That Terror Thing IV

Posted by sepoy on July 19, 2005 · 10 mins read

We drift through words: evil ideology, hate, freedom, jihad, islam, community, quagmire. Words that, in turn, become keys to narratives: War on Terror, Islam is Evil, Islam means Peace, Clash of Civilizations. Britain announced that they will start monitoring Muslims community by community. The Muslim community; a silent yet deadly collective to be found in op-ed columns and special reports around the Western hemisphere. There is a bit of cognitive dissonance involved here: the logic of the war on terror demands that there exist a cohesive 'them' while the premise of the jihadist narrative is the disintegration and dispossession of 'us'.

It is, after all, the issue of the community that started this rambling monologue. The community of British Pakistanis and the susceptibility of teenagers to the jihadist narrative remains the central question for me. Other instances of social violence, like Columbine, are instructive as models of questions that should be asked from the communities within which they occur. The pat response of politicians to blame violence on tv is clearly insufficient to us but the pat response to terrorism isn't getting much attention.

Let's unpack this a little. One word that you hear again and again is Caliphate. Said Blair after the London bombings: Neither is it true that they have no demands. They do. It is just that no sane person would negotiate on them. They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and Government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations.

That, gentle readers, is the hegemonic narrative about the jihadists in the current WoT. Caliphate, obviously, puts the burden straight on Islamic history and theology. Why not call it a religious conflict if one expressed goal of the enemy is a religious empire? Yet no one, it appears, wants to stop and question for a moment: Do the jihadists really want a return of the Caliphate? Do they know that the contenders for the caliphate will be the Hashemite King of Jordan or the House of Saud or some linear descendant of the Fatimids found in a derelict bookstore in Cairo or a Turkish National Assembly recruit. The point is that it won't be anyone that they would ever want to endorse. And they surely know that. So, this whole talk* of Caliphate this and Caliphate that is plain old macguffin, if you will [please refrain from pasting 10,000 speeches from UBL calling for the Caliphate - I have read them], that the WoT completely falls for. Hence, the Blair claim that the jihadists want an Islamic Empire. No, they do not. They won't be in charge of any Empire. Nihilism doesn't harbor dreams of empires. And if they do know this, then why insist on a Caliphate? What role is this particular claim playing in the jihadist narrative?

If the assertion that jihadists have political aspirations is correct, than we have to explain the usage of Caliphate. If we actually attempt to engage with the jihadist narrative to uncode it, we can begin the process of knowing why some British kids of Pakistani descent found hatred and murder a viable option. It is not Caliphate but ummah that drives the jihadist narrative. The idea of the ummah is that the Believers are a community of equals- unified, uni-directional, a force of history - with a titular Caliph as the God's regents. Ummah became a chimera from the very first moment of conflict among the Believers - the fitna. This illusory community stretches from Cairo to Kashmir in the jihadist imagination, suffering continuously for centuries under imperialisms both local and foreign. The cultivation of this narrative emerged in the response to colonialism by ideologues such as Jamaluddin Afghani, Syed Ahmed Khan, Hali and Muhammad Abduh. Yet, this wasn't an invention either. They drew upon centuries of commentaries to resistance available in Sunni, Shi'a and Kharajite corpora. The important fact here is that the authors I list varied in their individual philosphies - in great opposition to one another, in fact. Revivalists, reformists, or revolutionaries, they were concerned, first and foremost, with a political problem: Colonialism. Their intellectual campaigns were directed to resisting it and helping their particular nations - the formulation of an ummah being one prescription.

The jihadist aim is not to bring back some artifact of the Muslim past but to shape the Muslim present on their terms. It is a twisted notion of the ummah that constitutes a fulcrum upon which jihadists construct the worldview persuading a Muslim in Lahore to bear arms for a political cause in Palestine, eg. It is one particular sense of belonging and outrage that the jihadist narrative seeks to emphasize in its propoganda. It may be as broad as the Muslims all over the world or as narrow as the racism-tinged reality of Leeds. To convince a teenager to give his or her life up to avenge wrongs that s/he never experienced is not a task easily accomplished. The appeal of the ummah is that like any other imagined community - say, nationalism - it is far more maleable and powerful than a mere membership in the Super Secret Organization of al-Qaeda Subsidiary, Leeds Branch. The ummah becomes one more tool to give sense to their feelings of dispossession, alienation and uprootedness. Seen this way, what we are talking about is not Islamic theology but social constructions - community, prejudice, fear, belonging. As I mentioned earlier, the language of religion is incidental to this narrative. It is incidental but not irrelevant. Jihadists employ it as cryptic transmitters of their own, twisted worldview. That it gets accepted into the WoT narrative is hardly surprising. That it doesn't get questioned or examined is frustrating.

