ISLAM & EXTREMISM

Synopsis of Address presented at the Center for Society & Secularism
Professor Dr. FAROOQ HASSAN [1]
Mumbai, India, 2005

It is a privilege to address this distinguished gathering of scholars of Islam, multi-religious culture and historiography. Ideas of such intellectual leadership of both theoreticians and activists of these fields would hopefully advance our understanding of the difficult and highly delicate subject of Islam and extremism. In this analysis the doctrinal aspects of Islam’s theology as found in the basic sources and perspectives of the faith will be briefly examined. It would then be seen whether its fundamental norms are per se in character “extremist”?

The difficulties to which I refer should be properly comprehended. There is no a priori norm in Islamic theology making it “extremist” in its doctrines or approaches with respect to its core beliefs. No inherent predilection exits in the Muslim Faith as such to justify such derogatoriness in especially the Western critiques and commentaries. Such critical descriptions of Islam and Muslims aim to clearly denigrate their religious beliefs and personal characteristics. This matter of Islamic defamations has reached such a proportion that it is being put to routine ridicule by those who politically or publicly matter. It is most regrettable that Islam is being equated with a phenomenon of fear by most non-Muslim societies especially those in the Western world. Consequently every negative implication is now freely being ascribed to Muslims by many Western societies.

The root cause of this defamation is said to be “extremism” through which Muslim groups have acted purportedly with great tenacity of aggression against their targets. According to the proponents of this perspective, it is this horrendous phenomenon that has resulted in wide spread acts of terrorism against many, but, mostly, Western targets. According to the adherents of this view the “avenging” by several Muslim groups through such criminal acts is on the foundation of religious interpretation of their holy scriptures.

Given the widespread anti-Islamism unleashed particularly after 9/11, we now have an intricate conflict at hand in which often for various sets of people, Muslims are looked upon as the "enemy". From barbaric, fanatic, violent and militant to being inhuman, every negative characteristic is now freely being ascribed to Muslims by those whose own status in the field of civilized conduct has been generally considered to be a role model for others to emulate. 

This attitude, inter alia, is defiling the sanctity of the Islamic faith which inherently supports temperance and is based on justice and equality for all mankind. It was indeed such a message of equal treatment for all that initially led, and continues to provide, new entrants into Islam. In this context, two perspectives asserted by anti-Islamic defamatory rhetoric dealing with the both causation and consequences deserve mention.

In more ways than one, these two factors are the product of modern international history. First, this school of thought asserts that as a doctrinal consequence of being in the “fundamentalist” Islamic fold, Muslims are led to carry out Jihad. This term is then further interpreted to signify the launching of a "holy war" to achieve its ends and goals. The second factor is its consequence. It is stated that “terrorism” results on account of acts of extremists as it is a part of the mindset of the fundamentalists. In other words Jihad is said to be the basis of terrorism. In sum it is more or less assumed, particularly by the less articulate and not well informed, or by those whose policies dictate this to be so perceived, that Muslims generally are a people who are bent upon supporting a fanatic ideology.

Suffice it to say that the Islamic concept of “jihad” is for emphasizing human struggle for progress and betterment. Jihad is a basic Quranic concept that derives from the root-word “jahada” meaning “striving” or “making an effort”. The highest form of “jihad” in Islam (“jihad al akbar”) is against one’s own shortcomings and weaknesses. It is an ongoing struggle to make one's self better in every way. Another form of “jihad” (“jihad al-asghar”) is struggle against socials ills and injustice. [2]

The deployment of the term “fundamentalism” in this context in my view is misconceived and should be only used with appropriate exactitude. It will be later articulated with some detail that it is theoretically incorrect to use this term in any Islamic doctrinaire expose. Historically, the word “fundamentalism” comes not from the theological foundations of Islam but from the history of American evangelical Protestant Christianity of the 1920s. As pointed out by a leading compendium on Religions in the United States:

‘Fundamentalism’ is a subspecies of evangelicalism. The term originated in America in 1920 and refers to evangelicals who consider it a chief Christian duty to combat uncompromisingly ‘modernist’ theology and certain secularizing cultural trends. Organized militancy is the feature that most clearly distinguishes fundamentalists from other evangelicals. Fundamentalism is primarily an American phenomenon. [3]

We may thus like to keep in mind that in theological history the term “fundamentalism” comes from American Christian denominational evolution. It is used to refer to a person who believes in the basic and literal tenets of Christianity and the core texts and scriptures of the Christian Faith. On the other hand, as a preliminary postulate, it may be articulated that all Muslims believe in the fundamentals of Islam i.e. belief in One God and the prophets sent by God, in Prophetic books, the Day of Judgment, and duties directed toward God (“Haquq Allah”) as well as those directed toward God’s creatures (“Haquq al ‘ibad”). Muhammad is, by Islamic belief, the last of the Prophets following many others including both Jesus and Moses.

Be that as it may, this castigation of Muslims generally in this manner is now inextricably bound with the current highly charged political, strategic and social upheavals that are in evidence since the beginning of the present millennium in nearly all Muslim countries. To understand this subject with objectivity, it is necessary to draw a balance between doctrinal purity on the one hand and the felt “necessities” of time on the other. [4]

Thus pragmatism is necessarily relevant in this inquiry. Any other manner of approach based upon purely academic niceties devoid of the realties that clearly confront us would not result in a meaningful awareness of this subject. It is further to be noted that any inquiry regarding how the so called “fundamentalists” view Islam’s perceptions on issues of contemporary significance, without examining the totality of the surrounding phenomenon, which is essentially political in nature, would be incomplete, perhaps giving rise to even misleading conclusions. As such, I sincerely felicitate the organizers of this meeting as they manifestly have the vision to find answers to such contentious inquiries at the present time.

Introductory premises & perspectives

Before examining the relevant issues relating to this matter, let me briefly articulate my basic and introductory understanding of this subject. Every religion has some aspects of its core beliefs and tenets which are so fundamental that without which no particular faith can even claim to exist. In this sense, could one say that all faiths are “fundamentalist” in character? By reducing such fundamental beliefs to an irreducible minimum, the answer would be in the affirmative. In this sense, the term is used with purely theological connotations in mind and not with any political, social or psychological nuances in our purview.

