The notion of political Islam may be a more complicated bargain than many realize, and Muslims who seek to shape the world according to their religious values often confront an obdurate reality.
Submitted by Amarjyoti A. (Aug. 8, 2009) on August 23, 2009 - 5:04am.
One steps in here with some trepidation. What is true for the Muslims is true for the Christians. That is the problem that many seem to find some difficulty when they confront an obdurate reality. 9/11 and other attempts merely happen to be such and the rest of the world happen to be the unwitting victims of these two problem-groups. A christian wearing a tie and a shirt and banging his or her head on the pulpit does not turn one any more modern or different than a Muslim who believes in his mark on the forehead (that comes from daily prayers) as something desirable - while assuming to aspire for a world that reflects his views. That goes for every religion that seeks certain foothold over world affairs, including the organization of society and states. The similar problem of facing an obdurate reality by ideological fanatics does not do away the rationale of Marx in certain contexts. It does not render Marx any more relevant either.
The mistakes one makes in assuming a spill-over of certain issues outside the purview of the private - is what forms the obdurate reality of a reality that is different. This different reality has nothing to do with the issue of dominance that the authors have been speaking about. That would be too ambitious an imagination.
The issue is an old hat within academia but that does not mean that it is not solved. It is simply not acceptable to the Christian world or other religious cosmoses that any competing view should dominate. They are seen as revisionist. Strictly from the point of politics and its awareness - any view that threatens the basic right of the freedom of the individual can be seen as facing an obdurate reality that immediately acts as a check. Including that of dense-headed academics or dense headed real-politik considerations that remain unarticulated though very much practiced.
Examples of human ambition and the periodic flowering of them does bestow a sense of accomplishment - like Nazi Germany did to its people that believed in Nazi Germany. The same holds true for every form of tyrannical dominance or attempts for that. Thankfully history often corrects such assumptions as it did for Nazi Germany and as it shall for other such assumptions.
But one needs some honest introspection over that or one needs to read Carl Gustav Jung a little more carefully, including human history and that which is not limited to those who have not read J.M. Blaut or read him.
The awareness of certain other things often helps in finding the reality(ies) less obdurate. The issue, if faced squarely, over a certain maturity of ideas and thoughts (and thankfully those are not necessarily limited to the number of books one has authored or read) do provide us with adequate solutions. Does the world want that? Does the world that helps the above authors write and publish this book wants the solutions? Will it allow them? A similar question stares in the face - for every such cognitive cosmos that aspires to a certain dominance or in their continuance. With that caveat, well - we are back to where we had begun. One doubts however if things would improve without improving the awareness about the certain basic notions and aims and aspirations over politics and religion. Interested readers may like reading some views by this commentator elsewhere - over such issues and the meanings.
Submitted by Zakariah J. (Oct. 9, 2009) on October 9, 2009 - 7:38am.
The all politics is local observation begs the question as to why U.S. policy typically focuses on strengthening national governments at the expense of local. Traditionally in the Muslim world local elites and political entities had more or less complete freedom of action as long as they supported the titular ruler, for instance, reciting prayers in the name of a regional leader. In Afghanistan to Yemen we see continued struggles as national rulers now move to impose authority over local entities; the national governments have direct access to international aid, especially military aid, that gives them an advantage in raw power politics they did not historically enjoy. The biggest irony is that the U.S., so dedicated domestically to a federal system of shared power, typically gives complete allegiance and exclusive support to national leaders like Karzai or Musharref without considering how to promote a more traditional, and arguably fairer and more stable, system of shared power devolved to local authorities. Such systems gain more support locally and have more legitimacy in the long run. Helicopter gun ships or fighter jets sold to a national government with access to oil revenue or international aid are no substitute for getting buy-in from all local stake-holders when it comes to nation building.
Submitted by Vir N. (Oct. 9, 2009) on October 9, 2009 - 10:25pm.
The trite fact that local factors play a significant part should not obscure the global nature of the Muslim ummah. The notion of a Muslim ummah is as old as Islam itself. But, until recently, there was no global reach.
