The UNCIVIL War
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
February 2001[The following write-up originally appeared as a multi-part posting on Shetubondhon, a distinctive Bangladeshi internet forum, in the context of a dialog on Bangladesh, and on News From Bangladesh.]
I. The Fourteen+ Wrongs II. Who Killed Badsha Mian? III. The Unfolding Machinations? IV. The Reactionary Religionists V. The Callous Ultra-secularists VI. The Ominous Cloud
As mutual violence to life and property (public and private) continues, and this time in the context and at least some involvement of the religious establishment and circles in Bangladesh, it is obvious that the problem of violence and agitation is endemic, irrespective of the leftists and rightists, secularists and religionists, modernists and conservatives, Madrasah-educated and non-madrasah-educated. Everyone seems to be stubbornly and zealously trying to outdo each other, but only in negative acts.
In one of my papers "Toward Political Transformation in Bangladesh: The Demand and the Supply Side of Healthy Politics" I have articulated the point that the very culture of Bangladesh has become such that a positive and prosperous future of the country does not lie with any of the existing forces active in the socio-political arena, as they are almost universally infected by the contagious cultural ills. The ongoing events are testimony to that. I intend to deal with this issue in a separate part of this series.
There are a lot to criticize the inept and reactionary religious establishment in Bangladesh, which I will deal with in detail in one of the segments. However, like the vultures converge to feast on a fresh kill or carcass, the so-called anti-Islamic, anti-religion crusaders of our time are having another opportunity of their lifetime, provided largely by the religious establishment. These crusaders are laughing their hearts out and most gleefully regurgitating all the progressive words in their colorful vocabulary – barbaric, cruel, inhuman, beast – to condemn Hila, Mullah, Fatwa, and so on. NFB is no exception. The veteran and avowed anti-Islamic "experts" on NFB are out in full force to repeat their hyperbole in the superlative. Many Muslims are scratching their heads in the unfolding ugliness and madness both in the name of Islam and against it.
Those who are so partisan, religious or secular, that for them facts are not pertinent, problems have already been understood, solutions are ready-made, and faults are always on the other side, their analyses and reflections are quite simple. It is difficult for only those who are trying to make some sense out of the whole thing, and determined not to jump to conclusion or rush to judgment.
Thus is this humble attempt in a series perhaps to raise more pertinent questions than I have answer for. Why I chose the title The Uncivil War? Well, I would like to defer that to the very last segment of this series.
First, I would like to enumerate a number of wrongs, in my view, that happened for which responsibilities lies with a widely diverse group of people, cutting across any ideological or political divide. Thus, my thoughts here should be understood in the context of these wrongs that I have identified below.
#1. Islamic laws and its implementation as popularly understood is simply distortions of Islam.
The prevalent understanding, interpretation, and practice of Islam are fundamentally deviated from Islam, especially its static body of what is commonly recognized at the popular level as Islamic laws. This is little recognized by the Islamic establishments and a deep-rooted, ongoing problem that can and must be addressed in the long run, without which problems of Muslim societies would only deepen.
#2. Ills of Muslim societies under the garb of the prevalent mode of Islam need to be conscientiously recognized by the Muslims and its religious establishments.
The current social conditions in Muslim societies are fundamentally ridden with problems of which there is little recognition, let alone any meaningful effort to redress those. Women are undoubtedly at the receiving end of the ills of what we generally identify as Muslim societies. Islam’s liberating role and heritage are being held hostage by its tradition-bound, fossilized adherents and it is under siege by its callous and dastardly opponents.
#3. Shahida’s Talaq should not have happened the way it did, the case that provoked the current situation.
The marriage and its concomitant processes, including divorce, in Muslim countries are largely dysfunctional. People are often not educated or informed about their rights, especially in case of women, and abuses are rampant. Talaq is seriously mishandled and abused both due to ignorance, misallocated power between the genders, and hodgepodge of the legal system, the burden of which is primarily borne by the women and the illiterate/poor. Hila (or Tahlil) is a pertinent case in point.
#4. Hila should not have been invoked in the case of Shahida’s divorce.
From the side of the populace, Talaq should be carried out within the due diligence framework of Islam. Talaq should not be pronounced all in one stroke. People should understand that marriage and divorce are serious matters and should be dealt with with utmost care and sensitivity. Each pronouncement of revocable divorce should be duly spaced out by the prescribed period, which can be months. Every effort should be made by the concerned parties to save the marriage. If it is unworkable, the option of divorce is always open for both spouses. Thus, there is nearly four-six months or longer since the first pronouncement to resolve the matter. If the parties decide to reconcile and reunite, the first two of the divorce pronouncements are easily revocable without any restriction or predicament. It is irrevocable only after the third and the final pronouncement, when the marriage is permanently revoked.
Hila is there as a means for the permanently divorced parties to try to reunite. But anyone who conscientiously studies the barrier of Hila before the permanently divorced parties can be reunited, it should be clear that it has nothing to do with the current practice. Hila is basically there to make Muslims be careful with their marriage and divorce, and with the balanced and judicious process laid out to provide all the possible avenues to be reconciled. Once permanently divorced, Hila is really not of any practical help. Indeed, Hila has been relevant primarily only in cases where divorce process has not been appropriately followed – that is, the divorce process was carried out hastily. I surmise that divorces that are carried out through the due Islamic process rarely would reach the stage of Hila (Tahlil). Although I am not familiar with any empirical study in this regard, the lack of empirical works is another major weakness of Muslims who seem to care about the religion, but not about understanding and learning about problems.
Hila option has nothing to do with Mr. Hila Mia-type situation. When people are not interested in learning about and understanding the pertinent problems, only thing they can to do is lament citing abuses such as a professional Hila Mia, who is used in a village for performing Hila marriage, which has nothing to do with Islam. Islam does not recognize any such Hila marriage. Any such marriage that is deliberate merely to be temporary to revoke with prior understanding and be reunited with the first husband is NOT Hila marriage. The second marriage is just as permanent as the first one. Only in case the second marriage does not work out or the wife becomes widowed, the possibility of being reunited with the original husband opens. What is practiced in our societies in the name of Hila has no Islamic sanction. For further details, one can read an excellent scholarly work of Hamudah Abd Al-Ati, The Family Structure of Islam, ATP, 1977, Chapter 6, especially pp. 232-236 on Tahlil after irrevocable divorce.
This won’t alleviate the rage and disdain of the Islam-bashers, because it is only hypocritically that they characterize Hila as barbaric, inhuman, etc. The fact of the matter is that they think Islam in general is barbaric and inhuman. But instead of making their case plain and clear against Islam per se, they would pick individual aspects, which are mostly based on social abuse, not based on the way Islam prescribes.
#5. Religious establishment should have been proactive to take clear and firm stance and educate the Muslims about mishandling of divorces and such Fatwas.
From the side of the religious scholars and experts, it is now well-established that even though Islam mandates that the three pronouncements of divorce should be appropriately spaced out, if anyone in haste, anger or neglect pronounces three pronouncements in one stroke, it is simply to be considered as one, first pronouncement resulting into merely a revocable divorce. Thus, anyone who gives such opinion that three pronouncements given in one stroke are to be treated as three is clearly wrong and should be condemned and repudiated. Given the extent of abuse, it can be required that such divorce procedure should be carried out only through an organized procedure, where the concerned parties are fully explained the procedures, options, their rights and consequences of various options. Muslims need to come up with an organized counseling system for both pre-marital and post-marital situations, but particularly before people decide to marriage and before they decide to divorce. For more details, see another of my papers, Women and Divorce in Bangladesh: An Islamic Perspective.
#6. The high court of Bangladesh should not have taken such overreaching and activist (suo moto) judicial step regarding Fatwa in general.
The wholesale condemnation of Fatwa, without preparing the background for resolving the issues in a more non-confrontational context, was wrong, especially on a suo moto basis. I have dealt with this in a separate segment in detail.
#7. The religious establishment should not have reacted the way it did.
Labeling the two judges as Murtad and the wholesale defense of Fatwa were inappropriate. Doing so without distancing from the abuses and without any proactive stance or program was even worse. I have dealt with this in a separate segment.
