The Atlantic Monthly informs us that Rudy Giuliani has been learning "evangelese" to reach out to Southern Christians, a sharp departure from his earlier public rhetorical style. Here in an unspecified country I noticed an Arabic-language tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an written for elementary students. Early on, the book addressed the verse "Al Kafiroun" ("the infidels", or "those who deny the truth"):
"Say: O you unbelievers, / I do not worship what you worship / Nor do you worship what I worship / And you will not worship what I have worshipped / And I will not worship what you have worshipped / To you your religion and to me - [true] religion."
In English and in the West, Islamic apologists cite this verse as evidence of Islam's inherently tolerant, easygoing nature. (I have provided a literal translation; the last line is usually freely translated as "To you your Way and to me mine," implying an non-sectarian attitude.) But I found a different interpretation in the books for schoolchildren: "Here God explains that in matters of truth we can make no compromise." In the book's view, believers should be aware of the vast difference between unbelief and belief, between true religion and lies.
Different words are used for different audiences. Adult English speakers read about tolerance. Muslim schoolchildren read about the need to have the proper attitude towards those who reject Faith. Which audience is the more discerning, and which interpretation the more convincing?
With those thoughts in mind, I came across Francis Fukuyama's commentary in Prospect Magazine regarding identity politics. The article, clearly inspired by the proliferation of trans-national and violent Islamic supremacist organizations in Europe, considers the origins of such extremism. Fukuyama argues that anomie, a conflicted identity, and a sense of rootlessness makes people susceptible to "radical" thought; it is an "open question" whether there is anything specific to Islam that might exacerbate such psychological tensions. But Fukuyama closes the question by proceeding as though the answer were negative.
A comparison might shed some light on the question. Hindus from India and Buddhists from Thailand and atheists from China also experience anomie and feel torn between cultures. There are millions of them living in America and Europe. Yet the Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists tend not to follow international, chauvinist, supremacist, and separatist ideologies or organizations. There is no Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist equivalent to Hizb at-Tahrir or al-Ghurabaa' and its successors. In the climate that the latter groups cultivate, religiously-inspired violence is a flower that grows easily.
Could Fukuyama be discouting intolerant Islamic ideology on the grounds that it must be outside of the mainstream or theologically illegitimate? In the first place, regardless of whether it is legitimate, such ideology exists and is persuasive to many. Were it not, the British security services would not be monitoring dozens of serious active plots; nor would their French counterparts would not be worried when al-Zawahiri commands Algerians to strike "infidel" France.
Fukuyama's problem, like that of so many Westerners, is that he does not take his opponents' arguments seriously. Instead, he retreats into the Western political thought with which he is already familiar, considering non-Western philosophies exclusively through the lens of Western philosophy. This train of thought, however, takes Fukuyama to a rather provocative destination:
"Liberalism cannot ultimately be based on group rights, because not all groups uphold liberal values."
5 comments:
"There is no Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist equivalent to Hizb at-Tahrir or al-Ghurabaa' and its successors. ~"
You dumb ignorant fuck. Haven't you heard of the Hindu RSS? Or how about the atheist Communist party of Joseph Stalin or even the Nazi party. Besides Hizb-ut-Tahrir have neve rbeen linked to any violence apart from the imagination of people of your ilk.
Your language is refreshingly colorful. Of course intolerance and chauvinism exist in many contexts. The Communists and Nazis are good examples of past political extremists, just as the RSS is in the context of the Subcontinent. However, I was examining present-day Europe in the context of Fukuyama's article.
It would be difficult to argue that "The Party of Liberation" has an ecumenical or cooperative worldview. At issue is not Hizb at-Tahrir's formal participation in violence but rather the import of its philosophy.
As evidence that hizb ut tahrir promote violence, you reference not their literature but someone elses opinion. Hardly convincing, especially the article from Ziauddin Sardar which again does not quote any evidence...Can you actually come up with anything to prove your point? We could say that the US promotes violence (which it certainly does) because your president says "nothing is off the table" when commenting on Iran.
I wrote not that Hizb at-Tahrir was a violent organization, but that it was international, chauvinist, supremacist, and separatist. These adjectives seem accurate given the the group's own statements and actions.
State-level violence and threats of violence is a constant in international relations. But we are working at a more anthropological and philosophical level of analysis, examining the role of ideas in society and the significance of their interpretations.
As for Hizb at-Tahrir, its stated goal is to use politics, propaganda, and political Islam to persuade that an Islamic caliphate is the best regime. To be sure, the group also states that it does not wish to change Western societies or governments, at least in its official literature (some of the news reports cited above reveal a different story, in a situation analogous to the multiple representations of Surat al-Kafiroun.)
The problem and contradiction within the argument on Hizb at-Tahrir's website is that Islam cannot be a "comprehensive way of life" that manages both "state and society" in a non-Muslim society. Indeed, by Hizb at-Tahrir's own standards, any state not founded upon Islamic law and tradition is seriously deficient by its very nature.
I agree with you that Hizb at-Tahrir does not formally and openly promote violence. But it promotes an ideology that rejects any aspect of the Western tradition not found in orthodox Islam. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view.
For Muslims who long for a more Islamic world, groups like Hizb at-Tahrir are marvelous. For non-Muslims who do not welcome the prospect of Muslim domination, such groups are destabilizing and unwelcome.
To continue to beat a dead horse, here is a book-length publication from Hizb at-Tahrir elaborating their views on a variety of issues. Though in English (much more is available here in Arabic) it is not as carefully edited as the HT's British website. Suffice to say that HT is consistently theocratic and illiberal in its thought
Post a Comment