The Movement Towards Islamic Modernity
If you follow Matthew D. over at the Daily Goose, he's been covering the issue of Islam/West more from the point of view of the defense of Western traditions, secularism, etc. You can check out today's post--Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism. It is a published piece signed by major figures in this debate such as Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq.
Matthew and I have had a private discourse over the subject, which has been good (I think) for both of us. I know it has for me anyway.
Certainly forms of so-called Islamism are totalitarian. No doubt about that. Interesting that the manifesto describes how the classical liberal rule of law tradition defeated both Fascism and Communism. Fascism is an interesting parallel given that the Nazis did in fact control large parts of North Africa and the Middle East, and some (though not all) of the anti-Semitism and totalitarianist leanings in the Arab lands is traceable to the Nazi period.
I also agree that neither the Clash of Civlizations approach nor the cultural relativist agenda help the situation but only in fact, strangely dovetail together, supporting "Islamo-Fascism." The Clash of Civilization-ers because they (without proof) believe Muslims are incapable of ever accepting modern rules, law, and society. It is worth remembering that it is Bush II who has moved the Republican party--at least most of it--away from this view. Only really right-wing commentators like Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley still support this xenophobic notion.
The relativists, under the banner of "we can't judge another culture-way of life" end up bolstering the status quo--which is deeply flawed. In Germany, Turkish immigrants are still practicing hudood (tribal law)--with young girls who have been raped for example, "disappearing" at the hands of their brothers to restore the family's honor. Meanwhile the German government and its people simply don't want to know about these things. They don't ex-ist. Because God knows the last time the German gov't and people starting telling a minority non-Christian population within its borders how to live/what to do, a large percentage of them ended up dead. So out of guilt over the past, innocents are not protected in the present. The Relativist camp secretly harbors the same sorts of prejudices and racisms that the Clash position does--just with a so-called more civilized veneer.
Relativism, in its Western European variety, has other contradictions--ones not necessarily spoken to by the (mostly) European (and at least one Canadian) signers mentioned. Namely in alll the talk of free speech, there are laws against certain forms of free speech in Western Europe (and Canada)--where it is for example illegal to deny the Holocaust. Which for me is an awful, morally reprehensible thing to do, but not criminal.
But it is not against the law to draw cartoons of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban.** I'm not advocating there should be a law banning negative depictions of Islam/Muslims just as I am not in favor of censorship towards Holocaust-deniers. This isn't an issue, fortunately, in the American context, where nobody advocates a law against Holocaust denial. But the question of jihadist Islam will be fought in Europe not the US. And to that degree the Europeans are deeply dis-honest, it seems to me, even the educated rational ones, about their own prejudice, classism, xenophobias, and racisms. Again without it turning into a relativist position--I'm saying the relativists are part of the problem.
As I have said before (through the influence of Thomas Barnett), I believe the emphasis must be on bringing the Middle East/Southwest Asia into the global economy, community of nations. And this will only come through the vehicle of Islam--only Islam has the legitimacy and pull among the world's Muslims to help bridge the transition to the modern world. What most Muslims seek is a way into the political-economic benefits of the modern world without the reduction of life to the despairing, anxiety-riven, meaningless mush, that is the (modern Western secular) Flatland.
The initial movements towards connection will bring greater instability and violence in the short term. They have already.
What I feel is lacking though from the point of view typified by the Manifesto is any more contextualized knowledge of Islamism. In fact there is no such thing as Islamism, rather Islamisms. Or Islamists if you like--Islamism then being a code-word for terrorists, Islamists being those who seek to create an Islamic state but do not advocate terrorism. The Manifesto P-O-V tends to be excessively transcending and not necessarily very including. [Although Irshad Manji is a good example of how that could look---also check out Reza Aslan]. It tends towards a modern absolutist point of view---particularly in Warraq and Ali. Certainly that worldview (modernist) is under attack by certain strains of earlier, less developed perspectives, and has a right to protect itself. But it comes dangerously close at points to veering too far in the opposite direction.
It treats the multi-valent issue of modern Islamic movements as monolithic, when in fact there has probably never been a larger plurality of different voices, outlooks, and theologies within Islam since the early period of its founding.
For example: according to Bergen, Ayatollah Khomeni launched a cultural critique on the West--the fatwa against Rushdie, calling the US The Great Satan. But bin Laden's critique of the West has been purely based on Foreign Policy--you have placed your troops on our holy land, you are in alliance with the Zionists, you support authoritarian governments like the Russians and Chinese over their Muslim populations all the while proclaiming you are the defenders of liberty, etc.
And that is a substantial difference though many of their aims and viewpoints are held in common. These nuances need exploration, even if only because as Sun Tzu said the Art of War is predicated upon knowing thy enemy--the enemy being terrorists, those who are beyond dialogue not obviously Islam itself or the Muslim world in general.
