A Note to Islam's Apologists

We certainly live in interesting times.  There is a new breed of thinkers in the Muslim community who are quite ashamed of being Muslims.  Or more correctly, they believe that Islam is at the root of most of the problems we see in the Muslim world.  There must be some fundamental design flaw, they argue, in Islam itself and that's why we see all Islamic countries in decline in terms of education, research, economic development, political freedoms and societal development.  They take the argument a step further: Islam is archaic and must be "fixed" to align it better with contemporary thinking about religion (i.e., delegating it to a personal hobby).

Let's face it:  the criticism of Muslim countries and societies is quite true (please read my earlier blog: A Moral GPS in Pakistan to understand the underlying causes of these societal problems).  Many historians have analyzed the root causes of this decline observed over the last couple of centuries (I urge you to read "What Went Wrong? The clash between modernity and Islam in the Middle East" by Bernard Lewis).

But the conclusion drawn by these apologists is absolutely wrong.  We are faced with these problems not because Islam is faulty in its design, rather we have stopped implementing it as it should be.  In our societies, we have the extremes of "liberalized" apologists who do not understand the fundamental concepts on the one hand, and of "radicalized" extremists on the other hand who want to simply burn everything that doesn't match their world view.

Let's focus on the apologists and analyze some the arguments they put forward.

The first key argument they use is that Islam is not a religion of peace and engenders hatred, which leads to violence.  I offer that Islam is no more pacifist or violent than any other religion.  In the last two thousand years, hundreds of wars have been waged by followers of all religions in their defence as well as while invading other territories.  If we follow this bizarre logic of religion triggering violence, then Christianity would top the list when you consider the two World Wars.  Many of the recent and extremely violent conflicts - like the massacre and genocide in Rwanda (1994) - had no Muslims involved at all.  So, violence is not the exclusive domain of any religion.

The present state of violence and intolerence can be traced to illiteracy, poverty and political oppression.  Another scratch below the surface will lead you to the recent colonial history, which can also be found in many African countries with negligible Muslim populations but same societal problems.  In this milieu of problems, illiteracy and educational deprivation stand out quite tall and are directly related to people's inability to understand and follow Islam correctly.  These same illiterate masses are also easily incited to political violence of various kinds, often thinly wrapped in religion.

The second argument is that Islam's doctrine is outmoded and doesn't match the 21st century's demands.  This is based on the very fundamental confusion in the minds of these apologists:  they somehow mix up Islam's teachings with the interpretation of the Sharia law.  The former is a broad set of principles and beliefs for both individuals and societies in how they interact with each other (please read my earlier blog: Who is an Ideal Muslim?).  The latter is a form of law based on interpretation of those principles - and which can evolve through the consensus within Muslim societies.  The apologists look at the recent misguided attempts to enforce an "Islamic justice system" in some countries and reach the false conclusion that Islam must have an oppressive and restrictive doctrine.  In reality, however, Islam's constructs are progressive and evolutionary - unfortunately, we have significantly faltered in implementing them during the 19th and 20th centuries.

The third important argument used a lot by the apologist "intelligentsia" is that religion is an individual's private affair and should not be connected to any social or societal constraints.  This is a ridiculous argument that stems from an inability to understand the purpose and intent of religion.  Religion - and this is true for all branchings of the same Abrahamic religion - aims to create a societal model in which people interact with each other in a compassionate and fair way.  It also allows for an individual's growth on intellectual, economic and social grounds; put differently, religion does not aim to create drones that are equal in all respects. 

Such a societal construction based on compassion and justice cannot be undertaken by chopping off the most fundamental sense of being that we have achieved through religion.  Interestingly, Christianity -- even after it has drifted very far away from its original paradigm -- provided the building blocks used by the North Americans to climb to global supremacy we observe today.  Basic questions - like why humans are on this earth, what is the ultimate design for a human society and what is the purpose of life - cannot be answered purely through empirical discovery.  It is a bit silly to pretend that philosophy and logic alone can provide these answers - and that the answers will have no bearing on the society so constructed (Soviet Communism is the classic example of such a failure).  Religion is more than a hobby to be practised once a week or in times of desperation.

I ask Islam's apologists to spend some time and effort on their own to learn what Islam actually is.  One should not parrot off statistics and faulty arguments that are borrowed from elsewhere.  This is again an invitation to learn and use the Moral GPS we have been given.

Is Pakistan's Flooding a Curse or a Blessing?

Let's start with a more fundamental question:  Does God offer punishments for all bad deeds in this world?  Are nations always collectively "punished" for their waywardness?

The short answer is: No.  While many nations were distroyed completely in pre-Islamic history, there has been no complete destruction of any nation in the last millennium.  From a theological standpoint, utter destruction took place because a prophet was present in those nations - like Lot's or Noah's nations - and they had refused to yield to any amount of guidance and moral advice.  That process of ultimate national destruction stopped when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) closed off the cycle of messengers guiding nations directly.  As there are no more prophets emerging in societies, ultimate destruction has also been forgone.

However, we still do see all kinds of natural disasters and calamities hit countries and nations.  One can argue that these are an indication of the wrath of God - I would beg to differ.  Similar arguments were made about the earthquakes that hit San Francisco (1989) and Los Angeles (1994) as the God's wrath against the gay community and the film/porn industry, respectively.  I find these arguments weak because neither of those social aberrations have gone away as a result of those two earthquakes.  In other words, we cannot assume that God's wrath is so imperfect that not only it does not remove a perceived or real social problem but actually amplifies it.

An alternate explanation is that natural calamities can be seen as a wake-up call, and hence an opportunity.

Let me make the case for Pakistan's floods.  I see four very distinct opportunities.

First, it brings the societal evils and problems into a sharp focus (please refer to my earlier blog on a break-down of these: A Moral GPS in Pakistan?).  That, by itself, offers a way to re-think how we behave as a society.  At a minimum this dialogue opens the door for a discussion on ways to fix some of the societal problems.

Second, the flooding has helped create new social welfare structures and an opportunity to offer social service to the millions who have been displaced.  These new structures are outside the usual governmental circles, and often, a bit chaotic.  But such institutional arrangements, Imran Khan's flood relief fund being an example, can indeed serve some long-term functions in the society.  These also bring about a sense of social cohesion which is otherwise missing.

Third, there is an opportunity to reform our feudal land distribution model.  With major displacements in the agrarian population, the situation is ripe to re-think the whole structure through a land-reform process.

Fourth, the natural ecosystems would likely undergo a significant replenishment in the aftermath of the flooding.  This includes provision of valuable minerals and silt particles, which are critical for land fertility.  Similarly, a lot of aquifers in the flooded regions will be replenished.

Will any of these opportunities be actually availed in Pakistan.  My own guess is that the first two will be capitalized on significantly.  There is little chance that the third one will even be considered.  And the fourth one does not require any human intervention.

So while the destruction of lives and property in this national tragedy cannot be minimized, we have to see the silver lining of these gray clouds.  And we should be looking for best utilization of the opportunities we have been offered.