by Sharjeel Ahmad
"Contemporary Islamic fundamentalism is the child of imperialist fundamentalism, for by reducing the process of democracy to a farce, imperialism has created an environment which nurtures irrationalisms of every sort. A major cause of religious revivalism is the fact that all the other exit routes have been sealed off by the mother of all fundamentalism: American imperialism."-Tariq Ali (Clash of Fundamentalism)
Political unfolding in the recent past has often sparked fervent debates and hesitancy about Islam and Muslims. The instant simulacrum of Islam and the Muslims – as spelt by the media – is of a concept and community infested with hatred, aversion, and of course – "fundamentalism." V.S. Naipaul, the Nobel Laureate in literature, had also viewed the same semblance about this community while he had embarked on the journey to Iran and other Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia. The consummation of this journey is earnestly dispensed in Naipaul’s marvel, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey.
Naipaul admits in his book that he has had a proclivity towards Muslims, and eventually, the book is unquestionably a literary masterpiece; but has failed to disembogue the bias against the community or religion. He must have taken great pains to compose the papyrus, and perhaps the upshot would not have been so exasperating for the Muslim community, had he taken equal pain to endorse the veracity of his marvel. I am not a literary critique, and neither do I question the literary edifice of the book, however, here I will try to ensemble and emend certain delusions of Naipaul, specifically focusing my discussion on his recount of the journey to Iran.
My focus on Iran has some justifications – first that I have had an opportunity of a direct encountering with the country’s culture (as my father is in Iran, and has acquired the citizenship of the country recently). Second that what appends to the Muslims of Iran has an involuntary extension to the entire community across the globe. I have a few confessions to make, that commenting on a personage having the stature of Naipaul requires germane acumen as well as space, and I have a paucity of both; and that it might not appear the right time to discuss the inspection of this grandeur. I am, however, contended, more so because Naipaul has tried to examine the advent of fundamental contiguity among the Muslims, and this impression has emerged more vehemently in the recent past.
Naipaul asserts in his book that fundamentalism among Muslims owes its personification to the imperialistic character of Islam. "Islam, almost from the start, had been an imperialism as well as a religion,…"
One can accept this imperialist character going by the exemplification offered by Naipaul. Islamic history has been bottled with conquests, bloodshed and revolutions. What makes it different from the imperialistic doctrine is the objective. Imperialism commands subversion to a political and economic power, and subversion itself surreptitiously comprehends bloodshed. Islam, on the other hand, comprehends "brotherhood, honesty, the will to work, and proper recompense for labour," – an incarnate subversion not to a political system, but to a Divine Power.
Naipaul has engagingly questioned these four components of Islam as a respite to a political impasse, but has recoiled from recognizing these as the footing for any political aerie. "Brotherhood" connotes unity; which holds the ignition to the success of a populace. "Honesty" simulates justice and rule of law; the assured obligation for development and evolution of a political system. "Will to Work" is the prelude to political and social accountability, and "proper recompense for labour" is the motif of any human society. [Proper recompense for labour departs from equality of labour; which draws the line of contention between Islam and Communism, and I will cautiously elude this discussion as of now.] Anarchy spells unrest; unrest instituted on either or all of these four components.
How Islam endeavors to combat anarchy is evident in Islamic history. Its radiant in the number of times the Prophet (peace be upon him) has ordered the acquittal of prisoners of war; and evenhanded treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. Justice, in an Islamic state is invariant for believers (read Muslims) and non-believers (non-Muslims), and Aurangzeb, the cruelest acclaimed Muslim ruler of India, is still regarded as the apostle of justice. [An anecdote verbalizes that Aurangzeb had personally penalized a Muslim army commander trying to forcefully marry a non-Muslim girl.]
Naipaul himself has impressively endorsed two of these tenets – brotherhood and proper recompense for labour – but has still divorced from recognizing them as the curator of political bliss. It has been an indeed angelic recount of Naipaul when he extols the sharing of watermelon between Behzad and the lur taxi driver – does it not symbolize brotherhood and doting between different social classes? At the end of his visit to the holy city of Qom, what else other than proper recompense of labour had indoctrinated Naipaul not to altercate with the taxi driver for increased fair? Interpreting Naipaul’s sedate acceptance to the taxi driver’s supplication for increased fair itself connotes that proper recompense is the preamble to upright labour governance and political structure.
