BOOK REVIEW

Islam Under Siege

by
Akbar S Ahmed,

Polity Press, UK, 2003,

Price RS - 2195,

224 pages

WRITTEN BY – MAJ ( R) MUHAMMAD AYAZ ANJUM

OC CIT – 15
 BOOK REVIEW
ISLAM UNDER SIEGE by Akbar S Ahmed

Reviewed by Ahmad Faruqui

The world's 1.3 billion Muslims are being squeezed between two equally strong forces.
On the one hand are the forces of the West that want to modernize them, if need be
through regime change. On the other hand are the forces of Osama bin Laden who want
to de-Westernize them, if need be by wrapping their women in dark flowing robes. The
pain is being shared equally by the two-thirds of the Muslim population that lives in
Muslim countries, and who are often governed by tyrants that suppress all independent
scholarship and dissent and the one-third that lives in non-Muslim countries, where even
some of the longest standing democracies are rapidly regressing toward tyrannical control
over their Muslim minorities.

Critics of Islam in the West have begun to argue that the Koran asks Muslims to follow it
blindly and resort to fanaticism. Yet in the words of linguist and translator Thomas
Cleary, "Islam does not demand unreasoned belief. Rather, it invites intelligent faith,
growing from observation, reflection and contemplation, beginning with nature and what
is all around us. Accordingly, antagonism between religion and science such as that
familiar to Westerners is foreign to Islam." It is a fact of history that Islamic civilization
eventually nursed Europe out of the Dark Ages, laying the foundation for the
Renaissance.

It is unfortunate that Islam, which means "submission to the will of God", and whose
followers greet each other with the expression, "Peace be on you", stands accused in the
West of fomenting violence due to the acts of a few extremists who are acting contrary to
the teachings of their faith. A few months ago, I interviewed a learned Islamic theologian
about these issues, Dr Khalid Siddiqi. He teaches Arabic and Islamic studies at several
colleges in the San Francisco Bay area and directs the Islamic Education and Information
Center. With degrees from Dar-ul-Uloom Nadwa in India, al-Azhar University in Cairo
and a doctorate from the University of London, Dr Siddiqi is in a unique position to judge
the compatibility of terrorism with Islamic precepts. He said, "Violence against innocent
civilians had no place in the life of Prophet Mohammed, and it should have no place in
the life of his followers today."
There is perhaps no better writer to analyze and diagnose the Muslim predicament than
Professor Akbar S Ahmed, who holds the Ibn Khaldun Chair in Islamic Studies at
American University. Professor Ahmed is an anthropologist by training who began his
career in the Pakistan civil service and subsequently switched to academe. He has taught
at Cambridge, Princeton and Harvard, and is the author of many books, scholarly papers,
and newspaper articles. More tellingly, he is also the producer of a BBC film series about
Islam and a feature film about Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He is also a
former high commissioner to Britain.

His latest book, Islam Under Siege, takes head on the challenges facing the Muslims in
the aftermath of the events of September 11. The book deals with the plights of Muslims
from the vantage point of reflexive sociology, and certain parts of it constitute an
ambassador's memoir.

The thesis of the book

One would be hard pressed to disagree with the core argument of the book, which is
directed at Muslims. It consists of two parts. First, don't blame the "Great Satan" for all
your ills. Second, be inclusive and compassionate toward other human beings regardless
of their faith, because that is what God has willed the believers to do. Many (but not all)
of the problems facing the Muslim world are indeed self-inflicted, and blaming the West
for all of them has set the Muslims back on the path to progress. Conspiracy theories
dominate Muslim views of the West, which is believed to be plotting for the
extermination of Islam while indulging in an orgy of sex and violence. It is too often the
case that the lives of Muslims are cloaked with a fatalism based on a misunderstanding of
God's will.

Ahmed eloquently debunks many commonly held myths about Islam, some of which are
held by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For example, he points out that there is no room
for killing even a single innocent civilian in Islam. Much of the conflict between the
forces of moderation in Islam and those that are inclined to take extreme positions and
carry out acts of violence against innocent people arises from the misinterpretation of the
concept of jihad. Islam allows jihad in the form of armed struggle against oppressors.
However, there are very specific conditions under which fighting in self-defense is
allowed. One must be deprived of the right to live and to earn one's livelihood.
Individuals are not allowed to take on this fight, and jihad has to be carried out with the
collective will of the Muslim community. Individual acts of vigilantism would create
anarchy and are prohibited.

Ahmed's interpretation is consistent with that put forth by the vast majority of Muslim
scholars. For example, Siddiqi asserts that the Muslim community has to observe very
strict limits when carrying out jihad. Thus, those fighting a jihad cannot harm women,
children and unarmed civilians on the enemy side under any circumstances. Willful
destruction of property is condemned. A Muslim is prohibited from even harming a tree
that is green, because it is a common asset of humanity. The Koran states, in the 192nd
verse of the second chapter, "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
And this command is reiterated in the following verse, "But if they cease, let there be no
hostility except to those who practice oppression."

