Comparative Religion

Could it be all that ‘bad’?

As a nation, Pakistan suffers from a severe malady, a disease of the mind. The crushing weight of history and a lack of education has given Pakistan the worst sort of an inferiority complex, intellectual inferiority, a debilitating poverty of the mind that only colonised countries can lay claim to. Mubasher Lucman’s recent show on the ill-effects of teaching comparative religion and the Punjab government’s oafish response to the same speak volumes of what is a symptom of society. For followers of a religion whose Prophet once exhorted his people to travel to the ends of the world for the acquisition of knowledge, this is nothing less than a tragedy.

The first question that needs to be addressed is whether there is a good or bad component to knowledge. Once having dealt with that question, we must ask as to who decides whether certain kinds of knowledge are good or bad.

Knowledge, in and itself, is completely neutral, like money for example, it is what you do with it that is of consequence. After realizing that mass could be converted to energy, two kinds of people arose, those who wanted an atomic bomb and those who wanted atomic energy. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the fault of knowledge; it was what humans did with that equation that mattered. In the same vein, teaching comparative religion cannot be inherently bad.

A pharmaceutical drug Rohypnol for example, is used to alleviate symptoms caused by severe insomnia. While at the other end of the spectrum, it is also used as a date-rape drug. Should we then ban Rohypnol because it might be used in the commission of such a vile act?

And if indeed, we as a society feel that comparative religion should not be taught to our children, this decision should be arrived at through a long process of introspection, debate and discussion and should certainly and under no circumstances be the outcome of one episode of a political talk show.

As a good, more knowledge will always be preferable to less knowledge. Knowledge and information bring with it distinct advantages that nothing else can. To believe that a deeper understanding of things and people could be potentially subversive is a statement one might have heard in the 16^th century Europe.The mediaeval church would be proud of Pakistan.

Sadly though, that statement still rings true in some quarters of Pakistan. This is the thinking of a nation that has an almost infantile approach to its beliefs. It clings to its teachings, without question, because it is so afraid and so ignorant and so fearful of everything on the outside and anything that might rattle the foundation of their belief system, through no fault of their own – which makes it even more heart wrenching.

The exact same mindset was on display when we banned YouTube. One amateur, ill-informed film maker was able to rob this country of what is one of the greatest educational resources known to mankind, all because we felt humiliated by his movie. By responding and reacting, we only stooped down to that person’s inanity. It was one fool against the government of Pakistan, and the fool won.

But really though, if we are such staunch Muslims and proud defenders of our faith, should we not be able to withstand intellectual challenges from the outside without giving in to them? In a battle of ideologies, the stronger, ideologically firmer idea ought to survive. Are we then so weak so as not to seek any sort of battle, lest our ideology perish?

And is it not always better to come to a conclusion through a process of questioning rather than it being fed to you? Would a person’s faith not be stronger if they arrived to the conclusion of Islam being the one and only religion through a process of inquiry rather than through the simple dissemination and retention of information? It does require a certain kind of courage to question one’s core beliefs but once questions have been addressed, what comes out is a firmer foundation for one’s views.

It would be safe to assume that the study of comparative religions would produce citizens that are more tolerant and open towards other religions and cultures. In a world where globalization is breaking down cultural barriers, we want our children to be able to understand the root of other peoples’ beliefs and opinions and we would want to imbibe the coming generation with a kind of tolerance and respect which is becoming increasingly necessary to conduct oneself in this world.

As a country too, Pakistan could very well do with a little less of religious bigotry. The margin of benefit from each additional unit of tolerance is at an all-time high.

Or maybe that’s not what we want. Maybe what we want is for our children to be indoctrinated and dogmatic, proudly unflinching in their beliefs, of the kind only very naïve and stupid people can be. Willing only to bow to this or that authority figure, because they know better and we’re just a bunch of bleating sheep.

No single entity can be allowed to pass judgment on the value of educational content and knowledge, least of all political talk show hosts that have little experience in doing the same. Should society find certain kinds of knowledge unacceptable, the least society can do before branding such knowledge as ‘subversive’ is to thoroughly debate the issue before passing any sort of judgment on it.Ideally, though, knowledge however ‘subversive’ should be entertained without society meddling in it. Because knowledge is knowledge, it’s what you do with it that matters; Spread peace or kill people.

Abdullah Humayun can be contacted at [email protected]. Twitter: @Ahshafi