Christopher Hitchens has been one of the greatest public intellectuals presenting a relentless case in favor of the liberal tradition on the one hand and a resolute opposition to the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses to liberalism. He writes about al Awlaki here. One thing I like about this piece is that he doesn't get tangled up in the killing itself and focuses on who al Awlaki was - what sort of al Qaeda member he was - and the implications that that has for the way Americans react to the problem. This is particularly good:
"Slow and sidelong cultural erosions of this kind can do incalculable harm. And they can also be horribly and cheaply self-replicating: Some people will “overreact” to a specter of Islamism however slight, and this will offend the man who is only trying to meet his prayer obligations, and then a whole machinery of supposed grievance and redress clanks into action. Meanwhile, those who orchestrate this little carnival of mayhem and social corrosion are able to do so from areas that are beyond our legal jurisdiction but within our military reach, and to taunt us while doing so."
"...and a resolute opposition to the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses to liberalism."
ReplyDeleteWhich is very little. We massively overspend both blood and treasure on this project.
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Security-Money-Balancing-Benefits/dp/0199795762/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317716135&sr=1-7
Gary -
ReplyDeleteWe've clearly overspent - the TSA scanners are a good example of that - and we've spent in places that don't even help out, like Iraq.
I'm not quite sure how mistakes like that negate the problem. If anything, those sorts of mistakes make the problem worse than it was - right? We are facing the same problem with less resources because the resources were poorly directed elsewhere.
Anyway - the other thing to remember is that we're not just talking about a threat to liberalism here - an assumption I think your CBA probably makes.
Daniel, a small point, but if you could be more blunt, you could simply write Islam instead of Islamic fundamentalism.
ReplyDeleteI explain as my Muslim friend explains.
Unlike certain other religious scriptures which are written by dozens of authors with multiple viewpoints, the Koran was written by the hands of one person. This one person does contradict himself repeatedly, but that's because he had to change his mind at the later stages of the book, as Islamic scholars acknowledge. The later text always has greater authority than an earlier text, leaving no contradictions whatsoever.
So while the Bible or the Torah may be read with care, with some amount of discretion about the degree to which you practice a doctrine, the Koran is pretty clear about what it expects of the reader. While "Christian fundamentalist" may describe someone who is taking Leviticus' anachronistic prescriptions too seriously, "Islamic fundamentalist" really just refers to a follower of Islam.
My Muslim friend, whom I call Muslim as an ethnic term only, does not consider himself a follower of Islam. It's Do or Do Not. There is no in-between. The word 'Islamic fundamentalism' is a strange invention used to distinguish "moderate, Westernized, secular Muslims" from "hard-line Muslims", except Major Nidal Malik Hassan was himself a prototype of one who seemed to be "moderate, Westernized, secular Muslim". There wasn't any "radicalization" or "depression" that pushed Major Hassan to do what he did; he merely did what he was told under the commandments of his faith.
If you feel Islam poses a threat to liberalism, say it that way. Why the circumvention using "Islamic fundamentalism poses a threat to liberalism"? I never imagined that someone like you, who normally says it like he sees it, would want to hide from the truth. ;)
Maybe you're right - but even if "fundamentalism" is not the right word, it seems like there still ought to be a modifying adjective.
ReplyDeleteIt may be clear what Mohammed wanted, but one can adopt a more modern, relativistic view of what Allah wanted and say that elements of the Koran - particularly around dealing with infidels - were for "another time and place" as it were. Such a person who still feels they hew to Allah's expectations, if not a pre-modern warrior's expectations, seem like they should be called "Muslim" and practitioners of "Islam" if that's how they see it.
Maybe fundamentalist isn't the best word - I could believe that. You argue "radical" isn't the best word either, but if killing someone because they don't think like you isn't "radical" I'm not sure what the word is. Perhaps just "illiberal versions of Islam"?
Anyway - I try to say it how I see it, and the way I see it is that there are distinctions worth making. Whether the right label for that is "fundamentalist" is something I'm less committed to.
Well, I just don't think there are multiple versions of Islam at all, outside of differences allowed for by the multiple sects, of course.
ReplyDeleteI used to believe that the Pakistan People's Party had a more moderate undercurrent as far as religion goes, because it was a cosmopolitan, middle class party. Then I discovered that these supposed moderates were the first people to make blasphemy a criminal act under Pakistani law in the 1960s. That's when I started to understand that...perhaps...even these educated, middle class Pakistani Muslims really do subscribe to these pre-modern beliefs of more tribal Muslims.