There is no superstring theory of terrorism. And I am not proposing any, please. Neither am I checklisting who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter and who is a Muslim and who is Eric Rudolph. All I am arguing for is an attempt to engage with the jihadist narrative; to de-mystify it; to strip it bare of its potency to attract troubled youth. Because there is a reason why every dispossessed Muslim is not strapping on a bomb: the jihadist narrative is not the only one around. The Leeds kids did have other alternatives to help them make sense of their realities - hundreds of strains of Sufism, various sects of religious practice, progressives etc. Not to mention The Cure or Alistair Crowley, which are always available for troubled teens. They chose the jihadists and now we have to figure out why. The details may be in their biography or in the socio-cultural milieu in which they grew up or in their immediate families. All of those things must be examined. Only finding causes for suicide bombings in Islamic theology is just as helpful as only finding causes for Columbine in GTA III. It makes perfect and valid sense to some, it is completely reductive to others.

My concern, here, is neither to dismiss the jihadist narrative nor to legitimize it. It is morally imperative that we condemn it and it is intellectually imperative that we understand it. It is also not to claim that "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism". Obviously, the jihadists proclaim their religious affiliations loud and clear and the faiths of the bombers is in no doubt. Islam, in fact, does not need me to defend it. Neither do I care to do so. The recent scholarship that highlights Islam as hijacked religion is comforting to religionists and liberals alike. I do not put much stock in it. Islam is a living tradition and fourteen centuries of history, politics and theology cannot and should not be "explained" away. To put it bluntly, I am frustrated that four years later, we still haven't left the knee-jerk reactionary mode. We still haven't started to pay attention to details. I am not a "Terrorism Expert" and I do not offer any great insights. But. I do call myself a historian and I do think that narratives matter. All I ask is that we pay attention to them.


kuffir | July 20, 2005

'The idea of the ummah is that the Believers are a community of equals- unified, uni-directional, a force of history... This illusory community stretches from Cairo to Kashmir.' step aside a little and ask why does the name Columbine keep cropping up? what was 'their' ummah? 'The ummah becomes one more tool to give sense to their feelings of dispossession, alienation and uprootedness.' an imagined community that stretches across continents is imaginable ..but the idea of particular feelings of dispossessions that dot three continents grasping at one specific tool does stretch the does remind one of the community of gun owners- the guns were in the house so the children grabbed them! here, though not intended in that sense i suppose, the allusion to columbine makes sense. to the communities outside the believers it is slowly beginning to become irrelevant whether it is ummah or the caliphate. 'Islam, in fact, does not need me to defend it. Neither do I care to do so.' i guess neither bush nor blair cares to accuse it either. if it wasn't a clash of civilizations earlier, everyone is too confused to define it now. 'They chose the jihadists and now we have to figure out why.' we who?

pardesi | July 20, 2005

I *do* find it comforting to think that Islam has been perverted and hijacked by the nutters. Why don't you put stock in that theory, Sepoy? Just because it's an oversimplification?

Jonathan Dresner | July 21, 2005

The sense of community created by word rather than by experience is a common one, fundamental to all kinds of nationalisms and other identity coalitions. I'm not immediately convinced that Caliphate is the wrong term to express the politicized community which is the aim of many -- though the extent to which it is the aim of terrorists, suicide bombers in particular, is indeed open to question -- and which goes beyond, in vague but meaningful ways, the commonality and interrelationship implied by ummah. I'm not sure you're wrong, either, but I have to read it again and think about it more.

Farzad | July 21, 2005

I'm going to echo Jonathan on this. I can accept downplaying the immediacy of obtaining the caliphate in favor of the dispossession of the ummah as more central to the jihadist narrative. But to discount it as macguffin? The desire for a caliphate amongst Muslim youth (and full-blown jihadists) is based off of feelings of weakness and dispossession within the ummah. Many believe that by capping the ummah with a Caliph, it's inherent wobbling will be steadied. Some jihadists seek to replicate the achievements of the Prophet (pbuh) and rashidun when they unlocked vast reserves of power within the Arab tribes by harmonizing their energy and directing it outwards. Either way, and you point this out in the post, the narrative is presently too opaque for jihadists or Western terror experts to grapple with. Kuffir, I believe this shape-shifting quality allows it to span three continents.

