Much has changed since the time of the classical jurists who studiously worked away writing tracts of theology, books of fiqh and treatises of spirituality. That was a time where the classical jurist had ample individual freedom to construct and pass verdicts independently of any central political authority and where the culture of learning embedded in Muslim society was more individualistic in contrast to todays bureaucratic systems of education.
Muslim scholars in the past learnt from individuals and taught individuals directly, it was a culture of independent learning, where one soaked and accumulated as much knowledge and wisdom from whichever philosophers, theologians and mystics. But much has changed, for now we have that awesome bureaucratic machine known as the nation state.
The structures of education have changed so dramatically in the last five centuries that the traditional and classical mode of Muslim learning has all but collapsed. Gone is the private jurist and in comes a consortium of scholars appointed and handpicked by the State. Why is this all important? Because the fact of the matter is that the culture of Islamic legal construction in Pakistan is dictated by and large by fundamentalist and conservative scholars who have managed to maintain their structures of learning such as the madrassa. Those who call for a more liberal and progressive Islam in the tradition of Allama Iqbal and other Muslim reformists of the early 20th century like Muhammad Abduh, fail to realise that reformist scholars lack an institutional base in Muslim societies to propagate their ideas.
In Pakistan, liberal and reformist Islamic scholars have no recognisable institutional entity. During Musharrafs era we saw an artificial imposition of reformist scholars like Ghamidi onto the Council of Islamic Ideology. But the fact is that the CII is but merely an instrument used by political authority to consolidate their own agenda, it is not an independent institute of learning (although it would like to portray itself as one). There are no institutions which can provide a stable base for reformist scholars to propagate their ideas.
The major change in the culture of Islamic legal construction has been the move towards codification of fiqh. In the past Muslim societies operated on the basis of a marketplace of ideas, where different schools of law where allowed to freely operate, but now due to the demands of the nation-state, Muslim societies have tried to codify Sharia and that has meant imposing one legal schools thought on the whole population.
In an effort to centralise the dispensation of Sharia the pluralism, complexities and subtleties of the legal tradition are being cast aside. One wonders whether merging the political structures of modernity in the manifestation of the nation state with the dynamics of such a vast and tradition based legal discourse as Sharia is a wise decision. Who does the State turn to in the absence of a divinely ordained clergy and Church as in the case with Roman Catholicism to determine these religiously based legislative norms? Any student of Islamic law will be amazed by the breath-taking variety of positions classical jurists took on a single issue.
Liberals must now enter debates about ethics, morality, religious interpretation and the good life if liberals wish to compete with conservatives and fundamentalists. The recent blasphemy case and the current wrangling over the Womens Protection Bill highlight the need for Pakistani liberals to construct a religious alternative to win over the masses. Leaving the field of religious ideas is a dangerous option to pursue in a society where religion has large public influence. The fact of the matter is that much controversial legislation in Pakistan today involves issues of religious and moral importance which cannot be ignored. To tackle for instance the blasphemy law, one has to dispute its aura of religious authenticity, which means liberals have to engage in issues of fiqh, theology and philosophy. This is a scenario that Iqbal had in mind when he laid down the call for ijtihad in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.
Reading Michael Sandels work, Public Philosophy Essays on Morality in Politics, the Harvard political philosopher illustrates the importance of moral and religious arguments in the liberal project. The Civil Rights movement in the US was primarily a moral and religious project arguing for the liberation and equality of all American citizens. It was a powerful statement of faith but also equality, justice and freedom. In short there is always (whether we like it or not) an unbreakable link between our political decisions and own personal moral beliefs. Even those advocating individual freedoms do so by adopting a moral and philosophical belief. As Sandel advocates, The answer for liberals is not to flee moral arguments but to engage them.
It is clear that the rise of fundamentalism and conservatism in Pakistan has largely been due to a lack of alternative religious ideas in the public sphere. Religious discourse for too long has been in the hands of semi-literate clerics with little or no knowledge of the modern world. The mosque has been ignored by Pakistani liberals in the battle of ideas. For too long the expression of religious reform has been isolated in the works of brilliant individuals and held hostage by the fickle drama of political power, it is time that liberal Islam be institutionalised in Pakistan and that it sets its roots firmly in the soil of Pakistani society.
The writer is a columnist based in the UK. He can be reached at [email protected]
