Daily Times

Extremism does not only infest the mosques, seminaries and pulpits, it contaminates all of us, even those who claim to be moderates, the flag bearers of peace, the ‘true’ Muslims. Sure, the moderates do not endorse violence as a meaningful strategy but, most often than not, they do hold the same religious ideology and political sentiments as the terrorists who kill unarmed civilians to make their point. Put another way, although the moderates agree with the ultimate purpose of the attack, they just do not agree with the modus operandi of the warrior. What makes the situation more dangerous is that these ‘peace-loving, reasonable people’ do not even realise how close they stand with their violent brothers. In my opinion, if one supports the terrorists’ ideology, then, peaceful or not, he still needs to be categorised as an extremist.
If you disagree with me, your first question would be: how do I define extremism? This would be followed by: is it true that extremism falls in the continuum of terrorism, or is it a different breed altogether? According to authorities in the UK, extremism is any “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” This definition is quite comprehensive, way beyond the scope of my discussion, which focuses only on its last part: “the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”, since “fundamental British values” fall on the same page.
To begin, if someone asks you today who has suffered the most because of the current wave of rabid religious extremism in Pakistan, the top three targets to come to mind are the Shias, Ahmedis and Christians. These are the communities that have been attacked across the country, their members killed, their mosques and churches bombed, their graves desecrated. Who can disagree that after losing hundreds of lives, they feel threatened in their own homes and endangered in their own neighbourhoods? However, the story of extremism does not either start with or end at religious minorities. The menace has also struck the religious majority of Pakistan, the Barelvis: Sunni Muslims who visit the shrines of local saints on a regular basis and listen to spiritual music (qawwali) as part of their faith. Their shrines too have been targeted and blown up by the terrorists just like those of Shias and Christians; their sacred places have been tormented and torn apart, and their faith has also been ridiculed and maligned. Even the old resting place of Ali bin Usman Hajveri (Data Sahib), one of the greatest Sufis of the subcontinent, was attacked by terrorists, killing tens of people and wounding many more. What could be worse than that?
The story still does not end here. I am sure you have read the hate literature against Ahmedis and Shias, literature that declares them to be non-Muslims and renders them the agents of Satan. I am also sure that while reading such texts you would think that they needed to be banned in Pakistan. What I am not sure is if you felt the same way when you saw the literature against the Barelvis. It is not your fault because even though hate literature is found ubiquitously, the technique to condemn their faith is much more sophisticated. The pointed criticism, instead of being so blatant, is camouflaged as a logical question.
Out of nowhere, a picture will open up on your laptop depicting a person kissing the hands of his spiritual teacher (the murshad). There is a question posted just below this: is it allowed in Islam? Then a video pops up: a group of self-declared sufis chanting verses of the Quran, their eyes closed, their heads jouncing, their bodies shaking as if an electric current were passing through them. The caption again is: “does Islam permit this kind of behaviour?”
Impressed right? You cannot identify the underlying hate message but their faith, whether it is right or wrong, is challenged every day like that. “This is bidat (innovation in Islam), it is not permitted. It is a kind of shirk (idolatry). Islam opposes it.” You and I have heard these phrases and have watched these clips lots of times. When I see these messages though they tell me that someone believes his Islam is better than the Islam of the Barelvis and that he has the divine right to correct them. Is it not extremism? Are we not disrespecting the faith of others and exhibiting intolerance towards various denominations? It is one thing that we believe in what we think is the right set of ideology for us but it is quite another that we consider others who differ from us to be wrong and misguided. Everyone has the right to practice their faith the way they want to and the way they believe it can satisfy their social, spiritual and moral needs, even if it involves kissing the hands of a murshad or dancing in a nonsensical manner.
I do not write about the attacks on Barelvis because I think the Barelvis alone promote the correct version of Islam. It will kill the whole purpose of my discussion. I write this because I feel that despite being a majority they have been kept under a microscope by a violent but well-funded minority. We all know where they get the money from. Second, I write this because Islam or any great religion cannot be reduced to a single sect. So, as long as the different factions can respect each other where they can coexist, they portray various angles of the same philosophy magnifying its beauty, not mitigating it. I also want to mention that the Barelivs too have broken the same rules and promoted sectarian warfare but, in general, they have not condoned suicide attacks or waged a war against the west.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com