The geometry of reason

In his article ‘Dealing with non-linear reason’, Mosharraf Zaidi grapples with how democratic states and religions are often viewed as ‘parallel systems’ of rationality. He attempts to unsettle the polarity between what he calls, “non-linear” reason, (which according to him is mistakenly associated with only religious subcultures), vs the more “linear” (secular) rationality associated with the rule of law. He advocates instead, for a more inclusive pluralism, whereby constitutional rule of law co-exists with religious compulsions and ultimately trumps religious violence. While it is a benevolent idea, there are some serious problems with this line of argument which seeks convergence of linear and non-linear thinking but underestimates the competitive rationale that informs both.
The state promulgates constitutions and laws which are interpreted by judges and lawyers while religions defer to sacred texts interpreted by theologians, religious leaders and increasingly, televangelists. Along with right-wing purists, several media pundits increasingly target liberal Muslims in Pakistan for their rationally motivated attempt to merge and reconcile western-derived laws within the Muslim context. The resistance to this project includes a fundamentalist rejection of post-colonial modernity, as well as those modernist Islamists who co-opt all secular strategies but then use them towards promoting an exclusively theocratic society and modes of relations. Neither doctrine allows for secular or neutral terms of political or personal engagement. The former reject linear progress while the latter adapt the possibilities of linear reason but only for unreasonable, if you like, ends. Just a very small example would be, Islamist women who contest elections and once in Parliament, attempt to pass laws whereby women will be restricted from participating in public service in the future. True story.
The new critique of the Enlightenment thesis suggests that

secularism is itself a historical experience that has emerged from the Christian nations of Western Europe hence, it is by no means ‘free of religion’. In fact, it carries in it strains of anti-Islamic sentiment. This propels mediators such as Zaidi to argue for a democratic pluralism whereby Islamic religious beliefs are accommodated within the law but then also circumscribed by the same legal boundaries. In other words, this belief cannot be articulated violently or violate the law.
The trouble is, routine and insidious discrimination is not necessarily overtly violent but can be contributive, nonetheless. The danger is in how bigotry is imbibed through seemingly innocuous practices, rituals and sociological interpretations that are not premised on rationality, science or reason but instead on that vague thing called culture and tradition. The kind that got Aasia Bibi into the Blasphemy row in the first place. Salmaan Taseer was perceived, not proven, to be an offender via religious non-linear reasoning. Qadri, on the other hand, confessed murderer, committed an illegal act and violated linear defined norms.
Most pertinently, Aasia Bibi broke the unspoken social code (polluting water with her Christianity) that distinguishes the Muslim from the Other but which takes succour from the Blasphemy Law and Constitution. A mixture of ‘reasonings’. Zaidi is right, such codes are not irrational just because they are non-linear – they are realistic and an entirely rational and permanent mixture of religion and culture. Such codified norms will out-live any law precisely because of their ability to survive linear interventions and also because they carry the stamp of divinity. They do not pretend to be premised on all this rational, western, linear, humanitarian, equality business.
Moderates and liberals balk at this because they wish to prise away the polluting culture or the traditional from the pure and divine but that’s perhaps the most irrational proposal ever made. The rest keep debating whether religious laws can determine social behaviour (Blasphemy Law will protect religious sentiment; Hudood Ordinances will prevent immorality etc), and those who insist that social change must pre-empt successful application of the law (Dowry Laws don’t adhere as well as Blasphemy Laws because of patriarchal social attitudes).
In more practical terms, Zaidi should remember that both, he and I, have documented our testimony that the Ahmedia religious minority are infidels, when we applied for our passports. Presumably this is a “natural and good” practice and reasonable legal requirement because it accommodates the non-linear majoritarian sentiment. Also, according to his thesis if we have done so under false pretences, then we have broken both, the law and a covenant.
Zaidi also accepts the privilege that his testimony has more legal weight than mine and he is by law, entitled to inherit more private property than I. He is legally allowed to contract several marriages while never mind how many spouses I cannot have, it’s not even possible for me to establish my single identity and gain a CNIC without proof and consent from a male relative. My right to marry of my own will is also contestable in court. Hypothetically, his foreign spouse will qualify for Pakistani citizenship while mine will not. Never mind that both of us, under constitutional and religious law, have more opportunities, power and privilege than religious minorities.
Is all this ‘natural and good’, which is how Zaidi describes the sentiment that informs the believer-and-the-guided-by-the-rule-of-law-citizen rolled into one? These are all examples of how linear reason accommodates the non-linear religious impetus, but are they really reflective of justice, described by any criteria?
Further, those who abide by the rule of law, as described above, are technically not violating either the law or the dominant belief system, so does that mean these should be immutable? This non-linear reason, once it is legitimised as a source of influence over law and policy-making, is unlikely to ever be reversible. Even if we do reach a stage of reforming some of the more blatantly discriminatory ones, which criteria will apply – the linear or non-linear? Sounds more circular to me.
As he attempts to puzzle together what are essentially religious and secular identities, Zaidi’s geometry falters. He proposes bringing the linear and non-linear forces within a ‘circle of trust’. However, once inside a circle, lines can intersect, dissect and overlap but the hope that they will all converge is highly unlikely. Or even if they do, Zaidi may just be mistaken over who will be directing and dominating that convergence.

The writer is an independent researcher. Email: afiyaszia@yahoo.com