The terrorists have reinforced a common misperception in the West that the Koran asks
Muslims to kill Jews and Christians. In fact, the Koran addresses the believers among the
Jews and Christians with great respect, calling them "the people of the book". Former
president Jimmy Carter, winner of a Nobel Peace prize, wrote about the common family
ties among Jews, Christians and Muslims in The Blood of Abraham in 1985. It was this
broad vision that brought about the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. In
the Koran (46th verse of the 29th chapter), God says to the Muslims: "Do not argue with
the followers of the earlier revelations otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it
be such of them as are bent on evil-doing - and say: We believe in that which has been
bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has bestowed upon you; for our
God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that we all surrender
ourselves."

It is a common misperception that friendship between Muslims and non-Muslims is

prohibited in Islam. That is also incorrect because the Koran (7th verse of the 60th
chapter) even encourages making friends with one's enemies, "It may be that God will
grant love [and friendship] between you and those you [now] hold as enemies. For God
has power [over all things], and He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." It goes one step
further and says, in the next verse, "God does not forbid you, with regard to those who do
not fight for [your] faith nor drive you from your homes, from dealing kindly and justly
with them: for God loves those who are just."

Methodology

Ahmed's methodology is derived from the concept of group solidarity (or asabiyya in
Arabic) first propounded by Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), regarded by many as the father of
modern social science. Group solidarity serves a constructive purpose when it gives
individuals a sense of identity and belonging to society. However, exaggerated feelings of
tribal and religious loyalties can lead to a pathological case that the author terms hyper-
group solidarity.
The collapse of group solidarity also brings with it the collapse of justice, compassion
and balance in society. These concepts hold a society together and their absence creates
conflict and violence in society, leading to chaos and confusion.

The author cites the Taliban, who were originally religious students confined to an
Islamic seminary in Kandahar, Afghanistan as an example of a tribal society with social
cohesion. Once the Taliban took over the regime in Kabul, their lack of training in
political and civil administration, coupled with their exclusivist political identity that
prevented them from assimilating non-Taliban ideas, ensured their failure. Their
puritanical variant of Islam, which had been their strength in Kandahar, now became their
weakness. They resorted to placing restrictions on women and destroying ancient
Buddhist statues and when the US demanded they give up their special guest, Osama bin
Laden, they failed to do so, because that would have compromised their tribal sense of
honor.

The author is quick to point out that hyper-group solidarity, as exhibited by the Taliban
and the clerics in Iran, is not confined to Muslim societies. He mentions the Serb militias
in Bosnia and the Hindu mobs that killed thousands of Muslims in Gujarat as examples of
people who have succumbed to the same social disease.

He also mentions that the freedom of speech and religion in the US prior to September 11
had created an atmosphere that could be compared to that of Muslim Spain (Andalus)
when Christians, Jews and Muslims lived side by side in peace. However, everything
changed after the terror attacks, as the US came in the grip of hyper-group solidarity.
Muslims could be arrested anywhere and held without charges indefinitely, merely for
being Muslims. Many who were arrested had their beards shaven forcefully.

Is the book hard on Muslims and soft on the West?

This question arises because depending on how one reads certain sections of the book, it
comes across as being hard on Muslims and soft on the West. For example, there are
instances when the book seems to equate Muslims generally with the bin Laden ideology,
and holds them collectively responsible for his alleged actions. While discussing
president Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the book suggests that Muslims
interpreted the president's actions as being those of a dishonorable man, and took that to
mean that all Americans were dishonorable. The book says, "Muslim reading of Clinton
had much to do with their planning for September [11], bin Laden misread Bush on the
basis of Clinton's behavior."

Second, the book is silent on the harm that has been inflicted on the Muslim world by the
West over the past two centuries. It does not analyze why the grievances of bin Laden and
his cohorts have acquired much legitimacy in the Muslim world. In its 12 pages of
references, there is no mention of the Project for the New American Century. By now it is
common knowledge that the neo-conservatives in Washington have a very definite plan
to remake the Muslim world in their image. As they carry through on this agenda, they
make it easier for bin Laden to recruit young Muslims to his cause. This point has been
made by a variety of non-Muslim writers, including Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky and
Norman Mailer in the US and many others in Europe and Latin America. Both parties are
fighting a "war of self-defense", using whatever weapons are at their disposal. For the
fighters of al-Qaeda, terrorism represents a form of guerilla warfare, which helps them
overcome the asymmetrical balance of military power between themselves and the West.
It may not have religious legitimacy in the opinion of the vast majority of Islamic
scholars, but they are undeterred because they have chosen to interpret the Islamic
scriptures differently.

Third, the book may suggest to some readers that the Muslims are at the center of
political violence. A review of the past century will reveal that millions were killed in
political violence and wars that did not originate with either the Muslims or their religion.
The primary examples being of course the two world wars, followed by the internal wars
carried out in the name of communism by Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao
Zedong in the People's Republic of China. The Korean War killed hundreds of thousands,
the Vietnam War killed a million, the civil war in Kampuchea (now Cambodia) killed
almost 2 million and another million were killed by the Soviet-Afghan war. In none of
these wars were Muslims perpetrators of political violence. If anything, Muslims have
often been the victims of political violence. As the book shows, large scale and
systematic rape against Muslim women has been the hallmark of the past two decades,
first in Bosnia and then in Gujarat.

