The Wages of Orthodoxy - I

The dictionary meaning of orthodoxy is to “follow or conform to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.” More than actual actions, it is an attitude and a way of life.

The implications of this mindset are characterised by a set of failures. There is failure to innovate, failure to progress, failure to lead, failure to educate, failure to achieve. Orthodoxy generates failures, retards intellectual growth and bears no benefits.

Many Muslim communities have been mired in orthodoxy for the last few centuries. By the time the Mongols appeared on the scene in early 13th century, the great centres of Muslim learning and civilization – Samarkand, Bokhara, Rey, Nishapur, Merv, Baghdad – were already in decline. Arch-conservatives, who became strengthened in the very early era of the Muslim Caliphate and were patronized by many a ruler, held back the full potential of progress in rational thinking and liberal philosophy in Spain and Khorasan. The Mongols, however, put an end to the Islamic civilization – or at least the eastern half of it – and ushered a long spell akin to the Dark Age of Europe. Today in many ways, the progress of Islamic thought is stuck in the 13th century and the Muslims have not been able to break free from the stranglehold of their clergy – who claim the right to dominate and control every aspect of their lives. Indulging in rational thought in Muslim societies was never easy in the face of some authoritative figures even during the age of remarkable achievements. Now, however, putting forward any opinion, thought or suggestion to adjust our practices with proven scientific discoveries and align our lives with modern concepts of justice, human rights and compassion raises mortal dangers from  religiously inspired youth and makes one culpable under prevalent laws. This legal and social environment holds the society back in pursuing scholarship and research. The clergies in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as indeed in Pakistan and India, seek total conformity, as such.

This article will discuss some aspects of Muslim society where the orthodox has severely arrested social progress.

One clear and criminal case of orthodoxy in history, and the one for which the Muslims paid a heavy price, is the late adoption of the printing press by Muslim peoples. Gutenberg developed his printing press in 1439 in Germany. Within a few decades, printing presses had been established in hundreds of cities all over Western Europe. By 1500, 20 million volumes had been printed. This was 25 years before the Mughal Babur established his dynasty in Delhi and before the birth of the Ottoman Sulaiman the Magnificent. Within another century, when Akbar lay on his deathbed, the estimated number of copies of books had risen to about 200 million in Europe. This number is greater than the European population at that time. By comparison at that time there were only a few thousand hand-written books in the entire Muslim world.

Tragically, the Mughals did not establish a single printing press in their vast domains during their entire rule though they had extensive contact with European powers and must have been aware of the technology and its product. We know that the Ottoman clergy opposed the printing presses because they realized that they could not control, regulate and censor the dissemination of knowledge. Despite ruling a large part of Europe, where this technology was proliferating, the Ottomans did not allow printing presses in their land till 1729; a delay of a full 290 years. According to Şükrü Hanioğlu in A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire only 142 books were published up till 1838 in Ottoman lands, because the State and the Clergy were scrutinizing each book proposed for printing. The relative decline of natural and social sciences, and technologies in Muslims lands was therefore imminent.

The progress of education in the West can be gauged from the observations of Abu Talib ‘Londonee’ of Lukhnow, so named because he visited London in 1799-1803 and wrote his experiences in his travelogue titled Sair-i-Talibi. He found that the town of Oxford had 16 colleges, each having a library with over a hundred thousand books. This was at a time when India had yet to have a single press, except the ones installed by the British and the Portuguese in their forts and trading houses in Goa, Madras, Bombay and Hoogly.

It is a glaring contrast that it was the Western clergy that often promoted printing by having the Biblical scriptures published so as to spread knowledge of Christianity whereas the Muslim clergy opposed it because they felt that Islam was somehow threatened by letting people publish their intellectual output. However, this is not an isolated occurrence. We know that the European Church devotedly patronized painting and sculpturing whereas the Muslim clergy often opposed it vehemently.

Despite ruling a large part of Europe, where this technology was proliferating, the Ottomans did not allow printing presses in their land till 1729; a delay of a full 290 years

Was such opposition to the printing press theologically grounded? The Quran asks of its followers in Surah 39:9: “Are those who know and those who do not know equal?” Personally I have never heard any khateeb, zakir, mufti, allama or alim recite and explain this verse to their listeners because it does not fit well with their message of rigidity. Muslims will be mired in mediocrity, poverty and ignorance unless they pay attention to the Quranic injunctions exhorting them to education and learning.