#8. The polarization through purely antagonistic stance won’t take us anywhere.
Those who believe that the only means to resolve any conflict is through direct confrontation. The act of those two activist judges in this regard and their backers on one hand and the religious establishment on the other have basically shown the same dysfunctional attitude and approach that would only further polarize the society. Neither side is expected to prevail, but the instability and insecurity as parts of a stalemate will gradually worsen the overall environment for the people.
#9. NGOs should not become a shadow government and behave as active political force.
This point was aptly made by someone else in a New Nation article "NGOs must not act as movement for religious reform" [http://nation-online.com/200102/04/n1020401.htm#BODY2].
#10. Violent reaction, especially by Muslims, generally is counter-productive.
More than any other group, Muslims who care about Islam, must come to grip with the fact that violent reaction, even when provoked, is generally counter-productive and contrary to Islam. While Islam is not a way of life that believes in complete non-violence as propagated by Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., any act of force, according to Islam, can only be under a legitimately constituted authority and only in legitimate and just pursuit. That is why during the 13 years of the Prophet’s life in Makkah, Muslims were categorically prohibited from reacting to the persecution of the Quraish using any form of violence [22/al-Hajj/39]. Before this verse in the Madani period, there was no permission to fight back or respond in kind. During that prohibited period, Muslims withstood all kinds of persecution and humiliation with patience and persevering spirit. If Muslims don’t understand, appreciate and embrace this guidance of the Qur’an, one can only pity them.
#11. Murdering of Badsha Mia was wrong.
Whoever did it, it was wrong and must be brought to justice.
#12. Rush to judgment about Badsha Mia murder was wrong.
Who killed Badsha Mia? Was he murdered inside the mosque? Was IOJ and/or Maulana Azizul Huq involved or informed? Any rush to judgment about this matter was wrong. I will deal with this issue in a separate segment.
#13. Using Public Security Act (PSA) to arrest Maulana Azizul Huq and denial of legal counsel was wrong.
If Maulana Huq had any role in the alleged incident, arresting him under PSA, an abused , instead of the regular criminal code, would only undermine the case against him.
#14. Destruction of public or private property by the Islamic elements was wrong.
If any of the Islamic elements, deliberately destroyed any public or private property, it was wrong. If any of them caused any of the acts against the railway system that caused injury or loss of life, it was unconscionable. However, there is no room to rush to judgment, because some of these can be acts of sabotage to further demonize the Islamic elements.
With all these above-mentioned wrongs, and many more that probably we can further identify, better understanding this complex problem and issues at hand would be addressed in a reductionist way only by one of the three kinds of people: those who are simpletons, prejudiced or mischief-mongers.
II. Who killed the constable, Badsha Mian?
There is ONE veritable fact: a police constable, Badsha Mian is dead (murdered). Is there any more fact beyond this? Well, who cares about facts, or at least that’s the way it seems! Let’s first do the hanging.
I remember those tense days in the USA, when the infamous Oklahoma bombing occurred. No time was wasted to rush to judgment. Who can do such dastardly, inhuman act? It had to be a Muslim! The whole country, and indeed, the whole world, already "knew" a representative of which religious community has done it. The entire spin machine, spearheaded by a former Zionist Steve Emerson and his cohorts, was in full swing making the world believe the "established", "proven", "incontrovertible" FACT that it was done by a Muslim, probably a devoted one.
After all, who does not know about the acts of terrorism from Palestine, Algeria, Kashmir, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Chechniya, and many other parts of the Muslim world? These fanatical, dogmatic, insane, blood-thirsty, uncivilized, cruel, inhuman, barbaric people have left enough marks on the contemporary history, so that one can’t but be right in pronouncing judgment without an iota of investigation or fact-finding.
Many a Muslims in the USA felt psychologically and morally besieged, because from time to time there are people among Muslims, like any other population group, who ARE involved in crazy acts of inhumanity. No distinctions, of course, are made between acts of terrorism and acts that occur against authoritarian or autocratic systems where no channel for peaceful change, whatsoever, is left open. Thus, only thing the Palestinians, the Kashmiris, the Algerians, the Chechniyans can do is act of terrorism and fanaticism. That is the conventional wisdom and the persistently ongoing spin. Thus, what can conscientious and caring Muslims who do care about justice and peace for Muslims AND the humanity (inclusive of all) are sandwiched between the reality of "some" such possible acts of barbarism and the deliberate as well as ingrained tendency to stereotyping, which commonly leads to unacceptable and tragic rush to judgment?
As stated above, there is ONE FACT. The constable Badsha Mian is dead (apparently, murdered) and his body was FOUND inside the alleged mosque. The news that the entire nation and the world heard was that the fanatical, fundamentalist Muslims have captured a police on duty, taken him inside the mosque, and cruelly beaten to death. When the news got out, the police raided and found the dead body soaked in blood inside the mosque. Among those arrested were accused killers who implicated all those present, including Maulana Azizul Huq who, according to the killers (by confession), was right there and knew what was going on.
That’s it. No investigation or trial was needed. The judgment and verdict in stereotypical fashion came in a fury, the samples of which we have seen pouring in on the pages of NFB as well, where in a stroke all the words of inhumanity – barbaric, fanatic, blood-thirsty, criminal, beast, killers, animals, miscreants – were profusely used against these allegedly people without any conscience.
There is only tiny bit of a problem. All those who rushed to the judgment and revealed their otherwise legitimate and understandable fury, did they think, even for a moment, whether this matter required any further investigation? Have they forgotten how there was a rush to judgment facilitated by the spin-machines to implicate Muslims for Oklahoma bombing, only to have the rude awakening that the terrorist was homegrown and one of their very own? Have they forgotten how for many years now the Algerian Muslim opposition has been defamed and demonized putting the blame for all the civilian atrocities squarely on them? Well, the truth is coming out about Algeria. Read the recent news report from AFP News Agency (Paris) that reveals how the Algerian military committed many such massacres masquerading as members of Muslim opposition and resistance. ["Officer's book reveals Algerian horrors", Feb. 8, 2001; http://www.iol.co.za/html/frame_news.php?click_id=85&art_id=qw981663420655B242]
There could be many questions raised about this murdering of Badsha Mian. Why did these people choose to kill not just anyone, but a cop? Why did they decide to kill INSIDE the mosque? Was there no other place to kill other than the interior of the mosque? What could they gain from killing a cop and killing him inside the mosque? Is it impossible to produce fake witnesses or to make people confess doing something that they have not actually committed? Since when the ruling authorities (and we have already experience of several governments, whether AL, BNP, or JP) are so above such machinations that they themselves could not perpetrate it, when on a daily basis we are seeing people are being framed and police force is being used as the militia of the ruling party?
But these are speculative questions. The fact that Maulana Azizul Huq and IOJ, with whose role in declaring the two high court judges "Murtad" I categorically disagree, denied any involvement or knowledge about the killing of Badsha Mian was of absolutely no value. According to an NFB report (Feb. 5), "At one stage, Shaikul Hadit said, he came to know about a body of a policeman in a box. ‘I was hardly 100 yards away from the box and I did not see anything.’ But who would trust such a person? We heard all those Islam-bashers to use all sort of words to describe such people, including "beasts", and all the veteran "beastmasters", including on NFB, were in full-swing in rallying around the circulated version of the story and seeking as well as urging vengeance, giving the disuniting call to all the pro-liberation forces to unite against the anti-liberation forces, and banning religion-based politics.
Is it any mystery that Maulana Azizul Huq was not charged under a regular criminal charge, but under Public Safety Act and was denied legal counsel? But cats (or, is it the rats) are coming out of the bag. While there are "confessions" from three persons who were allegedly involved in killing, it is also curious that one of them, according to NFB report, opened the door for the police. [Three accused tell how they killed constable Badsha Mian, http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/feb/09/pv4n479.htm#7] But there are also contrary accounts, also published in NFB. "Meanwhile, according to accounts of shopkeepers who request anonymity, certain elements who had not been seen in the area before were active when there was tension near the Noor Mosque on that day. … According to one such account, two people who came on a motorcycle hit a police constable severely and left the scene immediately." ["Motorcyclists hit police constable", http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/feb/08/pv4n478.htm#2]
Is there any possibility that the above account is true? Is it barely possible that it is an act of sabotage to frame IOJ and its leading personalities for which an innocent constable had to be a cruel victim? Is it even remotely possible that the so-called murderers were infiltrators? What about the confession? Is it possible that the confession has been coerced?