But diverse problems begin to arise when such attitudes get mixed up and mingled in the complexities of contemporary international politics and the resultant attitudes of those who feel that they have to “defend” their faiths in such situations. Cultural prejudices which are evidently heavily visible in many Islamic societies also compound the emergent problems.

The concept of “fundamentalism”, in the sense it has come to lately deployed, is essentially an attitude adopted by only some of the followers of a religion, mostly out of a sense of insecurity or a feeling that “the” religion, as they see it, is in danger of losing its identity; sometimes it is just an overt course of conduct for adopting a harsh, may be even violent, attitude towards some other group or groups of the people of the same faith; it could also be directed against outsiders and foreign entities with the same motivation. It can equally emanate as a tool or modality of raw power struggle nationally or internationally.

No religion is “fundamentalist” in this sense per se since none aims to be vindictive or destructive of those who just do not share the particular beliefs; if, however, its avowed goals, as seen by such partisans is to do so, then the real problem is not with the said faith but that group which so believes; as such generally it is only a group of followers of a religion who are fundamentalists and not the religion as such. [5]

Viewed as such, “fundamentalism” is not a monopoly of adherents of Islam; there are fundamentalist Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and even Buddhists. Sometimes so-called fundamentalist movements, particularly in Christianity, have served the purpose of cleansing social practices by going back to the original teachings but such movements are more properly to be described as 'reform' movements. [6] What is objectionable in this sense in 'fundamentalism' is the unstated assumption that its adherents alone know the true meaning of their religion; they go sometimes as far as to resort to violence against all and sundry who disagree with them. Such behavior is then regrettably justified by asserting it as being permissible by religious dogmas. As often is the case, the religion which these fundamentalists profess to be protecting usually forbids such violence or single mindedness of interpretation or thought.

With these preliminary comments about the ethos of ensuing analysis let me advert initially to the place and content of the basic beliefs within the confines of Islamic doctrinal postulates. After traversing these norms we shall see the “fundamentalist” or “extremist” versions of the important issues to reveal the manner through which the puritanical message of the faith is being gradually eroded. This process is in evidence partly at the hands of the Western critiques and partly due to the misguided acts involving terrible damage of Muslim extremists.

In parenthesis, I may note that I am acutely conscious of the inherent moral dangers of my approaching this topic as such. It could be argued that such an approach is itself predicated by an apologists’ mindset. While the superficial, even apparent, weight of such semantics is certainly historically visible, let me say that I articulate such a prognosis [analysis] on the basis of my own belief and attitude about these basically perspective issues on the foundation of my own experience and religious convictions.

I am sure that Islam, like other great religious philosophies of the human heritage, has to have in its fold a nucleus that is entirely reconcilable with equal treatment of all peoples, fairness and justice for all and in harmony with progressive evolution. I believe that having withstood the vicissitudes of time and of history for fifteen hundred years, Islam’s central position of evolution in the human race has to have primacy in all of its teachings. Not only thematically the central emphasis of such focus of Islam must keep abreast of different cultures and times, it has to be broad enough to accommodate in its fold the indispensability of meeting the needs of all mankind for all times. [7] God calls human beings as “Ashraf ul Mukhlukat”, or “the greatest of all his creations”. This concept should entail, a fortiori, highly responsible attitudes and humane outlook towards life itself.

This concept invariably also must incorporate those evolutionary changes in societal behavior which are natural and inevitable as history moves on. It should follow that basic Islamic postulates must remain genuinely progressive. Retrogressive thinking by going back in history in order to solve current problems cannot be the goals of enlightened Islamic thinking or behavior. We can admit that all relics of great civilizations often do produce a thinking trend that hopes at re-living the former periods of greatness of such peoples. But pragmatic awareness of important current realities would dictate that it may be better to think afresh about the future course of actions for such societies by keeping its former epochs of glory as a historical reminder of what has been lost.

True history can guide us from its repository of experiences and empiricism as to the course to adopt in times of choices. But it can not be the sole objective to simply live in the past howsoever glorified it may seem. Such an attitude would also work against the very concept of Ijtehad which is not only mandated and permissible by classical legal Islamic thinking, but is considered by many to be the touch stone of progress in Islamic attitudes towards matters of contemporary significance. [8]

Understanding Islam’s core doctrinal message

Islam places, as elaborated hereinafter, the highest significance to a few fundamental, or core, norms which have a dogmatic value for all Muslims. The message of Islam is contained in the word of God, the Holy Quran itself. In dealing with “fundamentals” of their religion, Islamic theologians distinguish between Iman (religious belief), Ibadat (religious duty pertaining to worship) and Ihsan (right doing), all which are included in the term Din (religion). The Quran says:

“Verily the religion (din) with God is Islam. [9]

Iman involves the foremost Islamic normative article of Faith. It involves belief in One God and his Angles, His books, his Messengers and the Last day of Judgment. For Muslims this Iman is epitomized in the norm, “la ilaha illa-l-lah”: no god whatsoever but Allah (God), followed by “Muhammad ur Rasul Allah”: Muhammad is the Prophet of God. In Islamic religious postulates, God (Allah) is supreme and according to many scholars, 90 % of Islamic theology deals with this conception in diversified forms and modalities. [10]

Beyond this mandatory article of Faith are said to exist five pillars (arkan) for Muslims to believe in. These are:

1. Shadaht ( Iman ) , that is belief in Oneness of the Almighty God (Allah) and the end of Prophet-hood with Muhammad.

2. Prayer as an institution of collective well being. It is to be offered five times a day. [11] Except for Friday afternoon prayer which is public in nature, the rest are all to be privately offered.

3. Alms giving. It is doctrinally a voluntary obligation given out of love and goodness and is akin to piety. Zakat is the giving of legal alms. [12]

4. Fasting is an obligatory matter as the Quran specifically mentions the month of Ramadan [13].

5. Pilgrimage is the fifth and last pillar of Islam. Once in a life time a Muslim of either sex should perform it if it can be afforded [14].

