I'm a new member of this blog. David and I have shared some correspondence and comment-thread discussions about his first and second posts on Islam. I wrote him a long message, which I'd like to share. So I'm turning this message into a separate post; if I left it as a comment on a thread from several days ago, I'm afraid it would go unread. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this blog in the last couple years--it's been a great resource for me.
----------
I appreciate your posts on Islam a lot. Your main point, as I understand it, is an important one: the fundamentalist Islam that is said to be a "perversion" is not one, and is in fact consistent with the Koran. You're pointing out a major strand of nonsense in media and political rhetoric. It is a distortion to say that the fundamentalists aren't "really Muslim." And your insistence on this point helps me to distinguish between Islamic fundamentalism, and certain strands of Protestant fundamentalism in the U.S.: for the varieties of state-worshipping and self-congratulory fundamentalism in the U.S. can really be called un-Christian, a mockery of Christianity, in a way that Islamic radicalism cannot.
So, I accept and am grateful for these points.
Still, I would resubmit my serious reservation about your approach to the question of Islam and the threat it poses to the "West." It's not that I wish to deny this threat. But looking at just one part of the picture--even if it is a MAJOR part of it--in fact distorts the whole image. And I think this is what you are doing.
The fact that Islamic radicalism is coherent and rational and in line with the Koran is an indispensable point. Still, to say this is NOT to explain or even get close to understanding the nature of the conflict we're in today.
Let me repeat a couple of points made earlier: FIRST, the brands of fundamentalism we're dealing with now are in fact MODERN, as are all forms of fundamentalism East and West; SECOND, that other forms of Islam, including the hegemonic kind practiced at the heights of the caliphates, WERE militant and expansionistic but still not at all like the kind of apocalyptic fundamentalisms of today--and the Islamic imperial rulers were in fact capable of rational discourse (as with Francis of Assisi) and quite unusual religious tolerance (as in Andalusia); THIRD, the threat American politicians were afraid of 30 years ago was not Arab RELIGIOUS radicalism, but rather pan-Arab, definantly SECULAR nationalism, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser and Yasir Arafat.
What all of these points suggest is NOT that Islam is actually "good" or "safe." I agree with you that is Islam is quite frightening doctrinally. The Koran is in many places hair-raising.
But the violence that we see in the Islamic word is in no sense a simple "function" of the texts and doctrines of Islam. It emerges from a political history of which the United States is THE main player.
Again, I'll emphasize the importance of secular pan-Arab nationalism, perhaps the most powerful global post-colonial movement between 1950 and 1980 (essentially euthanized when Sadat sold out the Palestinians and made a separate peace with Israel in 1978).
What the history of pan-Arab nationalism suggests is that the conflict between Islam and the West is really a part of, or a phase of, a conflict between the post-colonial Muslim countries and the United States, which has propped up corrupt regimes that have allowed for the persistence of neo-colonial exploitation. The conflict began before World War II with the Arab uprisings against the British; continued in the 1950's and '60's with the Algerian rebellion against the French; and the conflict persists today, when DE-colonization remains an unfulfilled promise. The conflict, simply put, was there BEFORE the explosion of Muslim fundamentalism in the last 30 years. What this MUST suggest is that the explosion itself reflects a transformation in an underlying POLITICAL conflict.
This is NOT to disagree with your assessment of Islamic doctrines or texts. But it IS to disagree with your assessment of the conflict we are now in with Muslims.
What especially concerns me is that focusing on Islam alone (and not on Islam WITHIN a geo-political CONTEXT) is the strategy of certain people who focus on Islam INSTEAD of the geopolitical situation, and in fact USE Islam as way of DENYING the geopolitical situation and the role of the U.S. and, especially, ISRAEL, within it.
Thus there are many, many people who say that because Islam is dangerous, the actions of Israel are not worth thinking about at all. Or they say, no matter what Israel does, the Arabs will hate us because of their insane religion--therefore Israel should continue annexing the Occupied Territories.
The language of several of the people you list as experts on Islam (for example, the egregious and grotesque Daniel Pipes) is baldly racist and slavishly pro-war.
I know from our correspondence that you do not share Pipes' assessment of U.S. foreign policy. But by focusing on Islam alone, as if it can be separated from the geopolitical context, you end up in his argumentative camp. Daniel Pipes cares not at all about Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. He cares exclusively about his professional status within the elite of the militarized U.S./Israeli propaganda establishment.
