Myths, Monsters and Jihad

By Nadeem F. Paracha
May 22, 2011
In spite of the gradual infiltration of ubiquitous religious symbolism and menta
lity in the social spheres of everyday life, Pakistan has managed to remain aflo
at as a pluralistic society comprising various ethnicities, religions and Muslim
sects.
However, starting in the late 1970s, an anti-pluralistic process was initiated b
y the Ziaul Haq dictatorship that soon spiralled beyond mere posturing and sloga
neering.
With the ‘Afghan jihad’ raging against the former Soviet Union, Zia, his intelligenc
e agencies and parties like the Jamat-i-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam started
embracing a narrow and highly politicised version of Islam. This was done to rad
icalise large sections of Pakistani Muslims who had historically been part of a
more apolitical and tolerant strains of the faith.
Most Pakistanis related to the shrine culture and the sufi traditions of the sub
continent, and thus, were least suitable to fight a ‘jihad’ that Zia was planning to
peddle in Afghanistan at the behest of the CIA. Pakistanis’ beliefs were not comp
atible at all with this new strain of a political Islam. To compensate this ideo
logical ‘deficiency’, the Zia regime (with American and Arab money) helped start ind
octrination centres in the shape of thousands of jihadist madrassas.
Almost all of them were run by radical puritans. These were preachers and ‘scholar
s’ who had become critical of the strains of the faith that most Pakistanis adhere
d to. Accusing these strains of being ‘adulterated’, they advocated the more asserti
ve charms of ‘political Islam’, of the likes recommended by Abul Ala Maududi, Sayyid
Qutb and Khurram Murad.
These three men were simply updating the proto-Islamist thoughts of people like
Shah Waliullah. Waliullah was an 18th century Indian Muslim scholar who campaign
ed to rally the Muslims of the subcontinent by inviting them to fight an armed j
ihad against the British. Waliullah insisted that such a jihad also required a r
ejection of western education and political ideals. His jihad was also directed
against the ‘folk Islam’ of Indian Muslims (that he thought was close to Hinduism),
insisting on a literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah.
Promoting literalism, Waliullah also propagated religious exhibitionism, i.e. co
mpulsory keeping of beards, wearing of burqas and the glorification of ‘Daagh-e-Sa
jood’ (the mark one gets on his/her forehead due to vigorous prostrating).
Interestingly, Shah Waliullah was an obscure figure until he was resurrected fro
m the 19th century onwards by various Muslim historians and leaders, especially
those in search of heroes to rally the Muslims of the subcontinent against a per
ceived danger of Hindu majority-ism and infiltration of western cultural ethos.
So when men like Maududi (through scholarship) and then Zia (through propaganda
and draconian laws) revived this puritanism, a ‘real Islam’ started to mean violent
jihad, xenophobia, cultural isolationism, religious coercion, and, at times, a d
isplay of sheer barbarism that was proudly explained away as acts replicating th
e mythologised ways of medieval Muslim heroes. Since this new meaning of the fai
th did not exhibit any tolerance whatsoever for any critique (scholarly or other
wise), the tradition of meaningful debate on matters of religion too got lost. T
he open debate culture was now labelled as ‘a conspiratorial secular tool to defam
e Islam’. For the last 30 years or so, certain cliched notions about patriotism an
d sovereignty tied to the notions of faith have been cleverly engineered into ou
r system.
That’s why most Pakistanis today, both young and old, go off the moment anyone dar
es question such notions. These retaliatory sparks are nothing more than what ha
s been uncritically lapped up by these people as faith and history. Puritan Isla
mists have a habit of invoking events and memories from early Islamic history. B
ut none of their listeners bother to realise that this history is derived from d
ocuments written by men who were writing it as a way to guard the political and
dynastical interests of the caliphs, ameers and kings that they served.
Also, most of the sources from which Islamists concoct their narratives and law
were documented only from the 8th century onwards or almost 150 to 200 years aft
er the arrival of Islam. It’s a case of ‘backward projection’ an act in which someone
who wants to justify a present-day religious dictate, does so by suggesting this
was what happened at the birth of his/her faith. Such a person does so not thro
ugh historical fact or dispassionate scholarship, but by using the tradition of
hearsay and latter day myth-making around historical events.
In such a scenario, when certain disturbing events start taking place in the nam
e of faith, how can one expect Pakistanis to react? Most of us just shy away, or
distract ourselves by blaming the ‘enemies of Islam’. By continuing to tolerate a p
sychopathic, militant fringe for so long, we have actually helped it metamorphos
e into an unrestrained monster that has zero tolerance for what we think or do.
This fringe risks becoming a mainstream event. Today, this frozen but arrogant m
indset creates grave social and political dichotomies amongst Muslims and other
religious and secular beliefs held by Pakistanis.
Source: The Dawn, Pakistan
URL: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamTerrorismJihad_1.aspx?ArticleID=4696

Forward to a friend | Print

COMMENTS
5/28/2011 11:31:17 AM Ghulam Mohiyuddin
Satwa says, "Hindus are not maron and obviously Muslim are one not only in India
but worldwide."
What kind of English is this? Even if what you have to say is totally idiotic, t
ry to say it clearly and in proper English.

5/27/2011 11:54:22 PM Taj Hashmi

The intolerance one finds in the rebuttal of the article (which I am not comment
ing on) tells us a thousand stories about the brain-washed Pakistani born-again-
Muslim fanatics. Let Allah save the world (and Islam) from these fanatics! Amin!
Taj Hashmi

5/27/2011 11:08:25 PM satwa gunam

@ghulam
Classification happens on paretto theory of 80:20. Going by the rule, Hindus ar
e not maron and obviously Muslim are one not only in India but worldwide and you
are one of them goes without saying by your stupid comments and closed mind.
5/27/2011 11:55:32 AM Ghulam Mohiyuddin
Satwa says, "I do not expect anything better than this remark from an INDIAN MUS
LIM."
If you say something stupid, I say, "Satwa is stupid". I never say HINDUS are st
upid". Do you recognise the difference?

5/27/2011 9:55:09 AM Anwar

Myths and monsters are created by propaganda machine, a media in disinformation
campaign. Hear the views of British journalist Yvonne Ridley in her captivity in
Afghanistan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZrSPUoH3I

More Comments...