It would be seen that Islam really only means submission to God or Allah and nothing more. The five arkan or fundamentals of Islam are essentially private acts and their performance is left to an individual’s priorities, health and inclinations. Howsoever performed, their undertaking would lead to the uplifting of personal piety or taqwa, which has high moral significance for any Muslim. Islam’s fundamental norms of observance have a simple existentialist approach and aim to create a highly moral people. Except, therefore, for the basic dogma that Muslims must believe in One God and in the institution of Prophets ending with Muhammad, they do have to observe, on a voluntary basis the other five responsibilities if they wish and physically can do so. Conversely, the state’s role in regulating individual’s personal life is vastly restricted and, by evolution, only the nominal Zakat tax could be collected from a person’s unused accumulated wealth. Indeed, the polity of Islamic society would ensure that the greatest deregulated form of governmental edifice is really permitted in Islamic theology.

Islam forbids terrorism

While no generally agreed upon definition of terrorism has been internationally legally formulated [15] it may be stated that Islam’s doctrinal emphasis never preaches or condones either terrorism or extremism with the intent to harm the lives or property of innocent people. It would be helpful to quote the following Statement issued by the Council of Arab Ministers of Interior & Justice in Cairo as recently as 1998 in which it was agreed that ‘terrorism” would mean:

Terrorism is any act involving violence or aggression, whatever its motives or it individual, and which aims to cause terror or alarm among people by harming communal aims, which is committed in order to carry out a criminal enterprise, be them or endangering their lives, their freedom or security, by doing damage to the environment, facilities or public or private property, by stealing or seizing such property, or by endangering some national resource. [16]

We may further note and refer to the well-known Quranic passages that support such a conclusion. Islam, while denouncing terrorism in all its forms, advocates its adherents to shun away from violence and aggression. Indeed violence to one’s self is equally prohibited:

And make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction. [17]

The Quran upholds the sanctity of human life. This is absolute in its applicability. The major Commandment on this occurs in Sura an An’am:

…do not take any human being’s life, (the life)
Which God has declared to be sacred; otherwise than in (pursuit of);
Justice, this has He enjoined you so that you might use your reason. [18]

In Sura al- Maidah occurs the famous verse in which it has been stated that he who slew a person is as culpable as if he slew a community. The Quran says:

We ordained
For the Children of Israel
That if any one slew
A person, unless it be
For murder or for spreading
Mischief in the land,
It would be as if
He slew the whole people;
And if any one saved a life,
It would be as if he saved
The life of a whole people. [19]

Therefore, as provided for in all major legal systems, it is absolutely forbidden to take a human life for private aims or for the thinking of a particular group. The sanctity of life is the basis of several further injunction contained in the Quran and it seems that to contend, as some critics of Islam are apparently doing, that terrorism emanates from religious beliefs is not correct.

Theoretically, all Muslims must believe in these norms that have been outlined above. So, in this sense, unlike Christianity, all people of the Islamic faith have a uniform code of core beliefs. Howsoever described, it is doctrinally incorrect to say that it is the fundamentals of the faith that are responsible for terrorism.

Realization of this fact in the relevant Western places of influence and power has resulted in a changed nomenclature of this phenomenon to that of Islamic “extremism”. By this description it is aimed to convey that those culpable of such actions have political or social motivations to cause panic and terror to achieve their purposes. Conversely, it is not that the Faith but matters of a political nature that are the cause of this malaise.

Seen in this context, it can be seriously questioned how every norm of doctrinal Islam can be described by its current “opponents” as the basis of terrorism. How can it be that Islam is so depicted that it begins to appear to be quite fearsome, or totalitarian, in approach that it can “compel” people from the Philippines to Indonesia to Pakistan to Chechnya to Palestine to commit suicides and murder many others? Even a moment’s reflection will be enough to make us realize that the causation of such acts is not religion but local and regional politics and the feeling of being the victims of aggressors.

Throughout its history, Islamic faith has been both deeply cherished and misunderstood for its emphasis on enveloping the entirety of a person’s life with its normative structure of rules of conduct and precepts. Amongst the major norms of such expected behavior are those that are devised to apply to the institution of the family, women, and the weak in the society. Simultaneously, the jurisprudence and moral philosophy of the faith also acutely focuses on the larger matter pertaining to the subject of human rights of the human race. [20]

Today’s discussion proceeds in the background of an acute crisis of international proportions regarding the message and place of contemporary Islam. Whether or not one agrees with the thesis advocated initially in modern times by Samuel Huntington, it cannot be ignored that from the political avocations to the cultural, religious practices and beliefs of Muslims have come under severe criticism in the popular Western press and governments. As such the “clash” that he spoke of has arisen, realistically speaking, from the imperceptible to the visible.

In my view, Huntington was regrettably realistic in projecting a thesis of Clash of Civilizations in the 21st Century. However, such clashes are fundamentally of “political’ dimension and have little by way of application in the private or ordinary lives of Muslims. This conviction has been strengthened by the late Pope John Paul’s recent affirmation of this trend in his recent address to a multi-congregational audience in Assisi on 1/22/2002. At that time he said, particularly to the Muslims, that he feared what he saw was an ongoing, even increasing, crescendo of clashes, involving the Western civilizations and that of the Islamic peoples. As such, ab initio, while the Huntington variety of clash is entirely of political connotations, it has begun to engulf larger populations of Muslims in the totality of their lives. When such metamorphosis begins, the finer distinctions of political and religious tend to disappear.

In face of such an onslaught, many Islamic leaders have plainly become afraid and a few have openly defended anything that Muslims believe in or do. It is indeed “fashionable” to appear to be “modernistic” in outlook in all that affects the statecraft of such nations. In this context, in a Hegelian sense of historical perspective, recent political events towards a “secularized” Islamic World have to be seen. [21] Different phrases to denote this emphasis are employed by powers that may be to exhibit such a policy. However, I am certain that “secular” in this context is not the equivalent of “liberal”. The former has a political expediency angle underlying its avocation or adoption. The latter is an index of a thought process of policy and attitudes.

When this process of being placed to “defend” one’s faith is initiated, so-called hard liners become ascendant. Amongst the major objectives they advocate for societal resurgence include ones of being avowedly self righteous and totally bound with the past. According to some strategic thinking, this behavior is deemed “desirable” by such hard liners since it provides them with a psychological sense of relief considering they are convinced they are under siege from the those who are believed to be aggressing somewhere against the Muslims in the vicinity.

