rince Karim, Aga Khan IV, is the spiritual and temporal leader of the
world's 15 million Ismaili Muslims. His grandfather named him to the
Imamate in 1957--when Karim was an undergraduate at Harvard
University--passing over Karim's father, Prince Aly Khan, and also Aly's
brother, Prince Sadruddin. Karim is among the world's wealthiest men,
with business investments strewn around the globe but particularly in
Africa, Europe and Asia. Excerpts from an rare interview :
What makes you tick?
The hope that I can have a positive impact on social and development
issues--that I can try to build an environment in which people can live
in peace and productively, live within an ethical context.
When you look back at the time when you became the Imam--and when you
look at yourself now--did you, in your wildest imagination, have thought
of what you would have become now, especially the extent to which the
sectarian has become the secular in your work?
When my grandfather died 42 years ago, I had no expectation of being in
a position to fulfill his responsibilities--in addition to which, the
world was so totally different from what it is today. The context in
which I was functioning was very much the short term and focused on
religion. The short term was driven by short term political issues,
decolonization, the cold war--those were the issues you were dealing
with all the time. A lot of those issues are no longer there. There are
different issues, but they're no longer there. And probably the first
time since 1957, I think across the majority of countries where the
Ismaili community is present we can reasonably think about the medium
term. So, the answer is I could not have conceived in 1957 of being the
way I am in 1999. It was impossible. One had a sense of direction--one
had a sense of aspirations and hopes, of course, about the basic issues
of human society and development. But I would never have been able to
predict specifics.
When you look at your own stewardship , what have been the benchmarks of
your life--starting with the time that you ascended to the Imamate in
1957 to where you are now?
I inherited the office 12 years after the Second World War. And much of
what was happening in 1957 was in some way or the other, related to the
Second World War, it was also related to the Cold War. And therefore, I
was looking at a kaleidoscope of issues--institutional issues, social
issue, economic issues--and the problem was that although my grandfather
was the Imam, the institutional capacity around him was practically
nonexistent because most institutions at that time were extremely
fragile. Since 1957, what's really happened is that the office of the
Imamate has developed the capacity to act in a number of areas--in areas
of culture, in areas of economics, in areas of development. This gives
the institution of the Imamate the capacity to act in a logical and
positive manner. We have developed the capacity to re-harness
institutions and people and communities who were part of our societies
in the '50s, and we want them to become again part of our society today
to help us build. So the answer really is that there has been a process
over 42 years now of building systems to cope with and manage the
dramatic changes in the world around us.
As you look at your extensive network, what is the thread that runs
through all of them?
I think the starting premise is what are the inputs that are required in
the parts of the world in which we are working that can have a
beneficial impact on the quality of life if the people in those areas.
Secondly, are those inputs capable of being addressed by one institution
or do you need a number of institutions the have specialized knowledge
and that can work together? And the third one is the capacity of those
institutions and, indeed, the peoples for whom you're working to make
those institutions self-sustaining. Because ultimately sustainability of
the process of development is what all of us are concerned about,
frankly. So, that's the nature of the approach and as time has gone by,
I have tried to effectively add new institutions by simplifying and
rationalizing the network. Although we have technology in a number of
areas, we do not have a little empires or organizations that cannot work
together. And one of the things which I find really pleasing at the
moment--in the work that's being done--is that there is more and more an
empathy around strategies for development. And this empathy goes amongst
the institutions. It didn't start that way. I want to be very frank, in
the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, I was concerned about instability within a
given area such as health care of education. Today, development is such
a multiple process that you really can only be effective if the agencies
work together--and that's what's happening.
You've been characterized as a visionary, introducing such concepts as
"enabling environment" into the global vocabulary of development. Does
that give yes a certain unique satisfaction--that in fact, your own
thinking was a bit ahead of the curve?
