Religion and Politics

Good day everyone, I am Patrick Frost, the FPA blogger for Central Asia, and Karin has been kind enough to let me do a post on this site from time to time. Please feel free to send me comments, critiques, and questions at patfrost1@gmail.com or just post them on this site.

Today, I would like to talk about a book I read about six months ago that challenged the way I saw the West’s political society based on secularization, other societies, civilizations, and political systems throughout the world, especially in Muslim dominated lands, and the current ‘war on terror.’ It is Mark Lilla’s, professor of the Humanities at Columbia University, The Stillborn God; Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. At its most basic, it is a philosophical history of Europe/US advancement from a society ruled by political theology to one ruled by secularization. But the book is about much more, in fact it is a warning against complacency of this type of political/societal system in the West.

Here is Lilla’s dramatic message;
‘Intellectual complacency, nursed by implicit faith in the inevitability of secularization, has blinded us to the persistence of political theology and its manifest power to shape human life at any moment.’

Lilla warns us in the West to not feel so safe and cozy with our secular system, for he argues that we are the ‘exception’, not the rest of the world, and that we are in fact still living in an ‘experiment.’ These are strong words and statements, but they are important for all to ponder. This is a pertinent book because it is based on a question not often asked; ‘Why don’t we understand the ‘enduring attraction of political theology?’ Instead of ‘why don’t they understand our (and copy) our political system and way of life?’

Lilla strongly believes that the argument over politics and religion will not end, and in fact ‘could not end,’ because it concerns the enduring question that all societies must answer and face, whether ‘to order their political affairs in light of a divine revelation, or to make their way alone.’

This is a Guest Blog written by Zharmukhamed Zardykhan, an Assistant Professor at KIMEP, the Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research.

  The First World War was noted not only for its horrific physical destruction and tremendous financial ruin, but for the first time systematic international propaganda became one of the most effective means of warfare.

The incorporation of the notion of jihâd into wartime propaganda had already gained strength during the Balkan Wars and, in fact, did not slacken its pace up until the First World War. Indeed, the very notion of warfare, whether offensive or defensive, obtained a certain character in traditional Islam and its interpretation, depending on whose part it is conducted, so that, according to Ibn Khaldûn, any warfare conducted by Muslims, including an offensive one, is not only legitimate, but also a holy war, or jihâd, since in the long run it undertakes a mission of leading the world population to Islamic faith. (1) However, the long-established Turkic and Anatolian tradition established a difference between jihâd and ghâzâ, referring, respectively, to the defense of Muslim lands against the aggression of infidel troops and to the actual invasion of infidel lands by Muslim troops empowered by the Caliph. (2)

But what about the Ottoman proclamations for jihâd during the First World War? The traditional appeals to fight down the infidels would not work because of the German troops fighting alongside of Ottomans. The appeals to resist the enslavers and suppressors of Muslim populations would be impeded by Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian participation in the Great War on the side of the Central Powers. Furthermore, throughout the First World War, the Ottoman troops had to stand against fellow Muslim soldiers among the Russian, British or French troops.

Here comes the Ottoman fatwâ, the religious edict issued by Ottoman şeyh-ül-islâm Ürgüplü Hayrî Efendî that justified the religious and spiritual grounds of war. Structured in the traditional Ottoman pattern, this fetvâ-i şerîf (3) contained five issues [mes’ele] concerning different features of the war and answers to them [el-cevâb]. In brief, the fetvâ-i şerîf assured that: (1) at the time when Islam is assaulted and Islamic population is threatened by annihilation and imprisonment, the physical and material contribution of every Muslim to the holy war is an individual and unavoidable obligation [farz-i ‘ayn]; (2) it is an obligation [farz] for the Muslim population of Russia, Britain and France to declare jihâd against these governments and actually joint it; (3) even if they were threatened by death or the extermination of their families, fighting against the soldiers of the Islamic Government [i.e. Ottoman State] is absolutely forbidden [harâm-i kat’î] by religious law and the infringers would be thrown to infernal fire [nâr-i cahîm]; (4) the fighting of the Muslim subjects of Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro against Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman allies, would harm the Islamic Caliphate and those who fought would suffer grievous wrath [gazâb-i elîm].

Similarly, upon the Ottoman engagement into the First World War, numerous articles on the nature of jihâd and its place and justification by the Islamic law started appearing in Ottoman periodical press. As “Religion and War” acknowledged thoroughly using quotations from Qur’ân, “the Muslims do not fight for personal and arbitrary causes,” while jihâd is bound to the greater cause and is both permitted and obligatory.(4) At the same time, the outburst of the war came out as an opportunity to strengthen the image of the Caliphate not only outside, but also within the Empire, as did “What Kind of a Caliph the Enemies of the Caliphate Want?” by stating that “the Caliphate of Islam is not a weak [kuvvetsiz] and humble [şevketsiz] institution like the Papacy that only has religious guardianship and spiritual governance.”(5)

[1] See Abu-Sahlieh, Sami A. Adeeb. “The Islamic Conception of Migration.” International Migration Review 30, No. 1 (Spring 1996): 37-57.[2] See Darling, Linda. “Contested Territory: Ottoman Holy War in Comparative Context.”Studia Islamica No. 91 (2000): 133-163.[3] For the text of the fatwâ see “Fetâvâ-i Şerîfe,” Cihân-i İslâm, No. 50; and “Fetâvâ-i Şerîfe,” Donanma, No. 68-20 (16 Teşrîn-i sânî 1914).[4] “Dîn ve Harb,” İslâm Mecmû’ası, Year 2, No. 42 (7 Djumâdâ ‘l-Ûlâ 1334) [1916].[5] “Hilâfet Düsmânları Nâsıl Bir Halife İstiyor?” İslâm Mecmû’ası, Year 2, No. 46 (9 Dhu l’-Ka’da 1334) [1916].