S Gurumurthy
First Published : 02 May 2011 10:44:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 May 2011 12:30:38 AM IST
Osama Bin Laden, who terrorised the US and the West for almost two decades, is dead. Proudly claiming that on his supari the CIA has killed Osama, US President Barrack Hussein Obama has declared that justice has been done. A US White House spokesman has claimed that the war on terror has ended. The cause of Osama’s death at the hands of the CIA is obvious; but what about its consequences? Is it the end of Islamic terror? It calls for a study of Osama and the history of his version of Islam.
Osama’s bio will captivate any pious Muslim. He was undoubtedly the soul, head and face of the global Islamic terror. But he was not a product of Islamic history. He was the yield of the Cold War story; a product of the US geo-political alliance with extremist Islam against the Soviet Union in the Afghan war, where the modern global Jihadi Islam incubated. On Nov. 5, 1979 when Khomeini was declaring that the “Americans are the Great Satan”, Osama was a trusted ally of US, being part of the Jihad in Afghanistan supported by the US. Yet, Osama — not his Jihadi-senior Ayotullah Khomeini — fathered the modern global Islamic Jihad. How?
Born of the tenth wife of his wealthy father, Osama had all the wealth to enjoy. But that did not attract him, nor distract him. He did study economics and business administration, but found more meaning for his life in Quran and Jihad and in interpreting both. He married first in 1974 at the age of 17, went on to marry thrice more, and fathered as many as 25 or 26 children by 2002. But this huge domestic burden did little to deter the young Jihadi. Look at him from the Muslim perspective. Will not a Muslim youth see him as an idealist who spurned all the fun the world had offered and preferred live in forest and mountains for his beliefs instead? What was the bite in Osama, which Khomeini lacked? That bite was the Wahhabi Islam — the idea of mass killing for Islam’s sake.
Wahhabi Islam bears the surname of Mohammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab who was born in early 17th century. But, according to Charles Allen, a renowned historian of the British Raj in India, the roots of Wahhabi Islam go back to late 13th century. Ibn Taimiyya, an Islamic theologian, was eyewitness to the slaughter of millions of Muslims — men, women and children — by the Mongols led by Chengis Khan, later by Hulagu Khan, who had all but wiped out the Islamic power. He evangelised that Muslims, if they were to survive, should give up the lesser Jihad (Jihad Kabeer) preached by the Sufis and start the greater Jihad (Jihad Akbar). He classified Islam’s enemies into four: One, Christians with whom peace was possible; two, un-Islamic Muslims with whom no peace was possible till they were back to Islamic ways; three, Muslims not practising Islamic rituals, who must be killed mercilessly; four, those being Muslims but rejecting Islam, too deserved no mercy. Ibn Taimiyya was rejected in his own times; he was jailed repeatedly and even branded heretic. Taimiyya’s theology, says Allen, was never forgotten and continued attract adherents. The violent ideology of Taimiyya’s survived and exploded after him, through Al-Wahhab first, Osama later.
Al-Wahhab was schooled under Mohammed Hayat — believe it! — of Sind in India and his father, both Ibn Taimiyya’s disciples. Al-Wahhab and Shah Walliullah from India were co-students under Hayat. Shah Walliullah’s famous appeal to the Afghan ruler Ahmed Shah Abdali to invade India to re-establish Islamic rule is part of history. Yet, Wahhabi Islam was hated in Sunni Islamic societies till 1744 when Al-Wahhab forged a remarkable partnership with Muhammed Ibn Saud, the ancestor of the Saudi royalty, and found legitimacy. Result. Wahhabism, became the dominant religion of Saudi Arabia. And yet Saudi Arabia is the closest Islamic ally of US. The US had done away with Osama; but can it do away with the thought that inspired him? Never.
Osama was no accident of history. He was the spiritual successor of Ibn Taimiyya and Al-Wahhab. Wahhabism is a powerful idea. Some 80 percent of the mosques in US are under Wahhabi control and 70 US Muslims are Wahhbis. In the last 30 years, the House of Sauds has reportedly given away some $85-90 billion to Wahhabis to spread the faith all over the world and to “leave the House of Sauds alone”.
Osama protested against this betrayal. He wanted the House of Sauds to be true to their founding ideology. He later founded his own borderless empire — the Al Qaeda. With him the Al Qaeda may decline, but not terror. For, men die; but not ideas. Like Wahhabism lived after Taimiyya and Al-Wahhab, it will survive Osama also. The Americans know it, though they may not admit it.
The Western media first saw the ongoing revolutions in the Islamic world as secular and democratic. In its issue (Feb 5-11) The Economist magazine glorified “Egypt rises up” on cover; later (Feb 19-25) it celebrated “The Awakening”; but its cover story (April 2-8) “Islam and the Arab Revolutions” was full of worries. It wrote: religion — read Islam — rather than democracy is a “growing force in the Arab awakening”. The West, happy when Libya exploded, became terrified when Syria boiled. Islamism — read anarchy — and not democracy, may replace the falling chieftains. Osama wanted anarchic Islam, not democratic states. A dead Osama, seen an Islamic idealist and a courageous Jihadi against the mighty US, may provide greater inspiration to Muslim youth than Ibn Taimiyyah did to Al-Wahhhab. Result: Osama death may inspire more, not extinguish all, terror.