Fourth, the book seems to attribute the backwardness, illiteracy and misogynistic nature
of society so prevalent in Muslim countries to the religion of the people who live there.
Vast numbers of Muslims come across as simpletons who are gullible followers of the
Egyptian activist Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s and bin Laden in the 1990s.
However, a review of the data published by the World Bank in its World Development
Report and the United Nations Development Program in its Human Development Report
reveals that the same problems bedevil much of the Third World. Muslim countries do
not have a monopoly on backwardness. As others have shown, the problems faced by
developing countries around the globe are caused by a miasmic interaction of culture,
ethnicity, politics and economics, set against the backdrop of centuries of imperial
conquest and colonialism by the West.
As the author notes, the horrifying case in which a young boy was sodomized for walking
alongside a young woman in Mianwali (Pakistan) and the girl gang-raped had nothing to
do with the religion of Islam and more to do with a perceived violation of group honor by
the elders of the tribe, ie, it was an act of hyper-group solidarity.

Fifth, the book offers an incomplete analysis of terrorism. It seems to suggest that
terrorism is caused by the existence of vast numbers of unemployed youth in the Muslim
world, who are easily swayed by figures like bin Laden. This explanation overlooks the
social and political grievances that are possibly the major drivers for terrorism. It was the
Gulf War that spawned al-Qaeda. Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza causes
Palestinians to resort to suicide bombings. Beijing's repression of its Uyghur minorities in
Xinjiang and Moscow's brutal suppression of Chechens leads the survivors to commit
acts of terrorism, just as New Delhi's failure to accommodate the aspirations of Kashmiris
leads them to carry out terrorist acts. Nor is terrorism a recent phenomenon. Throughout
history, oppression has led to what is called terrorism now and was called fighting for
freedom in days past. Such was the case when black Africans were fighting the apartheid
regime in South Africa, and when the American colonies were fighting imperial Britain.

The proposed solution

After reviewing the driving forces that have placed the Muslims and the West in conflict
with each other, the author proffers a solution in the last chapter called the Global
Paradigm. He argues that a just, compassionate and peaceful global order would be
created if both parties would become inclusive in their thinking, and engage in a dialogue
of civilizations.

While agreeing with the noble premises of this solution, it is difficult to be optimistic that
an early solution will be found to ease either the Muslim or Western predicaments. As the
author notes, the Bush administration has embarked on a war that has no boundaries or
time horizons. It is seething with as much anger and rage as its adversaries, and it is
difficult to see any end in sight to this conflict that threatens to kill and maim Muslims in
large numbers, in addition to curbing their civil rights in many countries. Viewed against
the backdrop of the recent wars that the US had waged against Afghanistan and Iraq, and
its plans to create a thousand military bases in 99 countries, a call for a dialogue among
civilizations seems awfully Utopian.

The book proposes that ultimately the Muslim world has to embrace democracy, and that
is undoubtedly true. However, just as true is the fact that any form of government that is
imposed externally in the Muslim world will reduce the new leaders to Western puppets,
and undercut their credibility. Unfortunately, the West has a long tradition of installing
puppet governments, under the guise of establishing democracy. US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld's comment that the liberated people of Iraq can elect any type of
government as long as it is not an Islamic theocracy is an ominous development.
Similarly, the West's objections to the Islamic laws being promulgated by the
democratically elected government in North West Frontier Province in Pakistan does not
serve the cause of democracy. There is a long list of Muslim grievances that can be cited,
including Algeria's decision to ban the Islamic FIS party just as it was about to win the
elections in 1992, the banning of the Muslim Welfare party in Turkey and the Central
Intelligence Agency coup that overthrew the Mossadeq government in Iran in 1953. In
fact, the West has a long track record of supporting military dictatorships during the past
half century throughout the globe, including those in Chile, Indonesia, Pakistan, the
Philippines and South Vietnam.

Thus, if there is going to an inclusive dialogue between Muslims and the West, it has to
be carried out by both sides. Lack of trust between the two sides remains a major
impediment to the beginning of such a dialogue. A dialogue has been initiated by inter-
faith groups on all sides. However, these groups often do not represent the center of
gravity of the people who they represent, so that even total cohesion of viewpoints in the
inter-faith dialogue may not carry over to the much-needed dialogue between
civilizations.

It is also important to recognize - and the author acknowledges this - that there is no
monolithic entity called the West or the Muslim world. There is a lot of diversity in both.
The Iraq war showed strong opposition in the West to the actions of the US government.
There are many in the Muslim world who are opposed to the views articulated by bin
Laden, and many in Pakistan are opposed to the Talibanization of parts of the country. It
is this diversity in views within both worlds that gives hope that Samuel Huntington's
apocalyptic clash of civilizations can be avoided.

In closing, Ahmed has penned a must-read book. Part memoir and part exposition in
social science, it should be required reading for scholars, policy makers and opinion
leaders in both the Muslim world and the West.

Islam Under Siege by Akbar S Ahmed, Polity Press, UK, 2003, ISBN: 0745622100, Price
US$19.95, 224 pages

(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)