Like justice, this doctrine – let me say with intonation – does not discriminate between believers and non-believers in transiting it. Comparison of Islam with imperialism, however, resonates around the divergence of ideology between believers and non-believers in Naipaul’s synthesis, and the confused fabrication of this resonance in his script is exposed throughout the novel.
"Indeed there is nothing in Islam and in Muslim practices that is fundamentally opposed to democracy – justice, freedom, fairness, equality or tolerance. They (Muslims) reject democracy only because they reject the West" – M. A. Muqtedar Khan. [Remember this quote, it will lead to another exegesis in Iranian context.] I do not hesitate to accept that "Muslims are a bad minority," but will let history itself outline that they have proved to be a virtuous majority.
History shelters exegesis to all poignancy that transcends beyond human comprehension. It holds testimony of imperialism, the outrider of many afflictions of humanity that have questioned its own congruence. Imperialism, that was adopted as a means to extend economic vista and foreign markets by the industrialized and economically strong nations. It phonates blatantly on the pith of colonization; the ravaging of human accent in the name of nations and man made frontiers; the subversion of rectitude in the name of patriotism and nationalism. Imperialism has the tendency of not only an inherent servitude of the weak, but also of disconcerting the interests of its own vanguards. Isn’t it interesting to discern that the bitterest enemies of the U.S. today (Afghanistan, Iraq) had once been its intimate allies! A farther history solemnizes the clash of imperialistic interests that had detonated fierily into two World Wars; which have garnered more bloodshed and human carnage to their distinction than all Islamic Jihad or holy wars put together.
U.S. has been the most vivid aquanaut of imperialism. Kareem M. Kamel, the Egyptian freelancer, congregates this very elegantly, with particular reference to the U.S. and Iraq war, "The proposed war (Operation Dessert Storm) has very little to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is part of an ongoing U.S. effort to redraw the map of the Middle East, with an eye on controlling the flow of oil on more favorable terms, ensuring Israel’s continued military supremacy, and destroying the remnants of Iraq’s potential for regional leadership." The recent resignation of David Kay is an exceptional apposite to what Kareem has related about the U.S. imperialism. Iraq had to be taken to war, but Saudi Arabia tendered a voluntary resignation to the U.S. It had been instituted long back, but was audited with the landing of the U.S. troops in the Kingdom prior to the Gulf War.
When "a fierce enough," "flared up" woman "with her chador-encircled face" had castigated the Saudi government, it was not "a sectarian point," as comprehended by Naipaul. It manifested the malediction of an indeed un-Islamic government, which had willingly failed to repeal an attack on the identity of Islamic leadership that has been affiliated with the Kingdom. This is not a wishful statement, and a majority of Sunni Muslims (including me) would support, and do support what the Shia Muslim woman from Iran had reported. Kamel’s another citation, "One has only to remember it was mostly Saudis that carried out the September 11 attacks, in revenge for contamination of Islamic lands and holy places by U.S. bases," further ratifies my claim.
Naipaul has claimed that Muharram, as observed by Muslims, is actually affiliated to Shia faith. In essence, Muharram is an anamnesis of the struggle of Shaheed Imam Hussain against an unmerited succession to Khilafah, an event in Islamic history that stands momentous beyond any questions for both Shia and Sunni Muslims. Sunnis and Shias both observe the incident with invariant ardor, what differs is the way of reminiscing. The event solemnizes the struggle for the censure of a self-proclaimed Islamic government, as documented by these Saudis in Kamel’s reference. [Please pardon me if I am sounding in support of the Saudi terrorists – yes, I do favor them, not for what they did to the U.S., but for their assertion against their domestic government in Saudi Arabia.] Had September 11 happened earlier, Naipaul, with all respect to his cognizance, would not have been so engrossed in the relishing Shia-Sunni divide.
