| |
BOOK
REVIEW
Islam Under Siege
by Akbar S Ahmed
Reviewed by
Ahmad Faruqui
The world's 1.3 billion Muslims
are being squeezed between two equally strong forces. On
the one hand are the forces of the West that want to
modernize them, if need be through regime change. On the
other hand are the forces of Osama bin Laden who want to
de-Westernize them, if need be by wrapping their women
in dark flowing robes. The pain is being shared equally
by the two-thirds of the Muslim population that lives in
Muslim countries, and who are often governed by tyrants
that suppress all independent scholarship and dissent
and the one-third that lives in non-Muslim countries,
where even some of the longest standing democracies are
rapidly regressing toward tyrannical control over their
Muslim minorities.
Critics of Islam in the West
have begun to argue that the Koran asks Muslims to
follow it blindly and resort to fanaticism. Yet in the
words of linguist and translator Thomas Cleary, "Islam
does not demand unreasoned belief. Rather, it invites
intelligent faith, growing from observation, reflection
and contemplation, beginning with nature and what is all
around us. Accordingly, antagonism between religion and
science such as that familiar to Westerners is foreign
to Islam." It is a fact of history that Islamic
civilization eventually nursed Europe out of the Dark
Ages, laying the foundation for the Renaissance.
It is unfortunate that Islam, which means
"submission to the will of God", and whose followers
greet each other with the expression, "Peace be on you",
stands accused in the West of fomenting violence due to
the acts of a few extremists who are acting contrary to
the teachings of their faith. A few months ago, I
interviewed a learned Islamic theologian about these
issues, Dr Khalid Siddiqi. He teaches Arabic and Islamic
studies at several colleges in the San Francisco Bay
area and directs the Islamic Education and Information
Center. With degrees from Dar-ul-Uloom Nadwa in India,
al-Azhar University in Cairo and a doctorate from the
University of London, Dr Siddiqi is in a unique position
to judge the compatibility of terrorism with Islamic
precepts. He said, "Violence against innocent civilians
had no place in the life of Prophet Mohammed, and it
should have no place in the life of his followers
today."
There is perhaps no better writer to
analyze and diagnose the Muslim predicament than
Professor Akbar S Ahmed, who holds the Ibn Khaldun Chair
in Islamic Studies at American University. Professor
Ahmed is an anthropologist by training who began his
career in the Pakistan civil service and subsequently
switched to academe. He has taught at Cambridge,
Princeton and Harvard, and is the author of many books,
scholarly papers, and newspaper articles. More
tellingly, he is also the producer of a BBC film series
about Islam and a feature film about Pakistan's founder,
Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He is also a former high
commissioner to Britain.
His latest book,
Islam Under Siege, takes head on the challenges
facing the Muslims in the aftermath of the events of
September 11. The book deals with the plights of Muslims
from the vantage point of reflexive sociology, and
certain parts of it constitute an ambassador's memoir.
The thesis of the book
One would be
hard pressed to disagree with the core argument of the
book, which is directed at Muslims. It consists of two
parts. First, don't blame the "Great Satan" for all your
ills. Second, be inclusive and compassionate toward
other human beings regardless of their faith, because
that is what God has willed the believers to do. Many
(but not all) of the problems facing the Muslim world
are indeed self-inflicted, and blaming the West for all
of them has set the Muslims back on the path to
progress. Conspiracy theories dominate Muslim views of
the West, which is believed to be plotting for the
extermination of Islam while indulging in an orgy of sex
and violence. It is too often the case that the lives of
Muslims are cloaked with a fatalism based on a
misunderstanding of God's will.
