|
I know one thing for sure: To think that we know is to be ignorant; not to know is the beginning of wisdom.
As I see it, our problem
(nothing personal; I mean the
problem of humanity at large) is that we know too much, or
think we do. People everywhere are too
intellectual and blissfully
ignorant. There are very few actual
people, people who don’t accept or offer platitudes; we call such
Abrahamic Kabirs iconoclasts, people who speak their mind truthfully
without fear or favour.
The majority of us follow the line of least resistance: they do not
question matters of faith, even if they want to, simply because they are
not supposed to, and also because they’re conditioned to believe human
beings are not supposed to know any better, because the Good Book says
so. It is a recent phenomenon that interfaith and multifaith jamborees
are beginning to examine the
psychological mess (faith group identity crisis, nationalism,
and racist patriotism) they are in because, for far too long, they have
succumbed to the dictates of an invisible authority that doesn’t answer,
an authority that resides in Heaven and is, therefore, absolutely
deficient in helping people to deal with the problems of life and living
on this good earth.
Then there are some worldly educated people, like you and I, the
so-called intellectuals, moderates, and progressives, who love to get
together to philosophize about religion and ideological issues as if our
thinking is going to change the world. No one can change the world, and
no one can change us
either. We have to submit to the process of change, or to change
ourselves, for and by ourselves, before we can change anything out
there. That is the simple solution to all our woes.
Since we don’t know how to do even
that, we run around looking for an easy way out. Along comes
organized religion with its battalions of chapter-and-verse illuminati,
men in pantaloons sporting long beards who have their own templates and
stereotypes about God’s medieval plan for ‘mankind’. A true iconoclast
is born when a person plucks up enough courage to stand up to the
onslaught of those men with long beards and tell them to go to hell.
But we cannot do that because we live in a rut, too preoccupied about
earning free AirMiles to heaven when all around us we see that neither
democracy nor religion is going to resolve anything for us. People must
realize we can only resolve our problems for and by ourselves. There is
no ransom, so forget about Jesus the
Christ!
We must bring about our own salvation from politics (as in democracy)
and from religion (as in Muslim countries), which is the subject of this
discussion. But we are surrounded by ignorance.
Here’s the latest example:
In an April 30 interview with The
Spectator, the new president of the Muslim Association of
Hamilton, Ejaz Butt, a 12-year veteran of the Pakistan Armed Forces,
said he supports replacing dictatorships with democratic regimes in the
Middle East. “If U.S. President George W. Bush really went into Iraq to
bring democracy, I would like him to go into other countries, too,” he
said. “Dictators are in most of our countries, and democracy should be
brought to every Muslim country, and as a matter of fact the whole
world.” Asked for his views on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Butt said
he supports Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state. “I have a lot
of respect for the Israelis, and they have a right to defend their own
country. But I also want to have an independent state of Palestine—a
democratic one.”
Mr Masud Sheikh
has raised the issue of the elites
and power structures that
Mr Javed I. Chaudry claims he included in his overlong April
2 presentation. When one analyzes these elites and power structures, the
answer is really simple: Human greed. That is why I maintain that Islam
and democracy cannot mix, and Mr Chaudry’s claim that “[democracy] has
already been established in half a dozen Muslim states” is no cause for
comfort, really. Moreover, why are we assuming that democracy is the
answer to all our woes!
Ms Subuhi Ansari
is “amazed at the Muslim bashing that is going on [on
this forum]” and she says “it is intellectually and socially
irresponsible to make blanket statements about
any people.” The point I
want to make here is that we’re discussing democracy in Muslim
countries, and, as Muslims,
if we’re not prepared to look critically at the entire corpus of
Muslimness and the failure of Muslims to assert their right as
individuals, then we shall never arrive at the truth, neither now, nor
anytime soon. She concedes that “many variables play a role in
determining the possibility or impossibility of establishing a certain
form of governance,” and I wish to add that one of the variables is that
no two Muslims are alike.
Also, as Mr Feroz Karmally
reminds us, it is difficult to install democracy in the family, let
alone a nation—but he makes the mistake, in my view at least, of
introducing the greatest variable of all: this thing called “the
Creator” for Whom there
are so many conflicting explanations. Be that as it may, Mr Karmally
raised an excellent question, “Why do Muslims need democracy [anyway]?”
But as Mr Aziz Ahmad has
noted, it is “funny” that Mr Karmally should talk of consensus when we
cannot establish “a consensus among Feroz Karmally, Rashid Mughal, Javed
Chaudry and Ahsan Khan.” Beat that!
Enter Mr Najeeb Kazmi with
his question: “What will Muslims contribute in the 21st Century?”
Amidst all this, Kathy Johnson
praises Malaysia as a good example of a Muslim country. Malaysia has its
own morbid record of human rights against its Chinese and other
minorities and Mr Ahmad takes the cake for that classic story of
ultimate ignorance out of Kuala Lumpur (in Malaysia, of all places!)
about how Muslim astronauts are baffled about praying five times a day
while hovering above the Earth without knowing which way to look for
Mecca at any given moment in their whirligig mission!
Rashid Mughal
__________________________________________________________
|
