The Muslim Condition: II

I would like to thank Atif Imtiaz, editor of the Bookviews section at DeenPort, for allowing me to reproduce a piece entitled "The Muslim Condition". I have serialised it into several parts and made some minor editions for the sake of presentation. May God reward his efforts. This is the second part of what will be a six part series.

A rock and a hard place: Between imperialism and terrorism
Let us begin with the two dominant narratives. The hegemonic position is almost monist in terms of the totalitarianism of its language: it focuses upon the act of violence, the cameras follow the blood of innocents, the microphones pick up the screams of pain; these real images are allowed to linger as we ask the questions of ourselves, no framing is required – the perpetrators are depicted as mindless zealots who are locked into forcing violence upon others because that is the way they are and therefore they can only be killed. The subaltern position, however, points to an empire that feels threatened, that knows no legal boundaries, that is continuously rewriting its own rulebooks so that it must ultimately win in whatever game is being played. These are the two competing, dominant languages.

How do these global narratives impact upon a local community? The war on terror is, in one sense, an attempt to formulate a kind of monism. However, there remains widespread support for various causes throughout the Muslim world including from those Muslim communities that are embedded in European and American cities. This monism is forcefully applied upon Muslim communities through the question: 'Why don't you criticise terrorist acts more?' Since the languages are so diametrically opposed the subtext to this question becomes: 'Why don't you join our side?' The discomfort that such pronouncements create is not due to some ambivalence towards the murder of innocent people. Usually, a delayed consensus emerges that such acts are forbidden, unjust and wrong. Instead, the discomfort is due to the seeming lack of availability of a third option since there is only terrorism and imperialism. To criticise imperialism is to become a distant relation of the terrorist. To criticise terrorism is to become a distant relation of the imperialist. In fact, there is a certain amount of insanity to all of this – if insanity is the result of the forceful acceptance or capitulation of two opposites. On the one hand, Muslims are expected to condemn terrorism, and then on the other, the governments of the US and Britain continue with their policies, for example in supporting Israel. So the cause of terrorism increases, and terrorism is simultaneously more forcefully condemned. What options remains for the oppressed? Here, some Muslims have successfully negotiated the two paradigms to adopt a stance in which they are simultaneously condemnatory of imperialism and terrorism. The present global order would no doubt prefer some of us to take the next step and adopt the Mandela option. Nelson Mandela is regarded as a great figure because he forgave his oppressors – the non-violent victim. His option, perhaps it could also be called the Gandhi option, is championed because the oppressed are not allowed to be violent in today's world. As Parekh suggested in a recent issue of Prospect [1] through his fictional dialogue between Gandhi and Osama bin Laden, why don’t Muslims advocate non-violence? Why do the oppressed disgrace themselves through violence? The answer must surely lie with the oppressed.

© S. M. Atif Imtiaz

[Read Part I, Part III and Part IV, Part V and Part VI of this series.]

Notes
[1] Parekh, B. "Why Terror?", Prospect, April 2004.

Comments

[haroon]

I recall something the Prophet (s) said about a time coming when holding onto Islam would be like holding onto a hot coal, bouncing from hand to hand, you can't hold it and the easiest thing to do is to just drop it.

[haroon]

Or just throw it at someone else.

[thabet]

But isn't that what some Muslims do? Throw their religion (the "hot coal") at others when holding onto it becomes too "difficult" (which might this include understanding and appreciating its complexity)?

[laila]

very good point thabet!! it is these "suffering" Muslim prometheus' that really make every one else suffer.