-----
The assassination of Anwar Sadat in fact is the event that crystallizes all of this. Sadat capitulated to the West and betrayed the Arab nationalist cause by signing a separate peacy treaty with Israel at Camp David, thereby essentially giving his seal of approval to the permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That moment announced the death of pan-Arab nationalism, which was sealed by the rapid degeneration of Yasir Arafat from defiant terrorist to corrupt gangster and stooge of Israel.
Who assassinated Sadat? The Muslim Brotherhood. So we can see here the nature of the resurgence of Islam. It emerges precisely as the movement which takes up the mantle of Arab nationalism and anti-U.S. agitation in the aftermath of Cold War-era Soviet support for the Arab states. Those states now have no patrons but the U.S., which enables their kleptocratic governments to persist intact, over the bodies of their own citizenry. The only counter-force emerges from the mosque--the only institution with any autonomy or influence in the Arab world apart from corrupt state governments.
3 comments:
Gabe,
Thank you for this incredible post! I have no problems with what you write above. We are in agreement. I would be curious to hear what others have to say about your thoughts.
Allow me to clarify... I agree with Gabe's overall theme in this post. I might differ on some fine points but in general he brings up many important things for us to consider.
This is quite longer than I intended; I think I apologize for that.
First, I will say that any attempt for an outsider to proclaim what is Islam and what is not does not seem very effective. Nor do I think would too many Christians take too kindly to the same being done to them; yes, there is still the truth of the matter of what is Christian and what is not, and since we have the Nicene Creed I am open to that discussion with anyone. With Islam, however, it does not seem as easy since there is not the same standard (or so it seems) to judge things against. Then there is the history and the different meaning given to things/events/persons and their place in Islam. As an outsider and a non-Arabic speaking person, I defer to others on that judgment. In English, I probably have learned most from Bernard Lewis on this and other related issues.
Why say this? Well, I will not get into a debate about what is Islam and what is not. I will, however, debate what is being said (by those--many of whom, though obviously not all—who proclaim themselves Muslim) and the effect it has especially on Christians, Jews, and us in what is considered “the West.” That being the case, I offer my comments to your post:
You said, “FIRST, the brands of fundamentalism we're dealing with now are in fact MODERN, as are all forms of fundamentalism East and West.”
What do you mean by “modern”? Do you mean in the past century or so? Or do you mean further back? There have been forms of militant Islam (or those who claim the banner of being “Muslims”) for hundreds of years. Not throughout all of Islamic-influenced areas but in a good number of them.
If you mean this precise form of terrorism or militancy in the name of Islam, as Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or Hizballah or other such groups in today’s world, then ok; but that seems to be narrowing the discussion so much that it distorts what is happening since so many of them believe (whether they are right or not) that they are part of a longer tradition of Muslims (dating back hundreds of years) who believe in what some call the external jihad. And like I said, for political or social discussion/analysis of this, they do not have to be right in their understanding of Islam; they believe they are so and we should approach them and this discussion with that framework/worldview in mind, as what is true for them; otherwise, we will not understand the extent of their will to fight.
Does “modern” include the late-1700 Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast? Lately, President Jefferson’s response to them has been mentioned a few times. They were terrorizing American ships, kidnapping, and then demanding ransoms and tributes. By 1800, it is said that the payments to them came out to about 20 percent of US revenues. Why bring this up? Because while Jefferson was Ambassador to France (1786), he had negotiations with an Arabic, Muslim ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. Jefferson asked “by what right he extorted money and took slaves.” Jefferson reported the following as what happened next: “The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.”
Once elected president, Jefferson ended the payment of ransom and tributes. It seems he understood enough of the enemy (the pirates): the foundation and the extent of their will to fight; perhaps more importantly the cause for which they believed they were fighting. As a result, Jefferson said that the US would give “millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.” Shortly thereafter, the US Marines were sent in and forced the surrender of Tripoli as well as the release of all American slaves held there. By the way, that is where we get the reference in the Marine hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores or Tripoli / We will fight our country’s battles in the air, on land and sea.” (This history is taken from a few sources, but Fr. Neuhaus discussed it in the April edition of First Things.)
That long ago does not seem “modern” by the way the word is used today.
What do you mean by “apocalyptic fundamentalisms”? How do they differ from the forms of “militant and expansionistic” Islam that you acknowledge? Is their difference merely the century they appeared or something more substantial?
Your third point. The “threat American politicians were afraid of 30 years ago” may have been solely “pan-Arab” and “SECULAR nationalism,” but that is beside the point. American politicians, I think we all agree, have been very ignorant about Islam and Arabic culture. Further, what American politicians considered a threat has not always been accurate. Look at 1990s and the lack of threat politicians (and even those supposed to study and analyze the matter) saw from certain militant Islamic groups. They really underestimated them no matter how many times attacks were successful on US and/or other interests.
