A
war that presents us all with a crisis of faith
Salman Rushdie on Islam versus Islamism
Salman Rushdie
Guardian
'This isn't about Islam." The world's leaders have
been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring
reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the west, partly because, if the
US is to maintain its coalition against terror, it can't afford to allege that
Islam and terrorism are in any way related.
The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it
isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations
in support of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida? Why did those 10,000 men armed with
swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some
mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim
men who died fighting on the Taliban side?
Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated
Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by
the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the
technological knowhow or organisational sophistication to pull off such a feat?
Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand to
be shown the evidence of al-Qaida's guilt, while apparently turning a deaf ear
to the self-incriminating statements of al-Qaida's own spokesmen (there will be
a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the west are warned not to live
or work in tall buildings, etc)? Why all the talk about US military infidels
desecrating the sacred soil of
Let's start calling a spade a spade. Of course this
is "about Islam". The question is: what exactly does that mean? After
all, most religious belief isn't very theological. Most Muslims are not
profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of "believing" Muslim
men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for
the fear of God - the fear more than the love, one suspects - but also for a
cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary
practices, the sequestration or near-sequestration of "their" women,
the sermons delivered by their mullah of choice, a loathing of modern society
in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness and sex, and a more
particularised loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate
surroundings could be taken over - "westoxicated" - by the liberal,
western-style way of life.
Highly motivated organisations of Muslim men (oh, for
the voices of Muslim women to be heard!) have been engaged, over the past 30
years or so, in growing radical political movements out of this mulch of
"belief". These Islamists - we must get used to this word,
"Islamists", meaning those who are engaged upon such political
projects, and learn to distinguish it from the more general, and politically
neutral, "Muslim" - include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the
bloodsoaked combatants of the FIS and GIA in Algeria, the Shia revolutionaries
of Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of their
efforts is paranoia. This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders,
"infidels", for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed
remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is
presently the fastest-growing version of Islam in the world.
This is not wholly to go along with Samuel
Huntington's thesis about the "clash of civilisations", for the simple reason that the Islamists' project is not
only turned against the west and "the Jews", but also against their
fellow Islamists. Whatever the public rhetoric, there's little love lost
between the Taliban and Iranian regimes. Dissensions between Muslim nations run
at least as deep, if not deeper, than those nations' resentment of the west.
Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that this self-exculpatory, paranoiac
Islam is an ideology with widespread appeal.
Twenty years ago, when I was writing a novel about
power struggles in a fictionalised
But I wanted then to ask a question which is no less
important now: suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not primarily
Interestingly, many Muslims, as well as secularist
analysts with roots in the Muslim world, are beginning to ask such questions
now. In recent weeks, Muslim voices have everywhere been raised against the
obscurantist "hijack" of their religion. Yesterday's hotheads (among
them Yusuf Islam, aka Cat Stevens) are improbably repackaging themselves as
today's pussycats. An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: "The
disease that is in us, is from us." A British
Muslim writes that "Islam has become its own enemy". A Lebanese
writer friend, returning from
I'm reminded of the way non-communist socialists used
to distance themselves from the tyrannous "actually existing"
socialism of the Soviets; nevertheless, the first stirrings of this counter-
project are of great significance. If Islam is to be reconciled with modernity,
these voices must be encouraged until they swell into a roar.
Many of them speak of another Islam - their personal, private faith - and the restoration of religion to the sphere of the personal - its depoliticisation - is the nettle that all Muslim societies must grasp in order to become modern. The only aspect of modernity in which the terrorists are interested is technology, which they see as a weapon that can be turned against its makers. If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which their countries' freedom will remain a distant dream.