The writer is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net
Courtesy : Indian Express
Last Updated : 03 May 2011 12:30:38 AM IST
Osama Bin Laden, who terrorised the US and the West for almost two decades, is dead. Proudly claiming that on his supari the CIA has killed Osama, US President Barrack Hussein Obama has declared that justice has been done. A US White House spokesman has claimed that the war on terror has ended. The cause of Osama’s death at the hands of the CIA is obvious; but what about its consequences? Is it the end of Islamic terror? It calls for a study of Osama and the history of his version of Islam.
Osama’s bio will captivate any pious Muslim. He was undoubtedly the soul, head and face of the global Islamic terror. But he was not a product of Islamic history. He was the yield of the Cold War story; a product of the US geo-political alliance with extremist Islam against the Soviet Union in the Afghan war, where the modern global Jihadi Islam incubated. On Nov. 5, 1979 when Khomeini was declaring that the “Americans are the Great Satan”, Osama was a trusted ally of US, being part of the Jihad in Afghanistan supported by the US. Yet, Osama — not his Jihadi-senior Ayotullah Khomeini — fathered the modern global Islamic Jihad. How?
Born of the tenth wife of his wealthy father, Osama had all the wealth to enjoy. But that did not attract him, nor distract him. He did study economics and business administration, but found more meaning for his life in Quran and Jihad and in interpreting both. He married first in 1974 at the age of 17, went on to marry thrice more, and fathered as many as 25 or 26 children by 2002. But this huge domestic burden did little to deter the young Jihadi. Look at him from the Muslim perspective. Will not a Muslim youth see him as an idealist who spurned all the fun the world had offered and preferred live in forest and mountains for his beliefs instead? What was the bite in Osama, which Khomeini lacked? That bite was the Wahhabi Islam — the idea of mass killing for Islam’s sake.
Wahhabi Islam bears the surname of Mohammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab who was born in early 17th century. But, according to Charles Allen, a renowned historian of the British Raj in India, the roots of Wahhabi Islam go back to late 13th century. Ibn Taimiyya, an Islamic theologian, was eyewitness to the slaughter of millions of Muslims — men, women and children — by the Mongols led by Chengis Khan, later by Hulagu Khan, who had all but wiped out the Islamic power. He evangelised that Muslims, if they were to survive, should give up the lesser Jihad (Jihad Kabeer) preached by the Sufis and start the greater Jihad (Jihad Akbar). He classified Islam’s enemies into four: One, Christians with whom peace was possible; two, un-Islamic Muslims with whom no peace was possible till they were back to Islamic ways; three, Muslims not practising Islamic rituals, who must be killed mercilessly; four, those being Muslims but rejecting Islam, too deserved no mercy. Ibn Taimiyya was rejected in his own times; he was jailed repeatedly and even branded heretic. Taimiyya’s theology, says Allen, was never forgotten and continued attract adherents. The violent ideology of Taimiyya’s survived and exploded after him, through Al-Wahhab first, Osama later.
Al-Wahhab was schooled under Mohammed Hayat — believe it! — of Sind in India and his father, both Ibn Taimiyya’s disciples. Al-Wahhab and Shah Walliullah from India were co-students under Hayat. Shah Walliullah’s famous appeal to the Afghan ruler Ahmed Shah Abdali to invade India to re-establish Islamic rule is part of history. Yet, Wahhabi Islam was hated in Sunni Islamic societies till 1744 when Al-Wahhab forged a remarkable partnership with Muhammed Ibn Saud, the ancestor of the Saudi royalty, and found legitimacy. Result. Wahhabism, became the dominant religion of Saudi Arabia. And yet Saudi Arabia is the closest Islamic ally of US. The US had done away with Osama; but can it do away with the thought that inspired him? Never.
Osama was no accident of history. He was the spiritual successor of Ibn Taimiyya and Al-Wahhab. Wahhabism is a powerful idea. Some 80 percent of the mosques in US are under Wahhabi control and 70 US Muslims are Wahhbis. In the last 30 years, the House of Sauds has reportedly given away some $85-90 billion to Wahhabis to spread the faith all over the world and to “leave the House of Sauds alone”.
Osama protested against this betrayal. He wanted the House of Sauds to be true to their founding ideology. He later founded his own borderless empire — the Al Qaeda. With him the Al Qaeda may decline, but not terror. For, men die; but not ideas. Like Wahhabism lived after Taimiyya and Al-Wahhab, it will survive Osama also. The Americans know it, though they may not admit it.
The Western media first saw the ongoing revolutions in the Islamic world as secular and democratic. In its issue (Feb 5-11) The Economist magazine glorified “Egypt rises up” on cover; later (Feb 19-25) it celebrated “The Awakening”; but its cover story (April 2-8) “Islam and the Arab Revolutions” was full of worries. It wrote: religion — read Islam — rather than democracy is a “growing force in the Arab awakening”. The West, happy when Libya exploded, became terrified when Syria boiled. Islamism — read anarchy — and not democracy, may replace the falling chieftains. Osama wanted anarchic Islam, not democratic states. A dead Osama, seen an Islamic idealist and a courageous Jihadi against the mighty US, may provide greater inspiration to Muslim youth than Ibn Taimiyyah did to Al-Wahhhab. Result: Osama death may inspire more, not extinguish all, terror.
The writer is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net
Courtesy : Indian Express
No comments:
Post a Comment