Well, for me, I have to say that I don’t know. The truth can be determined only through a thorough, unprejudiced and impartial/non-partisan investigation. I am interested in finding out about the truth. We all should be. Whoever is responsible for this murder must be brought to justice. If Maulana Azizul Huq knew about this killing and/or it happened in his presence, or he was the "masterminder", he must be given EXEMPLARY punishment. Also, if the murder did occur inside the mosque as alleged, then punishment should be even severe.
However, should not this matter be investigated, especially in light of the murky politics, tainted judiciary, corrupt and politically-(ab)used law enforcement agency, that is running amuck in Bangladesh? Where is the civility, conscience, enlightenment, or fairness of all those who are rushing to judgment on the basis of the story circulated by the government that neither before this incident had any credibility, nor after, as indicated by the charge under PSA and denial of legal counsel to the accused? I am, on one hand, shocked to read that some from even the Editorial Board of NFB, without any disclaimer that it does not reflect or represent NFB, is among those "progressive intellectuals" who are acting like a "mob" in a way no different than those whom they criticize and want to see prosecuted. On the other hand, I am not surprised at all because this has been the established pattern of these enlightened, freedom-loving, progressive souls.
Anyway, the fact that a police constable is dead (murdered) is there. We hope, though hard to expect, that there would be a non-partisan and thorough judicial probe into this incident. I also hope that all Muslims would offer categorical support to such call for a non-partisan probe and for exemplary punishment for those responsible. But if the judicial probe fails to prove that Maulana Azizul Huq was the masterminder or that it happened in his presence or that the murder did occur inside the masjid, I hope that these callous, irresponsible, Islam-bashing, "intellectual" mob, for once, would look themselves up in the mirror and see if they like what they see. Moreover, at least a few specks of any subsequent blood that has been spilled due to such rush to judgment and exacerbated situation due to their support and blessing would also be on their hand.
May God embrace the soul of hapless Badsha Mian in abounding mercy and blessing, give comfort to his bereaved family and dear ones, and help bring to justice those who are responsible to receive exemplary punishment, whether it is Shaikhul Hadith or anyone else.
III. The Unfolding Machinations?
I have already pointed out in the first segment that the religious establishment and its contemporary fossilized thinking and attitude are basically dysfunctional. Thus, many widespread abuses that are perpetrated in the name of Islam need to be dealt with boldly. But simple boldness can often be mere rashness, if not combined with wisdom. While the role of the two high court judges can be legitimately described as bold, it lacked an important and essential ingredient of any legal ruling: wisdom to understand the social context. But, there might be more to it than meets the eye. Although it would be somewhat speculative, but one probably should not ignore the current political context to better understand the recently unfolding events in Bangladesh.
The ruling party is determined to remain in power. At any cost. For the people, the choice between the government and the opposition is hardly a palatable one. Once ousted and convicted former President has been re-sent to prison. Another constituent of the opposition alliance has been entrapped and its leader Maulana Azizul Huq is now in jail under (what even the secularists and many anti-Fatwa circles describe as draconian and infamous) PSA. In the face of the so-called vigilant judicial system, whose active role (suo moto) paved the way for this mess, Maulana Azizul Huq is even being denied meeting and consultation with his attorneys. In all fairness, of course.
In the anti-Islamic frenzy, paralleled only by the religious frenzy, many of these people forgot (or forgot conveniently) the possibility that this whole thing might be an orchestrated effort to play a predictable political game.
In the first segment (The Fourteen+ Wrongs), I have already dealt with the Hila marriage and its use/abuse that is common in our society. Whatever is the abuse, it is not new or uncommon. Also, no case has been brought to the court, which has important implications. Student politics and the violence do not seem to be a problem in the view of the court or these bold and concerned judges. Defaulter business magnets, who are defying the laws and ripping the nation off, are not of a big concern. All those raped and violated young female students of Jahangirnagar University, whose lives were ruined but the perpetrators got away with their crime (except, possibly with a slap on the wrist) due to political protection from the ruling party, did not deserve any suo moto role of the court. Police brutality and corruption and the political (ab)use of the police force are not of a big problem. I mean problems big enough for these valiant, conscientious, and visionary judges to become judicial activists and give ruling that student politics be banned, or go and get those big loan defaulters, or demand that the rapists be brought to justice, or any politician or party convicted of using violent means intra-party or inter-party would lose their legal political status. Nope.
Two judges as legal activists pick an issue that was predictably to create hysteria that is symptomatic of our dysfunctional society caught between religious and secular fundamentalism. Of course, everyone knows about religious fundamentalism. [If anyone is unfamiliar with secular fundamentalism, read one of my articles and consult a bibliography at my website.] Without preparing any background for such a momentous decision in a country that is already extremely polarized and conflict-ridden, two lone-ranger-like judges throw the nation into a traumatic mess.
The timing is quite intriguing too. Is this problem of Fatwa, Fatwabaji or Hila marriage new? Why take on this issue so close to the imminent national election where the ruling party is desperately trying to cling to the power with an iron fist, not sparing even the leftists? Why was it not done after the election to leave no room for any misunderstanding that this ruling was purely on its merit and not politically motivated?
More important to notice is the combative tone of the court in a highly sensitized and polarized society, where it should not need a wizard or sage to anticipate the trauma or mess it would cause. Whatever way the two judges intended, the report got out to the world in a very overreaching away, quite similar to the way BBC reported: "The High Court ruled in December that ALL KINDS of fatwa were illegal." [emphasis is mine; http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1150000/1150105.stm].
I haven't been able to get the full text of the court ruling, but the religious establishment read, understood and interpreted the ruling quite the same way as it was reported in the media. If this is correct, then either these judges do not know what Fatwa is or did not want to distinguish between Fatwa as an enforceable legal verdict and Fatwa as interpretive religious opinion, or they did not bother as to how did it get reported. For example, there is a 37 volumes collection of Fatwa of Imam Ibn Taimiyyah, Majmu' Fatawa Ibn Taimiyah. Or, consider the famous work in the context of this subcontinent, Fatwa-e-Alamgiri. Such Fatawa includes expert opinions about religious rituals and purity too, which do not have anything to do with law and enforceability. Indeed, the vast majority of such collections is of religious interpretive opinions only. By giving a general ruling against Fatwa, these high court judges have overstepped the boundary of legal norms or protocols, especially in the context of a Muslim-majority country, and have shown a pitiful lack of sensitivity toward the country's long-standing and deep-rooted heritage as well as the contemporary social landscape. While taking a step against the abuse of Fatwa in the hands of unscrupulous and unauthorized people was in the right direction, by giving a ruling of an unacceptably overreaching scope, it served merely to add to the deepening problems of the country.
The entire anti-Islamic establishment also has conveniently forgotten that Fatwa is not merely a legal verdict, it can also have other applications, from which we all have undeniably benefited. This is what I find as the hypocritical dimension of the anti-Islamic establishment that often cites Maulana Abul Kalam Azad as one of the towering examples of secularism in India, but have they forgotten how all those Muslim leaders and scholars, including Maulana Azad, have applied Fatwa in their struggle against the British colonial rule? [Book: Islamic Seal on India's Independence: Abul Kalam Azad--A Fresh Look, http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no13205.htm] If only our country could be completely delinked from her history and heritage, then it might be different. But would there be Bangladesh, if there were no freedom from the British colonial rule? And, who would deny the potent role of Fatwa in such cases that have positively shaped our history and heritage? Thus, lumping the abuses with Fatwa itself in general was definitely wrong, unwise, and, to many, unacceptable. While the judges, the judicial system and even the secularists would have found many sensible Muslims on their side against the abuses, the court ruling effectively preempted that possibility. Instead, it allowed the most conservative sections of the religious establishment to seize the role of martyrs.
