Counter-narrative to combat extremist violence

In view of the unprecedented deadly extremist violence affecting the body politic, concerned citizens might be wondering how a significant number of otherwise suave and liberal educated young men could have been motivated to commit such ghoulish actions. From media reports, ordinary people have some basic understanding of the motivating factors. However, a fuller picture will hopefully emerge after the investigators of the incident have completed their job to understand the factors within and possibly beyond. Therefore, we will have to wait for an adequate counter-narrative to effectively tackle the extremist scourge.

Undoubtedly, there is a quarter that wants to project our polity as one that is predisposed to becoming a wellspring of violence, unless it is somehow suitably moulded and rounded-up to accommodate and live with modernity. This quarter would like others to believe that the so-called religiously motivated extremist groups are trying to redefine the concept of "nation state".

In specific terms, do we see a supposedly political quarter which calls itself the "Defender of Faith'' but acts almost always to consolidate its own strategic and corporate interest? Are not there credible fears to believe that violent groups have been created, extremist leaders allowed to be promoted and young minds trained and instigated to stem dissent and persecute the vulnerable groups at opportune time?

Are we witnessing the growth of a pernicious sub-culture of extremism wherein violence against other fellow beings is justified as religious cause? Are there subtle efforts to infect key organs of the state with radicalism? Is it not time to effectively counter the influence of the extremist school of thought in our parlance, whereas Islam as a religion had a more benign and accommodative character in practice?

To the curious observer, it might be interesting to note that over the years, in Bangladesh, particularly since 1975, a quarter has quietly usurped considerable space from the State by creating an extensive network of schools, madrasas, medical facilities, ambulance fleet and social welfare organisations. This has reportedly created enormous political and social capital for the said quarter which can, if desired, manipulate political gains.

The question is, have such quarters created a parallel narrative of hope and strength in times of crisis, and thereby expand its political capital? Does such a narrative stand to gain in a climate of despondency resulting from political conflict?

The reasonable fear in our situation, as elsewhere, is whether religion has not only been utilised as an ideology but also as an insurrectionary strategy that can draw people of varying political convictions.

The so-called Islamist terrorist groups have been found to organise themselves around the rhetoric of a radical interpretation of Islam and seek to impose religion in the politics of Bangladesh. Such terrorism, in terms of growth, benefits from the unhealthy competition to retain or gain power at any cost.

Upon scrutiny, one would find that a large number of the country's imams belong to the Deoband school that promotes an uncompromising, puritanical and exclusive fundamentalism. It is relevant to note that the Deoband Madrasa, founded in 1866, denounced music and dancing and distanced itself from much that was progressive in Indian society; it shunned the British Law Courts and retained jihad as a central pillar of faith. The focus of this Jihad was "on the promotion of Islamic revival and identity through the principle of the immutability of Shariah, the oneness of God and the overarching, guiding authority of the Ulemah."

The imams, apparently, have good reason to suspect the motives of western establishments and their influence on our ruling class. Amongst other happenings, the loss of Palestine has become a potent symbol of the humiliation of the Muslim world at the hands of the western powers, which seemed to feel no qualms about the dispossession and permanent exile of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The European occupation has often left a legacy of bitter conflict as in India, or deliberate effort to control the economy after the independence as in the Suez Canal crisis.

An important issue is whether the authorities have been able to agree as to the contents of a historically credible and religiously correct counter-narrative to confront the extremists. Should we not project Islam as being just as rational as any western system? We should be able to demonstrate that Islam was and is the most rational and advanced of all the confessional faiths; that strict monotheism of Islam had liberated humanity from mythology. Our narrative could also emphasise that the empirical spirit that had given birth to modernity had in fact originated in Islam.

We need to project that Muslims have a vital mission to witness the divine dimension of life, not the retiring from the world to engage in contemplation or indulging in suicide-bombing, but by an activism that implements the social ideals of Shariah. We also need to realise that politics had never been a secondary issue for Muslims.

The counter-narrative needs to recognise that politics had been the theatre of religious quest of Muslims. Salvation for them does not mean redemption from sin, but the creation of a just society in which the individual could more easily make that existential surrender of his or her whole being that would bring them fulfillment. The polity for the Muslims was, therefore, an aspiration that required a jihad, a struggle that could find no simple outcome.

The counter-terrorism strategy's narrative should be able to effectively dispel the misgivings about fundamentalism that gives the impression of it being a violent form of Islamic religiosity. It needs to be stressed that fundamentalism is a global fact and has surfaced in every major faith in response to the problems of modernity. In fact, of the three monolithic religions, Islam was the last to develop a fundamentalist strain, when modern culture began to take root in late 1960s and 1970s.

Our youth need to know that no ruler in Islamic history has been able to command the sole spiritual and political power over all Muslims and it does not guarantee the survival of any Muslim ruler. Indeed, the current announcement of the Caliphate has been met with derision everywhere except in jihadi circles. In fact, no Caliphate in Islamic history has succeeded in uniting all Muslims or created a political entity for the Islamic Ummah as a whole.

Our young men and women also need to understand that the misguided western policy of toppling non-Sunni regimes in Middle-East has dragged the region into a quagmire of instability. Consequently, the two largely secular countries like Iraq and Syria have been driven to the brink of disintegration, thereby encouraging the so-called Islamic extremism and sectarian violence. The reality is that the new caliphate may be able to win a few localised battles but cannot win large wars and its spiritual impact will be negligible. Our young folks have to appreciate that the likely scenario may be one of Sunnis and Shias continually slaughtering each other and keeping Muslims busy in internecine warfare, thereby unwittingly implementing the sinister game plan of western powers.

We have to understand that if we have a relatively mature institutional base then the extremist movement would neither be represented in the mainstream politics nor would it be able to carry out terrorist activities in various localities. We would not be subjected to hate politics along sectarian lines with its attendant human cost.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.