Shattering the myths — I —Elf Habib

Punishments like stoning or boiling to death, burning at the stake, feeding to hungry lions, castration, amputation, even flogging and public executions have gradually been excised from the western statute books

Some strange notions and irrationalities ingrained in several Muslim circles have unfortunately congealed into inveterate beliefs and phenomena and have become too infectious, disastrous and obstructive to the growth of modern, interactive, enlightened, pluralistic and peaceful societies. During the British sway in the subcontinent, for instance, religious lobbies denounced the acquisition of the English language and political institutions. Sir Syed’s struggle for a realistic and pragmatic approach, however, salvaged the situation to some extent, averting total Muslim alienation and economic ruin. But aversion, denial and fierce resistance to the inevitable evolution in human thought and behaviour have not only persisted, they have been further intensified and compounded by some new obsessions.

Hating and labelling the west as evil and inimical to Islam, for example, is repudiated by the fact that most industrialised communities vilified by them are no longer officially or steadfastly Christian societies. The American constitution for example, explicitly prevents the state from establishing or barring any religion. The percentage of Christians there has been declining by ten percent each decade. About half of the adult population, as revealed by a recent survey by USA Today and a Gallup poll, do not practice any organised religion. The church in Britain bemoans the lack of any special privileges while merely a tenth of Christians actually go to church there.

Some segments in these countries are undoubtedly ardently religious and certainly anxious to spread their faith. There may be some clandestine morbid cliques or fraternities as portrayed in Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. Some circles, particularly in conservative streams like the GOP in the US, sometimes occupy the highest public echelons. Yet their wildest fantasies are mostly restrained by the constitution and state policies, which generally tend to be secular. Europe indeed experienced traumatic religious strife, intolerance, inquisitions and persecution and gradually became convinced that the religious states, despite their most virtuous and loftiest resolve, have, in practice, always failed to establish peaceful, pluralistic and all inclusive societies. So while endeavouring for equality and non-interference in various beliefs, customs and practices, these societies essentially strove for an egalitarian treatment transcending religion, race or roots. This is amply illustrated by the countless non-Christians, including avowed atheists, ascending to the highest art, science, business and power rungs. Nixon’s intervention in 1971 to shield West Pakistan from the Indian incursion with his famous ‘hands-off West Pakistan’ phrase and Clinton’s campaign for Muslims in Herzegovina, are some scintillating pro-Muslim endeavours. In view of these facts, the notions of western hostility against Muslims are hardly tenable.

The perception about western animosity against Islam, in fact stems from its stress on the freedom of thought and expression to critically examine all forms of social, economic, religious and political beliefs, concepts and practices and defiance against unquestioned acquiescence to any authority or system. The scepticism, inquiry, rationality and the courage and freedom to expose and ridicule even the most established institution are essentially an inescapable evolution of human thought and behaviour and unfortunately, despite the best efforts of their antagonists, cannot be reversed.

Science and technology have continuously altered the human routine, needs, ideas and culture which, in turn, fostered new attitudes, needs, ideas and development. The cycle has also transformed religions, cultures, social practices and criminal codes. Punishments like stoning or boiling to death, burning at the stake, feeding to hungry lions, castration, amputation, even flogging and public executions have gradually been excised from the western statute books. Even states that still retain capital punishment are striving for its relatively more dignified and least painful modes like lethal injection.

History, similarly, also reveals that severity of punishment, contrary to fossilised wisdom, cannot reduce crime. In medieval Europe, for instance, pickpockets were publicly hanged to impart a warning to putative culprits. Yet pockets were routinely picked even in the crowd gathered to watch these executions. The thrust for crime mitigation thus gradually shifted from a more draconian retribution to effective reforms in the socio economic and psychological factors that breed crime.

Emerging criminology is even searching to remedy the genetic factors responsible for delinquent tendencies. Given these sweeping changes, the human mind can in no way be moulded to accept harsh Biblical punishments like stoning, flogging or amputation. Even some Muslim jurists have emphasised the need to understand the practice of various punishments meted out in the in the earlier days of Islam as a convenient and logical continuation of the already existing and familiar tribal customs because no alternative or radically different system could be suddenly transplanted in a simplistic tribal society. The real quest and quintessence of religion, however, was to attain a peaceful, harmonious and crime-free society. Strategies to realise the same spirit and targets in currently complex and rapidly altering societies would evidently entail quite different techniques and their continuous modification.

But some of our religious forces are not prepared to accept these changes and feel that stirring up violent hatred against the west would somehow thwart, or at least delay, the natural evolution of thought and practices. This is equally true for their approach towards gender quality. But one must remember that even the most recalcitrant Catholic circles are now accepting the inclusion of females into the clergy and the bias against women has been rapidly receding. Western researchers and planners are now, in fact, working far beyond gender and minority bias to realise a far broader and all-inclusive diversity management. These measures aim at affording equal satisfaction and motivation to employees varying in age, language, culture, capabilities and backgrounds. Competitive and viable enterprises and workplaces all over the world will gradually have to opt for and assimilate similar changes.

The emerging social, cultural patterns and aspirations of the industrialised world are inevitably going to penetrate the developing world. Some countries like Turkey have systematically embraced the transition. Several Arab countries like Saudi Arabia tried to stem the tide through brute authoritarian strategies but were nonetheless forced to yield, at least to scores of these new patterns. The launching of a new coeducation university in Saudi Arabia, despite stiff opposition by ultra-fundamentalist lobbies, must be an instructive eye opener for the advocates of gender segregation. A high priest opposing the project was later sacked by the royals.

The failure to stall various conceptual and cultural sweeps even with the firmest of faith, coercion or isolation evidently also illustrates that the cherished system of the early Caliphate can never be recreated in its original form and ambience. This system, still passionately touted as a panacea by several orthodox movements has, in fact, outlived its structural and functional relevance and utility. It soon lapsed into hereditary monarchies, was refuted by rising Arab nationalism and eventually discarded as irrelevant by the titular Turkish incumbent. Some Indian Muslim enthusiasts, interestingly, implored the disgruntled caliph to retain the nominal epithet despite the secession and defeat suffered by him.

(To be continued)

The writer, an academic and freelance columnist, can be reached at habibpbu@yahoo.com