After the Arab Spring revolts, elections in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco all point toward a victory for Islamist parties. This tendency worries Western observers, who perceive Political Islam as a major uncertainty at best. These recent events, together with insights I received after talking with Muslim friends here Belgium, compelled me to blog on the matter. Is Political Islam a threat or a treat? To whom is it so and why? These are the questions that concern us. Also bear in mind the difference between Islam as such and Political Islam; the latter being an ideological current that seeks to shape society by participating in the political process.
 |
| Is Political Islam opposed to imperialism or capitalism? Can it, as a set of ideas, formulate an answer to them? |
Before anything else, Islam is a religion. And as such based on dogma - an absolute and undeniable truth that is given and exists outside of humanity. It also is a mechanism of socialization, replicating cultural patterns (values and attitudes) over generations. Cultural patterns always are historical entities, they are a product of their time. From a Marxist point of view, archaic patterns limit the scope by which people can realize their potential. Traditional Islam thus is a boundary on further emancipation. From this follows that Political Islam as it exists today is fundamentally anti-Western. Speaking in a cultural sense, that is. 'Western values' linked to modernity (freedom of religion, emancipation of women, etc.) are in conflict with the current traditional interpretations given by Political Islam.
The anti-Western attitude is however not a characteristic of Political Islam by definition. Islam can be united with modernity. So in no way am I making the case for Islamophobia or a clash of civilizations. The contradiction is one in the field of ideas, and ideas change along with the circumstances that allows them to exist. The traditional interpretation of Islam that thrives today reflects underlying material realities: Islam can be used as a means of mobilization and propagation in support of or against ruling elites, whether they'd be domestic (Ben Ali, Mubarak) or foreign (Israel, United States). Given the current circumstances, a traditional anti-Western and anti-modern interpretation is most lucrative; it is also the way of the least resistance.
 |
| Is there really a clash of civilizations à la Huntington? Or is it actually just a clash of state/class interests? |
Political Islam is thus a tool to real interests; as an ideology in itself it does not seek to alter material conditions. That Political Islam is conceptually poor can be seen in what it articulates: serving in a community and taking part in rituals is paramount. Charity toward the poor is encouraged, but the recognition of struggle against one's material conditions as legitimate is missing. Political Islam is an empty box and indeed not 'political' at all. Because Islam offers no adequate framework to criticize material conditions or structures, it is not even anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist. Sure, Islam isn't too keen on rents (making money with money) but this is a mere aspect of financial economics. In no way can Islam be used to address capitalism as a mode of production. The same it goes for the international political organization.
Does this mean that a Muslim can not be against imperialism or capitalism? Of course not, it only means he can not be so on grounds of his religious beliefs. Islam can well be mixed with other views from conservatism, liberalism, etc. But the political aspects of his reasoning would lie outside Islam. The only questions that thus remain are: (1) To what extend can Islam be consistently unified with other (modern) ideologies? (2) Supposed that a modern formulation of Islam would not be meaningless, would it be useful? From my Marxist perspective on religion, the answer is quite clear-cut. I do nonetheless look kindly to efforts linking Islam with modernity.
Any thoughts, questions, or other relevancies? Please do share in the comments section! :p
3 opmerkingen:
I personally wouldn't mind living in an Islamic society one bit. That being said, I would probably feel different if I were a woman and keen on driving a car and wearing "western clothing". A big drawback would be: no more bikini's, no more skirts... no, on second though, I probably WOULD mind living in an Islamic society. But since Islam is the largest and most fertile religion, aswell as the fastest growing, it will eventually be a reality everywhere. So we better get used to the idea, right? :)
I do not see the Islam as a big danger in any case. Not a bigger danger then any other religion. I am always wary of the smaller sects though. As with most major religions.
Islam is not as unified as it appears to us in the West. And I am not just referring to the Sunni-Shiite split. Various other elements like class, gender, nationality, etc. blend in with Islam and create diverging tendencies.
Just compare Turkish businessmen with Bosnian farmers, Saudi Arabian oil barons with Iran's clergy, Moroccan reformists with Palestinian revolutionaries. Islam is not conquering the world, the world is conquering Islam.
Very true. People are very fast to lump everyone in a single religion together. While religion plays a major part in developing a nation's culture, there are other factors that determine and dictate culture and tradition too. There are many misconceptions in the Western World about Islam (often misused by populists such as Wilders and Le Pen). For example, take Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali critic of Islam. One of her main reasons for attacking Islam was female circumcision. A truly horrible practice that she claimed was a part of Islamic culture. Nothing could be further from the truth, though! It's a part of AFRICAN (and thus Somali) culture. Somali Christians do it too. It is not in the Quran and Muslims outside of Africa don't do it. Yet Hirsi Ali, reasoning only through her own perspective, made it appear as if Islam was responsible for these mutilations. Which, obviously, hurt the reputation of Islam in the West.
Another example: the seventy virgins Muslim martyrs and Jihadists are said to be rewarded after entering paradise. You know the word for "virgin" in this context, could also mean "grape"? So instead of an entire harem of lucious ladies, Osama might have only received a bowl of grapes upon entering paradise. If he would even be allowed in, because in Islam, the term "Jihad" is often misinterpreted, too. Muhammed never meant it the way extremists nowadays interpret it.
Also nice to mention is the "Sharia", Islamic Law, that if we are to believe Wilders, is the most evil law ever. You know it's almost 95% similar to the Talmudic laws of Jews? The practice of stoning people to death (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.) hails from the Talmud and was copied by Muhammed, the same way he was inspired by the Bible and Tenach with creating the Quran. Islam is credited with so many barbaric practices, most, if not all, of these come from Christianity and Judaism.
Islam is often misunderstood. On purpose.
Een reactie posten