Customer Reviews

Islam after Communism: Religion and Politics in Central Asia

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Adeeb Khalid provides an overview of the role of Islam in Central Asian, attempts to dispel misconceptions propagated by western scholars, and highlights the impact of communism on Islamic traditions and society. While "Islam after Communism" offers outstanding arguments and analysis, its impact is diminished because of the author's lack of objectivity and his inability to more clearly organize the material. I would recommend this book only for students of Islam or the history of Central Asia who are specifically interested in how Communism has affected the region or religion. However, I would advise readers of this book to be wary of Khalid's arguments because, in my opinion, he is (whether justified or not) extremely bitter and resentful of the way Western writers have portrayed Islam. This resentment simmers just below the surface of many of his arguments and seeps through in different parts of the book. That being said, if you can differentiate between his emotionally driven opinions and his historically accurate insights, Adeeb Khalid offers a sophisticated analysis of the Communist influence on Islam in Central Asia.

This short book is a brief history of Islam in Central Asia, and a longer argument about the nature of Islam in Central Asia (by which he primarily means Uzbekistan). Specifically, Prof. Khalid argues that Uzbek Islam is different from Islam in other regions (such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) because of its very different history. Decades of Soviet control, he argues, has had a profound effect on the way Uzbeks view their religion. The writing is sometimes choppy, and the historical sections assume a certain amount of background knowledge. I recommend this book to specialists or to college students with at least a minimal knowledge of Central Asian history and geography. It is too dense and obscure for more casual readers.

In the rest of this review, I address some more specific points.

1. Prof. Khalid does not shy away from attacking other authors. Salman Rushdie's views are "particularly pompous" (p. 208, n. 14). Ahmed Rashid mixes "arrogance and ignorance in equal measure" in describing Central Asia (p. 3). See also p. 209, n.20; p. 210, n. 4. Even where I agree with Prof. Khalid's conclusions, his arrogant tone does not help him persuade.

2. Specifically, Prof. Khalid spends a great deal of time attacking "essentialism" and its proponents, like Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis. "Essentialism" is the view, in this context, that a "pure" or "true" Islam exists, and that to the extent that cultures or sects deviate from the pure form, they are not really Muslim. Essentialism, in Prof. Khalid's view, is historically baseless, and also irresponsible because it creates and "us versus them" attitude that, in turn, leads to conflict. "Islam, for Lewis, is immutable and impervious to change brought about by history or society. ...Such essentialist arguments are much loved by today's Islamic extremists, who proceed from the assertion of total incompatibility of Islam and the West. Osama bin Laden and Bernard Lewis completely agree on this point" (p. 7).

Objectively speaking, I think Prof. Khalid is correct. Speaking as a non-Muslim, it seems clear to me that Islam can and has changed, at least in its outward forms, and today varies from region to region, from sect to sect, and from believer to believer. But in another, very important sense, Prof. Khalid is wrong. Sometimes perception is reality. To a radical Muslim, the notion of situational Islam is ridiculous. To the extent that Khalid's Uzbeks differ in belief or practice from Muslims in other places, they are not simply different - they are apostate. And the distiction is important enough in the eyes of many to warrant assassination and terrorism. Some Muslims may believe Islam is compatible with modernity, but others disagree. The terms "dar al-Islam" and "dar al-Harb," after all, were not invented by Westerners.

3. The upshot of the "essentialist" argument is Prof. Khalid's conclusion that Uzbeks should not be lumped in with other Islamic groups, or automatically assumed to be radical. Stated so simply, I completely agree. The reality, obviously, is not so simple, and the book provides its own evidence. Prof. Khalid minimizes the role and legitimacy of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), and yet the group exists, and actively fought coalition forces in Afghanistan. Its members may be small, but they came from somewhere - both physically and culturally. Prof. Khalid's tone suggests his dislike for President Bush, yet Bush's willingness to work with Uzbek President Islam Karimov until 2005 indicates that Bush was not guilty of tarring all Uzbeks as dangerous fanatics.

Although I disagree with some of what Prof. Khalid writes, I nevertheless enjoyed the book for the engaging discussion. Far better to encounter an idea, examine it, accept the good and reject the bad, than to remain unaware.

Being a grandson for a man who suffered from the Bolshevik revolution and a man who left his country for the sake of his faith, I consider myself as a part of this book.

I have not finished the book yet, but until now what I have gained from this book are three things:
1- New information about the hidden history of central Asia at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. And the role of the Muslim scholars "the Ulama" at that time.
2- A refreshment of what I have been told by grandparents about the soviet assault on Islam and the way they fought to keep it.
3- A new and clear picture of Islam and its meaning in central Asia nowadays.

If you want to know what Islam is to Central Asians I recommend this book.

[*Note: The following review is of select portions of the book, Islam after Communism, by Adeeb Khalid. It takes into account the Introduction, Chapters 1-3 and 5, and the Conclusion]

Islam after Communism is an attempt to convince the reader that the notion of "Islam" as a fixed set of (1) rules, (2) practices, (3) ideas--indeed, a fixed anything--that exists independent of political, economical, and other historical changes, is a fallacious assumption. The author, Adeeb Khalid, attempts to accomplish this feat primarily through the examples of the profound transformations the seventy-three-year period (1918-1991) of Soviet authority rendered in the religious, political, educational, and cultural understandings of Islam by the Muslim populations of Central Asia. His basic concern seems to be the deconstruction of the "Western essentialist" view of Islam: That it is (1) political by nature, (2) intolerant of other ideologies (religious, economic, and political), (3) oppressive to women, (4) militant in achieving its aims, and (5) that the most important thing to EVERY Muslim is that the tenets of Islam be upheld at ALL costs.

Although the author is rather opinionated (and repetitive), he is a good story teller. The book is an interesting, smooth read. I recommend it for anybody interested in the history of the Soviet Union, the Communist influence in Central Asia and on Central Asian Muslims, and/or the history of the Muslim peoples. This is a history book, not a book about Islamic religion per se.

Written as a response to 9/11 the author sets out to separate the disinformation from the actual conduct of Muslims in contemporary Central Asia. The author, as a respected professor of history, has created a book that requires some previous knowledge of Islam, it is not an introduction. Mr. Khalid is opinionated, biased and writes in a manner difficult to understand. His main point is that Islam has many faces and is much weaker in Central Asia than in the Middle East, not all Muslims are terrorists.

I do have to give the author a good amount of credibility for writing this book. There is a substantial amount of historic information and historic leaders mentioned throughout the book, that one can not even begin to remember if they wanted to. I would compare this book to a history text book that is specifically focused in on Central Asia. One can tell that a vigorous amount of time and effort went in to creating this book. Although it is a very factual book, I would not recommend it to anyone unless they are truly interested in the history, religion and politics specifically in the Central Asia region.

One cannot consider themselves knowledgeable in the slightest about Central Asia if they have not read this book. Basically, the states of Central Asia are more a threat against Muslims then Muslims are a threat to the states. Written for a general audience, though still scholarship at the highest level. A must read.