Broadly speaking there are two kinds of causes. Those
coming from within Muslim societies and, secondly, those from outside of them. One
reaction to the colonial onslaught was to throw up Islamic reformist movements.
These came in two waves: the first in the eighteenth century and the second in
the twentieth. In the first wave were the Mahdi of Sudan (1848-1885); the
Wahabis of Saudi Arabia (1703-1792); the Sanusi of Libya (1787-1859) and the
Faraizi (1764-1840) and Syed Ahmed Barelvi’s (1786-1831) movements in India. In
the second wave were the Ikhwan ul Muslimin (Brotherhood) of Hasan al-Banna
(1906-1949) later developed by Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) in Egypt and Abul ala
Maudoodi’s (1903-1979) Jamat-i-Islami in Pakistan. These movement are
anti-colonial, anti-Western in philosophy and revivalist. They appeal to
educated, middle-class, professional people and rural youth who are scandalized
by the ostentation, conspicuous consumption and Westernization of their own
elites. In short, these movements are very different from the other-worldly
mystical Islam of the sufis; the
ritualistic Islam of the conservative mullas
and the folk Islam of the common people. That is why these revivalist movements
are urban-based and appeal to educated people aware of inequality, injustice
and colonial exploitation.
The other reaction to colonization was that it created
Westernized elites. These were people
who believed in countering the power of the conqueror by being like him, by
learning his language, wearing his clothes and taking jobs in the institutions
created by him. They manned the bureaucracy and the military and the
educational apparatus of the colonies. Sometimes, when the elite was not
trained in Western institutions, it nevertheless looked up to the West for
support against its own people. Saudi Arabia and Iran under the Shah are well
known examples of being such client states. Pakistan was in between but here
too the people were with Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970) when he nationalized
the Suez Conal in 1956 whereas the ruling elite was with the West. In the Gulf
War of 1991 the ruling elite was divided but the government of the day
supported the American coalition whereas the people were all for Saddam
Hussain. In 2001, however, even many ordinary people agreed that Musharraf had
no option but to support the U.S.A but in the N.W.F.P and Baluchistan ordinary
people wanted defiance.
Another cause is that the ruling elites in Muslim
countries have not distributed goods and services to their people in an
equitable manner. They have been corrupt, coercive and alienated form the
people. The have used Islam in two ways. The Westernizing rulers have tried to
banish Islamic symbols by force; the Islamizing ones have used it to legitimize
their rule. Both have been extremely authoritarian. In Turkey, for instance,
secularism was imposed and Islamic symbols were suppressed. In Iran Raza Khan
(1925-41) and his son (1941-78) insulted religious symbols, forced people to
adopt western dress and tried to ape the West. In Tunisia Habib Bourguiba also
banned Islamic symbols (like the hijab
for women) and ignored the religious significance of fasting.
At the other end were rulers like Muammar Qaddafi of
Libya and Gaafar Nimeiri of Sudan who used Islamic rhetoric and symbols but to
consolidate their hold on power. Qaddafi’s interpretation of Islam was
different from the ulema and was
eventually opposed by the Islamic forces within the state. Nimeiri’s use of
Islamic symbols was highly dramatic---he poured wine in the Nile---but also
very political. He too alienated the Islamists earning their wrath. As for
Saudi Arabia, the opposition to the rulers is clear. After all, Osama bin
Ladan’s initial grievance was that the Saudi regime had allowed the Americans
to gain a niche in the holy land. Pakistani elites have been moderate in their
manipulation of Islamic symbols but Zia ul Haq did increase the tempo because
of which the religious elements got strengthened. Other regimes are generally
in-between but nobody is above using the name of Islam when it suits them.
Those who secularize by force invite reaction to
suppression couched in the idiom of Islam. This strengthens the Islamists.