I have tried to remedy what I see as that lacuna in this blog through the introduction of views and background on different facets of the issues involved.
And for personal background as to why/how I've spent so much time on Islamic theology---when I was 16 I very seriously considered converting to Islam. Obviously in the end I choose not to, but Islam has always had a special place in my heart. The time I have spent in mosques or listening to the call to prayer resonates with a certain part of me, as if I have an instinctive understanding of what all that is about. That's probably a fairly Romantic notion, so take it or leave it. But anyway, it helps explain my personal connection to the question.
Matthew and I have had a private discourse over the subject, which has been good (I think) for both of us. I know it has for me anyway.
Certainly forms of so-called Islamism are totalitarian. No doubt about that. Interesting that the manifesto describes how the classical liberal rule of law tradition defeated both Fascism and Communism. Fascism is an interesting parallel given that the Nazis did in fact control large parts of North Africa and the Middle East, and some (though not all) of the anti-Semitism and totalitarianist leanings in the Arab lands is traceable to the Nazi period.
I also agree that neither the Clash of Civlizations approach nor the cultural relativist agenda help the situation but only in fact, strangely dovetail together, supporting "Islamo-Fascism." The Clash of Civilization-ers because they (without proof) believe Muslims are incapable of ever accepting modern rules, law, and society. It is worth remembering that it is Bush II who has moved the Republican party--at least most of it--away from this view. Only really right-wing commentators like Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley still support this xenophobic notion.
The relativists, under the banner of "we can't judge another culture-way of life" end up bolstering the status quo--which is deeply flawed. In Germany, Turkish immigrants are still practicing hudood (tribal law)--with young girls who have been raped for example, "disappearing" at the hands of their brothers to restore the family's honor. Meanwhile the German government and its people simply don't want to know about these things. They don't ex-ist. Because God knows the last time the German gov't and people starting telling a minority non-Christian population within its borders how to live/what to do, a large percentage of them ended up dead. So out of guilt over the past, innocents are not protected in the present. The Relativist camp secretly harbors the same sorts of prejudices and racisms that the Clash position does--just with a so-called more civilized veneer.
Relativism, in its Western European variety, has other contradictions--ones not necessarily spoken to by the (mostly) European (and at least one Canadian) signers mentioned. Namely in alll the talk of free speech, there are laws against certain forms of free speech in Western Europe (and Canada)--where it is for example illegal to deny the Holocaust. Which for me is an awful, morally reprehensible thing to do, but not criminal.
But it is not against the law to draw cartoons of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban.** I'm not advocating there should be a law banning negative depictions of Islam/Muslims just as I am not in favor of censorship towards Holocaust-deniers. This isn't an issue, fortunately, in the American context, where nobody advocates a law against Holocaust denial. But the question of jihadist Islam will be fought in Europe not the US. And to that degree the Europeans are deeply dis-honest, it seems to me, even the educated rational ones, about their own prejudice, classism, xenophobias, and racisms. Again without it turning into a relativist position--I'm saying the relativists are part of the problem.
As I have said before (through the influence of Thomas Barnett), I believe the emphasis must be on bringing the Middle East/Southwest Asia into the global economy, community of nations. And this will only come through the vehicle of Islam--only Islam has the legitimacy and pull among the world's Muslims to help bridge the transition to the modern world. What most Muslims seek is a way into the political-economic benefits of the modern world without the reduction of life to the despairing, anxiety-riven, meaningless mush, that is the (modern Western secular) Flatland.
The initial movements towards connection will bring greater instability and violence in the short term. They have already.
What I feel is lacking though from the point of view typified by the Manifesto is any more contextualized knowledge of Islamism. In fact there is no such thing as Islamism, rather Islamisms. Or Islamists if you like--Islamism then being a code-word for terrorists, Islamists being those who seek to create an Islamic state but do not advocate terrorism. The Manifesto P-O-V tends to be excessively transcending and not necessarily very including. [Although Irshad Manji is a good example of how that could look---also check out Reza Aslan]. It tends towards a modern absolutist point of view---particularly in Warraq and Ali. Certainly that worldview (modernist) is under attack by certain strains of earlier, less developed perspectives, and has a right to protect itself. But it comes dangerously close at points to veering too far in the opposite direction.
It treats the multi-valent issue of modern Islamic movements as monolithic, when in fact there has probably never been a larger plurality of different voices, outlooks, and theologies within Islam since the early period of its founding.
For example: according to Bergen, Ayatollah Khomeni launched a cultural critique on the West--the fatwa against Rushdie, calling the US The Great Satan. But bin Laden's critique of the West has been purely based on Foreign Policy--you have placed your troops on our holy land, you are in alliance with the Zionists, you support authoritarian governments like the Russians and Chinese over their Muslim populations all the while proclaiming you are the defenders of liberty, etc.