In fact, we see an abiding pattern since the Renaissance that Muslims have often been averse to a new scientific development, and accept it belatedly when crucial time has been lost and technical advantage has been ceded to the West. The clergy is in the forefront of this attitude and the general public has blindly followed their obdurate myopic dictates. When the technology becomes widespread and its benefits become evident, the clergy adopts it readily. In the case of printing presses, the number of Islamic books and literature being published these days in the Muslims’ lands rivals that of science-related books. Our clergy was opposed to loud speakers but now cannot live without them. Not far in the past, they were against photographs and movies but now they do not tire of being featured on print and electronic media. They record cassettes and CDs, and have Youtube and Facebook pages like the rest of us. They conveniently forget that they were opposed to all such developments.

The muftis and ulema continue to lag behind on issues as diverse as artificial insemination, surrogate mothering, organ donation, LGBT rights and abortion. Luckily, we are now hearing muffled voices in support of some of these issues. The Pulpit will eventually understand the wisdom of human rights, individual choices and medical compulsions related to these subjects. It has always been a matter of time and money before the clergy turns around. Unfortunately, as we have learned from history, those who do not adopt technology and change will it have it rammed down their throats by those who do.

In essence, we have shackled our youth. We are holding their potential in fetters. Freedom of thought is a prerequisite for any kind of progress. We have placed obstacles on their ability to think. Things have reached such a dire state that not only in the social sciences, but we find clerics dictating even what ought to be taught in the hard sciences – phsyics, chemisty and biology. Students are often given the message that all scientific laws are based on religious teachings and revelations. A true scientific message would be that every scientific law and theory is open to scientific challenge. If students in our classrooms are taught that the laws discovered and theories proposed by Newton, Faraday, Darwin and Einstein flow from the eternal Scriptures quoted at the beginning of their course book, then they cannot develop the capacity of asking questions. They would be fearful of the sword of blasphemy in stating anything that causes a backward hint of doubt. Common sense laments, “What is science without questions, scepticism and doubts?”

Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that progress will only come through liberal education. The conservatives in Pakistan have made the word “liberal” a stigma. We need to let our youth understand that a liberal education does not threaten our religion. We should not  even think that our divine religion, whose protection Allah has taken upon Himself, can be threatened by new discoveries and technologies.

On some of the critical social issues, our general stand remains anchored in antiquity and moored in anachronistic believes. One of these is women’s rights. Conservative Muslims are not as baffled on any issue as they are on this. Confusing science, myths and social customs, their stance on women’s rights is at times embarrassing. For instance, the Muslims of India constitute the only large group in the world that violently takes to the street to exclude their sisters and daughters from rights and protections granted to women by the courts. One case in particular, famously known as the Shah Bano Case, stands out – where the courts found themselves under fierce criticism for mandating that a well-to-do husband to support his divorced wife and children. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent article in the Daily Times is of great relevance on the social attitude of Indian Muslims.

The Western clergy often promoted printing by having the Biblical scriptures published so as to spread knowledge of Christianity, whereas the Muslim clergy opposed it because they felt that Islam was somehow threatened by letting people publish their intellectual output

The recent sorry sight of some Pakistani federal ministers and legislatures vowing to block legislation on minimum age for marriage is really disconcerting. It is sad that our national political leaders are opposed to prohibiting marriage of puberty-age girls. It is especially unfair because these parliamentarians will not let this thing happen in their own families. This oppressive practice is prevalent in the lower middle class who give away their girls in marriage to avoid raising them or to gain monetary benefits. In both cases it is unjust and unfair to the girls, and must be stopped. Allowing girls as young as ten to be married is simply unacceptable in light of current medical knowledge. Coupled with malnutrition, their bodies are not developed enough to bear the rigours of child bearing or of taking on the physically exacting workload of running a house. Socially, it robs these girls of their childhood and education.

It is not right on any count, yet we can hear religious leaders and some of the conservative politicians take a stand against legislation to end this ugly practice.

(to be continued)

Parvez Mahmood retired as a Group Captain from PAF and is now a software engineer. He lives in Islamabad and writes on social and historical issues. He can be reached at parvezmahmood53@gmail.com