Ahmed eloquently
debunks many commonly held myths about Islam, some of
which are held by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For
example, he points out that there is no room for killing
even a single innocent civilian in Islam. Much of the
conflict between the forces of moderation in Islam and
those that are inclined to take extreme positions and
carry out acts of violence against innocent people
arises from the misinterpretation of the concept of
jihad. Islam allows jihad in the form of armed struggle
against oppressors. However, there are very specific
conditions under which fighting in self-defense is
allowed. One must be deprived of the right to live and
to earn one's livelihood. Individuals are not allowed to
take on this fight, and jihad has to be carried out with
the collective will of the Muslim community. Individual
acts of vigilantism would create anarchy and are
prohibited.
Ahmed's interpretation is consistent
with that put forth by the vast majority of Muslim
scholars. For example, Siddiqi asserts that the Muslim
community has to observe very strict limits when
carrying out jihad. Thus, those fighting a jihad cannot
harm women, children and unarmed civilians on the enemy
side under any circumstances. Willful destruction of
property is condemned. A Muslim is prohibited from even
harming a tree that is green, because it is a common
asset of humanity. The Koran states, in the 192nd verse
of the second chapter, "But if they cease, God is
Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And this command is
reiterated in the following verse, "But if they cease,
let there be no hostility except to those who practice
oppression."
The terrorists have reinforced a
common misperception in the West that the Koran asks
Muslims to kill Jews and Christians. In fact, the Koran
addresses the believers among the Jews and Christians
with great respect, calling them "the people of the
book". Former president Jimmy Carter, winner of a Nobel
Peace prize, wrote about the common family ties among
Jews, Christians and Muslims in The Blood of
Abraham in 1985. It was this broad vision that
brought about the Camp David Accords between Israel and
Egypt. In the Koran (46th verse of the 29th chapter),
God says to the Muslims: "Do not argue with the
followers of the earlier revelations otherwise than in a
most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are
bent on evil-doing - and say: We believe in that which
has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that
which has bestowed upon you; for our God and your God is
one and the same, and it is unto Him that we all
surrender ourselves."
It is a common
misperception that friendship between Muslims and
non-Muslims is prohibited in Islam. That is also
incorrect because the Koran (7th verse of the 60th
chapter) even encourages making friends with one's
enemies, "It may be that God will grant love [and
friendship] between you and those you [now] hold as
enemies. For God has power [over all things], and He is
Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." It goes one step further
and says, in the next verse, "God does not forbid you,
with regard to those who do not fight for [your] faith
nor drive you from your homes, from dealing kindly and
justly with them: for God loves those who are just."
Methodology
Ahmed's methodology is
derived from the concept of group solidarity (or
asabiyya in Arabic) first propounded by Ibn
Khaldun (1332-1406), regarded by many as the father of
modern social science. Group solidarity serves a
constructive purpose when it gives individuals a sense
of identity and belonging to society. However,
exaggerated feelings of tribal and religious loyalties
can lead to a pathological case that the author terms
hyper-group solidarity.
The collapse of group
solidarity also brings with it the collapse of justice,
compassion and balance in society. These concepts hold a
society together and their absence creates conflict and
violence in society, leading to chaos and confusion.
The author cites the Taliban, who were
originally religious students confined to an Islamic
seminary in Kandahar, Afghanistan as an example of a
tribal society with social cohesion. Once the Taliban
took over the regime in Kabul, their lack of training in
political and civil administration, coupled with their
exclusivist political identity that prevented them from
assimilating non-Taliban ideas, ensured their failure.
Their puritanical variant of Islam, which had been their
strength in Kandahar, now became their weakness. They
resorted to placing restrictions on women and destroying
ancient Buddhist statues and when the US demanded they
give up their special guest, Osama bin Laden, they
failed to do so, because that would have compromised
their tribal sense of honor.
The author is quick
to point out that hyper-group solidarity, as exhibited
by the Taliban and the clerics in Iran, is not confined
to Muslim societies. He mentions the Serb militias in
Bosnia and the Hindu mobs that killed thousands of
Muslims in Gujarat as examples of people who have
succumbed to the same social disease.