Without wanting to be boastful about that sort of thing, certainly, the
satisfaction I would gain from it is essentially that time has proven
that those notions were correctly identified. I don't think that in any
way I was unique there, but I think that as society evolves notions
themselves evolve. The notions that we discussed where we last talked
the enabling environment, that is a notion that's made its way. It is a
fundamental premise for development. Today, 12, 15 years later, there
are new notions which to me are really important. The notion of
pluralism, and the legitimacy of pluralism in human society is a
massively important issue for us in development. The notion of
regionalism where there is an attempt to optimize the use of resources
for people in a way which goes past frontiers, and gives them the
capacity to function more effectively in a wider context. That is
another issue. Sustainability, something we've just discussed, is
another fundamental issue because getting the process of development
under way is one thing. But, then insuring that it continues under its
own momentum with the people primarily involved leading and making
decisions on their own destinies is really the goal. And I'm too young
in the development process to be able to talk about sustainability it
goes well past 40 years. But, I think that as time has gone by, the
notion of sustainability is, and has become a key issue. Like pluralism,
I have to say, frankly, and I think pluralism deserves a great attention
than it's received.
You mention all these concept but it takes a certain kind of individual
drive to get those concepts implemented. And, again it has been said of
you that had it not been for that extra dimension that you provided,
which goes well beyond your role as spiritual leader, and therefore
enhances and widens your appeal to a wider community, the these changes
would not have been effected. How do you assess the impact that have as
a transformational force in societies the are so diverse around the
world?
I think that some of the programs that have been put in place have built
their credibility. They have become case study situations--for instance,
the rural support program in Northern Pakistan, and the first private
university in Pakistan. The resistance that I encountered way back that
higher education was in some way elitist or improper for populations in
the developing world--this was a notion which I found really very
dangerous and very damaging and yet it was dogma in the '60s. The key to
resolving issues is to be a good listener. And if you are open to
listening, and you can respond better to local concerns. Essentially the
network has been people driven--not dogma driven, not driven by material
return. The only thing the we are concerned within the network is
improvement of the quality of life of people. And in so far as those
goals are achieved, then I think that our initiatives would be
considered positive. Now, development is such a multiple process that
others will have other approaches to this. The new area we're looking at
now is culture as an area of development. That's another issue that's
been in the cards for some years. But, these are things which actually
come from the field. They don't come from bureaucrats sitting at
headquarters and dreaming up projects.
In the privacy of your mind, as you reflect on how development has
evolved, are you a little concerned that the global
institutions--whether they be public and multilateral or
private--perhaps are a little too impressed by the nomenclature?
It is a worry. It is a worry because I think certainly in my life, and
in the work the institutions have done, we have been extremely sensitive
to differences--differences between people, differences within
countries, differences within economic levels. And the development
process cannot--and it should not--ignore those differences. And I
simply don't believe that the development process can be replicated 100
percent in any part of the world. It is an ongoing running process. But
you can replicate ideas, but you have to make sure that they will
actually become the seed of development when you move them across the
frontier or to other people. And I'm a little bit worried that the
stereotype solution is becoming very prominent. I am not convinced yet
that the total free market approach is healthy for all of human society
today as it is. I am not totally convinced that democracy without the
understanding of the way and the precondition of democracy is a healthy
exercise. I think probably it's important to educate about democracy so
that people can understand what are its goals. In countries of hundreds
or millions of people that have never experienced democracy, I'm not
sure how quickly that process can take place. I think it's desirable,
but I'm frankly cautious about the speed with which it can be achieved.
And, in that context, how do you see your role? Is it a role of a
seeder, if you will, of ideas? Is it a role of mentor? Is it a role of a
secular spiritual guide in the world development?
I think the first role is that of keen observer. The second one involves
the search to understand, because if there no observation, there is
insufficient understanding--and then the premises of action are simply
not there. So, the nature of my institution clearly starts with that.
The next issue is the ethics within which society lives. And these
ethical principles have got to move forward in time across societies,
different languages, different backgrounds. But, society and
institutions need to function within an ethical context. That is a very
important issue in our lives. And, of course, it's even more important
when you see cultures meeting each other which never met before. Because
their starting points are different. So, the answer to the question
really is that I seek to observe and I seek to respond to what I see.
Now, the response may not be everybody's response, far from it. But I do
seek to respond within nature of the office which I have, which is the
Imamate.
What nourished your own mind, in terms of the intellectual fertilization
process?
