Review: Islam after Communism

Note: The following review of Adeeb Khalid’s Islam after Communism comes courtesy of David Reeves.

Khalid, Adeeb. Islam after Communism: Religion and Politics in Central Asia. Berkeley; University of California Press, 2007. 234 pages.

Adeeb Khalid’s new book is the one we’ve been waiting for. Enough with Olivier Roy and Ya’akov Roi. Away with Steven Blank and Ahmed Rashid. And screw Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, since one must never pass up the opportunity. This new book is the corrective for all the misperceived notions of Central Asian Islam, and Islam in general. Khalid tells us what we already know, articulately, about the state of affairs in Central Asia today, but grounds his argument in a through knowledge of the history of the region. To Khalid, “history does matter” (italics his, p. 2) and only through an understanding of the relationship between authority and Islam, starting with the national epics up through the Russian and Soviet period, can we understand the Central Asia of today. And in my mind, there is no one else out there who is more qualified to undertake this task.

I saw him talk last week on the new book. He stated that in Central Asia “the states are a bigger threat to Muslims than Muslims are to the state.” The book says that “Indeed, although Islamic militancy might pose some danger to the regimes, the danger the regimes pose to ordinary pious Muslims is far greater.” (191) Either way, this is the main message of the book.

Most modern commentators like to state with authority that “Islam is more than a religion, it is a way of life,” the implication being that Islam is inherently political and has always played a large role in the politics of the Islamic World. Khalid rejects this, and points to Central Asia as one example. In the time of the khans, the ulama played an important role in maintaining social order, but temporal authority lay with the khan, emir, or king. Though this person most likely claimed lineage to the Prophet, Noah and even Adam, Islam was more a source of legitimacy e rather than the rule of law. With the conquest of the region by the Russians, this practice was strengthened. The ulama no longer had a place at the court, but they were basically left alone. The ulama retreated from any political role, and, as Khalid tells us, “The ulama fell back on a long tradition of quietism well articulated in the local Hanafi tradition.” (p38) Hanafi is one of the five school of Islamic jurisprudence, and the one most prevalent in Central Asia. And it is this tradition that seems to be an important reason why Islam survived during Soviet rule. There is very little discussion of Sufi brotherhoods in the region, something that an older generation of scholars of Soviet Islam (Bennigsen and his students) was the basis of a “parallel Islam” that existed in the private sphere in contrast to the “official Islam” of the Soviet state.

In fact, it is a certain Hanafi tradition that is being used by Karimov of Uzbekistan “as the official version of good Islam (indeed the only Islam allowed)”. (p200) Khalid shows how the policies and politics of the Central Asian states are so very much a legacy of Soviet rule. This is especially true of the distrust of all groups or activities outside of state control. The bureaucracy that oversaw Islam in the region simply assumed the same role under the new regimes. Any Muslim acting outside he rigid confines of the state is branded “an independent Muslim”. One might imagine that is not a label anybody wants to be stuck with in Uzbekistan. The Muslim Board of Uzbekistan has even established Hanafi as orthodoxy. So the state tries to define what is the “true” Islam, basically shut up and do what you’re told, and anybody questioning that, or even wearing a beard, may get in trouble.

During the Soviet period, Khalid argues, most people had no problem having multiple identities. One could be a communist and a Muslim and an Uzbek. (In fact, Uzbek/Islam were, and are, basically the same thing). As a result, Islam was a part of an “ethnonational identity”, while Islam completely retreated from public life. The people of Central Asia do not wish to live in an Islamic state. However, that does not mean they have no wish to live as a “pious” Muslim. Unfortunately, any outside display of simple piety is assumed to be a politically subversive act. Such are the legacies of the Soviet period. I find these arguments both historically sound and reflecting contemporary truths regarding Central Asia.

Now that’s all not to say that I don’t have my disagreements with Khalid, especially regarding his latest article in the Slavic Review. I think comparing the Soviet Union to the British and French empires is completely valid. But that is an argument among historians. This is a book for a general readership. Anybody who considers himself knowledgeable about the region must read this book. But the book would also work well with any educated person with cursory knowledge of the area. This book is perfect for an undergraduate course in any field. I myself will be using it this summer in my Central Asia-Caucasus history class. This book deserves a wide readership.

In conclusion, I just want to put in the last paragraph of the book:

“Islam, after all, is never a simple given, an agreed-upon set of rules and ideas. Rather, it contains infinite possibilities, and it goes where debate and contention among Muslims take it. In Central Asia, we can be sure that Muslims will invoke Islam in their struggles over the destinies of their societies. What they will mean by “Islam”, however, will depend on the historical and political conditions in which Central Asians find themselves rather than on the desire to imitate other Muslim societies or follow the injunctions of the great Islamic books. For observers, it is critical to have perspective, to discern clearly the political stakes at issue in such debates, and to separate the disinformation dished out by the regimes from the actual conduct of Muslims.

This post was written by...

Nathan Hamm – author of 2040 posts on Registan.net.

Nathan founded Registan.net in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural factors shape risks and opportunities. Follow him on Twitter or drop him a line.