In order to disprove that faith needs logical substantiation, Imam Ghazali [Algazel for westerners] labeled it as ‘Incoherence of Philosophers’. Imam Ghazali [1058-1111 A.D] was contending ‘Hellenism’ [Greek influence]. Under ‘Hellenistic’ influence ‘Neo-Platonism’ had impacted the thinking of Islamic scholars. It went to an extent where free thinkers in Mutazilah school of thought that flourished in the cities of Basra and Baghdad from 8th to 10th centuries subjected divine injunctions to rational thought and inquiry. They based their thought on knowledge being derived from reason. The reason was thus made the final arbiter in distinguishing right from wrong. Apart from Mutazilah, great Islamic philosophers like Al-Farabi and Ibn-Sena [Avicenna] subscribed to Aristotelian thought. Logic was the essence of ‘Hellenism’. Imam Ghazali in contending that faith does not need logical substantiation labeled faith as logic in itself. As it touches the very core of existence, it may be called the ultimate in logic. A century later, the Andalusian [alluding to Indlis in Arabic or Hispania] Muslim philosopher ibn-Rushd [Averroes] contended Imam Ghazali by getting back to ‘Hellenistic’ thought…logic and reason of Aristotelian stream. Ibn Rushd [1126-1198] called Imam Ghazali’s work ‘Incoherence of Incoherent’.
Faith makes the faithful invest in Imam Ghazali’s school of thought, however Ibn-Rushd’s caption ‘Incoherence of Incoherent’ applies to prevalent political situation like a fiddle in the allegorical sense. In the literal sense Imam Ghazali’s interpretation of faith forms the bedrock of belief. We may invest in cold logic in assessing political situations and subscribe to what is often related parrot like, ‘Politics is the art of possible’. However in practicing the possible, if body politic gets divested of faith, it might mean return to square one. Self determination is a matter of faith which has found expression in United Nations resolutions vis-à-vis the Kashmir situation. And faith cannot be subjected to logic &/or reason, as there is logic and reason in faith itself. The faith of a people cannot be played with. Any such attempt will be branded ‘Incoherence of Incoherent’.
Viable alternatives were talked of ever since the resolutions got framed over six decades back. Complexities of Kashmir situation were voiced, differing perception were mentioned. All this to block a mass of people expressing their free will vis-à-vis the socio-political state they want to live in, the economy they want to develop, and the cultural essence they want to hold to. The mode of denial has persisted, even though the people have expressed their refusal to adjust to what so called protagonists of logic and reason call realities of ground situation. They would have the people believe that the ground situation demanded otherwise. The facts of Kashmir’s ground situation belie their logic, as that logic and the reason propounded are meant to divest the people of their faith. The faith the people refuse to be divested of. The faith the people hold on to, even in their desperate state.
United Nations resolutions vis-à-vis Kashmir being irrelevant, whosoever talks of it may amount to making the person irrelevant rather than the resolutions becoming irrelevant. Alluding to another form of Ibn-Rushd’s philosophical caption, it may not only amount to ‘Incoherence of the incoherent’ but could well be captioned ‘Irrelevance of the Irrelevant’. The people over the years have invested all they could, their very being in the faith they hold on to. To borrow a Churchallian phrase, it has been a tale of blood, sweat, toil and tears. Yet they have held on to it. The protagonists of logic and reason might say it is saga of a drowning man catching a straw. That be it, the belief remains, the faith shows no sign of budging.
The logic of the logical, even if the matter is contended in the realm they would like it to be…divested of faith, it may be asked--what has come-up in the political scenario to merit a departure from what people have held on to? Is there even a shred of evidence that events, happenings have moved to a point, where re-thinking is warranted?  Principals talking to each other might be projected as evidence. The fact is glaring that they are improving their prospects vis-à-vis each other, and what benefits them mutually. Nothing more, nothing less, however have the principals or call them parties concerned made any move, a meaningful move to involve the main party concerned?
Viable alternative to U.N resolutions is being talked of, wherein people may exercise their will in a manner other than what the U.N resolutions envisage. Has such an alternative emerged? If it ever does in a meaningful manner, and does not have an element in it meant to ridicule deliberately or inadvertently people’s faith, a response could be shaped by the leadership in sync with the sentiments of people, their faith. Until such an alternative emerges, the promise of the international community to the people of Jammu and Kashmir should hold good.
That there has to peace and goodwill in achieving an objective, on that there need not be a dissenting voice, as violence is counter-productive, that a dialogue has to prevail once the preliminaries are worked out should be beyond contention. However U.N resolutions should remain the medium of implementation of the fundamental right of self determination, unless and until a widely acceptable alternative medium emerges. And the alternative gets endorsed by the same international forum that passed resolutions in the first instance.  Accords have been tried and found wanting. Any fresh attempt will end in as discordant a note as earlier ones. History has lessons to relate, lessons that need to be learnt.   

Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]
Feedback on: iqbal.javid46@gmail.com    

Lastupdate on : Mon, 14 May 2012 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Mon, 14 May 2012 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 IST