Humanitarian postulates and dogmas of Islam, as of other great faiths, are heavily grounded on principles of high morality. Any dilution in their ethos would be a devastating blow to the religious practices of its millions of adherents. Extremists may have political motivations for doing what they are undertaking, but it is not for Islam. To do so in the name of Islam, even if it so proclaimed, is both unjustified and regrettable.

Before concluding this phase of this presentation, it may be mentioned that the theological controversies which confronts doctrinal Islam are as much the result of its religious opponents as they are of its ardent political supporters. Many crucial issues have thus been confounded by its own clergy, or what goes generally undisputed by such labels. If I may, most respectfully, quote from one of my own legal works on this subject:

“History has dealt an irony, in that Islam has often been controlled by priests though the faith rejects the institution of organized priesthood. By the term “priest” I do not include the great saints, mystics, traditionalists’ thinkers and other men of piety and learning who form a distinct class. For centuries the ill educated mullahs have periodically monopolized the pulpit. With one hand, the mullah has woven into Islam a crazy network of fantasy and fanaticism. With the other hand, has often used it as an elastic cloak for political power and expediencies.” [22]

The foreseeable challenges thus emanate from a desire to have religion serve patently irreligious goals and from illogically admonishing the liberal facets of contemporary thinking about human rights and perceivable trends. Indeed, all religions that have survived through man’s history over several hundreds of years stress essentially a message to be progressive, tolerant and to avoid rigidity. The broader aim of every society that aims to be genuinely attentive to all within its fold has to be “liberal" in the sense Rawls has canvassed, not in an empty sense in which contemporary politicians, some of tremendous international weight, have been stressing of late. Since the later classes of people have transformed even some of the most innocuous and rhetorical sounding precepts of liberalism and morals into one of ferocious political transformation of society ever witnessed in human history.

Basic Islamic societal conceptions

Apart from its core beliefs outlined earlier, it may specifically mentioned that in Islam there is great emphasis in what are generally referred to as “care rights”. The philosophy behind this thinking is that Muslims are enjoined by Allah to be kind and compassionate to others in the society. Once properly comprehended, it would be axiomatic that all talk of undertaking revengeful acts of “terrorism” against others becomes less than substantially meaningful. [23]

It may be instructive to review the doctrinal basis of the “care” rights in the philosophy generated by the Quran. As I see it, two predominant themes permeate this subject.

First, the basis of all the desirable human actions emanate in the concept of kindness, especially towards women, children and non Muslims. In Arabic, the corresponding word for God’s ever present kindness is designated by the word “Rahim” or “Rahman”. This word appears many times in the Quran and indicates one of the titles for God by reference to him as “the Kind One” or “the One Who gives kindness”. Indeed, this word is oft repeated in Muslim prayers and is perhaps the most beloved of God’s descriptions in human vocabulary. Linguistically, it comes from the root word “Rahm” meaning the “womb”. It underscores the theme of God’s care and love for all His creatures as a “Mother”. This is important for it also shows the status eventually bestowed upon the institution of motherhood in the human race.

The loving and compassionate attitude of “care” is amply reflected in the Quran. [24] The Quran further indicates that He is pleased with those who are kind and helpful to those in need and distress. He further says that He will reward “good deeds” of this category in a special way. [25] As briefly mentioned in the earlier part of this narrative, Islam actually demarcates two kinds of rights for Muslims to observe. The first category is that of “Rights of God” called “Haqauq Allah” while the second category is known as “Rights of God’s creatures”. This is known as “Huqaq al ibad”. The Quran and classical Islamic writers are explicit in diverse ways that unless a person fulfills both kinds of rights in his life, his totality of human duties remain unsatisfied. Indeed, in terms of spirituality, it is also maintained that obedience to God is not really complete unless help is rendered to one’s family, then to kith and kin, then to ones other distant relatives needing assistance and finally to neighbors and even strangers that come to visit a person of means. [26] The Quran says:

Sees thou one
Who denies Judgment (To come)?
Then such is the (man)
Who repulses the orphan (With harshness),
The feeding of the indigent.
So woe to the worshippers
Who are neglectful of their Prayer
Of their Prayer
Those who (want but)
To be seen (of men),
But refuse (to supply)
(Even) neighborly needs. [27]

The second basis of these rights is the Islamic conceptions of Justice. It will be seen that the Quran, while addressing the matters of human relationships, laid the greatest stress on justice in both public and private life. Justice, accordingly, is thus a divinely mandated duty of all Muslims. Whether it is a question of the rights of the members of family, or those of the people in a State, Quran mandates in various forms the highest adherence to Justice, called “adl”. While there may be a number of ways to look at this phenomenon, I think the basic message of Quran is that the merit and the quality of one’s claims and demands or expectations are to be evaluated on the basis of justice and righteousness. It is self evident that a “just society” cannot take away the property or lives of others in any reckless manner through acts of terrorism.

Righteousness itself consists of three elements:

Belief (Iman)
Just action (“’amal”)
Adl

Accordingly for any human action to be acceptable in a worldly context, it must nevertheless accord high priorities to these notions enumerated above for it to be considered worthwhile in a religious or spiritual connotation. A most eloquent expose’ of this thought comes in the following Quranic pronouncement:

It is not righteousness
That you turn your faces
Towards East or west;
But it is righteousness,
To believe in God
And the Last Day,
And the Angles,
And the Book
And the Messengers;
To spend your substance,
Out of love for Him
For your kin
For Orphans,
For the needy
For the wayfarer
For those who ask,
And for the ransom of slaves
To be steadfast in prayer,
And practice regular charity;
To fulfill the contracts
Which you have made;
And to be firm and patient,
In pain (or suffering)
And adversity,
And throughout
All periods of panic
Such are the people
Of truth, the God-fearing. [28]

In another notable injunction, the Quran candidly asserts: -

The most honored of you
In the sight of Allah
Is (he who is) the most
Righteous of you. [29]

One other memorable passage about Justice may be mentioned before leaving this point. The Quran says:

O ye who believe!
Standout firmly
For justice, as witnesses
To Allah, even as against
Yourselves…………
Follow not the lusts
(Of your hearts), lest ye
Swerve, and if ye
Distort (justice) or decline
To do justice, verily
Allah is well acquainted
With all that ye do. [30]

The above brief analysis reveals the emphatic focus that the Quran places on the concept of “ kindness” and “justice”. There are other allied concepts as well that tend to generate the ethos of Islamic dynamics towards creating a “caring” society with the family occupying the pivotal position. [31] It is self evident tha,t while addressing matters relating to affection for one’s family, one’s kith and kin and neighbors the allied expectation of assistance required of a Muslim community, the ingredient of “Adl” or justice plays a uniquely esoteric and ethical role.

