dogmatic distinctions drawn between us and them and believers and infidels, the firm and unyielding categorization of people, the simplification of the world and the refusal to see the complexities, subtleties and variations of human existence, and, subsequently, engaging in unsubtle behavior inappropriate to the elaborate and mysterious nature of life, creating strict ideological divisions, seeing people as either heavenly or hellish, viewing God as an impatient avenger, imagining God as one’s own God and the Protector of one’s own sect who is uncaring about everyone else, narrowing the definition of truth and broadening the definition of falsehood, highlighting the differences between sects and seeing one’s own sect as the axis and measure of truth and falsehood and the creator of the true human identity, ignoring the common attributes of human beings and emphasizing every small difference in belief, and compartmentalizing humanity into so many different sects are some of the characteristics and defining features of this kind of religiosity.



Below is a call to renew, to refresh our thinking, to return to FAITH


Humanising religion
by Ahmad Ali Khalid on August 23rd, 2011


For a self proclaimed religious society we are incredibly reserved when it comes to talking openly and frankly about our own religious experience and journey. It is almost an unwritten law in many Muslim majority societies and communities to voice any sort of doubt in one’s religious convictions. It becomes blasphemous to even speak about the injustices committed in the name of faith out in the open. But this creates a religiosity that is based on hypocrisy and whose principle mechanism is not love or compassion but moral policing and coercion.

Without freedom there is no Islam – it is as simple as that. But talking about our own experiences, journeys, tribulations and trials should be part and parcel of a healthy society that takes religion seriously. Take for instance Al Ghazali’s work, ‘Deliverance From Error’, or in the Christian tradition, St. Augustine’s work, ‘Confessions’. Both these works are considered great pieces of literature that document the intense and very personal nature of religious experience. And that is exactly what is missing from Pakistan today – the idea of religious experience. The idea that one has to go through a journey and a voyage of discovery to truly make sense of one’s religious convictions – because the impression given by televangelists like Amir Liaquat is that faith can be magically received by a simple telephone call or by paying others to pray for you. In Pakistan, faith has been turned in a cold commodity, devoid of spirit, removed from humanity and can be bought and sold for the right price.

We must revive the tradition of talking openly and compassionately about our own religious experiences to humanise religion and to realise that we as human beings will always stutter, err and falter. Instead of seeing religious doubt as a crisis we should see it as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God and is a chance for deep religious meditation – which is of course the lesson of Ramazan.

In our own time, it is American convert Jeffery Lang who bravely carries on this tradition of candidly asking questions aloud. His two works, ‘Struggling to Surrender’ and ‘Even Angels Ask’ are the hidden gems of modern religious literature – they are beautifully written with a rare sense of honesty and many of the questions he raises are the ones I have always had. But he not only questions some of the existential aspects of faith, he also takes aim at the performance and conduct of Muslim communities and highlights some uncomfortable parts of the historical tradition of Muslim jurists and scholars.

What is the point of brushing under the carpet the questions that we have? Without doubt faith becomes stagnant, lazy and dogmatic – it becomes a thorn rather than a rose. But to keep the rose alive one has to be vigilant and compassionate to maintain its beauty and fragrance. And so it is that with doubt faith grows and becomes a little wiser and more thoughtful.

Other instances can be seen in religious gatherings which are meant to act as study circles for the faithful to deepen their knowledge. Unfortunately knowledge is the furthest thing from the mind of the preachers who organise these gatherings. The sole purpose of the person in charge is to make others feel worthless, useless and belittle them not only in the eyes of human beings but also of God. Questions are unwelcome in these gatherings – they are seen as outbursts of the devil himself.

Furthermore, Pakistan’s culture of televangelism gives us a picture of dogmatism in the nation. When Ramazan should be a time of asking deep questions about spirituality, faith and humanity these televangelists shut all doors to rational thought and instruct their avid followers in a course of religious zombificiation. Audiences grip on to every word of these television personalities reducing the scope and meaning of Ramazan into a self-righteous lecture rather than a time of exploration.

And that’s just the point. Reading the cultural trends surrounding Ramazan one can say that for a religious nation Pakistan has a deeply impoverished sense of spirituality. Many Pakistanis proudly point to the Sufi heritage that is said to define Muslim religiosity in Pakistan but there is very little example of that in the media trends. There is a very cut-throat approach to religion in the media. There is almost a capitalistic approach where in order to drive up viewer ship the sermons become fierier.

It’s a familiar scene on Pakistani television. Turn your TV on and there standing proud and tall, with a halo on his head and white doves dancing in his beard, trumpeting his call of salvation and hope to all that would lend an ear the preacher radiates strength from the pulpit. The preacher talked and his audience merely nodded in complete silence. Amidst the thunderous words of the preacher, faith was made subservient to political power, reason lost its place, and dissent is frowned upon as blasphemous.

But Perhaps the greatest obstacle to asking candid and difficult questions is our continued obsession with the ‘West’. We have become paralysed by the constant bombardment of conspiracy theories to the extent we have lost the ability to ask questions. If you raise a point about women in Muslim societies the classic retort it ‘x number of women get raped in American every second/minute/day/year’ and therefore we are superior. The most pressing need in Pakistan is to disengage from this obsession with the ‘West’ and then ask the real questions.


Ahmad Ali Khalid is a freelance writer and blogger based in the UK. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com or twitter.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom