VIEW: Our state of crisis: some reflections —Naqib Hamid

Declaring terrorist outfits as being “outside the fold of Islam” is simply a display of the same psyche as militant religious networks, which take the liberty to decide who is (or is not) a Muslim

What happened in Lahore on July 1, 2010 at the sufi shrine of Hazrat Ali bin Usman al Hajvery, popularly known as Data Ganj Bakhsh, is a strong reminder of the state of internal conflict within Islam in our society. It is a crisis of identity, values and worldview. Let me make it clear that by Islam, I am not referring to the religion in any theoretical sense, but talking about the societal or socio-religious manifestation of religion. It is important to keep in mind that it is often the manifestation that is taken to be the real nature of the religion itself, sometimes mistakenly.

While analysing such suicide bombings or terrorist actions, it is a ritualistic practice of the authorities to declare such people as having “nothing to do with Islam”. I, as a sociologist, find such declarations and explanations to be reductionist in nature, i.e. explanations that simply fail to account for the immense intricacies of such a phenomenon. In fact, declaring terrorist outfits as being “outside the fold of Islam” is simply a display of the same psyche as militant religious networks, which take the liberty to decide who is (or is not) a Muslim.

From a sociological point of view, it is essential to understand that no religion operates in isolation from society. Every religion operates within it. Hence, it is an intricate mix of societal factors that determine the outlook of any religion at any point in time. Secondly, the shape that any religious idea takes in a society is what we (in sociology) call ‘socially constructed’, i.e. based on the interpretations and interactions of individuals and groups in society. Thus, what we believe (and therefore, how we behave) is deeply related to society and ideology. It is one such battle of ideology that we are witnessing today in Pakistan.

Giving this terrorist phenomenon names such as the Taliban, Punjabi Taliban, or al Qaeda is not important. It is essential to realise that this is a complex struggle against a theory that breeds on hatred and religious extremism. But what is even more important is to take into account that it is also fuelled by factors that we, as a society, have failed to address for long and that these factors, when combined with religious zeal and fervour, become a potent philosophy that appeals to everyone who is living on the peripheries of society. These factors include social marginalisation, social injustice, economic deprivation, ignorance and intolerance.

At the core of this multi-level phenomenon is what is called ‘religious sect formation’ (not to be confused with the regular usage of the term ‘sect’ in the sense of an acknowledged school of thought in a religion) and amplification of membership of these groups. Such denominations are characterised by the creation and promotion of interpretations of religious scriptures and ideas that are based on conflict and breaking away with mainstream society. Hence, a credo of clash and divergence lies at the heart of such religious groups. But what is more disturbing is that such phenomena related to sect formation and ideology proliferation follow a phased process. The first stage sees the recruitment of members from the downtrodden and marginalised classes while the second stage sees recruitment from the middle class — well-educated members of society who apparently seem to be stable members of the community but have actually been ‘relatively marginalised’ owing to various social problems like social injustice, inequality and its resulting frustration. Sadly, we are quickly moving onto the second stage of the problem since this sect ideology is being supplemented by other social problems to a large extent.

The bigger task that our authorities, civil society, media and people from all spheres of society, specifically the academics, need to undertake is to start thinking about this phenomenon of our ‘internal other’ seriously. We have been disowning these individuals as well as the problems that have created such a mindset for long. It is a tough job, which requires not cosmetic but well thought-out remedies. This is a time for immense introspection and self-reflection, of engaging in an inter-worldview dialogue among the various segments of our people. Problems with deep-rooted ideologies in the minds of individuals cannot be resolved by increasing the number of metal detectors.

Naqib Hamid teaches sociology at the University College Lahore (UCL). He can be reached at naqibhamid@gmail.com