The situation has changed dramatically in the last sixty years or so. Thanks to the revolution in transport and communications, the globalization of Islam is beginning to be seen as a feasible proposition. Spectacular developments in transportation and communications, and the compulsions of global economics, have led to massive migrations from Islamic nations to the West. But these same developments have ensured that migrant communities no longer have to ‘cut the umbilical cord’ from their parent cultures and communities. As the immigrant communities grow, they inevitably acquire numerical weight in the democracies to which they have moved. Some religions/cultures - the two are inextricably mixed - find assimilation in the host country easier than others. Those who belong to the less miscible cultures, finding themselves at odds with local culture and customs, take recourse to assertions of separate identity, to appeals for religious and cultural rights. As they reach a numerically ‘critical mass’, these claims become more strident.
Modernity has put the technological tools necessary for the realization of the ummah in the hands of Islamic zealots. But, as Kepel himself has said, "..The aim was no longer to modernize Islam but to 'Islamize modernity'".
The author says: "A cursory glance at political reality makes clear that most of the conflicts involving Muslim immigrants in, for example, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom owed more to the policies pursued by these states' governments than to the Islamic identities or even Islamist proclivities of the protagonists."
This is true to the extent that these governments have - for reasons connected with electoral politics - failed to deal with the "the Islamic identities or even Islamist proclivities of the protagonists". As a result, the assertions of Islamic identity are becoming more and more strident in the West. Rationalizing this in terms of local politics is not likely to help.
Submitted by Fadhma F. (Sep. 30, 2009) on October 17, 2009 - 10:05pm.
Since the emergence of the Islamic faith in the seventh century, Muslims have strived to create a homogenous community “ mina al-Bahri ila Al-Bahr” from sea to sea, meaning from the Indian ocean to the Atlantic oceans. However, in its 15 centuries of existence, this religion, like many others, has been adopted or forced upon communities that have integrated its overall philosophy to their indigenous cultures. In the beginning, this has resulted in a great civilization that amalgamated Persian and other Asia Minor Arts with Egyptian sciences for instance, and it flourished.
However, it soon met the challenge of political legitimacy that every community needed and demanded sometimes les armes a la main. That legitimacy could only be earned, even in modern times, through a strong display of commitment by the leaders and loyalty by the followers. That loyalty and commitment are not measured by the degree of the leaders knowledge of the Koran or the followers’ piety - some exceptions granted- ; they are nonetheless measured by the needs and to some extent to the self-image of each and every community. Arabism, nationalism, socialism and Islamism are all expressions of identity-welding endeavors in communities that strive to assert their existence and sometimes just preserve it!
As noted by the author of the article, Western media and to some extent scholars, mistakenly believe the Muslim nation to have a unified vision or unified aspirations. The concept of a Muslim nation, “Al Ummah” created by some dreamy scholar in the middle ages is no more than a myth is only real in the western school of thought. For the Muslim nation to come to being, one has assume that all its constituent communities are homogenous, Afghanistan has proved that assumption to be wrong. Right behind it, ranks Algeria and Morocco with their Berber communities; Indonesia with its Ahmedis, Egypt with its Koranists, Turkey with its Alavis, in addition to the Kurdish issue it shares with Iraq and Syria, and the list might be longer. Additionally, one has only to consider the flagrant failure of the Arab League and the of the Islamic Conference to produce any meaningful policy were it to advance local or regional affairs.
Mr. Tripp has beautifully expressed the importance of context and, I would add, of hypertext in the analysis of the crisis blighting political Islam today. The Idealistic aspirations to a “Muslim Nation” can only be compared to those seeking to create a “ just and peaceful world.”
To speak of dictatorship as being the immemorial way of doing things in the Middle East is simply untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and lack of concern for the Arab future. Creating a democratic political and social order in Iraq or elsewhere in the region will not be easy. But it is possible, and there are increasing signs that it has already begun.