Did those two judges thought through how the ruling could be misunderstood by the religious establishment, because it calls for a general banning of giving Fatwa, a vast part of which is merely products of religious research codified in books of Islamic Fiqh? In many high circles of the religious establishments in Bangladesh there is a growing recognition of the need to deal with such abuses of Fatwa. Unfortunately, there has been no organized effort to turn such recognition into a constructive campaign, which I would deal with in a separate segment.
In light of the latent recognition that those local religious rulings without the requisite Islamic framework and authority are not valid, and such practice must not occur, there could be attempts to resolve the problems by constructively engaging the highest level of religious establishment to find ways to end such abuses. Contrary to the perceptions created by anti-Islamic circle, a good part of the Ulama are becoming more conscious of the social problems and through constructive and respectful engagement they can be persuaded to take a more positive role in addressing at least some of the major maladies.
I state this not as a speculation, but from personal experience of the last 20-25 years of building bridges with at least some major segments of the Ulama in this regard. The process of seeking change in a tradition-bound environment is painfully slow, but there are movements in the right direction. But if this process is not dealt with with appropriate level of sensitivity and empathy, confrontation would be inevitable, in which not necessarily anyone will win. One group, definitely, will lose in the long run: the people. But when did they win anything, anyway?
Therefore, no, not just such the abusive use of Fatwa in rural areas, the court rules that Fatwa as a whole must be banned, which essentially would mean that another book like Fatawa-I-Alamgiri, Hedaya, or of Imam Ibn Taimiya could not be put together. If the religious establishment misunderstands this all-inclusive ruling, as propagated by the media, as a direct encroachment on Islam and on their turf, there is room for such misunderstanding, which could have been avoided if those two adventurous judges realized the prevailing sensitivity surrounding many such issues.
In a virtually lawless and mob-like environment in Bangladesh, who is really respecting the law and order? Was it too long ago for us to forget that an unfavorable progress regarding the Mujib murder trial provoked the mob of the ruling party to go after even trial judge's relatives, who had nothing to do with the trial? Have we forgotten how the naming of a few halls of the university in Sylhet created terrible and uncontrollable disturbance? Is it that the court had no responsibility to take these social conditions into consideration, or like the intriguing timing, was it a deliberate step geared toward greater misunderstanding and possible provocation?
So, the way Talaq was handled by an individual family was wrong. The way Fatwa was given was wrong. The way, suo moto, the court gave the blanket ruling was not wise or appropriate. A constable got murdered, and there are questions as to who killed him. But before any investigation or trial, the leader of another constituent of the opposition alliance is in jail. He has been arrested under PSA and denied the legal counsels. Thus, whatever are the excesses on any of the sides, it can't be condoned, but if even the sensible, conscientious and non-extremist Muslims smell some rat, would it be altogether unwarranted?
Also, by turning this into an anti-liberation vs. pro-liberation conflict, the water has been made even more murky. The credit has to go to Awami League to be able to cause these four parties to come together to begin with as opposition alliance. Otherwise, how else could JP and BNP could come together? Jamaat and IOJ could not tolerate each other either. They together could not accept any woman's leadership. Now, all of them are on one platform. If anyone believes that they would be able to further the cause of Bangladesh by dubbing everyone other than AL and the leftists as anti-liberation, the negative consequences for the society might be such that nobody would be spared.
If the secular establishment and activist judges have shown their zealotry to deal with the Fatwa problems, the religious establishment predictably and characteristically have been entrapped in the most unacceptable and shameful way.
IV. The Reactionary Religionists
As soon as I came to know about the high court ruling that brought the Fatwa issue into the spotlight, my reaction was: "There we go again!" In light of the past experience, probably many could clearly anticipate what was to follow as a reaction to the ruling. Quite predictably, the religious establishment offered its reaction with its common weapons from its dull and outdated arsenal: liberal distribution of "murtad" label and claiming the head of those two judges (whose heads don’t seem to be that filled to be worth as much as indicated by the unwise handling of the court ruling), and demanding that NGOs, the "agents of Satan" in their view, should be banned.
How much more ridiculous their positions can be? Having disproportionately more zealotry than astuteness, acumen and finesse, neither they have a focus of their response, nor a defensible scope of their demand, nor a balance in articulating those demand.
If this whole Fatwa-ruling of the high court was a set-up for them, and there are indications that it is, in a rabbit-like fashion they walked right into the trap. What was done in regard to the Hila marriage and the Fatwa in that village was Islamically wrong. The Ulama should have been the first to condemn it. Also, given the Fatwa-related abuses and flare-ups of the past, they should have taken a proactive role in publicizing their position that many of them have already individually articulated, educating the public about such matters, and building a broad based collaboration and campaign to prevent such incidents from happening in future. They should have condemned and invalidated the Fatwa, and be a partner of all those, including the court and others, who want to see such abuses stop, and then take on the high court ruling that the way the ruling has been formulated and given is unacceptable.
But no, the same old dull, ineffective, counter-productive and inappropriate use of the tool, the label of "Murtad"! Wham! The ultimate magic tool, the outcome of which so far has been anything but magical. Not only that this hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t now or in future, it is Islamically quite inappropriate to use such labeling. The whole issue of apostasy is one of those aspects of fossilized understanding of Muslims that has grave implications. To better understand this issue, one may read some of the following works. ["The Issue of Apostasy", http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/mashaykh_azhar.htm; also, a must reading book, Fadl, Khaled Abou El. The Authoritative and Authoritarian in Islamic Discourses. Austin, TX: Quill Publishers, 1997]
There is another important dimension of this problem. There are a vast number of people in the educated middle class of our society, who simply are not Muslims. Among them are leftists, atheists, agnostics, secularists, secular fundamentalists, and so on. By their own ideology and affirmation, they are non-Muslims. They have the right to be whatever they want to be and Islamically it is inappropriate to label such people as Murtad, unless they claim to be Muslims and at the same time repudiate Islam. But that is generally not so in most such cases, and even this is so, applying such "Murtad" label as a coercive tool takes Muslims simply nowhere.
Another mistake of the religious establishment in this case is its failure to distance itself from the abuse of Fatwa and the prevailing religious practices, and to take a wholesale defensive and apologetic position for the kind of Fatwa that is generally they themselves consider (or should consider) unacceptable. They did have some common ground with the court’s ruling: unacceptability of the ABUSE of Fatwa. Without identifying the common ground and clarifying that part of the ruling was right, the religious establishment’s position was quite unbalancedly inappropriate against the equally unbalanced and inappropriate, wholesale ruling of the high court.
The other counter-productive and ineffective demand is to ban NGO activities in Bangladesh. NGO activities in Bangladesh have matured to such an extent that they are almost a shadow government, and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about overreaching power of these NGOs that are mostly foreign-backed and more interested in exclusive issues that only polarize the society than seeking holistic improvements in the society.
It must be recognized that there are many good NGOs and they emerged primarily in response to the failure of the government institutions as well as the society in general. When the religious establishment shows little or no care about poverty, illiteracy, women’s rights, etc. and nor do they seem to be capable to do anything about these widespread socio-economic problems, NGOs would fill the vacuum and they are not going to disappear just because of some reactionary wish. There can be a legitimate demand that NGOs should refrain from political activities, which should be the domain of political parties. But instead of seeking appropriate regulation of NGO activities, seeking ban on NGOs, whether secular or missionary, is not going to cut. By seeking such ban the religious establishment would simply continue to undermine itself and Islam.
It is unfortunate that those from the religious establishment who think that the society is becoming increasingly secularized in a negative and immoral direction, they do not realize that they themselves bear a good deal of responsibility for this. I articulated this point in a previous write-up on Shetubondhon, "SHAME: The first and real one, but we did not listen!". In the prefatory remarks to my translation of selected portions of Nazrul’s novel, Mrittukhudha, I mentioned: "The reaction most people, many of whom are sincere but simplistic (or simpletons would be more appropriate) and quite a few manipulative/opportunists, showed to her – I mean the LAJJA-kor lady - (and later their embroiled, reactive emotions directed to missionaries and NGOs working in Bangladesh) was quite misplaced and unwarranted.
