ISLAM, ISLAMISM AND JIHADISM
Asghar Ali Engineer
(Secular Perspective November 1-15, 2011)
I was invited to Berlin, Germany by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung for a seminar on Islam, Islamism and Jihadism held from 20-22 October 2011. Some 75 scholars from Arab world, Europe and United States were invited for the event. They were all experts working in this field. The focus of course was on the Arab Spring i.e. the events which unfolded from 25th January 2011 onwards. Many Arab scholars, journalists and activists took part in the discussion.
The main concerns were twofold: what will be impact of Arab spring on the governance of Arab countries and whether Islamic extremism represented by Salafism and Brotherhood will take over or moderate Islam will be influence. There was rich discussions in the spirit of dialogue and all points of view were expressed in cordial atmosphere. In fact this is what is needed to promote better understanding of each other.
The opening speakers were two from eg-German research scholar Christine Schirmacher spoke on Origin and History of Ideas of Political Islam and Islamism.' As I have said before in my articles European scholars' ideas and thinking about Islam and Muslims is influenced mainly by two factors: one, their lack of experience of pluralist society and second historical events in which Islam and Christianity politically clashed with each other. Prof. Schirmacher displayed similar bias in her presentation.
Another thing with research scholars like her is that they depend more on medieval text in understanding Islam and Islamism and that too without taking context into account and if context is taken into account any religion in history will fare as badly or well as Islam. Thus any text must be read in socio-political context. Her paper totally lacked this context. Also, some events in contemporary Europe also influence such scholars who go by mere media reports without investigations of their own.
However, Abdelfattah and Andrea Zaki Stephenous fared much better as their papers were more analytical and progressive outlook. Both scholars were quite secular and progressive in their outlook. Abdelfattah works with a research foundation established by Al-Ahram newspaper which is highly influential in shaping political events in Egypt. He was quite critical of Salafism and its anti-Christian attitude and Islamic extremism.
Abdelfattah listed number of attacks by salafists on Copts and reported in Al-Ahram. But both scholars were highly supportive of Arab spring and the role being played by the Arab masses in ushering in democratic polity. Though it would be too early to predict role of Islamism or political Islam at this stage but Abdelfattah felt political Islam or Islamic extremism may not be after all acceptable to the people of Egypt. He also felt that even young salafis are changing and inclining towards moderation.
He and other participants also felt that religious extremism was also being used cleverly and clandestinely by Mubarak and his ruling clique. Even today such attacks on minorities are being stage-managed by this clique. A way has to be found to eliminate such attacks.
Rev. Stephanous, the Coptic Protestant priest also spoke very well. He stood for secularism and secular state as against a religious state. He maintained state should have nothing to do with religion. It should be neutral towards all religions. It is much like the Ulama in India who also stand for secularism and secular state. It proves two things i.e. when religion becomes part of a statecraft state loses its neutrality and two that whenever a religion becomes associated with governance or statecraft religion develops extremist tendencies.
The increasing attacks on minorities in Egypt also shows that religious majority in every country tends to be arrogant as it thinks it has power in its hands and targets minorities. Father Stephanous also stressed this when he said in democracy there should not be religious majority and minority but political majority and minority. This is very sensible proposition but it is easier said than done. In all democratic countries religious majority targets religious minorities, particularly that religious minority that is largest in number. Coptic Christians are largest minority in Egypt and Muslims largest minority in Europe and hence they are under attack. In India, though state is secular still religious right brutally targets Muslims which happens to be largest minority and also Christians which is, though small, nevertheless, is next in number as far as 'non-Hindu' minorities are concerned.
Here in India the Sangh Parivar always taunts Muslims that they want secularism when in minority and Islamic state while in majority. While it is true but it has to be seen in political perspective, not in religious one. The way Christian minorities want secular state it shows that same tendencies prevail among other minorities also as minorities are always targeted by religious majorities.
As the political crisis become acute such attacks also become intense and frequent. Same thing happened with Christians in Egypt and tiny Christian minority in Pakistan and with Muslims and Christians in India and Muslims in Europe today. The whole thing, however, is to be seen in political perspective and not misunderstood as part of religious teachings which is what rightist forces do.
In the Friedrich Ebert Foundation seminar there were three excellent presentations which were based on field work and also with correct perspective. It is important to note here that those western scholars who base their research only on medieval Islamic text by various theologians and scholars often produce misconceived conclusions taking those texts as only source of Islamic teachings. In these texts also one finds liberal and tolerant narratives and very rigid and intolerant narratives as it happens with modern scholars too. These scholars deliberately choose such rigid and intolerant texts to bash Islam with and ignore other writings.
However, these there scholars I am talking about based their studies of Islam and Islamism on empirical observations and did not allow media reports and stereotypes to interfere with their conclusions. These studies related to those who were arrested or suspected with terrorism and salafi association.
One of them was Prof. Edwin Bakker who hailed from Netherland and teaches in Counter-Terrorism Studies in Leiden University. His studies showed that average age of suspected terrorists was 28 i.e. it is not true that very young who have not seen much of life tend to be terrorists. Also it was found that most of them had criminal records. Thus it is not true that they are all purists ready to die for Islam and Islamic ideals and courting martyrdom.
Also, most of them were from lower socio-economic class and having sense of deprivation. Also, it was interesting to note that either they were related or from the same neighborhood. They knew each other well. In some cases they were close cousins. Thus it would be oversimplifying to maintain that they were infected with salafi ideology or that they were religious extremism.
Similarly another study by James Brandon who usually undertakes researches on such issues and writes extensively on Islamic extremism. His paper was based on a study of some 300 parsons accused of terrorism and jihadism. He maintained that Islam was more of a cover and a legitimation rather than motivation for their acts. It is very important distinction which many are not able to make.
To be motivated by Islam (or any ideology for that matter) is very different from using Islam to legitimize their acts. In first case (i.e. being motivated by Islam), Islam becomes the cause and in the second case it becomes a mere cover. Mr. Brandon also found that in some cases these terrorists went merely for adventure and some cases it was only to impress their girl friends, nothing more.
Also, only 100 out of three hundred he was studying possessed any weapon and some of them were mere suspects, not even proved and convicted terrorists. Anyway, Mr. Brandon said what is this three hundred out of 2 million Muslims who are quite peaceful and have nothing to do with any salafi or jihadi activities. He also said that salafis are a tiny though quite visible and efficient group. They are very well organized and have lot of money due to their Saudi Arabia connection.
Another very perceptive presentation came from Professor Sadik al-Jalal al-Azm. He is professor of philosophy from Syria and is strong critic of religious fundamentalism. He said that Al-Azhar, the great seat of Islamic learning has proved to be quite sterile. In its hundreds of years of existence it has produced nothing new, much less stimulating. It has become seat of Islamic conservatism.
Al-Azhar could have done much if it had dared and shown intellectual fertility. Unfortunately it played to gallery and hardly ever resisted temptation of being on the right side of the power. Al-Azm is strong secularist and wants modern challenges with creative response. This will happen only when despotism comes to an end in the Islamic world.
-------------------------------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in
No comments:
Post a Comment