Liberal takfiris

Takfir, the act of a Muslim excommunicating another Muslim or sect, is the obvious reason Pakistan finds itself in the sectarian quagmire. Takfir is a verdict on the ‘impurity’ and ‘apostasy’ of an individual or a sect.

You have Takfiri Deobandis from the likes of Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ), originally Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), who are hell bent on rubberstamping the Shia community’s apostasy. Of course the verdict on the Shia’s “heresy” doesn’t suffice; the takfiris don’t rest on their laurels until they have dumped the heretics into the fire of hell themselves. Over 20,000 Shia targeted and killed since Pakistan’s inception showcase the religious vigour of our takfiri friends.

Then you have the Constitution of what is increasingly becoming the Deobandi Republic of Pakistan; the second amendment to which declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims in 1974. The Ordinance XX a decade later upped the ante on that verdict by debarring Ahmadis from using Islamic titles or ‘pretending’ to be Muslims.

To sum it up: our terrorists are takfiris; our religious scholars are takfiris; our leaders are takfiris and even our constitution is takfiri.

Even so, there’s a group among the Pakistani “intelligentsia” who frown upon the idea of takfir and yet manage to practice it themselves. They are liberal takfiris: the flag-bearers of a new Islamic Fiqh, wherein religious laws become compatible with the ideals of secularism and liberalism. They endeavour to ensure that divine commandments end up conforming to their preferred man-made ideals.

They believe that by perceiving and propagating a “metaphorical” – read: self-created and imaginary – interpretation of religious texts they are the ‘right kind’ of Muslims and that anyone who interprets the text literally, automatically becomes an inferior or the ‘wrong kind’ of Muslim. Sometimes they refer to religious fanatics as not being Muslims at all, which is exhibit A of takfir. That they don’t blow themselves up to exterminate the literalists or clamour for official verdicts against the fundamentalists’ religiosity, doesn’t make their sense of superiority any less conspicuous.

[quote]The liberal takfiris practice most things that they condemn the fundamentalists for[/quote]

The liberal takfiris practice most things that they condemn the fundamentalists for. Like for instance their condemnation for literal interpretations is a direct corollary of their unflinching belief that their “metaphorical” interpretations are the only possible way to infer the commandments – something they castigate the “fanatics” for. It’s a manifestation of the same ‘holier than thou’ attitude that is supposed to form the quintessence of religious fanaticism.

If the liberal takfiris follow their much touted stance that “multiple interpretations of religious texts are possible”, surely they would realise that these would include literalism as well. And so how exactly does one decide whose comprehension is accurate, when it’s a direct case of “my interpretation versus yours”? This is precisely why countering religious fundamentalism through a twisted and self-convenient brand of the same religion can never work, for it would always allow the radical brand to exist.

Following the Pakistan government’s manoeuvre of instigating peace talks with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the ensuing military operation, there’s a general consensus that religious fundamentalism can’t be eradicated through bombing terrorist hideouts alone.

The TTP, the embodiment of religious radicalism in Pakistan, justify every single one of their atrocious acts through their religious scriptures and historical precedents. They are of the firm belief that their ideology dictates them to excommunicate, and in turn butcher, everyone who does not agree with them ideologically. And so there is a need to present an ideological antithesis to the Taliban ideology to curb religious fundamentalism.

Now, that antithesis cannot be liberal takfir, where you tell the fundamentalists that an imaginary brand of religion supersedes the literalist brand. For, what the literalists endeavour to do is to recreate the society and state that their ideological ancestors created as accurately as possible. Their venture is to act out the script as it was written by the originators of the ideology. For if the script is divine, and the ideological ancestors’ religious brand was literalist as well, what possible logic would you give the extremists for embracing your religious brand that contradicts the fundamentals of their ideology?

Calling for separation of religion from politics, while adhering to a religion that has provided a clear political ideology, can never work out. The only effective way to counter religious extremism ideologically is by presenting an alternative to religion, not by rigging the religion’s fundamentals. That alternative doesn’t have to be atheism. But it can neither involve any form of religion nor secularism that is tampered with veneration or apologia for religion and religious laws.