Judith Miller knocked in the Middle East, and many doors opened. But her focus on Islamic militancy blinded her to enlightened currents of Islam. Separation of religion and state is not a real option in a region where the faith is central to life, but Muslims can choose what kind of Islam will hold sway.
If President Bush hopes to make good on his promise to bring democracy to the Arab world, he must rethink U.S. strategy, which overemphasizes civil society and economic development. Neither has caused much political liberalization in the Middle East, nor have more punitive measures. To promote Arab democracy, Washington needs a new approach: offering financial incentives for political reform.
Washington's repeated attempts to bring peace to Somalia with state-building initiatives have failed, even backfired. It should renounce political intervention and encourage local development without trying to improve governance.
Comments
Blaut at work
One steps in here with some trepidation. What is true for the Muslims is true for the Christians. That is the problem that many seem to find some difficulty when they confront an obdurate reality. 9/11 and other attempts merely happen to be such and the rest of the world happen to be the unwitting victims of these two problem-groups. A christian wearing a tie and a shirt and banging his or her head on the pulpit does not turn one any more modern or different than a Muslim who believes in his mark on the forehead (that comes from daily prayers) as something desirable - while assuming to aspire for a world that reflects his views. That goes for every religion that seeks certain foothold over world affairs, including the organization of society and states. The similar problem of facing an obdurate reality by ideological fanatics does not do away the rationale of Marx in certain contexts. It does not render Marx any more relevant either.
The mistakes one makes in assuming a spill-over of certain issues outside the purview of the private - is what forms the obdurate reality of a reality that is different. This different reality has nothing to do with the issue of dominance that the authors have been speaking about. That would be too ambitious an imagination.
The issue is an old hat within academia but that does not mean that it is not solved. It is simply not acceptable to the Christian world or other religious cosmoses that any competing view should dominate. They are seen as revisionist. Strictly from the point of politics and its awareness - any view that threatens the basic right of the freedom of the individual can be seen as facing an obdurate reality that immediately acts as a check. Including that of dense-headed academics or dense headed real-politik considerations that remain unarticulated though very much practiced.
Examples of human ambition and the periodic flowering of them does bestow a sense of accomplishment - like Nazi Germany did to its people that believed in Nazi Germany. The same holds true for every form of tyrannical dominance or attempts for that. Thankfully history often corrects such assumptions as it did for Nazi Germany and as it shall for other such assumptions.
But one needs some honest introspection over that or one needs to read Carl Gustav Jung a little more carefully, including human history and that which is not limited to those who have not read J.M. Blaut or read him.
The awareness of certain other things often helps in finding the reality(ies) less obdurate. The issue, if faced squarely, over a certain maturity of ideas and thoughts (and thankfully those are not necessarily limited to the number of books one has authored or read) do provide us with adequate solutions. Does the world want that? Does the world that helps the above authors write and publish this book wants the solutions? Will it allow them? A similar question stares in the face - for every such cognitive cosmos that aspires to a certain dominance or in their continuance. With that caveat, well - we are back to where we had begun. One doubts however if things would improve without improving the awareness about the certain basic notions and aims and aspirations over politics and religion. Interested readers may like reading some views by this commentator elsewhere - over such issues and the meanings.
Islamic politics are a federal system
The all politics is local observation begs the question as to why U.S. policy typically focuses on strengthening national governments at the expense of local. Traditionally in the Muslim world local elites and political entities had more or less complete freedom of action as long as they supported the titular ruler, for instance, reciting prayers in the name of a regional leader. In Afghanistan to Yemen we see continued struggles as national rulers now move to impose authority over local entities; the national governments have direct access to international aid, especially military aid, that gives them an advantage in raw power politics they did not historically enjoy. The biggest irony is that the U.S., so dedicated domestically to a federal system of shared power, typically gives complete allegiance and exclusive support to national leaders like Karzai or Musharref without considering how to promote a more traditional, and arguably fairer and more stable, system of shared power devolved to local authorities. Such systems gain more support locally and have more legitimacy in the long run. Helicopter gun ships or fighter jets sold to a national government with access to oil revenue or international aid are no substitute for getting buy-in from all local stake-holders when it comes to nation building.
