Colonialism fuelled modern forms of religious extremism

The connection between radicalism and Islam are being raised by Islamic State and its so-called caliphate in Syria and Iraq.

With the rise of the Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), concerns about radicalism arising from extremism in religion have never been more prescient. The irony is that for many years, it was expected that as the Arab world became more modern, religion would have less importance. Not only has it not lost that importance, it’s doubtful it will any time soon, regardless of the modernising efforts in the region. Indeed, we can expect there to be new – and possibly more extreme – forms of religious expression.

The idea that modernity would displace religion is an old one – because it is what took place, in some ways, within Europe as a result of the Enlightenment. Religion remains important in Europe for a variety of reasons, but it has essentially become “decentred” – it is no longer the pivot around which society functions.

Modernity was introduced into the Arab world via another means: the power of the gun, through colonialism and military conflicts. While modernity progressed and developed in Europe over long periods of time, built from within the European experience, modernity came to the Arab world deeply embedded as part of a colonial trauma.

That deeply affected educational systems in the region, with consequences for religious expression. What has developed from this are specifically Arab-Muslim forms of modernism.

The institutions that produce religious experts have lost their independence, including financially, which has resulted in increasingly poorer quality. While few in the region have started to lose their religious identities – unlike what happened in Europe – the historical development of religious expression has been deeply affected by this.

One development has become well known and feared: contemporary modernist Islamism and its radically extreme versions. Its intellectual roots are deep within modernism, hence its concern with not only re-interpreting religion but in adapting it to the concept of the “state”.

The paradox of the "Islamic State" in Iraq and Syria is two-fold – in its interpretation of ­Islam, which is a departure from historical notions, and its desire to adapt Islam to the notion of a state.

That sort of paradox is not limited to the most radical forms of religion, such as the Islamic State. It severely affects Islamist movements in general: they are reactions to modernity on the one hand, and yet they have absorbed much of its basic arguments on the other.

It also affects many religious establishments, even those that are predisposed to being non-Islamist and lay claim to being more attached to pre-modern, indigenous intellectual trends.

How many times in recent history has the Arab world seen religious authorities stand as apologists for the abuse of power by the state? Not necessarily out of insincerity or hypocrisy, but out of a view of the state that gives it such prestige. It’s a view that is entirely modern, but which has just been imbibed. The irony is that the notion of the state in the first place came via colonialism, which the religious establishment was so predisposed against.

But there is a thread that runs through this. The modern world prioritises identity tremendously. Identity is at the root of many of these modern religious movements, reacting to what it views as foreign and insisting on a reactionary identity as a result.

That, again, is a very modern phenomenon, as pre-modern Arab societies often incorporated elements of foreign societies into their own. But when they did so, they accomplished it through a confident appraisal of their own tradition, as opposed to reacting through a colonialist or post­colonialist lens.

Unfortunately, the Islamic State is not a one-off, flash in the pan. It is, almost by definition, a reaction to an existing trauma. The seeds for it were not sown in the butchery of Syrian leader Bashar Al Assad; that only allowed it to thrive. It started much earlier, and owes itself far more to modernity than it does to religion.

The good news is that we can also expect these forms to be challenged by intellectually innovative forms of thought, including religious thought. But as long as the Arab world is ill-equipped to thoroughly engage with its own traditions and history, we can expect these radical forms of religion to continue.

Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow at the Royal United Services ­Institute in London, and the ­Brookings Institution in ­Washington DC

On Twitter: @hahellyer