Studying Jihadism – The Jihad Recollections I
How to study Jihad? One of my regular readers who is always a little critical on what he sees as my apologetic viewpoints referred me to an article on Frontpage Magazine in which writer David Solway states the following: FrontPage Magazine
There are no low-hanging fruit in the Islamic orchard, no easy solutions or merely discursive reconciliations. The attempt to “understand” jihad will often culminate, intentionally or not, in humanizing it and therefore, through a subtle process of “reasonable” argumentation, in providing it with an intellectual alibi. Such efforts at exempting terror from condemnation through grasping empathetically its supposed roots have become a prospering industry in today’s ideological world.
His criticism is in particular direct against Thomas Hegghammer who writes for the Jihadica blog and Hegghammer has the best response to such an ignorant remark:
Jihadica Shmoohadica — jihadica
it actively argues in favour of ignorance. For Solway, detailed knowledge about the jihadis, their backgrounds and their thinking seems irrelevant. Trying to understand the myriad of factors that influence militants’ readings of scripture and the different tactical conclusions they draw from those readings is humanizing the enemy, a moral transgression. Jihadists are religious fanatics and it is enough to know where they are so we can bomb them.
Of course there remains the question of how to study Jihad and jihadists. An important contribution by Hegghammer and others is focusing on the people themselves instead of just studying their ideologies and if focusing on their Jihad-ideology they point out their political content which, according to them, is much more important (and less irrational) than many people think. Such a view does not go uncontested of course and Raymond Ibrahim at Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a good and well informed example. According to Ibrahim (and see also Hegghammers response in the comment section of that post)» Jihadi studies as trivia Middle East Strategy at Harvard
The problem with the territory theory is the fact that Arab Christians—whether in Palestine or Iraq—have yet to blow themselves up during a suicide attack against Israel or U.S. forces in Iraq. As for Hegghammer’s own notion that nationalism generates suicide terrorism, Arab Christians have traditionally been at the fore of the Arab nationalist movement. According to his theory, then, one would logically expect them at the van of martyrdom operations, which they are not. Indeed, Christian and Muslim Arabs are identical: they look the same, live in the same place, speak the same language, and consider themselves “Arabs.” The only thing that differentiates them is religion. So, if all things—minus religion—are equal, is it not only logical to conclude that it is religion, or “ideology,” that is responsible for the suicide-bomber, as that is the only variable that Christian and Muslim Arabs do not share?
I think however Ibrahim is missing the point here. In this case he uses religion/culture/ideology as a category that explains a particular phenomenon if all other explanations are insufficient. The problem with this is that we do not know if we did not miss another explanation. Moreover the important question is not if religion/culture/ideology plays a role; as an anthropologist I would state it always plays a role. We can see culture as a repertoire of beliefs, practices and experiences that enforce people to understand the world around them and navigate in it. Bin Laden’s and/or Zawahiri’s ideology therefore always plays a role, the question however is how?
A special issue on Meaning making in Social Movements of Anthropological Quarterly has some interesting articles in that issue, such as the one of Holland, Fox and Daro that explores the concepts of figured worlds and cultural artifacts “to show how collective identity develops dialogically in practice both within and outside movements”.
One such example of a cultural artifact that is interesting to study is the new English language Jihadmagazine Jihad Recollections. You can read it here and view the trailer:
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5oKbrt3rnY /]
Jihad Recollections is a production of Samir Khan who announced it at The Ignored Puzzle Pieces of Knowledge (now hosted at Thabaat.net, which has an interesting Dutch/Belgium connection but perhaps later more on that):The Ignored Puzzle Pieces of Knowledge » Al-Fursan Media:: First English Jihad Magazine – Jihad Recollections no. 1
This is the very first English Jihadi Magazine aimed at the laymen, students of knowledge, political activists, intellectuals and scholars of the Ummah. It will seek to educate the Ummah on a monthly basis as to the latest happenings in fields related to Politics, Society, Economy, Technology etc. as well as educate the Muslims on the worldview of the Jihadi current. This magazine will serve as a platform for the English speaking Muslim Community to discuss their ideas, differences and thoughts on various issues related to the Islamic world and the hot issues which many stay silent on.
As a disclaimer, this magazine only intends to educate Muslims on their creed, political opinions of individual thinkers and writers, current events in light of objective criticism, as well as provide them with a source of understanding the battles in the international arena.
This ‘American Jihadist’ magazine is an interesting magazine and begs for an analysis. Jarret Brachman has dedicated himself to such a task in a (planned) 71-part series (one post for every page). Read also the response there by one of the writers in the magazine Abu Abdullah as-Sayf who raises the interesting question:
JARRET BRACHMAN DOT NET
o who is he to come to a sufficient conclusion to whether or not the “Salafi Jihadi” opinion is correct and whether or not what he call the “Mainstream Salafi”(i.e. madkhali, talafis, etc..) opinion correct?
The interesting thing of course is also who is Abu Abdullah as-Sayf? An analysis of Jihad Recollections should not only entail an analysis of the texts itself (although relevant) but also of the persons who wrote it and, perhaps even more important, the people who read it? Who are (besides journalists, academics, and intelligence services) the people who read it, their age, gender, life histories, their daily lives) and how do they consume these magazines? What does it mean for them? Is it an alternative for mainstream media? Is it about the political or religious content of the magazines? If they want to understand what politics and religion are actually about why do they read this magazine? In trying to answer these questions we can combine the ‘people-focused’ approach of Hegghammer and others and the religion-focused approach of Ibrahim without taking one of the viewpoints for granted.