That the works of missionaries and NGOs (particularly, not just secular, but secularizing ones) did not come about in a vacuum and are not going to disappear because of these huge demonstrations, and loud chanting, admonitions or threats was a message completely lost on most of those who reacted against the missionaries/NGOs so vehemently and crudely."In Mrittukhudha, the conversation between the Muslim social activist, Ansar, and Mejo Bou is an eye-opener. I produce a small segment of excerpts from my partial translation below:
Ansar thanked her (Miss Jones) and then turning to badly shaken Mejo Bou asked, "Well, please tell me, what was the reason behind sudden conversion to Christianity?" ...
Mejo Bou replied, "No. YOU ALL HAVE MADE ME A CHRISTIAN LITTLE BY LITTLE." ...
Ansar stared at her with amazement for quite some time. Then, with deep sympathy, he said, "I understand, how much repression our orthodox-fanatic (dhormandho) society has done to force a woman like you to become a Christian."
At these few sympathetic and caring words, the eyes of distressed Mejo Bou filled up with tears. Soon the tears started rolling down her cheek in drops. ...
While passing her hand over their (i.e., kids) heads, in a somber voice, Mejo Bou said, "These two are my problems. Here we are at least getting two meals. I HAVE COME HERE (with the care/assistance-providing Church) BECAUSE I COULD NOT BEAR THEIR HUNGER ANY LONGER." ...
Mejo Bou said, "Before leaving, the (Christian) madam gave one taka to buy some special food for her. She has asked to give her juice of pomegranate." While uttering these words, drops of tears started coming down her cheeks unstoppably. Mejo Bou kept crying, "So much misery is our destiny, O Allah! Even during these last hours, it's beyond our ability to buy a few grapes or pomegranates and put in the mouth of Shejo bou. You die starving - no body even bothers to inquire. SHAME on my own community (jaat), my relatives of the village. No wonder so many become Christians!"
It's an unmistakable indictment. The actual sentence is somewhat more than attributing "Shame": How about "Jhata (broom) mar nijer jaater mukhe, geyatkutumer mukhe!"
One can't but cry in empathy with all our Mejo Bou's and Shejo Bou's. The sad part is that those cries and agonies somehow mostly do not reach the religious establishment that claims to represent or be the vanguard of Islam. This is partly because, in the inept and insensitive hands of many of us, the very Ummah that has been "created for the mankind/humanity" [3/Ale Imran/110] has been dehumanized. What we observe as Islam today, I would describe it as a way of life that is like a "shrunk skeleton turned upside down" - title of a presentation I made at a Masjid several years ago.
Maulana Azizul Huq, a leader of one of the largest Madrasah networks, seems to have been entrapped by the machinations of others. No one has taken the time to see or observe how many orphans have found loving and caring shelter under his network, who otherwise would have been completely left out on the street. Taking care of the orphans, one of the noblest tasks in Islam, represents a great humanitarian work. But if Islam as a whole is to be meaningful and relevant to our life, we have to have a fundamental revision in our understanding and approach. So many people, well-meaning people, look up to the religious establishment with devotion and dedication. This is an asset that can be positively utilized for constructive purposes, if those desired changes could be attained.
Islam as a complete way of life, political and religious dimensions are inseparable. But the kind of politics Jamaat-e-Islami has developed has become significantly asynchronous with the dynamism of Islam. No wonder that the party quite curiously and almost regularly ends up on the wrong side of history, as it did in 1971 and also during the movement to bring the government of Khaleda Zia down. Jamaat-e-Islami still remains a potent force to reckon with in Bangladesh, as it also has a significant sphere of influence, though due to its own follies it has not been able to transform its influence into votes. Unfortunately, without some very fundamental changes, it may continue to be a major political force, yet marginalized in the overall context.
Then, there is Tabligh Jamaat, a movement with probably the largest religious following in Bangladesh, but completely detached from the social reality. Adherents of this movement are so other-worldly that hardly anything of this world matters. While Tabligh as a worldwide movement is reaching far corners of the world and even bringing a good number of people to the bank of Turag river, the attachment of a significant portion of the people in Bangladesh to Islam is becoming weaker as the Islam they observe has little to do with their daily struggles of life.
Each of these has tremendous potential to make positive difference, but they are fossilized in the frame of history, unable to initiate relevant and sufficient changes from within to enable themselves to bridge the gap between them and Islam on one hand and the contemporary time on the other.
Thus, the religious establishment can shower the label "Murtad" on others as liberally as it wants and it can demand banning of NGOs as boisterously and forcefully as it wants, but until and unless they are caring enough and capable of standing by the side of those Mejo Bou's, share their sorrows, wipe their tears, and address their grievances at the human level, as, for example, it was done by the Prophet Muhammad (s), whom they claim to follow, NGOs are here to stay. The religious establishment and circles can't be merely REACTIONARY - reacting to the unfolding events in a negative way. They will remain, and be increasingly, marginalized if they can't give up their current modus operandi and be proactive.
The religious establishment and circles in the last century were mostly on the wrong side. The clearest example of that was their role in general and of Jamaat-e-Islami in particular in 1971. Jamaat-e-Islami was dead wrong once again in being bedfellows of Awami League to bring down the Khaleda Zia’s government. Jamaat was among the cohorts in the Hartal culture of the opposition at that time. [By the way, I had no confidence in Khaleda Zia or BNP then, and I still don’t have any confidence in BNP or the opposition alliance now.]
One could have learnt some lessons from Taslima Nasrin debacle. The approach and position of the religious establishment and toward the issue of SHAME-ful (actually, shameless) Taslima Nasrin was not right. Similar to the case of the two high court judges, she was declared a Murtad and her head was sought. The whole "Murtad" issue, the way it is generally understood and popularly used, is not in tune with Islam. But that’s a different issue. Even within the traditional framework, she couldn’t be awarded this label, because she is an avowed non-Muslim. And, it is an essential right recognized by Islam that people can choose their faith or lack of faith, when they become adults. There is no two ways about it. Bigoted, opportunistic, secular fundamentalist zealots, like Taslima Nasrin (or another one, Salman Rushdie), is better treated as "nardomar kit", insects from the sewer, about whom Nazrul said: "Due to grace we spare them, thinking them as ant or toy" [Ek Allah Jindabad]. And, no one said it better than Nazrul about how to deal with these insects in the same poem.
"Let them enjoy mud-slinging, their weapons are malice and vilification,
We will throw bouquet at them, and trumpet to one God our salutation."As a Muslim I prefer throwing bouquet at them. Although I might also prefer to throw the rotten ones toward them and saving the fresh ones for the real heroes of our society, those hard-working and struggling women, who are at the receiving ends of the maladies of human society, including Muslim societies.
By not appropriately distancing themselves from the abuse, now, on the Fatwa issue the religious establishment has become identified as the wholesale, public defenders of the abuse and on the court ruling they have become public challengers. The reality is that those Fatwa, as in the case of the local Imam or mullah imposing Hila marriage, was indefensible; so is indefensible the wholesale attack on the high court’s ruling.
Furthermore, it has become a part of our political culture of protest that whenever we are upset, our demonstration must include violence and damage to both public and civilian properties. Apparently, no group is above this. Thus, secular or non-secular, nationalist and non-nationalist, Islamic or non-Islamic, madrasah-educated or otherwise, all groups have basically embraced this culture of violence. While some may take consolation in the fact that everyone is doing it, but then it is just that – everyone’s culture, no distinctiveness. That is why I have no confidence in the government in power or in the opposition. It is also hard to have any confidence in those groups that currently claim to represent Islam.
