Challenging the ‘Grand Narrative’ of Political Islam

Oct 8

Oct 8 Challenging the ‘Grand Narrative’ of Political Islam

Political Islam (or Islamism) is not about the destruction of the West; nor the violent imposition of Sharia law or even global conversion. Political Islam is not about a ‘fixed’ or timeless Islamic doctrine that is unchanging and uncompromising. Political Islam is a nuanced and multi-faceted socio-political ideology consisting of a range of intellectual movements, social groups and political parties each with their own understandings of politics, theology and society. Yet, for too long, journalists, academics and political commentators have bought into an over-simplistic and deeply problematic story about the development of Political Islam - the ‘Grand Narrative’ of Islamism.

The origins of this ‘Grand Narrative’ can be traced back to the 19th century with the rise of colonialism and the increasing need for experts and intellectuals to address questions pertaining to the ‘Orient’ (Eastern World). With the strong need to address social and political phenomena that lay outside of the Occident (Western World), the intellectual school of thought known as ‘Orientalism’ was born. Within this approach, Islam was analysed as ‘Oriental’ through the lens of Western imperialism and was therefore treated (at least implicitly) as subordinate to Western intellectual understandings. Islam was ‘Westerned’ through intellectual attempts to make it an ‘object’ that could be analysed politically and scientifically. Therefore, as Western scholars were trying to provide an ‘objective’ account of Islam, they advocated the notion of ‘unity in diversity’, an understanding of the Islamic world which espoused, despite various strands of Islamic practice, that there was really only one ‘Muslim mind’ guiding and orchestrating the development of Islam over time. Thus, a ‘Grand Narrative’ was constructed within which all of Islamic history could be neatly situated and understood.

Whilst this ‘Grand Narrative’ may seem like an abstract academic construct, far removed from contemporary political life, this could not be further from the truth. This narrative makes it very easy for us, in the West, to suppose that all Islamist behaviour and ideologies are a direct reflection of Islam and the thoughts and opinions of the majority of Muslims. As Sayyid reminds us, this is especially dangerous given the particular political meta-narratives that permeate Western thought. Indeed, prior to the end of the Cold War, there was a much richer understanding and appreciation for Communist ideas and concepts, particularly pertaining to the notion of structural violence (domination of social structures over oppressed groups) compared to now. In the case of the Cold War, structural violence was clearly seen through the hegemonic political power structures of the Soviet Union, the United States and NATO powers over proxy states or any other actors who presented a challenge. However, after the Cold War ended, this communist meta-narrative was superseded by the rise of a victorious neo-liberal meta-narrative, leading to the widespread understanding of concepts such as democracy and individual sovereignty; structural violence was left largely abandoned and ignored.

Thus, Sayyid argues, Westerners lack a proper understanding of structural violence which means that when groups or states wish to challenge the hegemonic structure of the international order (dominated largely by the United States) and are unable to create their own structure of power, they are branded as ‘terrorists’ (even if they wish to challenge the hegemony of Western values via non-violent means). This is because they are challenging the structural power of the international system without their own system of power. The violence or push-back of Islamists is visible whereas the violence of the oppressor (hegemonic neoliberalism) is subtle and hidden out of sight. Islamists appear dangerous and threatening because their violence or activism is more politicised and ‘stands out’ compared to the subtly of neo-liberalism which is, in effect, the water in which Western journalists and academics are swimming.

We can clearly see this tension between Islamists and hegemonic Western power structures playing out with regards to who is labeled a ‘terrorist’. Seldom is a white person (a member of the hegemonic block) labeled a ‘terrorist’ whereas a Muslim - whose origins can be traced back to ‘Oriental’ Islam - is almost always labeled as such. Indeed, this is despite the fact that, of the majority of cases of Islamic terrorism in Europe, almost all of the ‘terrorists’ have been born within Europe itself which suggests it is not the Islamic religion, but the European environment in which these terrorists live that has influenced their thinking and subsequent behaviour.

As well as politically delegitimising the voices of violent and non-violent political Islamists alike, the ‘Grand Narrative’ of Political Islam also greatly inhibits any attempt to understand the religion of Islam. This is due to the fact that there is no one source of religious or theological authority that speaks for Islam as a whole, even though the ‘Grand Narrative’ seems to assume that this is the case. Unlike within Roman Catholicism, there is no Pope. There is no consensus on a religious figure who can speak on behalf of all Muslims. Rather, Islamic theology and religious practice is contingent upon a multiplicity of exegetical interpretations from within the Quran, the Hadiths (Islamic traditions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), other Islamic scholars and schools of thought.

At present, many consider the Islamic world to be undergoing somewhat of an ‘Islamic Reformation’ as the authority of traditional Islamic ideologies is being challenged by a growing number of emancipatory intellectuals and proactive Muslim thinkers contributing to an even greater level of complexity with regards to the question of Islamic authority sources. Thus, when attempting to understand the core principles and foundations of the Islamic faith, particularly as they relate to international politics, we need to get away from a fixed narrative or ‘core Muslim mind’. Instead, we must adopt a more nuanced view of Political Islam, analysing its socio-political manifestations on a case by case basis.