In terror's shadow

Islamic extremism has been identified in both cases as the culprit. Some do concede that Islam as such cannot be held responsible, though most people do not make such distinctions. To them Islam and Muslims have become a problem. But a few things are obvious. Terrorism seldom achieves its end; it generally produces more terrorism, especially by the state. Islam is a religion of peace, though some accusations of force during its history persist. Over the centuries Islam did settle down as a political reality that required and produced stable societies. That human rights were or were not respected is not the issue. During the last five or six centuries there were no discernable tendencies in Islamic states or among Muslims to use force to expand or convert others by force. On the contrary, Islam did tolerate other religions and communities, particularly in Medieval India. It had learnt to co-exist with others.

This big problem of terror is a recent one. One needs to discover its root. One would take this up after considering initial reactions to it. The first reaction of Muslim states and major Muslim groups is one of condemning London bombing, Ayodhya assault, and a wholesale criticism of terror as unjust and indeed un-Islamic. Indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women, and children cannot be justified; this reaction does include an element of fear (of western reaction). This is more true in the case of states. There is also a second reaction from liberal-left elements. They have simply blamed the west for its policies in the Middle East, particularly Palestine and Iraq, as the cause that has produced this effect. While there is much truth in it, it remains rather simplistic and ignores elements of the real problem: it is a state of mind in which a Jihadist wants to kill or get killed if there is a western target.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This mind-set arises from new spurious politico-religious beliefs. Two elements of the phenomenon are important: First, it is rooted in religious orthodoxies in their various versions: the Shia version arose largely from Iranian government propaganda after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Insofar as any Shia terrorists exist, their intellectual origins can be traced. More so because Shiism has been historically a quietist religion and did not start any political movement, despite the fact that in origin Shiism itself was a religious-cum-political movement. The Sunni versions that are now creating problems throughout the world are also grounded in various Sunni orthodoxies. The more important ones belong to Deobandi school, though some are Wahhabis. This element has to be in sharp focus. Earlier these orthodoxies had lived peacefully with others. Something has activated dormant elements of beliefs as well as created political opportunities for extremism to grow into the Frankenstein monster it has become.

The circumstances in which this has happened are known. Two schools of thought imitated the communist ideology and party since the 1920s in India and Egypt. Their aim was to produce an Islamic revolution in Muslim countries that would achieve economic prosperity without affecting Islamic piety. The Indian school finally produced Jamaate Islami while in Egypt the outcome was Akhwanul Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood). In India, during the post-1945 world, these organisations along with many others, were supported by the west more or less discreetly. Everyone knew fanatical extremism was promoted by the west for anti-communist purposes.

The second element was the manufacture of tribals fired with a fanatical Islam in Pakistan during the 1980s war against Soviets in Afghanistan. By some counts, $40 billion was spent on that war that enriched the Jihadist elements as well as Pakistani generals. Pakistan and Afghanistan became a nursery of Jihadists who later conferred on the west a victory. Later they returned to Pakistan and took up the Kashmir Jihad, on the one hand, and sectarianism, on the other. The sectarianism can be said to have originated in Islamic orthodoxies. All Sunni orthodoxies regard Shias as Kafirs and Shia orthodoxies condemn their Sunni counterparts. But the recent exacerbation is to be noted.

The Madrassas in Pakistan have produced Jihadis who soon became visceral enemies of Americans and of Indians and Shias. This is a development for which western policies are greatly responsible. The kind of international skullduggery that British imperialism had perpetrated in Palestine fed not merely Akhwanul Muslameen, but also Islamic radicals in India and Pakistan. The kind of blind support the US has given to Israel and the way the Palestinians have been oppressed have produced a state of mind in which extreme anti-western feelings have been created among Islamic radicals and Jihadists. The liberal-left elements throughout the world also hold the US and Britain responsible for terrorism. The recent policies of US and UK have produced disgust in left-liberal elements; that has made anti-Americanism popular. Since terror produces more terror, especially state terror and widespread prejudice and discrimination against Muslims worldwide, Muslims suffer more. In the west, Muslims fear becoming the Jews of yore.

The point is what can be done and who can do it? While the west has to change its policies on Middle East and Islamic world, the main task devolves on the Muslim intelligentsia throughout the Islamic world. Religion-based beliefs cannot disappear in a day nor on an order from outside. But these two different elements converge on what kind of policies should the west adopt. We are now in a happy position to tell George W. that please do promote democracy wherever you can: "You should promote democracy in all Muslim autocracies. All you have to do is to stop supporting autocrats and dictators and be more consistent. Live up to your own principles."

Western power-politics has to be diluted, if not checkmated, by the western peoples. However, power politics cannot be ended altogether. Differences in power and resources of different states will always cause trouble; and stronger powers are always moved by greed. They would scheme to appropriate what nature has not given them. That is quintessential international politics. But the kind of pressure the world public opinion has exerted during the last three or four years and, in a different context, the French and West European opinion produces hope that power-politics can be diluted and fair play and democracy will increase. Even that will be a big thing.

Muslim intelligentsia's problems are serious and fundamental. The centuries old religious beliefs have to be left alone. But what it has to do is to promote rational argumentation and scientific outlook along with sciences and arts. That can only march in step with democratic movements. People have to be brought into the political sphere and encouraged to demand their human rights. That is what would limit the mischief that the Jihadists do. The more democratic politics there is in the Muslim countries, the more rational ideas stand a chance of being accepted. Muslim intelligentsia has also to reach out to non-Muslim intelligentsias elsewhere. A worldwide movement for democratic freedoms and human rights, including disarmament movements, would take care of Jihadists in a practical manner.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.