This is also why I found Ayesha Siddiqa’s mention of Huma Iqtidar’s book in her weekly column, “Rationalising jihadi discourse” (August 13), for this newspaper so disconcerting. Siddiqa thinks that the mere effort to understand what motivates people in Islamist movements “may contribute to further radicalisation by presenting the militant narrative as a rationalised discourse”. She insists that all ideological differences between these movements are superficial and argues that their “non-militant acts are mere tools to attract people or hide the real objective, which is to expand globally”. So, not only is it wrong to attribute any kind of rationality to Islamist movements, it is also naive to think that non-militant tactics, say democratic participation, are anything more than a strategy to recruit people into their project for world domination.
So what exactly bothers Siddiqa about Iqtidar’s book? Siddiqa’s primary complaint is that Iqtidar fails to address the role of the state and its agents — the middle class — in constituting and advancing Islamist ideology. This is an odd complaint given that Iqtidar actually explicitly points out how the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leadership is largely educated in government schools and universities, devotes an entire chapter to showing how the colonial state created the conditions for the rise of Islamism as a modern ideology and explicitly highlights state patronage of the JI and Islami Jamiat Talba during Zia’s rule. At no point does Iqtidar suggest that Islamist ideology has flourished independent of a relationship with state power.
It is Iqtidar’s suggestion that Islamists might be something more than just mindless drones and may even have a semblance of agency that troubles Siddiqa. And, possibly the most troubling of all, I imagine, is Iqtidar’s suggestion that there may be deeper parallels between Islamism and secularism, both being products of a common socio-historical process. For Siddiqa, the mere willingness to examine their world view on its own terms implies that Iqtidar has been ‘entrapped emotionally’. In other words, Iqtidar’s emotional connection to her irrational subjects, marked by her unwillingness to make sweeping generalisations and wholescale condemnations, means that she has forfeited her own rationality.
Islamist militancy is a very serious concern in Pakistan and it is necessary to explore the socially and historically produced motives and values that underwrite it. Secularizing Islamists reflects one academic’s effort. Whether Iqtidar’s work is convincing is worth debating. But to accuse her of ‘rationalising’ the violent manifestations of Islamist ideology goes well beyond legitimate academic critique into the realm of knee-jerk condemnation. This knee-jerk condemnation is indicative of a broader approach to Islam and Islamism among some segments of Pakistan’s secular-liberal class who will condemn anyone that tries to complicate their us vs them, good vs evil, rational vs irrational narrative. Such knee-jerk condemnation will not get us very far in understanding why so many of our fellow Pakistanis remain committed to this ideology, and why, despite its violent excesses, they continue to believe that it carries the promise for a better future.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 25th, 2011.
Correction: An earlier version of this article had the incorrect title and hyperlink of Ayesha Siddiqa's column.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Mir Agha,
Have you ever heard of Edhi, LRBT, SIUT, Indus Hospital, Sailani Trust, SKMT, SOS Villages,, Chhipa, VOTCS, Dar-ul-Sukoon, ACELP, Ida Rieu, Kidney Centre, TCF, Cowasjee Foundation, OPP, Khwandekhor, Omer Asghar Khan Foundation, Kashf Foundation, MALC, Nasra School, Behbud, Hlal-e-Ahmer, and thousands of other organisations which are helping people and enabling them to have a life with dignity? And then thousands of individuals who are helping people in their individual capacity. They are not 'religious parties'. Also, they are using their own resources or raising funds, not Saudi money which is consumed by these Islamists. Perhaps, you should come out of the ball room you are issuing such baseless and sweeping statements from.
Mohsin
Do get an idea of the intellectual basis of these Islamist movements, one must watch videos on youtube of Maulana XYZ exposed where one sect tries to reveal the 'true face' of the other sect.
I have an admiration for Ayesha Siddiqa as a scholar. Her work on the Military and its Economic Hegemony in Pakistan was meticulous, well researched and well sourced. Her columns are thought provoking though at times too focused on our bungling military. Unfortunately she has a huge blind spot when it comes to any discussion on religious ideology, Religious parties or movements and there role in Pakistan Politics. Her last column was cringe worthy, due to its out of character banality. Her clumsy attempt at lumping together of the spectrum of Islamic movements with terrorism was frankly embarrassing. Its understandable when a Western or Indian terrorism "Expert" does it but inexcusable for a serious South Asian scholar. (Interestingly the constant slaughter in Karachi perpetuated by Pakistan three Secular Liberal Parties, ANP,MQM,PPP does not arouse liberal Hysteria or even outright condemnation of the ethno-secular politics of the perpetrators) What ever you think about it Islamism as a movement, it has a rich intellectual and historical basis.If you are interested in Politics in Pakistan or in fact anywhere in the Muslim world you absolutely need to have some knowledge about this, to come up with any useful analysis.
This rebuttal, I have to admit grudgingly, decimates every half though argument Ayesha Sidiqa came up with. I need to get my hands on this book.
What is an Islamist? and what is a Muslim? Does Muslim not believe in Islam? Does Islam teach to discriminate against non-muslims? Does it endorse murder and suicide?Is Islam against education? Learned writer and Muslim commentators should learn answer to these questions before defining an 'Islamist'.
Nothing irrational about islamists, other than their irrational religious faith, but that applies equally to all religious fundamentalist movements. The islamists are perfectly rational, given their irrational religious beliefs, in their pursuit, through any means necessary, of totalitarian, supremacist religious goals that are incompatible with modern, secular freedoms. They need to be challenged, confronted and defeated, but not dismissed as irrational.
If a person believes that state should adopt a religion then he will also specify the interpretation of religion. People will vote for a sectarian party instead of a non-sectarian Islamic party. In a multi sectarian society like Pakistan, this will ultimately lead to conflict. Iran and Saudi Arab are sectarian states, not Islamic states. They enforce a certain interpretation of religion through force. And in case of Saudi Arab where a large minority exists, the state will exist as long as it has the vast oil reserves to run its administration in an efficient manner.
@Mir Agha Islamic parties in Pakistan hardly take 5 percent of the seats. Have you heard of Edhi?
What Secularism means to democracies in India, US, UK, France etc. is not what it means to us in Pakistan. And the world now knows that. Our definition is Islamist in practice - parochial, self congratulatory, and out of sync with the new global world. When we talk about secular, it means tolerance for muslims, as defined by us. Equality for 'others' - Ahmadiyas, Shias, Hindus, Christians abd Sikhs, is not our priority. Our 1973 constiitution - authored by the doyen of Pakisani secularism - ZAB, prohibits non-muslims from high office. Our civilian society - participated actively and silently in the atrocities and alienation of our Bengali (muslim and non) citizens in 1971. Exclusion fuels endless arguments and violence. Have we not had plenty of that?
Sad part is you think Siddiqa's (and all other pseudo-intellectual liberals') ramblings are relevant. To understand why so many are drawn to the "Islamist" cause, check out the number of "Islamists" providing food, clothing, and shelter to the needy compared to the "liberals". The liberals in Pakistan, who couldn't fill a ball room, don't dare to venture out and see reality. They live in their own make-believe world. No wonder no one takes them seriously.
The could have done the readers a favour by, first giving his definition of 'secularism'.
1) Does it (secularism) recognise all religions and in the eyes of the state they are all equal.(e.g most secular democracy like US,UK,India etc.) Or, 2) State does not recognise any religion.Religion is a private matter of the citizen and as such should be kept within their private domain.(e.g. Communist countries)