Islam is inseparable from Bangladesh and its people. The Ulama also are very close to the heart of the ordinary people. Just as much ability they have to function as impediments, they also have the potential to become powerful forces for positive and dynamic changes. Ulama also carry a noble heritage of scholarship, conscience, struggle for justice and freedom, and anti-colonial movements in this entire subcontinent, of which the Ulama of Bangladesh constitute an important part. For the sake of Islam and for the sake of people, they need to understand the serious shortcomings of being simply reactive. They need to learn the value, wisdom and efficacy of being proactive, which will not only place them on the side of people at the human level, but also many others, including some conscientious secularists, would also find common grounds with them. They need to be in tune with the spirituality of Imam Ghazzali, the struggling spirit of Imam Ibn Taimiyyah, the erudition of Al-Biruni, the valor of Haji Shariatullah, or the vision of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
I have further articulated my thoughts for some proactive works in one of my papers, Funadamental Challenges facing the Muslims. Also, I believe that Muslims in general need to develop a business-like mentality that is rooted in the Qur'an. If interested, please read Muslim Unity: A Business-Like Approach.
V. The Callous Ultra-Secularists[Note: Readers should evaluate each segment in the context of the overall series. The response to my series so far on NFB has been from Mr. Narayan Gupta and it is deteriorating to the level of personal attacks. He wrote (The Second Fiddlers’ Dungeon; February 15, 2001): "Only a professor from University of Upper Volta might come up with this kind of weird logic!" Would Mr. Gupta care to explain the meaning and purpose of this statement? Whatever I have written - right or wrong, logical or illogical - what does that have to do with my university affiliation? What does Mr. Gupta intend to achieve by distorting the name of the institution I am affiliated with? It is the responsibility of editor(s) to ensure that some zealous authors do not bring down an otherwise healthy discussion to a personal level.]
In the previous segment, I dealt with the reactionary attitude and approach of many religionists today. Among these religionists are many Muslims as well those who reject secularism altogether and harbor disdain and even hatred against it. Of course, it is not a fair or balanced position.
a. Secularism: The historical context
When in the 17th century, Galileo was branded as a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church for holding his scientific views that ran against the Church dogmas, he was compelled to abjure and sent to life imprisonment. It was a great affront and injustice to the very essence of human freedom, dignity and conscience.
The conflict between church and science was the context in which secularism emerged as an ideology, which basically meant separation of religion and state. No conscientious person who believes in human dignity can disagree with the original premise of secularism or dismiss its historical context as irrelevant. As a Muslim and a human being, I can’t but have empathy with all those souls that valiantly struggled against the fossilized dogma of the church. This is one of the most important common grounds that a Muslim should find with the secularists. Thus, when Muslims tend to reject or criticize secularism, it is not difficult to understand that the secularists in general would misunderstand the position of Muslims. As a Muslim, I can’t speak from the perspective of all religions or the religionists, and thus, my articulation is primarily derived from an Islamic perspective.
As I have always tried, I am trying first as above to set the discussion on a positive and constructive track by identifying this historical context to steer the dialog toward seeking common ground than emphasizing what is different.
b. The contemporary trend in secularism
Over time secularism has evolved as a form of ideology that has become refined, sharpened, and broadened in terms of the meaning and scope of secularism and secularist expectations. In the West, the power of science and technology proved its worth and pushed the church to the domain where it belonged. In doing so, gradually a generalized position against religion evolved, where religion is viewed as a private matter and there was no reason why religions such as Christianity could not be practiced and lived as a private faith. Thus, the winning model of secularism that emerged in basically the Christian West was that the state would not have any religion as a state religion, nor would it recognize any religion as the dominant one, giving it special favors from the state. Rather, all people, with or without any faith, can live their private life as they wish. This is recognized as an expression of basic human rights and an essential dimension of pluralistic society.
As most of us have an entrenched tendency to emphasize differences than common grounds, one of the points that is often glossed over in most exchanges about secularism is that there might not be or necessarily one singular model of secularism. Not recognizing this aspect clouds our discussion to such a great extent that we often don’t clarify what exactly do we have in mind when it comes to secularism.
One can appreciate the importance of this aspect only if we realize that the western model of secularism may not necessarily be the only model. This is illustrated by the fact that India constitutionally adopted secularism since its independence, and in the subcontinent secularists point to this matter on a regular basis. What they fail, however, to conscientiously acknowledge is that some of the primary leaders that prepared and led India to be what it is now did not quite share the western model of secularism. That’s why personalities such as Maulana Azad or Mahatma Gandhi were devoutly religious in their own faith, and yet avowedly secular. I frequently see the secularists from the subcontinent, including Bangladesh, referring to Maulana Azad as a towering figure of secularism. But would these secularists agree or feel comfortable having a Maulana Azad-like person, who on one hand spoke and lived Islam and never shunned to defend and promote the interest of Islam and Muslims in India or elsewhere, as the education minister in Bangladesh?
c. Muslim perception and experience of secularism
Why then Muslims, who seem to care about and value their faith, seem to be so much against secularism per se? Well, to understand this point, conscientious and caring secularists might like to take into account how secularism as advocated and promoted in the contemporary world is understood and/or perceived by Muslims in general. There are three areas I would like to identify as food for thought and mutual exploration.
First, secularism as embraced and upheld by leaders such as Maulana Azad and Mahatma Gandhi was more focused on religious harmony and moderation so that religious excesses are avoided and no particular religion dominates over the others at the government level. While Indian secularism has succeeded in this regard or not, the contemporary secularism has a far broader scope than those leaders envisioned. Indeed, modern contemporary secularism has become an ideological umbrella for everything that virtually all religions are at odd with. Under such constitutional secularism, homosexuality, free sex (adultery, non-marital living together, children out of wedlock, etc), pornography are (or are being) normalized and given legal status. We can’t knock at their grave and ask Azad or Gandhi whether the secularism they believed in or advocated had this broad scope, but based on their articulated thought and respect of faith in both private and public life, I would not think that they did, unless someone can produce evidence to the contrary. Indeed, such encompassing secularism would not find a welcome ground in any Muslim country, and even in India there would be appreciable resistance. If these aspects are vital to the secularists, then the opposition of Muslims and other religionists would be inevitable. Unfortunately, secularists of our countries have not clarified whether the kind of secularism they want, especially at the constitutional level, is of the scope that has become normal to the western societies. I have further dealt with this matter in a previous write up "Secularism is more than 'religious harmony'".
Second, the kind of secularism Muslim world is experiencing has made Muslims very concerned and antagonistic. This form of secularism is known as Secular Fundamentalism as in Turkey, where, for example, Muslim women are legally barred from political and public offices as well as schools/universities who wear headscarves or hijab. Just like Muslim countries, such as Afghanistan, that claim to be Islamic and tend to present a coercive model give a headache to the secularists, the Turkey’s secularist war against Islam, where Muslims are deprived of their right to practice their way of life even in dress code, would never be accepted or supported by Muslims, whether in Bangladesh or elsewhere. There are many Muslims in Bangladesh who do not wear hijab or believe in coercing people to do so, I believe that the vast majority of Muslims not only would reject any such coercion not to wear hijab, but also they would actively resist it. Unfortunately, the voices of the kind of secularists that come louder than others publicly support and defend the Turkish type of secular fundamentalism.Furthermore, states that practice secular fundamentalism, such as Turkey and Algeria, and those who support or defend such states seem to care more for secularism than democracy. On one hand, these vocal secular fundamentalists claim that the kind of secularism they believe in is not of the God-less type of autocratic communism, but when it comes to secular fundamentalism of countries like Turkey and Algeria, where democracy is subverted at the altar of secularism, they don’t mind it as long as Islam and Muslims are kept at bay. While such secular fundamentalists, as exemplified by some on NFB, who would like not to see democracy undermined in Bangladesh, especially so that AL - the only party "worth name" – remains in power undisturbed, they have no problem justifying their support for Algeria or Turkey where democracy is sacrificed by the military at will at the altar of secularism. This is how much faith the ultra-secularists or secular fundamentalists have in democracy.
Just like the way secularists feel about the society under Taliban-type of regime, the Turkish and Algerian type of secular fundamentalism sends chill through Muslim minds and when there are boisterous voices defending such type of secularism, it only strengthens the extremism in the name of secularism and undermines the kind of secularism like that of Maulana Azad or Mahatma Gandhi, about which there might be better receptiveness in our society.
