Religious Dictation

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Very glad that alternative views are getting expressed in Pakistani newspapers. Whether one agrees with them or not, plural views should be expressed on all issues. (Posting in World Affairs because it mentions some international conflicts too). Do you agree with the author that claiming any interpretation of religion to be the ultimate truth and the perfect guideline for mankind, is also fueling religionism, or is he wrong?

Thuggery of religion
(Full article in the link)

The then ruling PPP government’s appeasement of incandescent mullahs, both before and after Taseer’s murder, is being dutifully replicated by the PML-N government, which took over a week to take action against banners in Islamabad accusing Rasheed of being an ‘atheist’ and ‘apostate’, in turn calling for his dismissal and execution.

The term ‘extremists’ used to describe the radical religionists is quite often a misnomer, for it implies that they are a fringe minority and that the ideals they uphold are not adhered to by the lion’s share of the community.

How exactly has this ‘fringe minority’ of religious fanatics managed to hold a country of 200 million people hostage, with an arsenal comprising unsubstantiated accusations, without any political power? What is it about these ‘radical few’ that prevents the federal government from speaking up for prominent members of the ruling party?

It is the moral superiority and monopoly over truth attached to religion by radicals, apologists and moderates alike, that quite often lulls the conscience into complying with bullying and blatant thuggery.

Even so, to claim that thuggery of religion is an exclusive feature of Islam, or Muslims, would be to draw a sketch from the fantasies of anti-Muslim bigots around the globe.

The Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar are currently at the receiving end of Buddhist thuggery. The self-avowed moral authority that is common to all religious fanatics, and neo-colonialists, is being brutally used by the monks of a religion generally perceived as ‘pacifist’ and ‘tranquil’. The Rakhine attacks of 2012, violence in Central Burma a year later and last year’s Mandalay riots, have rendered over a tenth of the Rohingya population homeless.

Religion has never been conducive to pluralistic societies or states. However, there have been countless instances where it has propelled individuals into striving for personal and even common good.** Religion’s personal utility notwithstanding, any efforts to incorporate it into policymaking or giving it moral authority, inevitably breeds violence.**

While it’s vital to fundamentalism and hence inalienable for religious fanatics, it’s the moderates who need to compromise their belief in the moral superiority attached to the ‘right interpretation’ of a given religion. Claiming any interpretation to be the ultimate truth and hence the perfect guideline for mankind, inadvertently allows the flag-bearers of a radical interpretation, backed by arms and self-motivated murderers, to present theirs as such.

If more moderates spoke up against religion’s self-endowed moral superiority, and denounced the blasphemy law and madrassas in numbers, Salmaan Taseer wouldn’t have been killed and Pervez Rasheed’s life wouldn’t be in danger as things stand. What we’ve been doing instead is indulging in self-defeating and pointless debates over the ‘true’ interpretation of Islam.

2

re: Religious Dictation

So do you feel religion’s self-endowed moral superiority is holding people ransom? Polygamy for example, is viewed as a social ill, most Pakistani women don’t want to be in such a relationship, and most men don’t want their sisters/daughters to be in such a relationship, yet people are afraid to speak up against it, because polygamy is deemed morally acceptable by religion. And since religion is the ultimate truth and perfect guideline for mankind, people must continue to endorse polygamy (conveniently enough as long as they are not victims of it themselves).

Is this a prime example of religious thuggery or people just need to find the “true” interpretation of Islam, so they can start implementing it? The question beckons, will people ever agree upon what that “true” interpretation is? Its a process that has been ongoing for almost as long as the religion has existed.

3

re: Religious Dictation

In this case authority is ceded, not taken. The author is delusional.

4

re: Religious Dictation

^Please elaborate, who is ceding authority, and over what is authority being ceded?

The author is claiming the crux of the problem lies in “moderates” agreeing with the “extremists” on religion having monopoly over truth and morality.

Remember how Taliban had widespread support among Pakistanis a few years back. Or how a recent AlJazeera poll showed that ISIS seemingly has widespread support among Arabs. “Moderates” and “extremists” are in agreement over certain things, and thats where the crux of the problem lies.

Take sexual exploitation of female POWs for example. “Moderates” endorse the principle , but condemn ISIS’ practice of it. Wouldn’t it be best to condemn the principle and the practice?

An honest and open debate on these issues is long overdue in any case.