All (Muslim) Politics is Local
The trite fact that local factors play a significant part should not obscure the global nature of the Muslim ummah. The notion of a Muslim ummah is as old as Islam itself. But, until recently, there was no global reach.
The situation has changed dramatically in the last sixty years or so. Thanks to the revolution in transport and communications, the globalization of Islam is beginning to be seen as a feasible proposition. Spectacular developments in transportation and communications, and the compulsions of global economics, have led to massive migrations from Islamic nations to the West. But these same developments have ensured that migrant communities no longer have to ‘cut the umbilical cord’ from their parent cultures and communities. As the immigrant communities grow, they inevitably acquire numerical weight in the democracies to which they have moved. Some religions/cultures - the two are inextricably mixed - find assimilation in the host country easier than others. Those who belong to the less miscible cultures, finding themselves at odds with local culture and customs, take recourse to assertions of separate identity, to appeals for religious and cultural rights. As they reach a numerically ‘critical mass’, these claims become more strident.
Modernity has put the technological tools necessary for the realization of the ummah in the hands of Islamic zealots. But, as Kepel himself has said, "..The aim was no longer to modernize Islam but to 'Islamize modernity'".
The author says: "A cursory glance at political reality makes clear that most of the conflicts involving Muslim immigrants in, for example, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom owed more to the policies pursued by these states' governments than to the Islamic identities or even Islamist proclivities of the protagonists."
This is true to the extent that these governments have - for reasons connected with electoral politics - failed to deal with the "the Islamic identities or even Islamist proclivities of the protagonists". As a result, the assertions of Islamic identity are becoming more and more strident in the West. Rationalizing this in terms of local politics is not likely to help.
The Myth of the Islamic Umah
Since the emergence of the Islamic faith in the seventh century, Muslims have strived to create a homogenous community “ mina al-Bahri ila Al-Bahr” from sea to sea, meaning from the Indian ocean to the Atlantic oceans. However, in its 15 centuries of existence, this religion, like many others, has been adopted or forced upon communities that have integrated its overall philosophy to their indigenous cultures. In the beginning, this has resulted in a great civilization that amalgamated Persian and other Asia Minor Arts with Egyptian sciences for instance, and it flourished.
However, it soon met the challenge of political legitimacy that every community needed and demanded sometimes les armes a la main. That legitimacy could only be earned, even in modern times, through a strong display of commitment by the leaders and loyalty by the followers. That loyalty and commitment are not measured by the degree of the leaders knowledge of the Koran or the followers’ piety - some exceptions granted- ; they are nonetheless measured by the needs and to some extent to the self-image of each and every community. Arabism, nationalism, socialism and Islamism are all expressions of identity-welding endeavors in communities that strive to assert their existence and sometimes just preserve it!
As noted by the author of the article, Western media and to some extent scholars, mistakenly believe the Muslim nation to have a unified vision or unified aspirations. The concept of a Muslim nation, “Al Ummah” created by some dreamy scholar in the middle ages is no more than a myth is only real in the western school of thought. For the Muslim nation to come to being, one has assume that all its constituent communities are homogenous, Afghanistan has proved that assumption to be wrong. Right behind it, ranks Algeria and Morocco with their Berber communities; Indonesia with its Ahmedis, Egypt with its Koranists, Turkey with its Alavis, in addition to the Kurdish issue it shares with Iraq and Syria, and the list might be longer. Additionally, one has only to consider the flagrant failure of the Arab League and the of the Islamic Conference to produce any meaningful policy were it to advance local or regional affairs.
Mr. Tripp has beautifully expressed the importance of context and, I would add, of hypertext in the analysis of the crisis blighting political Islam today. The Idealistic aspirations to a “Muslim Nation” can only be compared to those seeking to create a “ just and peaceful world.”
Fadhma Izri Folensbee