Extremists’ emphasis

In an environment of changing, or even “decaying”, public mores or traditions, moral and ethical Islamic doctrines can still install progressive, yet conservative, perspectives in important matters relevant to a proper and caring development of the society. The protagonists of an active fundamentalist philosophy, or that of the extremist orientation, cannot of course dispute the availability of the Quranic messages already cited. Nevertheless, at the societal and cultural levels, they do have a divergent emphasis on certain “public” aspects of the role and functions of what good Muslim should do in life.

In my evaluation of this divergence, one can straightway and succinctly focus on three fields in which the active fundamentalist approaches may be particularly noticed. These three fields relate to:

Islamic education.
Ostensible compliance with Islamic norms with respect to public life.
Political life of the society and behavioral restrictions/ participation and responsibility relating thereto.

It will seen that the basic focus of all these three issues relates to an effort by the active fundamentalists’ thinking to regulate the development and movements of people in the particular society in which they live. The level of attaining these limitations would depend upon the quantum of societal awareness that already exists in that society. It is axiomatic that in more advanced and progressive environments the quantum of restrictions is both less and more subtle.

In societies, however, wherein the entireties of people are essentially Muslims, such as Pakistan or Iran, these “limitations” (from liberal perspectives) can be more ostensible and pronounced. Such pronounced and noticeable projected “fundamentalist” views on mores for ordinary people are usually more manifest in rural areas. In such countries, or in a number of Islamic societies in Africa, the attitudes of the fundamentalists have a decisive affect on societal practices. This was always historically true. But, with the advent of political developments of the last few years across the world in which Muslims find themselves the targets of various misfortunes, the fundamentalist activists have become understandably more goal oriented in their policies towards such matters.

In the implementation of such attitudes, the activist’s fundamentalist philosophy, usually accompanied by a depth of commitment, believes that if the public practices lend themselves to a trend in which they can feel that a “true” Islamic society is clearly visible, it is a step in the right direction. [32] In other words, a visual and apparent adherence to form, dress and behavior assumes a cardinal focus of such fundamentalist philosophy. These attitudes have been greatly hardened by what has gone on since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. The resultant position being that there is clearly, from the perspectives of liberal or democratic ideals, a less than satisfactory status for the civil liberties in many such areas of the world.

Local customs and culture have also to be reckoned in such societies. In some such areas religion has to be attributed only a secondary role since it is the social rules of behavior that have to govern their daily lives. For instance, in Pakistan denial of some basic human rights of women as enunciated by Islam or in the accepted texts of the international community, such as violence or honor killings, have little to do with religion (which is clearly Islam) but are certainly connected and emanating from cultural prejudices and customary practices.

The aim of many conservatives’ elements in such environments is to ensure that the traditional and historical relics of the society are maintained. I believe that this is true of most Islamic societies as much as for people of other faiths in similar circumstances. [33] I can see that, inherently, this is only natural in any contemporary society and nothing seems to be basically unnatural about such phenomenon being visible.

It is thus sufficient to keep in mind that all such conservative and traditional thinking in the Islamic world would do well by trying to accommodate fundamental norms of democratic levels of acceptability in evaluating its future course of action. Only if this is done can Muslim societies hope to keep up with the contemporary scientific progress that has seemingly arisen through out the world.

Regrettably, in many Islamic societies, predilections towards such acceptable attitudes which are in harmony with contemporary ideas are not encouraged at the societal level. Manifestly in countries such as Pakistan, where the Government is visibly trying to be accommodatingly “progressive”, the integrity of such government policy itself is under serious challenge. It is considered simply opportunistic for a military dictatorship to appear to be in the Western led bandwagon of “rationality” or “secular” for purely self serving purposes. Not surprisingly, therefore, in Pakistan, wherein there is much demagoguery about “enlightened moderation of Islam”, there are more cases of gang rapes and honor killings than any where else in the world [34].

Indeed, many Muslim societies, despite the clear weight of history to create a just and egalitarian society, remain lost in achieving this pursuit. Polygamy, poverty, absence of gender equality, and otherwise mass scale denial of political an civil rights of the people at large are legal matters still awaiting a proper redress in many an Islamic environment. The reality is, unfortunately, true that genuine democratic thinking, much less behavior, is seldom a basic truth about most contemporary Islamic states. Most are straightforward dictatorships where even ostensibly “civilian” heads of government are continuing in office for twenty and thirty years!

This lamentable state of affairs is only possible with the active support of those countries’ armed forces. Most modern armed forces are basically of “secularized” thought since they often become the elitist segments of societies in many parts of the Third World, including the Muslim countries. [35] By their training and professional contacts it is clear that they have more in common with “foreign” segments of the advanced international civil society than with their own societal milieu, which is often ostensibly fairly religious and genuinely poor. Eventually, therefore, it is easy to see why in most such societies the active fundamentalist Islamic thinking is at variance with the policies of the armed forces of many such countries. [36]

Extremism, a political phenomenon

It is in this context that the current international political developments have to be seen. In the preceding analysis I have used the phrase “fundamentalist” to essentially designate that segment of the Muslim society which keenly believes and is dedicated to the overt observance of Islamic ideas and values about life. This segment of the Muslim civil society aims to project basically a religious and a spiritual outlook for Muslims in communities where Islam is to be found.