5

re: Religious Dictation

Should muslims deny what is in the Quran and make impermissible what is permissible? Or is your point of argument that, the application should be discussed and a decision derived on when/where a certain divine law is applicable?

If the case is that of discussion, and not denial of the divine laws, then there is room for discussion among different perspectives. Because Umar (r.a.) suspended the punishment of theft during times of economic difficulty, and then reinstated it when prosperity returned.

However if the case is that the divine laws are no longer valid, and should be disregarded because humans of today are much wiser than the Creator, then that’s a roadblock and a dishonest one because no practicing muslim would adopt a position to agree that Quran, or parts of it are no longer valid.

Some people condemn ISIS because of the application, and method of application. There is no duplicity in condemning one aspect for the reasons stated above. If a group of people misuse the laws, the logical thing would be to condemn the misuse, not the the law. If the laws are divine, condemning the law may put a believer outside faith because belief in the Text is a part of the faith. It’s unfortunate that most people just don’t apply the Text in its’ true nature, and there is not one established government in current times which is following the complete laws of Islam, in even the most conservative societies, there is still an apparent streak of corruption, or other ills which are contrary to the Quran.

Furthermore, your continued onslaught in most of your contribution on the religious ways of life takes on a pseudo assumption that people are adhering to the faith. The fact of the matter is that we are not adhering to the faith as we ought to be, and it can be argued that this is why there are social issues present. And this argument may be used to rebut your perspective that there is a need to implement the divine laws entirely in muslim nations where the ruling and the majority are all muslim to rid societies of the ills currently faced from rape, corruption, and tyranny among others which may be known/unknown.

Your point of contention would only be correct if muslims were all practicing the Quran and Sunnah in its’ entirety and that resulted in the ills, which is absolute not the case. Yours is a made-up assumption because the application of the text does not exist, and in parts and portions where it is applied, its’ application and overall context can be discussed to see whether that particular society is seen as a model of Islam in order to establish evidence against it.

6

Re: Thuggery of religion

Yes, I see that now. The conclusion baffles me…if the moderates are in agreement with the extremists, why does he expect them to start questioning religion, or it’s influence over morality? That is something agnostics or atheists would do. Not those who self identify as Muslim and want to be practicing Muslims, to the extent of having a soft spot for those the author would identify as being “extremist”.

7

Re: Religious Dictation

Well, let’s be honest then.

No, I think we can be as dispassionate about it as others who do incessantly moralize over it. Many of said people can simultaneously have a calm discussion about shock-and-awe bombing campaigns in cities of a million+ people, or support of armed insurrections in far away lands employing some sanitized seasonal metaphor. It makes perfect sense to condemn ISIS’ practice of it given current international agreements in place, simply because it’s one of the few mutually beneficial agreements in place, unique in history. What is unjust about ISIS’ action is reintroducing something we, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, have universally agreed upon we don’t want ourselves or our loved ones to be a victim of. And yes, such agreements are valid within traditional Islamic jurisprudence.

8

Re: Religious Dictation

I don’t understand why we take the views and actions of these thugs as “Islamic”? Why do we keep calling them Islamists or islamic extremists? What’s islamic about their extremism? And it’s not extremism! It’s evil. Pure evil and the Devil’s work. Let’s call them what they are. A cult. Shaitan’s cult. Death worshippers.

The fact that people on this forum can’t even define them as nonmuslims shows what our knowledge of Islam is. Why are you guys even fasting this Ramadan if you believe these people are even muslims?

Go to the source of where these ideas come from and you’ll see that the origins of these dangerous ideas in the name of Islam are actually from political sources.

I once heard a muslim brotherhood “scholar” quote Hitler’s mein kampf.

I mean this is the origins of their ideas. Dirty political literature that is present because of Shaitaan. They are misleading people just because they have beards and they talk like they are Arabs and our pakistanis fall for it.

9

Re: Religious Dictation

EU will be beside Bangladesh Any humanitarian crisis.
The problem of Rohingya is a political problem and politically it will be solved. The problem is rooted in Myanmar.After visiting the Rohingya shelter in Cox’s Bazar, Crisis Management Commissioner of the European Union, Christos Stylandsdes said in the ‘Padma’ the state guest house in the afternoon after meeting with the Foreign Minister. During this, he also said that solving the problem of taking Rohingyas back home safely and with respect to the problem. Myanmar will have to come forward to solve this problem.