Not sure why you said “30 years ago,” since if you change that to about 28 years ago, then we see that a clear threat was “RELIGIOUS radicalism” as seen in the Islamic Revolution in Iran and I do not see how this is rooted in “the resurgence of Islam” that you credit the Muslim Brotherhood with starting.
The further we go back in history, we will see that there have been forms of religious radicalism in the name of Islam that have waged terror on many in the West and elsewhere. (This would be a fascinating and possibly tiring task to trace the events of terrorism/war waged throughout history in the name of Islam and to analyze how religious or secular those causes “really” were, if such an assessment could be done.)
Then you say, “But the violence that we see in the Islamic word is in no sense a simple ‘function’ of the texts and doctrines of Islam. It emerges from a political history of which the United States is THE main player.”
Yikes! This is a huge claim and my full response will probably have to wait for another day. I will just say that if the US is the main player, that would not necessarily mean the US is at fault if what the US has been doing is justified and the best choice it has had in the circumstances it has found itself. An example being the Shah of Iran and some type of support for Pakistan. The alternatives were and are worse. The outcomes were and are problematic but at the time they seemed and seem (with regard to Pakistan) to be the best choice of often bad options. Kind of like teaming up with the mass-murderer Stalin in order to defeat Hitler. At the time, it seemed like the only way to do so in order to minimize our casualties. Today, it still seems like the best choice we had. What was wrong afterward was people to think Stalin was not doing the evil some said he was. What was wrong and counter-productive with regard to Iran was Carter’s policies. They all but ensured the Revolution as well as the hatred of some against the US. I say “some” because interestingly there is and have been many Iranians/Persians (often the non-fundamentalist Muslim) who have supported and like the US throughout the years. More on that for another day. Let it also be said that I do think there have been some real problems with some of our Middle East policies.
At the end of you paragraph on what the history pan-Arab nationalism suggests, you say, “The conflict, simply put, was there BEFORE the explosion of Muslim fundamentalism in the last 30 years. What this MUST suggest is that the explosion itself reflects a transformation in an underlying POLITICAL conflict.”
Muslim fundamentalism has been around and growing for more than 30 years. The past 30 years or so have just been the explosion of what was fostering for many years. So many historians of Al-Qaeda and the like say its roots go back quite a few decades if not more, where it was first somewhat intellectualized, then written and preached about, then actually lived, and what we have now are the effects of that history … what we have now are the consequences of that history. The history and lineage do pre-date quite a bit the 30 years you speak of. Your point seems to stand on the political conflict just over 30 years ago, but the history shows otherwise. What seems more to be the point is that that political conflict you spoke was another factor in an already growing militant-Islamic threat to the West. Another factor for militant Muslims, not the source.
Overall, it seems you are trying to blame all of this on the US and its policies: the “underlying POLITICAL conflict” you mention. Yet you also seem to blame British and French policies. Then how is it solely the US’s fault?
Your mention of Israel raises many more questions. The most important is, “Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?”
Continue annexing? They have given up land and they get terrorism thrown at them in return. They get suicide-homicide bombers murdering and maiming innocent Israeli civilians.
Towards the end, you say, “The language of several of the people you list as experts on Islam (for example, the egregious and grotesque Daniel Pipes) is baldly racist and slavishly pro-war.”
Ad-hominem attacks make your arguments look weaker. How is Pipes “egregious and grotesque”? What evidence can you point to that shows the “language of several of the people” listed as experts on Islam are “baldly racist and slavishly pro-war”?
Accusations without evidence are quite unbecoming and make your arguments seem like they cannot stand on their own. I have read Pipes for some time and he does not seem to be as you say. In fact, he has called for moderate Muslims (the non-militant ones) to come out and speak out more. He has asked and encouraged that they be given a more visible place in the public square. I just ask again, what evidence have you to substantiate your claims and defamations about him?
As to “slavishly pro-war,” that is not in and of itself a bad thing if you mean committed to going to war. All depends on how derogatory you regard "slavishly." In relation to Hitler, that would have been a good thing, especially for the 11 million or so innocents who were butchered and incinerated by his people. Had FDR and Chamberlain been a little more “pro-war” and especially Chamberlain less naïve, then many more would have survived and been saved from the terror of the Nazis.
Lastly, what should Sadat have done? And, again, do you recognize any legitimacy to the state of Israel as a Jewish state in more or less the area where it is?
Post a Comment