Third, many secularists, these days with a veneer of humanism, seem to consider themselves as more enlightened, open minded, objective, shunning dogmatism, narrow-mindedness and prejudice. They should be able to better guide and motivate the society to lesser conflict and tension. That does not seem to be the case in Bangladesh, where anyone speaking from the Islamic perspective or for Islam is dubbed as anti-liberation and they seem to believe that the better future of the country lies with a complete polarization between anti-liberation and pro-liberation forces, until one side pushes the other all the way to the Bay of Bengal. While these people claim to benefit from the knowledge and advancement from the rest of the world, especially the advanced West, somehow the way people elsewhere are resolving there matters, putting their past behind, and building bridges to work for a better, common future (as in the case of South Africa, a past bastion of one of the worst apartheids, and European Union, the hot bed of nationalistic jingoism where two of the worst wars in human history happened), these enlightened, "liberal-democrats", "humanists" are feeding the wild frenzy to such deepening polarization.
There are plenty of Muslims in Bangladesh who believe and understand that Pakistan is primarily responsible for the break up of the nation and one of the worst genocides was committed in Bangladesh. They believe that those who committed genocide and collaborated in this specific regard need to take appropriate responsibility and should be held accountable. But these same people also believe that Bangladesh and Islam are inseparable in a way that Bangladesh might or should not be like Afghanistan, but the basic heritage and root of the majority of the people of Bangladesh must not be undermined altogether. It is because of this underlying reality of the vast majority of otherwise sober Muslims, no political force in Bangladesh can get to the hot seat of power without either the politics of Bismillah as was the case with BNP/Zia or without Munajat-Tasbih style pose as in the case of AL’s Sheikh Hasina.
Disregard this reality and it will strengthen the hand of more conservative and reactionary religionists, the very group the secularists want to avoid most. How secularism as stipulated in the original constitution was undermined by the unscrupulous acts of AL and the ultra-secularists in Bangladesh before 1975, I have discussed it in a previous series "Sonar Bangla: Some Reflections" on Shetubondhon. The attempt and tendency to polarize Bangladesh between pro-liberation and anti-liberation forces can make the water more murky, and would lead the country to a very tragic direction. It is possible to work for an environment of moderation in religion, and sensibility in economy, education, society, culture and human rights. But the soil and heritage of Bangladesh won’t be fertile for the liberal, western type of secularism or secular fundamentalism.
Such voices defending and rationalizing secular fundamentalism give secularism in general a bad name and the attention of most Muslims and religionists go toward these callous ultra-secularists, instead of those sober voices of secularism who have greater concern about religious excesses and interest in religious harmony.
The reason I deliberately choose the word "callous" for these ultra-secularists or secular fundamentalists – and there are quite a few such voices on NFB – is because quite hypocritically they treat the parties in Bangladesh with military-roots, such as BNP and JP (about which I myself have no regard or for the other constituents of the opposition alliance), in one way and the military of Turkey and Algeria in another way. They are disgusted by those Algerian Muslim "militants" or "terrorists". But they have not a moment to spare whether the civilian massacres in Algeria occurred in the hands of Muslim resistance forces, or in the hands of the Algerian military forces masquerading as Muslim opposition forces. They are such "believers" in secularism and consider it paramount to defend secularism AT ANY COST that anything that comes out of such secular governments and against the Muslims or "Islamic fundamentalists" is like "revealed truth" – for which no second thought is necessary or benefit of doubt is warranted.
d. Methods that won't work
Such ultra-secularists or secular fundamentalists give secularism a bad name and tend to preempt any meaningful dialog. Let’s take the case of the killing of Badsha Mian. It seems that to some people, being "liberal democrat" or "secularist" means that you can distort others’ statements as you like.
I have very clearly articulated my thought about the murder of Badsha Mian. My statement that "USING PSA to arrest Maulana Azizul Huq was wrong" has been quite "liberally" distorted by a "liberal democrat" as if I said that "arresting" him was wrong. It may have escaped the attention of Mr. Gupta that Mr. Esam Sohail, an avowed but sober secularist, made this point on NFB that how using PSA to arresting him was wrong and would undermine the case against the accused. But due to Mr. Gupta’s boundless generosity, I alone – poor or lucky me - became the beneficiary of all the credit and accolade for my "weird logic"!
Also, nowhere did I say I have any "proof" one way or the other, whether the murder took place inside the masjid or outside. What I mentioned as alternative version is what I found as a news report on NFB. But once again in "liberal democratic" tradition, he "liberally" fitted what he considered to be the "proof" into what I said, as he saw fit. Such liberal approach to distort and mischaracterize should strengthen the case for "liberal democrats, humanists", and make them very proud!
What is callous about this whole matter is that not ONE – I repeat, ONE - of these boisterous voices of secularism has called for a non-partisan and thorough judicial probe first AND, THEN, exemplary punishment for WHOEVER has perpetrated this horrible and dastardly crime. All these "liberal democrats", "humanists" want is punishment. If this is not callous and irresponsible, I don’t know what is.
I began with something identifying as a common ground between Muslims and secularists. We have a lot more to explore in the same direction. Indeed, there are plenty of religious excesses in our society, and whether Muslims/religionists like or not, lacking their internal dynamism and environment to avoid such excesses, there is a debt to secularism that vigilantly remind us of these maladies. But just as I can’t support or rationalize the reactionary attitude and approach of the religionists among my fellow Muslims, I humbly submit that I can’t be sympathetic to the attitude and approach of the callous ultra-secularists or secular fundamentalists, especially when they have no interest in seeking the truth regarding what happens or happened, but rather they are as much driven by their prejudiced emotion, behaving like intellectual lynch mob.
There are many observers of the ongoing tension and conflict in Bangladesh whose prognosis is that Bangladesh is drifting toward a full-scale civil war. [For example, see a recent book by Paul Ryan, Bangladesh 2000: On The Brink Of Civil War: Fragments From Inside A Coming Explosion] In my view, we are already having a low-level civil war. The polarization that we are observing, especially under the sway of the extremists of all persuasions who do not believe in the rule of law, lends credence to such prognosis. Yet, with so many capable, concerned and conscientious people, it is unfortunate that the nation is in such a mess and faces such dire prognosis.
Those whose partisan attitude is so deep that they think that the root of the problem is basically on entirely the "other" side are not going to be of big help to overcome this debacle. But they seem to have a grip on the events and the developing trend. No country or nation can move forward with such deep division, conflict and tension, and if there is not a minimum threshold of law and order, and peace and stability. With all the passion, creativity and sacrifice, this nation has come into existence, are we applying those to understand the problems and seek solutions?
a. The areas of tensionFirst, there is the religion (Islam) vs. secularism conflict. I hope that the nation can modulate itself over time toward a balanced position that might not make all the sides completely or perfectly happy, but they should find some mutually acceptable position.
In this series and elsewhere I have explained that the kind of rotten system, like under Talibani regime, some Muslims desire might not find a fertile ground in Bangladesh. Muslims themselves need to recognize the fact that the image and impression that others have of an Islamic state, Islamic republic, religious state, especially in light of the contemporary experience in several such so-called Islamic countries, is a very negative one. In Bangladesh, quite understandably, the image of Islam or any "Islamic republic" is probably worse because of the tragic experience with Pakistan. Unfortunately, the politics of Islamic parties and circles and their approach and methods in Bangladesh have not had a very positive and dynamic impact. Thus, Muslims need to understand that whenever a call is made for the implementation of Sharia or a demand to declare the country as an Islamic republic, it sounds like a warning bell to many.
On the other hand, I have also articulated that for any Bangladeshi equation, Islam in some meaningful and substantive form is unavoidable. Muslims cannot build a better future without being proactive, dynamic and constructive. Moreover, those who believe that Islam is a way of life also need to understand that too much "religion" or turning everything into a "religious" matter or issue is not necessarily an Islamic way of dealing with life. Life has to be lived, and if Islam is a way of life, then instead of turning everything into religious dogma and ritual, Muslims need to take a fresher look at life from an Islamic perspective. I urge concerned Muslims and others to read one of my concept papers "Fundamental Challenges Facing the Muslims".