And while the U.S. was etching its strategies on combating the oilfields, it had also planned to maintain its influence in the region through a neo-imperialistic strategy in Iran and everywhere else – of cultural imperialism. It did more harms than strategic military imperialism – it disempowered people in their own homeland. Tariq Ali notes in his book Clash of Fundamentalism, "A disempowered people is reminded of its own weaknesses. In the West a common response is to sink into the routines that dominate everyday life. Elsewhere in the world people become flustered, feel more and more helpless and nervous. Anger, frustration and despair multiply. They can no longer rely on the state for help. The laws favor the rich. So the more desperate among them, in search for a more meaningful existence, or simply to break the monotony, begin to live by their own laws."
The earnestly of these words in condensing the entire scenario behind Talibans, Al Qaeda, and – without being influenced by the relishing sectarian divide – the fundamentalist zeal of Iran that culminated into the Islamic revolution, should not be a misgiving.
I have not quoted Tariq Ali off reason, and will be quoting more of him here. My cognition behind this is to furnish the comprehension of two identical personas on a similar issue. Tariq Ali offers an important perspicacity for this issue as he confesses in the beginning of his book that he is predominantly an atheist, and seeks no religious affliction. Just the same way as Naipaul has described himself as a seeker at the beginning of his book.
I once again acknowledge Naipaul’s bold and encouraging confessions of Islamic benevolence. I am sad, though, that his understanding of the culture has not extended to its spirit. "Rule of Ali" has held a significant connotation in Iran even for communists like Behzad. Its spirit of "getting women back into veil and getting them off television" is something that has always been debated about Islam. Arguments are plenty, and all revolve around the centrifuge of women’s rights, dignity and status, as spelt in Islam. It was a sorry state that the "Shia man from Bombay" could not comprehend the apologue of this status and dignity offered to women in Islam.
This, however, does not rescind the plethora of resourceful arguments that have been, and will be forwarded to connote the regal iconed women in Islam. "Facelessness" might assimilate to privation of feminism in arcane thought, which in spirit stands in equipoise with liberation for Muslim women. Perhaps a woman, Saraji Al Muslima, a political researcher, would more convincingly uplift what I wish to state – "The worst part of this arrogant philosophy … is the assumption that Muslim/Afghani woman wants nothing else than what they (West) have deemed as civilized. In this way, they have oppressed her as surely as anyone else ever has, by removing from her the idea that she has intelligence, free will, and rational thought."
It is this divorce of spirit, spurred so frequently in Naipaul, that views facelessness of Iranian women with despise. In continuum, it designates same liberation for Iranians as sexual freedom in the West. The rejection of technology evidenced in Iran also forms a moiety of this same cultural imperialism; rejection in its spirit epitomizing the same rejection of the West as connoted by Muqtedar Khan earlier.
It would be a grave injustice to Naipaul as well as to my sanity if I flinch from accepting that his recount presents a plenary confession of state of affairs in Muslim countries. I can accept his affiliation of fundamentalism with political commotion, but what appalls me is Naipaul’s fancy to translate Islam for ferreting out the causes of fundamentalism. Even if accepted, what stands beyond my cognition is the suffrage conferred to a non-believer (Behzad) to translate Iran and Islam. It’s not that I question Naipaul’s selection of a translator, obviously it had been based on Behzad’s ardent grimace and expression, coupled with happenstance. He should have, however, realized the anomalies of translating Islam and the believers with the ascendancy of a non-believer.
The other consequential oversight on his part was to audit Islam with respect to geographies. Islam could at best be the fifth column for one nation or region, for one force or doctrine, for one faith or cognition, had it been restricted to peripheries of nation. Islam, on the contrary, has been confirmed as the fifth columnist internationally, which makes me accept otherwise. Following congruous locutions by Tariq Ali, "Tragedies are always discussed as if they took place in void, but actually each tragedy is conditioned by its settings, local and global. … Acts of violence depend neither on the will of an individual leader, however, charismatic, nor on the structure of a single organization, the existence of one country or the fanaticism of a sinister religion, its beliefs fuelled by the visions of a glorious afterlife," immaculate my stance.
What happened in Iran in 1970s was a prelude and exordium of historical tributary of U.S. imperialism – Afghanistan, Gulf War, September 11, Iraq… What had happened in Iran could happen anywhere, and is happening everywhere. This might well be the epilogue to another series of portents – Iraq, Pakistan… Do not impute Islam for writing this epilogue, it will only "DISEMPOWER," making it still difficult to contain the believers (fundamentalists) from living by their own laws.
