Trying to understand the phenomenon of global political Islam
We don’t yet fully understand the motivation behind the terrible attack at Nice, but it seems that the perpetrator, as well as being mentally ill, was inspired by Islamic fundamentalism. We don’t yet know the background to the attempted coup in Turkey, but it seems that sections of the military are concerned about a shift by the government to a more Islamic society.
Against this background, this week I started a short course at the City Literary Institute in London with the title “Global Political Islam”. Our lecturer is Dr Nomaan Hanif whose family comes from the Indian part of Kashmir although he was born and brought up in the UK.
It was immediately apparent that this is going to be a difficult course, not least because of the problem of language.
Dr Hanif told us that the term “global political Islam” is a western construct based on secular notions of separation of church and state. In fact, there is no such thing as non-political Islam because there is no distinction between politics and religion in traditional Islam. The lecturer admitted that he used the course title as a kind of marketing tool. Then, having said that really there is no such thing as global political Islam, be argued that “it is the fastest growing phenomenon in the world”.
This problem of language is everywhere in a discussion of Islam. Indeed the very word ‘state’ means different things in English and Arabic and no country would claim to be an Islamic state. That term is reserved in Islamic thought for the caliphate that existed in the first 30 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammed. This is why the name ISIS is so evocative and powerful.
Dr Hanif explained that the Arabic language is fundamental to Islam. It was the language of Mohammed, the Koran and the Hadith (the collected sayings of the Prophet). The problem is that the Arabic of the Koran and the Hadith are different. The Koran is said to be the purest form of Arabic and, in meaning, style and grammar, so perfect that it can never be imitated.
Furthermore there is a difference between Sharia Arabic and linguistic Arabic. So a term like ‘jihad’ means a military conquest in the former but simply a personal struggle in the latter. The term ‘peace’ means peace under the submission of Islam in the former and the more western notion of non-violence in the latter. This is one of the reasons why there is a debate about whether Islam is or is not a religion of peace.
This is going to be a tough course.
July 18th, 2016 at 11:09 am
Ah – but fascinating, interesting and very educational. We don’t understand nearly enough about the issue of Islam and it’s effect on all of us here in the West.
I sincerely hope you will expand this blog at the conclusion of the course.
July 18th, 2016 at 12:31 pm
Very interesting, I do hope you’ll share more as the course continues. I’d heard there were different interpretations for jihad, but had thought that there could be different understandings of requirements of Sharia between Moslems rather that a linguistic issue
July 18th, 2016 at 3:16 pm
In the absence of separation of church and state, all citizens are essentially “slaves” of the state’s religion. And most enlightened people agree that slavery of any kind is abhorrent.
There is no question that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Mohammed went on roughly 65 military campaigns. His army was as vicious, rapacious as any of the time. One of his generals, Khaled Ibn Al Walid was brilliant at military strategy, but horrendously cruel.
Islam has failed to evolve since the time of Mohammed. Many of its adherents continue to assert that Mohammmed was perfect. The Koran is perfect. Islam is the only true religion. Not satisfied with these delusions, they go a step further to declare that all non-believers, the Koran tells them, should be killed.
Unless Muslims discard outdated notions, become tolerant, and update their religious beliefs, Islam will wither and die. To insist that a book written 1400 years ago is perfect, implies there’s no room for improvement. And there’s the rub. Rigid compliance to a religion rooted in violence, will beget only more violence.