Psychology is the study of human behaviors. Psychologists believe that education, family, economic conditions, and social circumstances are factors that influence human behavior, thoughts, and actions.
When we examine the overall behavior of our religious scholars, two prominent traits stand out: one is an authoritative attitude to enforce their views, and the other is a tendency to judge and pass verdicts on people.
Historically, this may be due to the period during Caliph Mansur’s reign when scholars were appointed to positions in the judiciary and lawmaking, thereby becoming indirectly involved in state power. This led to the development of a dominant attitude over people’s thoughts and actions. As a result, they began to consider their every opinion as final, every statement as decisive, and every decision as the ultimate word. If anyone disagreed with their viewpoint, they were deemed rebellious, misguided, and deviant. Suppressing such a person’s voice, discrediting them in public, and making them an example of warning became seen as essential to upholding truth and religious zeal.
This mindset and behavior, which emerged from a backdrop of power over nearly a thousand years, has become an inseparable part of the psychology of scholars.
However, time is a great assessor, and the tragedy is that the environment which had driven them to adopt this attitude disappeared abruptly with the fall of the Ottomans and the Mughals. The era of global powers began. After that, the esteemed scholars were neither the chief judges nor the special advisors to the royal courts. The harsh realities of life awaited them. Faced with these facts, the scholars had the opportunity to reflect on what responsibilities religion imposed on them and realize that their role was nothing more than that of a counselor. They were preachers, not judges.
But the royal disposition is hard to shed. They decided to go against the current and resolved to spend their remaining days in the pursuit of their lost glory. By keeping alive the memory of the status they had lost, they found psychological solace.
Ultimately, they were left with three weapons that could restore their lost status. Thus, they decided to wield these three weapons.
The first weapon is “takfir”, the right to declare others disbelievers. Our scholars believe that the power to judge people’s faith and declare them strangers in society is unmatched. This is a demonstration of their power. Though they may not participate in the state administration, they can challenge the faith of even the head of the state. Therefore, they should be acknowledged and dealt with accordingly.
The second weapon is the authority over what is permissible (halal) and forbidden (haram). From food and drink to clothing and accessories, their pen will decide what is halal and haram. They believe that although they have lost the opportunity to make these decisions in courts, people still feel compelled to present themselves respectfully at their madrasas’ dominions to get approval for their potatoes and perfumes and to receive certification of their beliefs and faith.
The third weapon is the measurement of people’s piety, determining their religious status, and defining their orthodoxy and religious identity. Scholars believe they can challenge people’s religious understanding and faith, making them realize that they are weak Muslims, thus undermining their correct statements. Whether it’s investigating the correct hand position in prayer, pointing out errors in Quranic recitation, measuring beards, accusing someone of blasphemy, or taunting someone for being influenced by Western thought, these are the weapons that maintain their dominance over society.
Recently, in a case involving an Ahmadi defendant in the Supreme Court, when it came time for individual opinions to be heard, the Chief Justice called for the opinions of those who were listed, asking if Ammar Khan Nasser was present. Ammar was in the courtroom, but before he could speak, several scholars in attendance gathered and demanded that no individual be allowed to express their opinion, and only representatives of institutions should be given the opportunity to speak. This led to a considerable debate. The Chief Justice repeatedly stated that they wanted to hear everyone that day, but the religious representatives and some lawyers argued that doing so would make the decision controversial. Ultimately, the Chief Justice asked if they all agreed that no individual opinions should be heard. The scholars responded affirmatively and insisted that no one else should be heard, especially not Ammar Nasser. Consequently, this was what transpired.
Hearing this account, I felt a deep sense of pity for this group. It’s disheartening to see what one becomes when they live in search of their lost glory. They fear facing arguments because reason holds no value in their thought system. Additionally, it became clear to me that issues like Ahmadiyya, blasphemy, and the respect of the Prophet have transcended and become a struggle for survival.
The scholars have a profound realization that if they are to preserve their existence, they must hold onto these three weapons. If these are lost, they are lost. If anyone has any doubts about our analysis, they should look to the West and ask the people of the “church.” It will become evident that they too reached their decline by passing through these very stages.