Clash in Civilisations

In Islam’s early days, jihad was the war cry of a tribal-ridden society. Later, rulers employed this emotive slogan to justify military expansion. Today, jihad is the weapon of the strong — military dictators and monarchs — and bears no resonance in the minds of the poor and the weak. That is precisely why its meaning must reflect contemporary realities. If the Muslim communities insist on jihad as a spiritual asset, they may consider incorporating some of the values embodied in Asoka’s dhamma, in Sufi thought, or in Akbar’s Din-i-Ilahi. If they wish to nurture mujahids in the true ecumenical spirit of Islam, they will need to draw on democratic and socialist theories that have made this world a better place.

Given the prevalent negative images of Islam, it is tempting for a “Muslim” historian to be apologetic or polemical. But Ayesha Jalal’s book is scholarly with its nuanced analysis and judicious use of certain figures to delineate the essential features of jihad. In six carefully worded chapters, she locates the concept and the shifting definition of jihad in the subcontinent. By teasing out its shifting interpretation, she tries to restore its essential meaning as an ethical struggle to be human and thereby more effectively combat the forces of disequilibrium that plague the contemporary world.

Jalal writes in a sombre mood with sensitivity to the fears and aspirations of over a billion Muslims. She begins her journey with the Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib (1797-1869) and concludes with the assertion that “South Asian Muslims have always upheld jihad as a spiritual and ethical struggle to be human”. Ghalib, whom she cites to validate her thesis, is an exception to the rule. Scores of individuals did not operate from such an elevated position. Moreover, Jalal discusses but does not elaborate on the “spiritual” and “ethical” content in the Muslim movements and how they have been contested across the board. This is what divided Maulana Azad and Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, the proponents of composite nationalism, and their detractors, notably Mohammad Iqbal, M.A. Jinnah, and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi.

Partisans of Allah incorporates a number of themes relating to jihad and their interpretation by religious theorists, activists and publicists. Some of these figures, notably Ubaidullah Sindhi, are not even known to scholars of modern Indian history. Jalal also writes with passion and clarity on the existing predicaments in Pakistan society. She observes: “Amid the bravado and glitzy romanticism of the would-be warriors of Allah, the idea of jihad popularised by militant groups displays a deeply troubling side.”

A change in the mindset of the Islamists, in particular, will make the categories of darul-Islam and darul-harb irrelevant. In today’s world, a secular idiom with secular goals can be the sole raison d’etre for waging war against the internal or the external enemy. As in the case of Iqbal, expressions like jihad and jihadis have been used rhetorically to legitimise non-secular goals and ideologies. Their frequent usage in public discourses must be abandoned.
In the aftermath of 9/11, a great deal needs to be done to build bridges between Islam and the West and between the Muslim countries and the rest of the world. When that happens we will not have to light candles to mourn the victims of terrorism.