bulleyah | July 23, 2005

dear sepoy, regarding the narrative of ummah versus world - how does a 'progressive' in the sense of a left leaning secular poet like faiz using religious terminology to counter draconian reginmes fit in - i'm thinking of 'hum dekhenge' when all the idols are removed from kaaba when thrones are flung up and crowns are flung down... a communist invoking the imagery of islam against a dictatoral, supposedly 'islamic' regime... how does that fit into the Jihad versus Mcworld logic of the WoT? Caliphate? Sorry, i am slightly drunk at this pint. with rage. working late at night on a radio production. but as schwarznegger said at the auditions for amadeus, 'i'll be bach.' soon.

OmarG | July 28, 2005

>>The sense of community created by word rather than by experience is a common one, fundamental to all kinds of nationalisms and other identity coalitions. Created by word... I could have hardly phrased it better. Prof Dressner, my wife graduated from UH Manoa, writing her senior honors thesis on the Hawaii Muslim community, with a focus on the history and sense of Ummah through oral history. Always nice to see another islander showing up on the 'net!

Dervish Blog Archive Meme-ing again! The ABCs of Umm Yasmin’s Visits | February 03, 2006

[...] Here’s my list: A, I’m not sure quite how I feel about the RU486 pill except that I really object to Health Ministers enforcing their own personal morality on the Australian public at large. B: An A-list Aussie blogger. C: Yes, I actually went and read all the nominated blogs and posts before voting in the Brass Crescent awards. D: Hmmm, ‘coz I was trawling for Aussie links to put on my blogroll lastnight, I predict there will be quite a few Aussie bloggers in this ABC list. E: Looking for Dora the Explorer DVDs that my daughter loves so much. Decided I might fork out for an Adam’s World at our local Islamic bookstore instead. (I love Dora too, but she already has a lot of Dora already.) F: I was checking out this shady Christian lobby group with innocuous looking website after reading about donations to Family First (Christian political party). G: a broken link. The next working G is a regular read. H: Ahh now, this is the comments for a post by dear Umm Zaynab who lost her baby in utero, may Allah give her patience and relief. I: rather boring piece of trivia about a movie I like. J: briefly visited site from last night. (Err… sorry site owner if you come looking at this post from your logs.) K: Always happy to give Kalimat a plug now that the U.S. Baha’i Reich proscribed them. L: Another very briefly visited site. M: Errr… yes, I do visit my own blog, just to spell check and check layout of course. N: Broken link, thus the next working N. O: My bud Waleed Aly writes for this occasionally, but this visit was in reference to the American-imported myth that our educational institutions are too left-leaning. (We really should just admit we’re another U.S. state.) P: Shhh… the only real reason I keep the Homespun Blogger icon and blogroll on my page, is so that right-wing nutzoid bloggers have to receive hits to my site from their visitors bwaahahahahaha. (Yeah, I *know* it works the other way too, but at least I have a disclaimer.) Q: don’t have a Q site. R: I actually don’t remember visiting this site. And considering I’m logged on to me, using a browser that only I use (Abu Yasmin uses evil IE AND reads the Hun, I know could we be not more mismatched?) it could only have been me. Hmmm.. that ginger beer must be spiked. S: Sikhs coping it for looking too Muslim. T: Yes I’m vain. U: That reminds me, I’ll have to do it for this post. V: Nope, no V site. W: Hmmm… no, we mostly still eat my home-cooked food. X: Found this doing a Google blog search on Muslim converts if I remember correctly. Y: New (for me) Muslim blog read. Z: Sunni Sister made me click on it. [...]

Koonj: The Seagull Blog Archive Whoa - what just happened? | February 18, 2006

[...] Honourable mentions: Baraka, Velveteen Rabbi and Islamophobia Watch, Chapati Mystery, and our dear IzzyMo whose blog I read religiously, Thebit, Indigo Jo, and YAY for HU, Nzingha’s Soapbox. [...]

Lemi4 | November 23, 2006

17 months later and still a very relevant read...

Zafar | May 15, 2009

I just chanced upon this now but I agree with Lemi4, its still so relevant. You are spot on but the as you have noticed, most people find difficulty in understanding a nuanced response. We have been numbed by the deliberate brainwashing by the mainstream media in seeing the events of our times in simplistic us v them context. CM is great, thank you for providing a saner perspective.

Salman | October 22, 2009

Good Read!