Well, first of all, as I said, I try to absorb as much information as I
can every day, and from whatever source I get it in order to start the
process of discussion. And secondly, I have a number of very senior
colleagues who are professionals in their own fields. And there the
discussion very often is around the objectives. What is it that we want
to achieve? This comes back to the issues we were discussing ahead,
building solid institutions, trying to make sure that there is
sustainability in those institutions and the capacity to grow. Very
often ,you know, particularly in the Western World, these notions are
related to material issues--the capitalization of a society, the
endowment of a foundation. In our world, it's much more a question of
people. Where will you find the men and women who can move these
institutions forward, who can articulate the programs, who can gel with
the grassroots issues in village environments? Those are the people who
make programs move forward. And, so, in looking at where we're going,
we're all the time looking at these issues of institution building,
setting goals, measuring results. And trying to achieve effective
performance with the resources we have. I have to tell you very frankly,
the problems are enormously complex. And very, very, often the inquiry
process will take several years before you actually take a clear
decision on what you want to do. So, I think that I would sum up by
saying in the last 40 years it's been learning, learning, learning and
more learning.
You've been characterized variously as a "Renaissance Man" and
"visionary." Would you add other characteristics that would be needed
for your successor?
Well, that is very kind and very generous of the people who said those
sorts of things. They often think that when you inherit an office, which
is a life office, you are simply a link in the chain. And, yes, you
therefore look at life somewhat differently than if you were, I suppose,
a professional who moves around and is free to do what he wishes. In my
case, my concern is, I inherited an office, I would like the next Imam
to have a structure and a systems which enables him to be effective in
the ethical and the human terminology of this institution. And that is
the nature of what I seek, Now some things are impossible to achieve. I
well know that. And if that is the case, I simply have to try and move
the issues forward as much as I can. The next Imam will then decide how
he wishes to handle the issues. But, it is the continuum which is at the
back of my mind, which in a sense, affects the way I look at things. And
that's why perhaps my time dimension appears different, than it might
for other people. If I have to wait 12, 15, 20 years to achieve goals
which I think are important, I will wait 12, 15, or 20 years. That
simply is the nature of the issues that we have to address.
Very few people, particularly those on the world stage, have had the
kind of opportunities that you've had to make an impact on a world as
vast a scale as you have. What does that do to you? How much does that
move you as you make your plans?
If I feel the some of the work that has been done has been solid and has
a permanency to it, and has become part of the way people think and
live--then of course, that's very pleasing. But that's not always the
case. And, I think that as a look ahead, one of my continuing questions
is the nature pluralism. If you look around the world, today, some
societies, some governments, some organizations, some people still
challenge the notion of human pluralism. I think in the years ahead it's
important that this notion of pluralism should be seen as much as
possible everywhere as a human asset, not as a human liability. If it's
a liability, then we are working in a very fragile situation. You put a
foot wrong, something is going to break very, very quickly. And this
notion of pluralism, the reality of pluralism, the potential of
pluralism the legitimacy of pluralism--these issues are very, very
important to me and I really believe that that's one of the things that
I certainly would like to press in the years ahead. Then there is this
notion of societies sustaining themselves, in economic terms, in
cultural terms, in social terms, and in institutional terms. Those
things are important to me. So, I'm hoping that with others, that these
notions can be developed. And, I think that they are in the process of
being moved forward in a number of forums now. It's not only here, far
from it. And, that means that the Islamic movement and other
institutions have partners we can work with. And the notion of
partnership from within the developing world as well as outside, is one
of new opportunities now.
Your Highness, new constituencies are opening up for you even within the
Islamic entity. People who for decades have been, in a sense, cut off
from the main stream of Islamic thought and culture even. Some of these
constituencies are demographically far bigger than the one that have so
far benefitted by your ideas and by your vision. How do you plan to get
them into the fold?
Again, the first issue is listening and learning, understanding and
trying to come to grips with the realities which they have lived with in
the past decades. Then, secondly, I try to understand what are their
priorities. Because their priorities are the ones that they perceive
against their own historical horizons which are very different from the
ones we might be perceiving. The third issue is to respond to those
priorities. The economic environment is important to factor in, too.
Take Tajikistan. One of the things that I think one has to accept is the
these historical, how would I call them, fractures, because this is a
historical fracture when an empire like the Soviet Union collapses.