He also
mentions that the freedom of speech and religion in the
US prior to September 11 had created an atmosphere that
could be compared to that of Muslim Spain (Andalus) when
Christians, Jews and Muslims lived side by side in
peace. However, everything changed after the terror
attacks, as the US came in the grip of hyper-group
solidarity. Muslims could be arrested anywhere and held
without charges indefinitely, merely for being Muslims.
Many who were arrested had their beards shaven
forcefully.
Is the book hard on Muslims and
soft on the West?
This question arises because
depending on how one reads certain sections of the book,
it comes across as being hard on Muslims and soft on the
West. For example, there are instances when the book
seems to equate Muslims generally with the bin Laden
ideology, and holds them collectively responsible for
his alleged actions. While discussing president Bill
Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the book suggests
that Muslims interpreted the president's actions as
being those of a dishonorable man, and took that to mean
that all Americans were dishonorable. The book says,
"Muslim reading of Clinton had much to do with their
planning for September [11], bin Laden misread Bush on
the basis of Clinton's behavior."
Second, the
book is silent on the harm that has been inflicted on
the Muslim world by the West over the past two
centuries. It does not analyze why the grievances of bin
Laden and his cohorts have acquired much legitimacy in
the Muslim world. In its 12 pages of references, there
is no mention of the Project for the New American
Century. By now it is common knowledge that the
neo-conservatives in Washington have a very definite
plan to remake the Muslim world in their image. As they
carry through on this agenda, they make it easier for
bin Laden to recruit young Muslims to his cause. This
point has been made by a variety of non-Muslim writers,
including Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky and Norman Mailer in
the US and many others in Europe and Latin America. Both
parties are fighting a "war of self-defense", using
whatever weapons are at their disposal. For the fighters
of al-Qaeda, terrorism represents a form of guerilla
warfare, which helps them overcome the asymmetrical
balance of military power between themselves and the
West. It may not have religious legitimacy in the
opinion of the vast majority of Islamic scholars, but
they are undeterred because they have chosen to
interpret the Islamic scriptures differently.
Third, the book may suggest to some readers that
the Muslims are at the center of political violence. A
review of the past century will reveal that millions
were killed in political violence and wars that did not
originate with either the Muslims or their religion. The
primary examples being of course the two world wars,
followed by the internal wars carried out in the name of
communism by Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao
Zedong in the People's Republic of China. The Korean War
killed hundreds of thousands, the Vietnam War killed a
million, the civil war in Kampuchea (now Cambodia)
killed almost 2 million and another million were killed
by the Soviet-Afghan war. In none of these wars were
Muslims perpetrators of political violence. If anything,
Muslims have often been the victims of political
violence. As the book shows, large scale and systematic
rape against Muslim women has been the hallmark of the
past two decades, first in Bosnia and then in Gujarat.
Fourth, the book seems to attribute the
backwardness, illiteracy and misogynistic nature of
society so prevalent in Muslim countries to the religion
of the people who live there. Vast numbers of Muslims
come across as simpletons who are gullible followers of
the Egyptian activist Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s
and bin Laden in the 1990s. However, a review of the
data published by the World Bank in its World
Development Report and the United Nations Development
Program in its Human Development Report reveals that the
same problems bedevil much of the Third World. Muslim
countries do not have a monopoly on backwardness. As
others have shown, the problems faced by developing
countries around the globe are caused by a miasmic
interaction of culture, ethnicity, politics and
economics, set against the backdrop of centuries of
imperial conquest and colonialism by the West.
As the author notes, the horrifying case in
which a young boy was sodomized for walking alongside a
young woman in Mianwali (Pakistan) and the girl
gang-raped had nothing to do with the religion of Islam
and more to do with a perceived violation of group honor
by the elders of the tribe, ie, it was an act of
hyper-group solidarity.
Fifth, the book offers
an incomplete analysis of terrorism. It seems to suggest
that terrorism is caused by the existence of vast
numbers of unemployed youth in the Muslim world, who are
easily swayed by figures like bin Laden. This
explanation overlooks the social and political
grievances that are possibly the major drivers for
terrorism. It was the Gulf War that spawned al-Qaeda.