And that is a substantial difference though many of their aims and viewpoints are held in common. These nuances need exploration, even if only because as Sun Tzu said the Art of War is predicated upon knowing thy enemy--the enemy being terrorists, those who are beyond dialogue not obviously Islam itself or the Muslim world in general.
I have tried to remedy what I see as that lacuna in this blog through the introduction of views and background on different facets of the issues involved.
And for personal background as to why/how I've spent so much time on Islamic theology---when I was 16 I very seriously considered converting to Islam. Obviously in the end I choose not to, but Islam has always had a special place in my heart. The time I have spent in mosques or listening to the call to prayer resonates with a certain part of me, as if I have an instinctive understanding of what all that is about. That's probably a fairly Romantic notion, so take it or leave it. But anyway, it helps explain my personal connection to the question.
**
--The cartoons in question were published in Denmark which does not have unique Holocaust-denying laws. Countries like Austria, Germany, and Canada have such laws. Denmark however is a member of the EU and must abide by EU conventions articles 5 and 6 of which could easily be read as justification for the criminilization of denying the Holocaust (the conventions speaks of the illegality of minimizing genocide, although it is not entirely clear to what such a minimization would refer...)
posted by CJ Smith @ 6:23 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Hey CJ,
As usual you tied together many seemingly disparate perspectives into something very coherant. I took this as one your main points of emphasis:
I believe the emphasis must be on bringing the Middle East/Southwest Asia into the global economy, community of nations. And this will only come through the vehicle of Islam--only Islam has the legitimacy and pull among the world's Muslims to help bridge the transition to the modern world. What most Muslims seek is a way into the political-economic benefits of the modern world without the reduction of life to the despairing, anxiety-riven, meaningless mush, that is the (modern Western secular) Flatland.
So basically the West without Foucault? Of course that's glib but not false. :) This is rather harsh about the West. Whether or not you mean this seriously, many people besides yourself do think this is the case, and this is precisely what needs to be changed, this attitude that the West is nothing by neurosis in service of pop-culture decadence. Of course I love pop culture and I love decadence (perhaps I'm neurotic) but none of these three adequate encapsulate the earned prestige of much of the West's history, and more and more, American history.
I agree that sustainable reform appears to require a movement from within Islam. And because the West cannot, or should not, impose upon such transformation, the question is is the shape of Western care and love for this hoped-for change? What is a useful Western stance towards change that necessarily must happen elsewhere?
Part of it (I think a large part) comes down to advertising what the West is and what the West isn't, but doing so skillfully, almost invisibly. Continued televised dialogue about, for example, interpretations of the Danish cartoons between moderate Islamic voices and, say, Danish art critics can be helpful. Throw all of the perspectives about the cartoons on the table, honestly and with rhetorical (not physical) force if necessary. For just this medium of communication -- multiperspective dialogue -- is the real message, regardless of the actual content of such conversations. Other such multiperspective mediums (free-press newspapers, unregulated television, the internet) by their nature reprogram consciousness away from absolutism and mono-perspectivity. Because you can't force people to interpret the word of Allah; you can create the conditions by which interpretations and reinterpretations (i.e.; emergent multiperspectivity) are an inevitablity, found by Islamic culture and individuals within that culture on their own at their own pace and edges.
You can't impose architecture and hope it will be sustainable. So I find a lot of commentary out there to be cheap and easy. Events will unfold over decades and centuries. No one is changing next year. With an eye towards history and three hundred years from now, I have chosen to support the growth of moderate Islam by advocating the reinforcement of something solid (on the West's end), upon which the forces of change in Islamic culture ought usefully bounce off.
Self-image is important, for all cultures including Western Europe, America, Australia, and more. Strength and light healthfully projected by the West outwards is a cue, enacted over centuries, for non-Western cultures to do the same.
Matthew,
In terms of the secularist critique, I meant that only insofar as that is the typical charicature.
I don't completely buy into that theory myself. I do however, I guess I would say between say the two of us, have a darker view of the modern West. That's just from my experience as yours is from yours---probably the reality is more like something between our points of view.
I've certainly never advocated a return to a religious state or anything. Just that in my experience that underneath the many ammenities, cultural niceties, and so forth in Western society there is a pervasive sense of meaningless among people, particulary the young.
I think mostly the religious groups (or self-defined "spiritual" people) in Western societies are themselves mostly wedded to the horizontal, quantified, view of reality.
So for me it goes much deeper than just "secularism" say versus "religious" worldview. Its a radical re-thinking of the entire, for lack of a better term, flatland, materialist assumption.
But there are strains of great justice and truth in the Western heritage, and I'm all with you in terms of promoting the most positive image of this heritage we can.
Post a Comment
<< Home