To accurately understand the dialogues and intellectual currents related to religion in the Hazara society, it is essential to first clarify the key difference between “critique of religion” and “religious hostility” (or anti-religionism).
Kabul 24: Critique of religion is a rational and evaluative process known in the philosophical tradition, particularly after Kant; that is, reflection and assessment of a religion’s claims without necessarily leading to its complete negation. In contrast, religious hostility is a hostile, predetermined, and action-oriented state whose goal is not examination but the elimination and exclusion of the phenomenon of religion.
This fundamental difference can be likened to the distinction between “examining a book” and “burning that book.”Many religious critiques throughout history, especially in the Islamic tradition, have not had an anti-religious nature. For example, when Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi critiqued the text of the Christian Bible, he was a devout Muslim whose aim was to strengthen his own arguments in defense of Islam, not to destroy the principle of religiosity itself.
Similarly, reformers within religions have always sought to purify and strengthen their own faith by critiquing superstitions or incorrect interpretations.In confronting contemporary discourses, identifying signs that delineate the boundary between critique and hostility is essential.
An approach that uses disrespectful language to describe the physical or personal characteristics of central figures in a religious tradition, and then, in response to others’ protests, labels them with broad and destructive tags, is often indicative of a provocative and unscientific discourse. Such a method has already issued its verdict in advance, abandons the arena of reasoning, and closes the space for dialogue—an act that is in complete contradiction with the true spirit of criticism.
The danger of such discourses lies in their potential to shape false beliefs among the younger generation and marginalize their convictions.These behaviors raise a serious question: Are we facing a constructive “intra-religious critique” that strives to align the society’s faith with modern conditions, or are we confronted with signs of a “programmed religious hostility” aimed at weakening the foundations of religiosity and driving society toward irreligiosity?
The probable motivations for such approaches are multifaceted. Some currents may, under the influence of radical secular or Marxist ideologies, view religion as a structural obstacle to progress.
These sharp critiques may be a nervous reaction to violent political interpretations of religion presented in the past, which led to the historical deprivation of certain communities. It is also possible that the goal is to construct a completely secular identity disconnected from a society’s historical ties to its religious heritage.
Ultimately, the Hazara society, like any other religious society in the modern era, faces a spectrum of approaches: from constructive intra-religious critique and impartial philosophical examinations to destructive and ideological religious hostility.
What distinguishes these approaches from one another is the method and the underlying intent. Authentic critique is fair, argument-based, open to dialogue and reform; but religious hostility is accompanied by enmity, humiliation, labeling, and dogmatism, with its goal not better understanding but the elimination of the opposing side.
Recognizing this distinction is vital for the Hazara society so that, on one hand, it remains open to critical and beneficial ideas, and on the other, vigilantly avoids falling into the trap of projects that intend to destroy its deep-rooted religious identity—not out of critique, but out of hostility.
Zahra Forugh