Those who Islamize are exposed as being power-hungry manipulators and are
challenged by Islamists who call their bluff by claiming that they, the
Islamists, should be in power rather than those who merely use Islam or
misinterpret it. In short, both approaches, being fraudulent and coercive or
both, actually lead to further radicalization among the oppressed people using
the idiom of Islam and thinking their violence is legitimized because it is
creating the kingdom of God upon earth.
The more oppressive the ruling elites are, the more they
drive the moderates away from the political scene. In Egypt Syed Qutb was
hanged but Egypt faced much resistance after that. In 1981 Sadat was
assassinated by members of Jamat al-Jihad---much more violent than the
suppressed Brotherhood. The nineties were years of bloodshed with violence on
both sides---violence which could have been avoided if there had been real
democracy. In Tunisia Bourguiba used the military to crush demonstrations in
1978 after which the Islamists started supporting the workers---something which
also happened in the Shah’s Iran where the poor and the lower-middle-class
localities, the bazaar elements,
supported the Ayatollahs. In Algeria the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) swept
the municipal elections and was about to win the national elections in 1997
when the military intervened precipitating a civil war which still goes.
Pakistan, luckily, did not suppress the Jamat though it
was persecuted during the Ayub period. That is why the Jamat as well as the Jamiat-e-Ulema (all factions)
go for electoral politics rather than terrorism. The more militant groups using
religious idiom were created by the state, and financed during the Afghan war
years by the USA to fight proxy wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. They were not
created because of a reaction to the state. Thus, here too it was wrong policy
which strengthened the militant Islamic groups but the nature of the policy was
different from that followed in other Muslim countries.
Yet another factor is that the elite is generally so
affluent and so different in lifestyle than the masses that there is
class-resentment against it. This was expressed upto the sixties in Marxist
terms by the intelligentsia among whom were students. But as the students
started coming in larger numbers from rural and urban slum backgrounds, they
used the idiom of Islam to express class discontent. Thus, when the Islamist
youths break up new year parties and parties with jeans-clad girls, they claim
they are acting to obscenity and Westernization but their rage comes from being
poor. They feel cheated and angry. And the elite does not give them jobs or a good
system of justice or clean administration to reconcile them to the system. The
Islamists, on the other hand give aid and have systems and institutions of
charity which function better than state institutions where the bureaucracy
eats away most of the money. And not only the state’s bureaucracy but even that
of the NGOs and international bodies consumes conspicuously. The consultant’s
fees and expenses are so exorbitant that what trickles down to the poorest is
next to nothing.
Now look at the external factors. Muslim masses really do
care about the Palestinians. They condemn Israel for its expansionism and the
U.S for supporting it. Osama Bin Laden might have made the presence of the U.S
forces in Arab lands an issue but he is not the only one. Muslims now feel that
they are being humiliated the world over. Even the elite is enraged at the
humiliating security checks at American airports. The threat to Iraq is seen as
naked aggression on Islam---not Iraq but Islam! One could give details but the
facts are very well known.
The gist of the matter is that the radical Muslims in
militant organizations see the West, especially the U.S, as continuing the
crusades. They fail to differentiate
between Western countries and between different shades of political thought in western
decision-makers. They simply react to perceived discrimination and insult and
this reaction is militant.
As this reaction is a product of the selfishness,
oppressiveness and sheer myopia of both internal elites and Western elites, it
is not easy to suggest what to do about it. Elites look after their long-term
interests too and those lie in creating better social justice at home and no
oppression from outside. However, after Nine Eleven the world seems to have
moved towards extremism, force and oppression. Elites now seem to feel they can
get away by wiping out dissent and simply putting people away in cages. Thus
nobody is ready to listen to advice about increasing welfare, respecting the
peoples’ voice and not manipulating religion for political gain in the Muslim
world. Likewise, the Western would, though divided, does not really address the
reality of Palestinians being butchered, Iraqi children dying every day and
Muslims being oppressed everywhere. This being so the chances of peace are dim
indeed.