Exploring historical roots of Muslim crisis

Exploring historical roots of Muslim crisis

Azyumardi Azra, Rector, State Islamic University
(Al Jami'ah al Islamiyyah al Hukumiyyah - UIN), Syarif Hidayatullah,
Jakarta

"Despite the immense destruction inflicted on the Iraqi people
at the hands of the Crusader Jewish alliance, and in spite of the
appalling number of dead, exceeding a million, the Americans ...
nevertheless, are trying once more to repeat this dreadful
slaughter.

"It seems that the long blockade following a fierce war, the
dismemberment and the destruction are not enough for them. So
they come again today to destroy what remains of this people and
to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."

This statement by Osama bin Laden was not issued after the
Americans and its allies attacked Iraq. It was published on Feb.
23, 1998, in al-Quds al-`Arabi, an Arabic newspaper published in
London.

The statement, cited in full in Bernard Lewis' most recent
book The Crisis of Islam; Holy War and Unholy Terror (New York:
Modern Library, 2003), now reads as a prophesy in view of the
recent war.

The statement further maintains the perception of many during
the U.S.-led war in Iraq. It asserts that while the purpose of
the Americans in these wars is religious and economic, they also
serve the petty state of the Jews. The wars divert attention from
their occupation of Jerusalem and their killing of Muslims in it.

The statement shows there is no better proof of all this than
America's eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest of the
neighboring Arab states, and its attempt to dismember all the
states of the region into petty states. Once divided, the
survival of Israel and the continued calamitous Crusader
occupation of the lands of Arabia would be ensured.

Bernard Lewis has gained greater prominence in the increased
conflicts between the West and Islam since the late 1980s. It was
Lewis who coined the phrase "the clash of civilizations", not
Samuel Huntington. Since the eventual violent clash of Sept. 11
2001, Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at
Princeton University, produced two related books: What Went
Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002) and The
Crisis of Islam.

The first book examines the historical roots of resentments
among Muslims because of their encounters with modern Europe.
These resentments today are increasingly being expressed in acts
of terrorism. He discusses the historical origins of political
Islam that inspired the rise of militant Muslims.

The second book deals also with the historical roots of Muslim
rage throughout history. However, it charts the key events of the
20th century leading up to the violent confrontations between
certain radical Muslim groups and the U.S. today.

Among these key events are the creation of the state of
Israel, the cold war, Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution,
the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and Sept. 11.

Criticized by noted scholar Edward Said as a biased "outsider"
regarding Islam and Muslims, because, among other things, of his
Jewish background, Lewis unfortunately misleads readers through
the title of his second book. It is, in fact, not on the crisis
of Islam, but rather on the crisis among Muslims.

Lewis attempts to define Islam. He simply writes that "it is
difficult to generalize about Islam; and the word Islam denotes
more than 14 centuries of history, a billion and a third people,
and a religious and cultural tradition of enormous diversity".
With such a heavy emphasis on Muslim societies rather than on
Islam as a set of doctrines, the term "Islam" used in the title
of the book should be read in a very cautious way. At least the
term Islam in Lewis' application is interchangeable with the
terms "Muslim" or "Islamic".

Nevertheless, Lewis is wise when he discusses the clash
between the Muslim world and the West. He is right when he states
that the Muslim world is far from being unanimous in its
rejection of the West, nor have the Muslim regions of the third
world been alone in their hostility toward the West. There are
still significant numbers of Muslims with whom the West shares
certain basic cultural and moral, social and political beliefs
and aspirations.

Lewis thus tries to answer the key question that presently
occupies many western policymakers: "Is Islam, whether
fundamentalist or other, a threat to the West?" He then
categorizes two schools of thought.

The first is that after the demise of the Soviet Union and the
communist movement, Islam and Islamic fundamentalism became the
next major threat to the West and the western way of life. The
second is that Muslims, including radical fundamentalists, are
basically decent, peace-loving, pious people, some of whom have
been driven beyond endurance by all the dreadful things the West
has done to them. The West chooses to use them as enemies because
the West has a psychological need for an enemy to replace the
defunct Soviet Union.

Lewis said that while these answers are mostly misleading and
dangerously wrong, they both contain elements of truth. Lewis
argues that Islam as such is not an enemy of the West. More
importantly, there are growing numbers of Muslims, both in the
Muslim world and in the West, who desire nothing better than a
closer and more friendly relationship with the West and the
development of democratic institutions in their own countries.

But at the same time, a significant number of Muslims --
notably, but not exclusively, those called fundamentalists -- are
hostile and dangerous, not because the West needs an enemy but
because they do.

Still there is another group of Muslims who -- while remaining
committed Muslims and well aware of the flaws of modern western
society -- nevertheless also see its merits. These would be,
among other things, its inquiring spirit, which produced modern
science and technology, and its concern for freedom, which
created a modern democratic government. Furthermore, this group
of Muslims, while retaining their beliefs and culture, seek to
join the West in attaining a freer and better world.

The theme on the crisis of Islam, or more appropriately, the
crisis of Muslims, has been the subject of numerous studies.
Thus, Lewis' arguments outlined here about the root causes of
crisis among Muslims is nothing new.

One can simply pick up the books written by such scholars as
John Esposito, John Voll, Bruce Lawrence, Gilles Kepel and many
others. What makes Lewis different from the others is that he
uses the subject "we" in opposition to Muslims. He is then
explicitly taking sides with the West, not in a neutral position
as one usually finds in academic writings.

The root causes of crisis among Muslims are complex; there
could be factors both from within Muslim societies and from
without -- in this case, from the western world. Simple, sweeping
generalizations will not only result in the perpetuation of an
inaccurate perception of Islam, but also in the growing conflict
between Muslims and Westerners.

The writer is a professor history.