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza causes
Palestinians to resort to suicide bombings. Beijing's
repression of its Uyghur minorities in Xinjiang and
Moscow's brutal suppression of Chechens leads the
survivors to commit acts of terrorism, just as New
Delhi's failure to accommodate the aspirations of
Kashmiris leads them to carry out terrorist acts. Nor is
terrorism a recent phenomenon. Throughout history,
oppression has led to what is called terrorism now and
was called fighting for freedom in days past. Such was
the case when black Africans were fighting the apartheid
regime in South Africa, and when the American colonies
were fighting imperial Britain.
The proposed
solution
After reviewing the driving forces that
have placed the Muslims and the West in conflict with
each other, the author proffers a solution in the last
chapter called the Global Paradigm. He argues that a
just, compassionate and peaceful global order would be
created if both parties would become inclusive in their
thinking, and engage in a dialogue of civilizations.
While agreeing with the noble premises of this
solution, it is difficult to be optimistic that an early
solution will be found to ease either the Muslim or
Western predicaments. As the author notes, the Bush
administration has embarked on a war that has no
boundaries or time horizons. It is seething with as much
anger and rage as its adversaries, and it is difficult
to see any end in sight to this conflict that threatens
to kill and maim Muslims in large numbers, in addition
to curbing their civil rights in many countries. Viewed
against the backdrop of the recent wars that the US had
waged against Afghanistan and Iraq, and its plans to
create a thousand military bases in 99 countries, a call
for a dialogue among civilizations seems awfully
Utopian.
The book proposes that ultimately the
Muslim world has to embrace democracy, and that is
undoubtedly true. However, just as true is the fact that
any form of government that is imposed externally in the
Muslim world will reduce the new leaders to Western
puppets, and undercut their credibility. Unfortunately,
the West has a long tradition of installing puppet
governments, under the guise of establishing democracy.
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's comment that
the liberated people of Iraq can elect any type of
government as long as it is not an Islamic theocracy is
an ominous development. Similarly, the West's objections
to the Islamic laws being promulgated by the
democratically elected government in North West Frontier
Province in Pakistan does not serve the cause of
democracy. There is a long list of Muslim grievances
that can be cited, including Algeria's decision to ban
the Islamic FIS party just as it was about to win the
elections in 1992, the banning of the Muslim Welfare
party in Turkey and the Central Intelligence Agency coup
that overthrew the Mossadeq government in Iran in 1953.
In fact, the West has a long track record of supporting
military dictatorships during the past half century
throughout the globe, including those in Chile,
Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines and South Vietnam.
Thus, if there is going to an inclusive dialogue
between Muslims and the West, it has to be carried out
by both sides. Lack of trust between the two sides
remains a major impediment to the beginning of such a
dialogue. A dialogue has been initiated by inter-faith
groups on all sides. However, these groups often do not
represent the center of gravity of the people who they
represent, so that even total cohesion of viewpoints in
the inter-faith dialogue may not carry over to the
much-needed dialogue between civilizations.
It
is also important to recognize - and the author
acknowledges this - that there is no monolithic entity
called the West or the Muslim world. There is a lot of
diversity in both. The Iraq war showed strong opposition
in the West to the actions of the US government. There
are many in the Muslim world who are opposed to the
views articulated by bin Laden, and many in Pakistan are
opposed to the Talibanization of parts of the country.
It is this diversity in views within both worlds that
gives hope that Samuel Huntington's apocalyptic clash of
civilizations can be avoided.
In closing, Ahmed
has penned a must-read book. Part memoir and part
exposition in social science, it should be required
reading for scholars, policy makers and opinion leaders
in both the Muslim world and the West.
Islam
Under Siege by Akbar S Ahmed, Polity Press, UK,
2003, ISBN: 0745622100, Price US$19.95, 224 pages
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