I have also explained why secularism may not be a mono-model thing and why Bangladesh would not be a fertile ground for western, liberal-type secularism. However, a different model might be possible where better religious harmony exists and excesses of all sides (religious or secular) are minimized or marginalized.
Second area of tension is in terms of the polarization of the country between pro-liberation and anti-liberation forces. It is my feeling that the foolhardiness in this regard is so deep that we are probably not thinking about these issues in a problem-solving manner. If we believe that a resolution of this matter is important for the stability, prosperity and better future of Bangladesh, then we better think about this issue in a problem-solving manner. I have partially dealt with this in the previous segment. I have also articulated my views, especially on 1971 experience, in scattered ways in several write-ups, including Sonar Bangla: Some Reflections and Muslim Unity: A Business-Like Approach.
Islam-lovers need to have a positive appreciation of the liberation struggle in Bangladesh. It is also important that they need to be on the side of seeking accountability for the genocide committed in Bangladesh by the Pakistan military. On the other side, those who identify themselves as pro-liberation need to recognize that perennially using the pro-anti label regarding the independence can bring political mileage only at the expense of the country’s healthy future. They need to keep the distinction between those small minority who may have committed crime and those vast majority who may have simply could not rise above their political, religious or emotional support for Pakistan for which our previous generation – yes, our parents and grandparents – have sacrificed so much in the struggle for Pakistan. If we continue to lump everyone – those who may have committed crime and who have not – would simply not allow the nation to close some critical gaps toward our "emotional integration" as a nation.
Vast majority of the Muslims in Bangladesh are not only at peace with independent Bangladesh, but also they are second to none in their passion for the independence. To keep playing this pro-anti liberation game the way it is being played can only do one thing: keep the current turmoil intact and the country bleeding.
It is unfortunate that with all the conscientious people who express care for the country and its future have not taken any bold step or initiative to help make this "emotional integration" or "national reconciliation" possible. If the country is equally divided on both sides, do we realistically expect that the solution or resolution is only by taking complete "care" of the other side by either getting rid of them or push them into the Turag river or the Bay of Bengal? If not, what practical ideas do the conscientious people, religious and secular, have to come together to build a viable and better future for the country?
Third, politically there is a deep division in the country. However, the real problem is much more endemic and it is our corrupt and polluted political culture. I have articulated this matter in several of my previous write-ups that unless the existing political forces, AL as well as the constituents of the opposition alliance, change their culture and character in a fundamental way, none of them would be relevant for a better future of the country. We need to think beyond these existing political forces. There is a need to build a national consensus on the basis of some bottom line conditions for the country to make the relevant transition. I invite the readers to take a look at another of my concept papers "Toward Political Transformation in Bangladesh: The Demand and the Supply Side of Healthy Politics", where I have identified five bottom line conditions that are indispensable in this regard. I also welcome your valuable input and feedback to further refine it.
b. The Uncivil War
What needs recognition is that the context of the world, and the realm of Bangladesh, is such that no side may be able to shove the other side to the sea and paint the country as a canvas exactly or fully as they like. The recognition of this very fact by both sides can take us a long way toward exploring various positive possibilities and work toward finding some minimum threshold for mutual acceptance and accommodation. However, extreme position, in the form of either religious or secular fundamentalism, would not be conducive for this purpose. This task is for those who are visionary, big-hearted, principled as well as pragmatic, and empathetic in regard to the genuine and legitimate concerns of the other sides.
There are passionate or zealot Muslims who are like doctors that have little human concern about the patients. Either they are too withdrawn from the social reality or they are fossilized in their traditional thinking that is keeping Islam as a hostage. Nazrul wrote about some of them in a comical way in a poem: "Jibone Jahara Bachilo Na" (listen to an audio file). Muslims should not desire to become Shahid merely to seek the bounties of the life hereafter. They must also seek after this life – to live it fully. By the way, just in case any of my Muslim fellows misunderstand my this-worldly statement, this is what the Qur’an says: "But seek, with the (wealth) which God has bestowed on you, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget your portion in this world; but do good as God has been good to you, and seek not mischief in the land; for God loves not those who do mischief." [28/al-Qasas/77]. This world is not merely for imposing my or our views over others or to shape it only according to my own paintbrush. This world is big enough for all of us.
There are also passionate or zealot secularists who have no problem with going after dollars that read the inscription "In God we trust" in the leading secular country of the world. But their own secularism for Bangladesh is such that Salimullah Muslim Hall must be turned into Salimullah Hall. Or, the leading university of Bangladesh, Dhaka University, that was founded as part of the movement to bring about educational upliftment among Muslims of Bengal, must not have "O God, enhance me in knowledge" (rabbi zidni ilma), and that’s also in a Muslim majority country. If that is so, then I am afraid that we are more interested in symbols than substance. The result is easy to discern. When we removed that symbol from the university, the substance also went away with it. The university that used to be regarded as the Oxford of Asia has now become horned and gunned ox-fort of Asia. And, I hope that nobody would blame the religious groups for this extraordinary accomplishment.
There are many circles that are now talking about civility or civil society. Unfortunately, many of them are also contributing toward further polarization of the country, rather than healing the wounds and bridging the gap. Moreover, their commitment to a civil society is not all that clear when they are not principled enough to take a non-partisan position in regard to law and order either. Just like the callous ultra-secularists, many of them have condemned PSA and its use, but they became muted when it was used in case of the Islamic "agitators". Also, quite similarly, they failed to call for an impartial and thorough judicial probe to investigate the incident of murdering the cop and the alleged role of personalities, such as Maulana Azizul Huq. They would like to hang first, and investigate later. For the very same reason, as a Muslim and a citizen of the country, I can't support the "Murtad" labeling of those two judges, I also can't support using PSA to prosecute political personalities.
Why did I call this series the Uncivil War? Well, no one should think that a civil war is what the nation needs or it is indispensable or inevitable to rescue this nation from its current situation. That would hardly be a "civil" way of thinking. However, it seems that without doing the requisite thinking, we are resigning to that possible tragic fate and direction. With more and more people - from the left and right, from the religious and secular sides, talking about it, it might just become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I do believe that with the complete breakdown of law and order, and the culture of both the incumbent and the opposition alliance, and with the underlying, ongoing tensions, conflicts, antagonism and polarization, a low level civil war is already unfolding. We all need to work together to diffuse and overcome it.
Whether the current low level one, or if a full-scale civil war is our chosen destiny, I never have understood how wars are ever civil. As a matter of fact, "civil wars" are generally more uncivil.
Bangladesh is a nation of a rich heritage and history. We can’t rewrite the past history, but we can try to write our future history. "ENSURING THE SECURITY OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AND PROPERTY IS ALSO AN INSEPARABLE PART OF INDEPENDENCE ..." Anyone remembers who said this? Morhum Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on March 7, 1971. This was not merely his vision, but he articulated the aspiration of the entire nation. Today we portraits of him are being shoved through the nation's throat, but not his vision and aspiration.
This nation has the talented, creative and capable intellectuals, scientists, poets, educators, and hard-working people from all walks of life, both religious and secular, to take up this writing of history. Do we have the courage, vision and empathy to overturn the current tide of extremism, and work together for the desired transformation? Also, can it be pursued without a civil war – that is, in a civil way? Toward that end, I believe that we need to have fundamental change in our attitude and approach that focus on seeking common ground and building bridges, rather than emphasizing and accentuating differences.
To all those who may have read this entire series, I offer my deep appreciation. I have articulated my thought or views in this series not in a dogmatic way. I continue to self-scrutinize my thoughts, ideas and opinions in light of what I learn and benefit from such exchanges. It is only by continuously challenging and scrutinizing ourselves that we can improve individually and collectively. Therefore, any feedback, including from the critics, - through NFB or directly - is most welcome.
HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam?
Genocide 1971 Page?
Hadith Humor Page?