From this group there emerges a smaller core of still fervent believers who are activists as well. They in sincerity apparently believe in the recreation in practice in contemporary society of mostly the ritualistic aspects of Islam and of Muslim history in its times of glory. They may be referred to as the “activist fundamentalists” or simply as the “extremists”. This is the term which has been lately used by many, including the documents issued by the British Government in which it is asserted that the creation of an Islamic State is the ultimate aim of such partisans or “extremists”. Some Muslim scholars also submit that emulation of this glorious Islamic past is necessary to meet the current turmoils faced by the Muslims the world over. Crucially, they also call for the establishment of a Muslim State. [37] It is further argued by some, as the documents of the British Government assert, that this would be gained by various means including the use of Jihad. The popular Western press uses other terms as well to describe the same ideology by calling it straightforward “militant” Islam. When used in such a context it is prima facie a political aspiration in simpliciter of its advocates which is devoid of any manifest religious foundations.

This evaluation of this phenomenon is also apparently fully supported by both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Following the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the USA, President George Bush informed a joint session of Congress that the 19 terrorists responsible for the 11th September attacks were part of

“a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam”.

Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech to the House of Commons also reportedly remarked:

“I say to our Arab and Muslim friends, neither you nor Islam is responsible for this act if terrorists”

A similar statement was again recently echoed by Prime Minister Tony Blair shortly after the 7th July 2005 London bombings, when he referred to the ideology behind these acts of terrorism as a perversion of Islam and not being a part of the practices of mainstream Muslims. I am, therefore, fortified in my evaluation and assessment of this topic when we see that even the two countries in the forefront of this war against terrorism do not subscribe to the view that it is Islamic teachings that are the theoretical basis of this militancy which has greatly defamed Islam and its teachings. Only a core group, or fringe movement, of Muslims is apparently advocating such acts of aggression.

In sum, therefore, extremist Islam, if such a term is used, clearly aims to stand for the political ideology of the relevant activists. How widespread this ideology is is impossible to say with any degree of exactitude. But that it does exist is equally impossible to deny. In the wake of the end of the age of colonialism, after the conclusion of the Second World War, there surfaced rapidly a phase of liberations; many new countries in Africa and Asia with vast Muslim populations emerged. In these countries, soon and sure enough, right wing authoritarian regimes, invariably backed by the local armies, took control. The political and civilian opposition to these regimes has been noted by all leading human rights institutions, including the Sub Committee of the UN Human Rights Commission. [38] When such oppositions failed to dislodge the incumbents, a religious based opposition nucleus gradually emerged. Within this nucleus a hard core group of hardliners naturally took the lead to challenge the status quo and became clearly a force to be reckoned with. Howsoever described, this dedicated group of a few began the movements of ideologues which, in the post 9/11 scenarios, are often described as the “extremists.”

In 1947, Pakistan indeed became the first country in history to be created solely on the basis of the religion of Islam. But it is important to note that religion was unable to keep the integrity of the country alive. In 1971, East Pakistan was created following a bloody civil war on the admitted basis of political victimization of the Bengalis by West Pakistan Establishment and the Pakistan Army action in that region following the annulment of the Session of the Elected Parliament in March 1971. The creation of Bangladesh provides the best illustration of how political causation is apparently of greater violent propensity than any religious motivation.

More importantly, India, from which Pakistan was carved out on the basis of religion, with its established democratic credentials, now has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan. As such, how far is this argument really maintainable that Muslims, with even a majority, would necessarily succeed in practice to devise an “Islamic” state? It is probable that many who so believe live in the shadows of the past. Indeed, there is “some” evidence to the contrary from Pakistan itself that the nation simply wishes, at least according to present military leadership, to have a “moderate” Islamic existence effectively equating it with a secular society. [39]

Thoughts in conclusion

From this situation it can be justifiably stated, as does a leading scholar of this field, that nationalism, apologists and dynamism are the three outstanding new tendencies of modern Islam [40]. I am convinced that, in a broad sense, this manner of approach fully describes the extremist perspectives of current Muslim history. Both dynamism and nationalism have an important bearing on producing the acts and occurrences which are the raison d’ etre of this misunderstanding that extremism is a part of the Islamic teachings. At the same time, there exist the “apologists” as well who wish to deny the very essence of simple Islamic teachings by trying to make it appear almost as a “secular” method of looking at life. Most current Islamic governments fall into this category. Why they do so is not difficult to see. [41]

The decline of genuine liberalism in Islam, in the political sense, historically has been largely the result of the West’s expansion into areas far removed from their Continents under the mechanism of colonialism. With the presence of liberalism in Europe in the 19th century there existed pari passu, in most places where human civilization existed, a corresponding grain and trend of liberal thinking. But, when political expansion began, it correspondingly resulted in the creation of nationalism which was “above’ or rather “more pressing” than a call for religious perceptions. With the rise of religious and political conservatism in the West, there has come about a gradual decline of liberalism in Islamic political thought as well. As such, W.C. Smith aptly remarks that:

“Equally, the latter’s more recent decline (Islamic liberalism) it is not difficult to discern a Western influence.” [42]

It seems to me that, accordingly, there is a direct link between the prevalence of liberalism in the West and elsewhere; conversely, the rise of religious based dogmas from the West produced a corresponding amount of rigidity elsewhere, but particularly noticeable in the Muslim societies.

One aspect of “Islamic” thought, norms or dogmas and perceptions requires a brief, but necessary, comment. Since Muslims live in far flung places of this world, they have diverse ethnic affiliations and emanate from clearly varied cultures. Is it justifiable to even speak with any degree of assertion about their “Islamic” thinking or identity being really as if it were a homogonous whole? The uniformity of Islamic thinking on key issues in diverse cultures presents one of the most fascinating problems associated with the development of Islam, from its modest beginnings in Mecca into a world religion numbering over a billion people toady. An eminent analyst therefore inquires with much force:

“How did it come about that in the vast world of Islam a distinctive thought and culture came into being, in spite of all the geographical and temporal variations that resulted from the continuing influences of the earlier cultures and religions, and from an ongoing life of indigenous habits, practices and attitudes? [43]

Therefore, the oneness, if you will, or Islam’s homogeneity must have some source or reason to develop and then maintain its hold and existence in the billons of the followers of this Faith. The uniformity lies in a mental attitude that is apparently coexistent in all Muslims. It was this awareness which prompted me to submit at the outset, that, if theological conception is the criteria, then all Muslims believe in the same fundamentals. As such, the answer to his inquiry as to how manifest ethnic or cultural diversity is effectively harnessed by all the Muslims the world over lies in the realization that:

“..the uniformity of this culture or thought (of Muslims) was not confined to similarity of creed; it expressed itself much more in a common mental attitude, and in a common style of life which pervade all levels of personal and official existence, thus reaching beyond the boundaries of the “religious” as understood in the West.” [44] (Emphasis supplied).

