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.