You're stepping into that fracture. And, you're observing, and then
you're trying to address the issues by their priorities. So long as the
people themselves have told you their priorities, rather than you trying
to tell them what they should be. Then I think you will build a
relationship of empathy, of trust. Then, of course, the next issue is,
is the response credible for those people? And if it is, then you have a
new relationship between a people and an institution. And that starts
building a notion of relationship, on an ongoing context. And that, I
think, what is beginning to happen in Tajikistan, and I would hope the
relationship would go further than just the Islamic community, because
it's got encompass the societies in which the dispossessed and
underprivileged are living. Clearly the institution which I represent
does not have indefinite resources. We cannot try to be more present
than our resources enable us to be. But, certainly in the case of places
such as Tajikistan, we have been able to respond. And, in fact, the
programs now cover more than half the land area of the country.
How do you modernize these emerging societies?
These societies entered a system where the historic culture was
replaced. Their culture--in a sense even their ethic, I suppose--was
changed. The nature of the individual within society was changed. And
that period of whatever it was- 50 or 70 years--has had a massive impact
on these people. The interesting thing is that these people do not view
it as entirely negative. But they do want to know what it was before.
And, therefore, trying to revive, revitalize these pre-Soviet cultures
is something of very great importance to these societies. And this is
part of restoring an identity. Now, that comes back to the issue of the
legitimacy of pluralism. The Turkish society versus the Persian society
in central Asia do have different backgrounds. And we're trying to move
this forward not in the context of building difference, but in the
context of building strength. The more pluralistic a society is, perhaps
the more creative it will be.
There seems to be a contradiction in terms of a public perception of
you, sir, as one who is so actively engaged in transforming lives--and
the same time in his own personal association with that transformation,
some who is almost reluctant to take credit. Is that perception valid,
and is it a conscious decision on your part to perhaps not be as much in
the forefront of articulating those ideas, as others might wish you to
be?
Yes. I have sought not to be in the forefront of public communication on
these issues, for a number of reasons. First of all, to me it's more
important that people observe institutions and the programs and the
beneficiaries rather than the individual. And that is a strong belief in
my life. Secondly, I must say very frankly that the work load is very
considerable and I'm not sure whether I would have the time to be in the
forefront of communication. Thirdly, I think very often my institutions
are better communicators than I would be. Because from institution to
institution they do communicate quite a lot. But, I don't think that I
could be in a position to fulfill the role that I try to fulfill, if I
was constantly trying to communicate about these ideas. I mean, I do
meet people, we do talk about these things, but getting things done on a
ongoing basis is a genuine priority in my life. We are not dealing in
most of the cases that concern the Imamate, with stable, wealthy
countries with long tradition of good governments and strong
institutions. We are dealing with situations which are still very, very
fragile. And, because of their fragility, I think I must say I have to
commit my time to trying to build strength in those environments rather
than communicating on other issues. I know I am criticized for it, and I
have to accept that criticism.
What are your disappointments, in terms of both your own work and the
work that is allied with that of yours?
I would like to feel that there more stability in the future than I
perceive at the moment, which would therefore, in a sense, enable me to
be more confident of where we're going. We are coming out of a
historically extraordinary difficulty. The whole of the cold war
impacted development thinking all over Africa and Asia. And now, the
cold war's gone. But what is it being replaced by? So one of my concerns
is that. The second one is the issue of continuation on course of
sustainable human development of quality and integrity; many of these
countries are still very fragile economically. Public ethic is not
particularly strong in a number of situations. Therefore trying to
sustain this is an ongoing problem. It worries everybody. The third
issue that I'm worry about is the capacity to build the economic
sustenance that we require. The industrialized world is not going to
continue indefinitely to support the Third World. And I feel that time
is running out for us. And I'm worried about that. Because if the
support is restricted to humanitarian support of simply delivering food
or stepping into a conflict-ridden situation, I'm not sure that is one
which is going to affect the whole spectrum of areas where we're
operating. So, I'm worried about that. There are fragilities that worry
me every day, frankly. And they do, from time to time, turn around and
hit us in the face. The fragility can get worse, turn into a problem,
and then you have to turn around and say, "What do we do about this?"
And so these are issues we have to face all the time. I am far from a
confident person in terms of the overall activity of what we are doing.
