The Western world, which had by now declared the ‘death of God’, found it deeply disturbing, how Muslim societies upheld the banner of God (or so they themselves assume), and hence an antithesis to its notion of Modernity, thinks Ayesha Begum.
Sometime back, while reading Milan Kundera’s, ‘The Art of the Novel’, a certain passage struck me as one of the perennial ironies with which we are confronted with as a global community. Situating the novel within a particular social ethos and time framework, that of ‘modernity’, Kundera goes on to reflect on one of the essential facets of modern human history. He writes, “Today the history of the planet has finally become one indivisible whole, but it is war, ambulant and everlasting war, that embodies and guarantees this long desired unity of mankind. Unity of mankind means: no escape for anyone anywhere”. Interestingly, as a student of literature, grappling with how many identities one has to constantly forge within a milieu that hyper visibly projects itself as ‘modern’, one realises the interesting intertwining of the fate of the novel and of humanity, being shaped rather precariously by the interjection of modernity itself.
We did usher this age, almost with a self-conscious attempt, of making a breakthrough from what we often conceived as an obsolete, redundant, moribund existence. To be ‘modern’, was somehow to have a chip on your shoulder, and undoubtedly the age did beget some of the greatest wonders, to nourish this complacency. Although quite unconsciously, we have forgotten how every age is fluid, such that there are always twilight zones, and we are rather always on the cusp or a transitory phase, across time, this desire to catapult oneself completely from a bygone age seems too tempting. So, is it the self-fulfilling fallacy, an error of judgement, that the age, seems to prophesise (if prophesies can still be made), in its claim to inadvertently oppose the ‘traditional’?
Growing up in a Muslim household, with a Bengali cultural inclination, I realised quite late, of how my subjectivity was a product of hybridity. Yet, as far as my religious affiliations was concerned, I was quite sure of my Muslim identity and ethos( to the surprise of many non-Bengali speaking Muslims, for whom ‘Bengali Muslims’, were one third, or probably 70%, or maybe some other weird fraction of Hindus or were not ‘pure Muslims’ in that sense).
If war, and by that extended metaphor, ‘violence’ and ‘terror’, seems to be the current vocabulary of our present existence, it would be interesting to see the discourse of religion in this context. The juxtaposition of religion and violence, although not a modern trope (as history would testify to it), invariably seems to be a modern phenomenon in its unprecedented repercussion. Growing up in a Muslim household, with a Bengali cultural inclination, I realised quite late, of how my subjectivity was a product of hybridity. Yet, as far as my religious affiliations was concerned, I was quite sure of my Muslim identity and ethos (to the surprise of many non-Bengali speaking Muslims, for whom ‘Bengali Muslims’, were one third, or probably 70%, or maybe some other weird fraction of Hindus or were not ‘pure Muslims’ in that sense). It was only in my late teens, that I came to understand the ramifications of being a Muslim, as the mainstream image of Muslim identity seemed to be somewhat problematic in the public arena. The image of a bearded man, by the name of Bin Laden, with an AK 47 in his hand, the demolition of the World Trade Center, and terms like ‘terrorism’ and ‘suicide bombing’, was something that came now, with the bag and baggage of being Muslim and subsequently related with Islam. The 9/11 attacks was just a precursor to the series of images to be linked with Islam and how terrorism by default has come to be exclusively attached and associated with Islam. As I write today, on this somewhat problematic coinage of the term, ‘Islam and Terrorism’, my purpose is far from making a public apology or a need for political correctness. All I intend to do, is to understand and attempt to trace the discourse of Islam, not without its politics and how the phenomenon of terrorism as we witness today, is the result of its unique relation with Modernity.
