The Tablighi Jamaat is once again in sharp focus: is it the recruiting ground for wannabe Islamic terrorists? Or is it, as it claims, completely apolitical and law abiding? No matter what, it would have to remain under the scanner...
The Tablighi Jamaat ("group of preachers") has been
in the limelight since 9/11 for all the wrong reasons. Britian's MI5 and
America's FBI have been alleging that it is the recruiting ground for wannabe
Islamic terrorists. The organization has once again come into sharp focus after
the recently foiled plot to blow up transatlantic airliners. UK's security
services have found that at least seven of the 23 suspects under arrest on
suspicion of involvement in the transatlantic airliners plot may have
participated in Tablighi events. The organisation was also found to be linked
with two of the July 7 suicide bombers. The jailed shoe bomber Richard Reid had
supposedly attended its sessions.
In their defence, the Tablighis completely disavow any
links from anything other than Islam. The Guardian ("Inside the
Islamic group accused by MI5 and FBI", Augsut 18) reported a Tablighi
defend the organization in these words (when asked about the association between
Tablighi Jamaat and terrorist groups): "Tablighi is like Oxford University.
We have intelligent people - doctors, solicitors, businessmen - but one or two
will become drug dealers, fraudsters. But you won't blame Oxford University for
that. You see, it does not matter if someone speaks in favour or against this
effort. Everything happens with the will of God."
Though Olivier Roy, the French scholar on Islam, has
described Tablighi Jamaat as "completely apolitical and law abiding," is
it really an innocuous religious organization as is claimed by its followers? Or
is it a silent and hidden breeding ground of Islamic terrorism? To assess this,
we need to look at its background and activities.
The Tablighi Jamaat was an offshoot of the Deoband movement
and it represented a commitment to individual regeneration apart from any
explicit political program. According to American scholar Barbara Metcalf, the
movement began in the late 1920s when Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Kandhlawi (d.
1944), whose family had long associations with Deoband and its sister school in
Saharanpur, Mazaahiru'l-`Ulum, sought a way to reach peasants who were nominal
Muslims being targeted by a Hindu conversion movement.
The basic strategy of the movement is to persuade Muslims
that they themselves, however little book learning they had, could go out in
groups, to remind the lay Muslims to fulfill their fundamental ritual
obligations. Participants were assured of divine blessing for this effort.
Tablighis not only eschewed debate, but also emulated cherished stories,
recalling Prophetic hadith, and of withdrawing from any physical attack.
A pattern emerged of calling participants to spend one night a week, one weekend
a month, 40 continuous days a year, and ultimately 120 days at least once in
their lives engaged in tabligh missions. The thrust of the movement is not
clearly on conversions but on bringing the "wayward" Muslims back to the
fold of practicing Islam.
This does not mean that all is well with the Tabligh
movement. Its ambitions might be noble but sometimes it harms the interests of
the Muslim community in no ambiguous terms. This may not be deliberate, but it
nonetheless has deleterious effects.
And now with the Jamaat's emphasized association with
terrorism, it is facing its strongest moment of criticism, though it has been on
the radar for some time now. Alex Alexiev, in his paper "Jehad's Stealthy
Legions" (The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005) had noted that the
"West's misreading of Tablighi Jamaat actions and motives has serious
implications for the war on terrorism." He argued that Tablighi Jamaat has
always adopted an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam, and in the past two
decades, it has radicalized to the point where it is now a driving force of
Islamic extremism and a major recruiting agency for terrorist causes worldwide.
For a majority of young Muslim extremists, Alex Alexiev
pointed out, joining Tablighi Jamaat is the first step on the road to extremism:
"Perhaps 80 percent of the Islamist extremists in France come from Tablighi
ranks, prompting French intelligence officers to call Tablighi Jamaat the
"antechamber of fundamentalism". He also quoted American
counterterrorism officials: "We have a significant presence of Tablighi
Jamaat in the United States," the deputy chief of the FBI's international
terrorism section said in 2003, "and we have found that Al-Qaeda used them
for recruiting now and in the past."
Ziauddin Sardar, a British journalist and writer, describes
his experience of the Tablighi Jamaat: "So here was the essence of the
Tablighi approach. Observance of religious practice was a quid pro quo
with the Almighty, one merely applied the ready-made formula and one could
relax, confident in the assurance that paradise would be the outcome, the
consummation of a life-time of duty done. It seemed the Tablighis neither
offered nor considered they had to do anything particular about rampant
injustice, the horrors of suffering and neglect that formed the circumstances
and deformed so many lives in country after country, the Muslim world
especially." (Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Sceptical Mulsim,
p. 12)
Looking at the flip side of Sardar's observations, the
problem with the Tablighi approach is precisely this: they can inculcate in
their followers so much of a sense of otherworldliness that they may as well
begin to fall prey to the suicide bombing recruitment spiel. Tablighis live
and breathe in the real world and those who feel that Muslims are being
persecuted in the hands of Western or west-supported hegemonies, might as well
turn towards violence and murder as a means to attain a piece of the promised
paradise. This is especially true for the young and the impressionable, the
Shahzad Tanweers of UK and other western societies.
The western policymakers need to tread a fine line in order
to deal with the Tablighi Jamaat. It may not necessarily attract a
blanket ban, but being the possible ground for the first step on the road to
extremism, it certainly warrants some rethinking and attention on the part of
the Muslim community and the government agencies. A ban might be
counterproductive, but neglecting it would be akin to acting like an ostrich.
Zafar Anjum is a Singapore-based journalist. These are his
personal views.