I am well aware of the fragility. And, I'm worried. I say very frankly,
if we fail to provide food, or if microcredit is mismanaged, or medical
ethics, these sorts of things are things that we're dealing with. These
are sorts of things that really, really worry me. And the bigger our
network gets, the more societies it functions in, the more these issues
have to be addressed. And so I would say very frankly, it's not just the
Aga Khan development network. The World Bank has these sorts of
problems. National governments have these sorts of problems. And we are
really talking about building capacity of societies so that govern
themselves in a proper manner.
You're perceived, quite correctly, as a moderate liberal with a small
"L," a religious leader in the Islamic context. I understand the one of
your concerns is that there isn't enough attention being given to
Islamic civilizations. What do you feel needs to be done to enhance that
understanding of civilizations?
Let me start with simply commenting on the nature of the Islamic faith.
It is a faith which affects the individual in society in his everyday
life, in his material life, in his family life, in his intellectual
life, not only in the life of his soul and the life that he experiences
in prayer. Therefore, the history of the Islamic world has been the
history of a totality of civilization of human life. Not simply the
spiritual. And the result of that has been the development of cultures.
And I refer to cultures because clearly Islam absorbed a number of
cultures. And, therefore, the notion of Islam as being not just a faith
but an environment in which the individual is created, is thoughtful, is
hardworking--it is a context in which I am a very, very strong believer.
That being the case, whether it's this Imam or anyone else, I have to be
concerned with the continuum of that cultural context, not just the
continuance of the faith in terms of the strict theological issues.
Because, as I said, Islam expresses itself in many, many different ways
and this is where I am concerned about this because it's quite clear
that we are increasingly tending to be a world culture that's driven by
the fear of force of the dominant culture, in terms of its economics,
its range of communications. Now the whole process of globalization
seems to be in direct conflict with the recognition and enhancement of
pluralism. That's another force which is at play. And so I think that it
is a part of my role--because this Ismali community in itself is
pluralistic--is to try to establish the fact that there are hundreds of
reasons to legitimize and accept and enhance the plurality of human
society. And I am worried about that. I'm not against a culture which is
a powerful culture. I am, however, worried that others will feel that
they have to follow that culture because otherwise they're not part of
the new world, or the wealthy world, or the creative world, or that sort
of thing. So I'm worried about these issues and I'm also pleased that
some of the things I've been trying to do are now resonating even in the
major cultures of the world. Some of the issues we're dealing with
certainly in the physical environment are issues which are not specific
to the Islamic world. They're specific practically everywhere where
human society lives. So if we are effective with some solutions that
we're developing in parts of the Islamic world, or institutions or
architectural firms, that will be an enormous asset for both societies.
After all, if you look at the physical environment of the Western world,
an enormous amount was learned from the Islamic world. So this
crisscrossing of what I would call cultural talent is a very, very
healthy exercise. And anything I can do to encourage that I will
encourage.
Now you have persuaded your children to join your enterprises. What is
behind that thinking? Is it that you wish to pay them the kind of abrupt
learning on the job that you went through? Or is it that plus a sense
that your own ideas have, in a sense, been actualized in such a vast way
that it is better that the family be involved and be hands-on?
When you're 20 and in university, you don't expect to find yourself
overnight in the situation that I inherited in 1957. Insofar as any one
of my children, you know, could be exposed to the future responsibility
in the institution, and that will be the case. I would like the boys,
but also my daughter, to be knowledgeable about what is happening. But
there's something much more important than that. You say I'm a young
man. Actually I'm 62. I have been in this position for 42 years. Now I
learn from the younger generation. They think in different terms than I
do. They have different competencies than I do. They have a different
vision of how new technologies can work for us. So bringing my children
on board is a very intimate way of accessing the talents of younger
people. And in so far as the Aga Khan network, you know, it's an ongoing
institution, I would like to continue to be able to mobilize young
people and benefit from their knowledge and competencies. So I don't
want to give the impression that this is simply an internal family
issue. I have learned a lot and continue to learn. And I'm sure that
will be the case in the future--learning from other young people not
just my own children.
How tolerant are you of your own children?