The extremist elements in Islam are, therefore, the product of contemporary history. They represent a phenomenon that has become the dominant and vital aspect of contemporary political volkgeist. Even a brief glimpse of the major events of the last few years would make us aware of this particular perspective of current history. A little more than a decade ago the US utilized the mammoth zeal of Muslim Jihadist elements to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Now they (the Jihadist) are branded as terrorists or at least extremists. Such a major shift in the foreign policies of the only super power may be full of sense to its makers. But, to the often illiterate Muslim warrior, such a metamorphosis is just incomprehensible. Doctrinaire religion was used there for political purposes. But now such doctrines are relegated from the level of the sublime to that of pure and simple militancy.

Now we are told that it is very wrong to do so as human “liberty” is a higher norm, so that we can we have “democracy”. The philosophy behind such attainment of admittedly liberal goals, such as human rights and freedom at the expense of religion, can not be doubted. But the deeply underlying forces of such a motivation are truthfully conservative religious aspirations of some who matter in the Western societies.

The foreseeable challenges thus emanate from a desire to have religion serve patently irreligious goals and from illogically admonishing the liberal facets of contemporary thinking about human rights and perceivable trends. Indeed, all religions that have survived through man’s history over several hundreds of years stress essentially a message to be progressive, tolerant and to avoid rigidity. The broader aim of every society that aims to be genuinely attentive to all within its fold has to be “liberal’ in the sense Rawls has canvassed, not in an empty sense in which contemporary politicians, some of tremendous international weight, have been stressing of late. Since the later classes of people have transformed even some of the most innocuous and rhetorical sounding precepts of liberalism and morals into one of ferocious political transformation of society ever witnessed in human history.

Three practical aims requiring attainment

The obvious result of this analysis is that we must create a situation in which extremism as a political phenomenon loses its importance in Muslim political society. To reach such an end, I suggest the attainment of the following three goals.

The basic and primary foundation of achieving such a desirable political end is through education. Muslim societies in particular are amongst the most under educated masses on earth. I advocate that all concerned institutions and governments must attempt to improve this aspect of the lives of the peoples of such areas by making the fruits of education reach all sections of the society.

Only an educated society is capable of becoming aware of the evils of controlling violence and hatred by genuine societal or state controls. But whether the governments of both the West and Islamic countries are capable and willing to do so presently is another matter. As such, the path ahead for achieving a level of dignity, even a respite from being feared, for the would-be extremist is not free from difficulties.

In addition, participatory democracy must be genuinely ushered into Muslim countries with the assistance of those who can accomplish such tasks. Sham elections must not be accepted as they provide a convenient tool for the authoritarianism of today to flourish with apparent impunity. Conversely, dictatorships must not be aided under any circumstance, since such a state of political reality breeds extremism. Only then we can produce a political climate where the dynamism of the Islamic peoples can be beneficially channeled for better results.

In these troubled times, those determined to achieve such a humane and civilized solution for ordinary Muslim communities, that invariably possess some extremist elements, have quite a struggle ahead. We must work for alleviating the economic and societal deprivations, in addition to the political ills requiring redress submitted above. Manifestly present in Muslim countries and Islamic societies is wide spread hunger, disease and glaring absence of ordinary civic care and facilities of daily life. They have to devise methods by which governments’ policies wherein the Muslims live are genuinely egalitarian and not dictated by the political exigencies of these difficult times. Extremism is as much a product of being revengeful against the West as it is a revulsion against local dictatorships which are generally indifferent towards the deplorable living conditions of their own people.

In the end, I submit that the subject on which I have addressed today is both vast and complicated. I have therefore been selective on the points and issues that I have focused on. However, I feel that the central issues have been attended to by me in this analysis. Every religion has a moralizing effect in every civilized society. Let us keep this simple truth in mind and not miss the point that real causation of recent ills lies elsewhere.

_____________________________________

End notes:

[1] D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; Affiliate & Visiting Professor of International Affairs, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Special UN Ambassador for Family for the World Family Alliance, Advisor to four Prime Ministers of Pakistan on Law & Foreign Affairs; Delegate to the UN, NY, & to the Human Rights Commission on Human Rights & to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, Leader of Pakistan’s Delegation to the International Criminal Court Prep Coms., NY & Delegate to UN GA Sessions. Also, inter alia, on the Faculty of Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard University, Faculty of Political Science, Tufts University, the Secretary General, American Asian Institute of Strategic Studies, Boston. International Legal Counsel before transnational Tribunals & US Congress. David M Kennedy Scholar of International Studies, Kennedy Center, BYU 2003-4, distinguished Visiting Professor, JNU, Delhi, Memorial Lecturer at Benaras Hindu University, Mumbai University &Ambadkar Center, Auranagbad, 2004-5 ;President, Pakistan Family Forum, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, Pakistan Bar Association at Lahore, 2003/4.

[2] Defensive war can be a part of the lesser “jihad” but the Quran repeatedly emphasizes that “God loves not aggressors”. “Jihad” as ongoing effort is a part of everything that a Muslim is required to do – from praying five times a day (“salat”) to fasting in the month of Ramadan (“siyam”) to wealth-sharing (“Zakat”) to performing pilgrimage (“hajj”) to standing up for justice and testifying to the truth. This concept has nothing similar to the distinction drawn by classical International Lawyers of the18th Century between Just and Unjust wars ( Bellum justum & injustum)

[3] The Encyclopedia of Religion: Mircea Eliade, Editor in Chief, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1987, Volume 5, pp. 190-191)

[4] General Musharraf has repeatedly told his Pakistani audiences that he took a complete U turn from the support of Taliban regime in Afghanistan following 9/11 as it was policy wise “necessary”. It is significant to note that but for such compulsions as he saw emerging after 9/11, Islamabad would have continued its erstwhile policy of being utterly pro-Taliban.