To begin with, the advent of Islam came as a radical departure from what it perceived to be an age of ignorance or Jahaliyah. In its approach, from an economic and social perspective, it brought remarkable changes in an otherwise tribal society, marked by feuds and warfare. It was not in its mere claim of monotheism (something quite shared with the Jewish and Christian traditions), and opposition to idolatry that it heralded a modernistic spirit (unlike what Muslims and non Muslims alike have come to believe), but rather in the fundamental proposition of questioning traditional beliefs and practices, as well as the reason for man’s existence. The idea of iman (which is more nuanced than the translated idea of faith), although the central pillar of Islam, never negated the idea of aql (reasoning) along with revelation. Although, it would seem now, quite heretical to ask, (as the Koran is considered inflexible and unquestionable), for centuries Islamic scholars trained in theology and in fiqh (schools of jurisprudence), have always had debates and applied laws accordingly. The Shariya, irrespective of being an object of ridicule and mockery for its repressive policies, by the West, cannot be seen as an ‘ideal’ to be fantasised for legitimising an absolute Muslim state. It is in fact, as notable scholars have always opined, a way of teaching, a set of principles, to actually resist State authority (and not simply cutting off hands), that have been at many historical instances made amendable.The Shariya, irrespective of being an object of ridicule and mockery for its repressive policies, by the West, cannot be seen as an ‘ideal’ to be fantasised for legitimising an absolute Muslim state. It is in fact, as notable scholars have always opined, a way of teaching, a set of principles, to actually resist State authority (and not simply cutting off hands), that have been at many historical instances made amendable.
In fact, the history of Islam is closely linked with the history of its cities. It was in Mecca and Medina that Islam flourished and did not dissociate divine message from its political action. In the economic, social, military policies, it had a clear cut agenda and a world view (‘weltanschaung’), that heralded a modernistic spirit. In all of these, it was very clear, that Islam was not a religion without its politics, nor was it politics without religion (a fact that is reiterated throughout the history of Islamic civilization). However, the disturbing factor for the West and the rest of the world for that matter has been this politicization of Islam (to an extreme level) and its conjugation with a certain idea of inherent militancy. Today, in this modern age, the term Jihad becomes associated with a certain ‘fundamentalist’ approach of proselytizing those people whom it assumes as kafirs (infidels). But my purpose here, is not to engage into a pedagogical argument about Islam’s essential message and how Jihad has been debased. It is to accept the fact of a stark difference between theory and praxis as far as Islam is concerned, reaching its apotheosis in Modernity.
To link the outcry of these so called terrorists as an act propelled by religious injunction is a deep misreading and misinterpretation. The slippage occurs when the Western media( the media that almost all the world vouches for), with its own vigilantism, fails to understand how these acts of terror are not mere religious barbarism, but deeply rooted in politics. To give these acts of terrorism a religious facade, is an easy ploy used both by the Terrorists as well as the rest of the world.
Interestingly, the term ‘terrorism’, for a practicing Muslim (having also a fair share of scepticism) like me, becomes a baffling experience. This is because the disparate events in different historical junctures, that have collectively assumed the brand of terrorism and its close link with Islam, seems to me a response triggered by the tide of Modernity. The term ‘fundamentalism’ was, in fact coined by a Christian Protestant, who wanted a return to the Christian fundamentals. By the end of the 20th century, we find an almost overt emphasis on the literal interpretation of religious texts in almost all religious traditions. It also becomes a crucial time, since the idea of religion moving from a private sphere to a public/political domain becomes problematic for a world, that seems to relate religion with a kind of orthodoxy and hence obscurant. The Western world, which had by now declared the ‘death of God’, found it deeply disturbing, how Muslim societies upheld the banner of God (or so they themselves assume), and hence an antithesis to its notion of Modernity. To link the outcry of these so called terrorists as an act propelled by religious injunction is a deep misreading and misinterpretation. The slippage occurs when the Western media (the media that almost all the world vouches for), with its own vigilantism, fails to understand how these acts of terror are not mere religious barbarism, but deeply rooted in politics. To give these acts of terrorism a religious facade, is an easy ploy used both by the Terrorists as well as the rest of the world.