I can tell you I'm very tolerant in the sense that because they have all
have had a good education because they think clearly, I enjoy the
process of dialogue. And most often, we come to a consensus view because
we go through a rational process. And, you know, that an infinite part
of the sheer interpretation of Islam is the rational process. And I
attach enormous importance to that because it's a significant part of
the way we live and work. So I encourage that. I mean clearly everyone
who works with me, whether it be colleagues at the top level, or my
children, start from a different set of considerations and knowledge.
But in the end, we have to try and work as an institution that achieves
results. You can't really do that if there is no consensus on where
you're going. And this isn't a corporate environment. It is an
institution that seeks to function through consensus. And the only way
to do that is to give everybody the opportunity to express a view. It
may be right or wrong and the decision-maker--for the moment--is me. In
so far as my children and I can discuss things, and do discuss things, I
enjoy that.
How would you be liked to be remembered as on four counts: First, as the
Imam, what would you have done to this community? Secondly, as a father,
what would you have done to shape the life and sensibilities of your
children? Third, sir, what would you have done during your lifetime to
have shaped the secular societies around you? And finally, what would
you have done to put into effect the very things you
emphasize--pluralism, secularism, peace, tolerance?
As the Imam, I think it would be important to try to have been an
interpreter of the faith which enabled people to continue to look to a
spiritual world and a world of faith, which is not only a material
world. I feel very, very strongly about that. So interpretative nature
of the role of the direction it gives seems to me central to the nature
of the office that I have. With regard to the children, I would like
them to feel if it were possible that they have a sense of direction in
their lives which they can work with, whatever it may be. When my
grandfather died, my father was alive, my uncle was alive, my brother
was alive. The widow of my grandfather was alive. My mother was alive.
So there's the family context. And I would like that family context to
remain strong. With regard to let's say some of the notions that I've
tried to develop, it would be important that those notions should be
validated by time. I would be uncomfortable if some of these notions
turned out to have been fashionable short-term issues. I wouldn't want
that. By nature I am suspicious of fashion, of isms, of dogmas, because
I think human society changes all the time. And the moment you get
frozen into a mental prison, then, you know, things actually start
becoming very damaging. But my sense is that at the present time there
is increasing opportunity to achieve results. There are some very
fundamental issues--very, very fundamental issues.
What related issues are of concern to you?
There're the issues of nuclear proliferation and risk of war, the
indebtedness of the developing world, the centrifugal forces amongst and
in societies. These are all things that we have to deal with. But I
think that there is a new sense of wanting to address. These issues that
I'm talking about are issues which affect enormous segments of the human
race and in that sense, because they are recognized for that, they are
likely to be addressed much more consistently with the larger spectrum
of forces than was the past. So I am hopeful. But as I said, there are
issues that will go well past my lifetime and, therefore I can't say
that I think everything is going to work out. I mean if you look at a
situation such Afghanistan and the horror of Afghanistan, it's just a
situation which has gone on and on and on and on. If you look at some of
the situations in Africa, my sadness is that they were predictable. They
didn't have to go where they went. They were predictable. So in that
sense, we are not yet functioning, not yet addressing potential crises
situations. We are addressing some of them but not all of them. But I'm
more hopeful than I was. When I inherited this office in 1957, the
horizons were very bleak. Very, very bleak indeed.
You've made notions of hands-on development relevant. You've made a
personal engagement with the issues relevant. Is "relevancy" your theme
for contemporary times?
It's certainly one of the things that has been most present in my
attitudes, in my hopes. And basic reason for that is that because I have
been very sensitive to the plurality of human society, I have been
fearful of not being sensitive to that. And if you're not sensitive to
it, you make mistakes. And in order to try to predicate action on the
found knowledge, I didn't want to do it only on the basis of reading. I
needed to see, I needed to listen--I needed to observe for myself. And
in that sense, I think it's just a way of looking at things. It's just
the way I feel is a right way for me to do them. Now other people have
magnificent structures that function very well, so I'm not saying it's
the only way. I think the other issue here clearly is that if the Imam
is directly involved, it brings the level of emphasis on issues, on
objectives. People tend, I think, to coalesce- perhaps coalesce is the
wrong word. But come together around a particular project, to drive it
if I'm personally engaged with issues. And that's very hopeful.
Of all your worries, what concerns you most?