[5] I endorse and adopt the meaning of the term “fundamentalism” in the Concise Oxford Dictionary that defines this particular concept as: “Maintenance, in opposition to modernism of traditional orthodox beliefs.”

[6] The history of Christianity provides many significant illustrations of this matter. For a recent and excellent contemporary analysis see The Christian Question in American Politics, Justin E. Smith, 2004, University of Concordia, Montreal, Canada.

[7] Islamic jurisprudential doctrines of “Ijtehad” are of basic functional value in doing so.

[8] See generally, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Sir Muhammad Iqbal; see further, The Intellectual Origins of the Egyptian Nationalism, Jamal Ahmad, Oxford, 1960

[9] Quran: 3: 17. See further, Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal w-a-Nihal, ed Cureton 1842, London P. 27 et seq.

[10] See generally History of the Arabs, Phillip Hitti, Macmillan, 1961 ed. especially pp 128 -138

[11] The word for a ritual prayer is salah, derived from Aramaic sources. It suggests that prayers did exit prior to Islam but in an unorganized manner. 

[12] Quran: Sura 2:216-17 and evolved into an obligatory tax that the state was entitled to collect.

[13] Quran: 2: 179-81. Abstinence from all food and drink is enjoined from dawn until sunset: Quran Sura 2-183

[14] Quran: Sura Hajj, 3:91, 2: 192-6, 5: 1-2, 96.

[15] Astonishingly as recently as 16 September 205, the UNSC failed to provide an acceptable definition of terrorism.

[16] See Human Rights in Islam and Their Application in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Suleman Al-Hageel, 2001, 231.

[17] Quran: 2:195. It signifies that even the current unfortunate phenomenon of so-called suicide bombing is not permitted.

[18] Quran: 6:151. Translation by Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Quran, Gibraltar, 1980,188

[19] Quran: 5:32

[20] Doctrinally Islam outlawed slavery and gave equal rights to women and the weak from inception; it took a civil war and a hundred years of experience for the political system in the US to legally acquiesce in this normative sociological phenomenon of freedom for slaves and for the equality of rights and vote of women a hundred and fifty years of political development. I have, however pointed in many of my other works that regrettably there does exist a vast gulf between theory and state practice on such issues in contemporary Muslim society.

[21] General Musharraf has been using the term “enlightened moderation” to be followed by the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”!

[22] See The Islamic Republic, Farooq Hassan, 1984, Aziz Publishers, p 4

[23] Most relevant in this context is the famous and oft quoted Quranic message that he who killed one soul unlawfully is tantamount to have inflicted the same blow to humanity: Quran: 5:32

[24] See, for instance in the Quran : Sura 2: Al Baqarah: 186, 286; See further Sura 3 Al Amran: 145, 150; Sura 4 : Al Nisa: 26, 28, Sura 50: Qaf: 16

[25] See, for instance Quran Sura 6: Al An’am:160,; Sura 28: Al- Qasas: 84

[26] See, Quran: Sura 107 Al: Ma’un.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Quran Sura 2: 177, See also Ali, A.Y. The Holy Quran, pp 70-71

[29] Quran Sura 49: Al Hujurat: 13

[30] Quran Sura 4, An Nisa: 136.

[31] The other notable concept, in this context, is that of “ihsan” discussed earlier. discussed earlier.

[32] The ultimate aim of such a trend of thought is conceivably the creation of an Islamic State. See generally this author’s work: Farooq Hassan, The Concept of State & Law in Islam University Press of America, Washington DC, 1981.

[33] For instance despite the manifestly heavy international opposition and in American urban areas to the recent war in Iraq, President Bush was constantly strongly supported by millions of people for his conduct of his war effort in all Opinion Surveys in the so-called Bible Belt of the U S.

[34] See this author’s Op. ed. piece : Farooq Hassan, Stared into Silence, The Nation, 24 June 05 stressing the agony of the gang rape inflicted on a rustic women Muktharan Mai by a town jury of elders in Pakistan and then attempted callously to be “hidden” from the world by the Government.

[35] General Zia in Pakistan was an exception in that he became amongst the chief mentors of the ideology of pan Islamism and forcefully carried out the “Islamisation” of the Pakistani Constitution and of Jihadist elements in Afghanistan. However, internationally, at that time the US led war against the USSR was founded on this aspect of “Islamic” thinking.

[36] The political situation in countries such as Algeria, Turkey and Pakistan are usually cited as examples of this reality.

[37] See inter alia the views of the Muslim scholar and formerly a London based preacher Umar Bakri Muhammad from Beirut in Lebanon where he went after being deported by the United Kingdom in the Summer of 2005 that soon the time was approaching when Muslims may even form an Islamic government in the U.K ( see Nawaiwaqt , Lahore, 25 September 2005 quoting AFP Agency). A similar assumption is reflected in a series of internal FCO/Home Office documents (Young Muslims and Extremism and associated documents produced in the earlier part of 2004) recently obtained by the Sunday Times.

[38] Unlike the UN H R Commission which is composed of 53 governments, this smaller body of 26 Experts, the Sub Committee of the Commission, is looked upon as more “objective” as its members are chosen in their personal capacities. However, regrettably, except for the Western specially the European nations from where genuine “experts” usually are sent, most Third World appointees are invariably the representatives of their governments without whose recommendation they simply cannot get “elected”.

[39] See the repeated statements on his point of General Musharraf e.g. his TV address of 12 January, 2002 by which he banned all religious political parties which allegedly had a “militant” outlook, and his interview to Time for the issue of week of 25 September appearing on 24th September, 2005. See further this author’s op ed. piece: Farooq Hassan, Can Pakistan be Moderate Islamic State? Dawn, 22 May 2003.

[40] See Islam in Modern History, Wilfred C. Smith, 75

[41] Example par excellence of this group of Muslim leadership is provided by Pakistan where General Musharraf has gone out of his way to placate American and Western lobbies by strenuously affirming that Muslims are not fundamentalist in their religious beliefs.

[42] W.C. Smith, ibid p 75.

[43] See Role of Traditionalism in Islam, J Fueck, in Studies in Islam, p 99, 1981, M.L. Swartz Editor

[44] See ibid p 99

Posted by Jock Gill at October 2, 2005 8:45 PM | TrackBack