Muslim fundamentalism, it must be noted is born out of the conflicting relationship with Western Modernity. As the writer Guy Sorman in his book, ‘The Children of Rifaa’, notes, “Muslim fundamentalism breeds in those Islamic countries that have been trying unsuccessfully since the beginning of the nineteenth century to catch up with the West and reconcile, if such a thing is possible, Islam and Modernity”. It must also be noted that in order to understand the recent phenomenon of terrorism, one must inevitably stumble upon the Muslim’s encounter with the West. This is best exemplified, in Sayyid Qotb’s (a teacher of Egyptian origin) anxiety while confronting a diametrically opposite cultural logic, as he witnessed in New York in 1948. Although, sentenced to death by Nasser’s regime in 1966, his writings seem to have influenced a great deal of radical fundamentalists, including Bin Laden. Moreover, to understand the roots of such fundamentalist thought, one must trace their steps back to the 13th century Islamic scholar and philosopher, Ibn Tahmiya, who first initiated the idea of revolt. Ibn Tahmiya’s fatwa of declaring a certain group of Muslims as apostates, mark the beginning of a theological and political revolution and culminates in a certain brand of radicalist thinking in the generation to follow, most eminently in Abd al –Wahhab. What we witness in the wave of Wahabbism (which is the current religious and political ideology of Saudi Arabia) is this tendency to see a certain faction of Islamic schools of thought, including prominently Sufism and Shi’ism as heretical to the true ‘fundamental’ teachings of Islam. The premise that the Wahabis have used is a religious one, although having deep political underpinnings.What strikes me as particularly fascinating is this image of almost all these terrorist groups, using the most advanced, modern, so to speak, equipment of warfare. In other words, these fundamentalists have a paradoxical approach towards modernity- one that rejects Western morality, but retains its technology.
My point here is not to come to a generalization about all Wahhabis being Terrorists, but to locate in Wahhabism, a point of departure, where schismatism (a prominent feature of Modernism) has played into the hands of terrorism. So, when one sees, the terrorist group of ISIS opposing every other group that does not fit into its version of ‘truth’, in their desire for a ‘Caliphate’, one recognises this tendency to ‘purge’ and ‘purify’ to return to the ‘fundamentals’. In this context, their vitriolic attack against Shias has a historical premise- these groups are reminiscent of the Khawarijites, who were the strongest opponents of Imam Ali. Similarly, groups like Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban have, as Karen Armstrong pointed out, deep political motivations than religious ones.( and their techniques being a product of globalization and fuelled by the Opium Trade). What strikes me as particularly fascinating is this image of almost all these terrorist groups, using the most advanced, modern, so to speak, equipment of warfare. In other words, these fundamentalists have a paradoxical approach towards modernity- one that rejects Western morality, but retains its technology.
In the wake of Modernity, Muslims and Non-Muslims alike have stifled the voice of a moderate Islam, the Islam of Imam Al-Ghazali, of Maulana Rumi, of Nizamuddin Auliya, of Rifaa and of institutions like Al Azhar in Cairo.
It is also interesting to note that the idea of terrorism so well labelled with traditional Islam by the Western Media (a view that reinforces the stereotypical images of Islam as anti rational/anti liberal, and hence Muslims being Medieval throwbacks) is actually a misnomer and anachronistic. The notable scholar, Abdal Hakim Murad in his book, Bombing without Moonlight, traces the roots of suicide bombings from Palestine, through Shi’a guerrillas in Southern Lebanon, to the Hindu nativist zealots of the Tamil Tigers, and to the holy warriors of Shinto Japan, the Kamikazes. The paradigm of Western Modernity, seems to use the idea of a very constricted idea of liberalism/secularism, one that seems quite similar to the rhetoric of the Extremist themselves. This tendency to brand terrorism solely with Islam, can only be the raison d’etre for legitimising the prophecy of ‘Clash of Civilizations’ . In the wake of Modernity, Muslims and Non-Muslims alike have stifled the voice of a moderate Islam, the Islam of Imam Al-Ghazali, of Maulana Rumi, of Nizamuddin Auliya, of Rifaa and of institutions like Al Azhar in Cairo.
Somewhere outside my windows, the local muezzin again calls the faithful to prayer. His voice cracks at certain intervals, it carries a certain melancholia. The daily newspaper arrives, with its news of mourning, over the banality of death, of the worthlessness of lives, reduced to statistics. This time the terror is closer to home. In the pervading gloominess, I hear the voice of God, lamenting in Iqbal’s poem, ‘Javaab e Shikva’: “Reh gayee rasm-e- azaan rooh- e -Bilaalee na rahee/ falsafaa reh gaya talqeen-e- Ghazaalee na rahee/ masjiden marsiyan khwaan hain ki namazee na rahey/ yaanee voh sahib-e-ausaaf-e-Hijaazee na rahey” (Only a ritual the call to prayer: the spirit of Bilal has fled. There’s no end to philosophising, Ghazali’s discourse remains unread. Now mourn the empty mosques; no worshippers fill them with prayer. The likes of noble Hijazi gentlemen are no longer there.)
Image via https://www.theodysseyonline.com