I'm worried about continuity. And I'm worried about the efficacy of the
institution in a continuum of time. Worried is perhaps not too strong a
word. I think about that. I think about that. The institutions, I think,
are aware of it. We are now working on 10-year programs. As I said, if
you had asked me in 1957, can you work on the 10-year program, I would
have said, "It's like walking barefoot on Mount Everest." I mean you're
never going to get there. That horizon was an unreasonable horizon.
Today that is a reasonable horizon.
When you talk about worrying about continuity, beyond the
temporal--since you're both a temporal leader and a spiritual
leader--does that really extend to the liturgy of Islam?
Yes, it does because, first of all, of the plurality of tradition within
Islam. Secondly, the processes of change, if they do occur, are very
sensitive indeed. And they need to be very carefully thought through. It
is an area where enormous wisdom, enormous knowledge, enormous
sensitivity has got to be there. So that process is one of the issues
that will go well past my lifetime. Well past my lifetime. And, you
know, it's something which I inherited, that I have worked with--as you
know, I have a degree in Islamic History and, therefore, I am
comfortable in thinking about these issues. But they are highly
sensitive. In the long run, the question is what is the context in which
human society will function and the Islamic community will function? And
I think the whole notion of relevance is a massively important issue.
It's going across all faiths. Not just the Islamic faith. Not just the
Islamic interpretation. It's going across all faiths today. There is a
clear search for ethical contexts. And my sense is that could be a
little bit of a reaction to maybe some of excesses in the material
context. You know, it's clear that uncontrolled freedom becomes license.
It's an issue that keeps coming up all the time. And it's one which
needs very, very deep reflection. Very deep reflection. It's probably
the most challenging issue that I have to address today. More so since
the life sciences have evolved, since communications have evolved.
And would you say that these issues increasingly affect the developed
world?
Well, I think it's going to be worldwide because more and more the
developing world is part of the rest of the global community. You know,
the reach of the communication system is so massive today. Just about
every society is- whether one wishes it or not--is involved. And finding
the context which is the appropriate one is very complex indeed. Very
complex. That's true of every individual who has a responsibility within
the faith. We are all addressing those problems.
But even within the global context, wouldn't you say that you hold a
particularly unique position because it is not simply the sectarian
faith but really the broader secularism of the Ismaili community?
Yes, and in so far as Islam affects all aspects of an individual's life,
and particularly in our tradition, the role of the intellect in that
whole context is a massively important issue. And I am looking at it.
Many people are working with me on it. And I have to tell you that it's
an issue which is affecting us on a daily basis. I referred to it
earlier as the ethical context. I think that is the context in which we
will seek the solutions. In the ethical and the cultural contexts. Not
only in the theological context. Our tendency would be to say the
theological context is too restrictive. And, therefore, we have to look
at it in the wider context of ethics and culture. And I think if we can
look at it in that context, we have some opportunity of developing sound
solutions without failing to recognize our history, our religious
history, our cultural history. So that the contextualization of these
issues is a really central problem, a central issue which I daily have
to address.
Do you feel that you've begun to grapple with them in a way that
suggests solutions?
In the last 42 years, I would say a lot of work has been done and there
is some clarity ahead. Whether that clarity will be validated by time, I
don't know. But what I can tell you is that I have a higher level of
comfort today than I would have had four decades ago. Yes.
How much of the work of Ismaili institutions bolsters your own
sensibility?
It is a resource which we draw from daily. And it is a resource whose
limits we don't know because it's a discovery process for largely
historical reasons. But it is a very significant and powerful resource
that we can use. There the Imam is responsible for interpreting. But he
will look back into history with others and see how certainly Islamic
history was dealt with, how current issues were contextualized at the
time. There are periods in our own history which are exemplars or case
studies, where there is an enormous amount to be learned. So we're not
always trying to develop new solutions. We may be looking at
methodologies which were used in the past, which were legitimized in
history, which showed that they were good solutions. And which we can
simply try to adapt to our times. So it's not a process where there is a
deliteralization of the past. It's a process, on the contrary, of
learning and interpreting. That is a very, very important aspect of the
work. But as I said, it's not cast in stone. Research cannot be simply
rooted in history; it needs to be future oriented, too.
Mirrored from http://www.earthtimes.org/apr/profiletheagakhanapr22_00.htm
Copyright © 2000 The Earth Times All rights reserved.
|