To be as clear as possible, I think there are no moderate Muslims, period. There is no qualification you can add to Muslim. Those who start a process of "moderation" eventually end up like Ayaan Hirsi Ali - outright atheists or people who reject Islam.
Scott P. Richert of Rockford, Illinois once visited mosques of the Illinois region and found clear cut supporters of Osama bin Laden preaching and congregating there. These are American Muslims who have lived this cosmopolitan American life for generations. THEY think like this.
The problem is that many Lebanese Maronite Christians, many Egyptian Jews, many Egyptian Coptic Christians, many Balkan Orthodox Christians living in upper class parts of their societies - they have all had stories of living next to seemingly enlightened Muslim neighbours whom they believed to be tolerant before those very neighbours turned on them, and forced them to run away. I really wonder if Western people some day will experience the same shock that has jolted Maronite and Coptic people in the past.
I hope they do not, and I hope many of the new generations of young Muslims of migrant families in the West completely move away from the dark and morbid beliefs of their parents.
EDIT: dark and morbid religion of their parents.
ReplyDeletePrateek,
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out a couple of things.
First the Qu'ran wasn't compiled in its relatively final form until generations after Mohammad died; that is, it didn't reach its written state until that time.
Second, Mohammed dictated the Qu'ran.
Third, the Qu'ran is draws widely from the cultural and religious ideas, stories, myths, etc. that were part of Mohammed's world. Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, Greek, etc. stories, myths, ideas, etc. are littered throughout the text.
Daniel,
ReplyDelete"I'm not quite sure how mistakes like that negate the problem."
First one has to realize that there isn't much of a problem to start with.
The U.S. has spent (outside of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) $1 trillion on this stuff for very little return. Now certainly there were some very simple things like changes to cockpit doors that were useful, but what followed those sorts of things were increasingly nebulous in their relation to the issue. The U.S. needs to fundamentally ratchet down its response, unfortunately that may take decades to do due to the inertia built into the system, the sort of client-patronage relationships already established, etc.
As for Hithens, I guess I should identify with him as an intellectual figure, but he's never impressed me very much.
"Well, I just don't think there are multiple versions of Islam at all, outside of differences allowed for by the multiple sects, of course."
ReplyDeleteThis is literally the most nonsensical sentence I've ever read. Wildly preposterous.
So you are making an argument from personal incredulity. If something makes you incredulous, it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, I used to push forth the line, "Don't think they all take Islam's harmful passages to their logical conclusion" every time public sentiment turned raw towards Muslims during a scandalous event. "There are moderates too", I would add. But what I meant was: "There are probably moderates." Why am I appealing to invisible people I am not sure exist? Where were they? How do I find them? Every moderate Muslim I know, on inquiry, turned out to be completely atheistic and only followed family rituals now and then.
On the other hand, these cases of honour killings, spontaneous savage attacks on noncoreligionists,.etc - you can see plenty of them from people who are supposed to be moderates. Upper class Muslim families living across Asia, Europe, and North America have far far too many cases of honour killings among their ranks. When an American Muslim father killed his two daughers for having boyfriends, some claimed it was a crime of passion, but he was relaxed and serious about it. The man did not go crazy; he rationally followed what was always an expected tenet of his faith, much as even the civilized Carthaginians threw away their children into fires as a part of duty.
Now I'm incredulous.
ReplyDeletePrateek, you don't even know the meaning of the words that you are arguing with; how, then, can you claim to understand the thought process and personal philosophy of a billion strangers?
Incredulity refers to believability, whereas when something is nonsensical or preposterous it means it is irrational and illogical. Your statements are on their face incoherent (namely your assertion that outside the multiple versions of Islam, there are not multiple versions of Islam), and upon further inspection are full of such putrid bigotry I don't think I've ever been angrier at a stranger on the internet in my life (I'm referring specifically to your insinuations that one must either be willing to commit honor killings, or they are not a Muslim).
I highly suggest you further meditate on your positions (and perhaps on life in general), and try to expand your Muslim network.
"Your statements are on their face incoherent (namely your assertion that outside the multiple versions of Islam, there are not multiple versions of Islam)"
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify this, and ignore your empty white knight posturing. (As an Indian, I have known more Muslims, non-practicing or practicing, than you have, so your comments on my Muslim network are futile.)
Oh crap, my entire post suddenly got backspaced at the last moment.
ReplyDeleteI had links to statements by Ibn Khaldun and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali that established the limits of tolerable dissent in Islam, which pretty much leaves no doubt that Koran is not open to interpretation.
I'll have to rewrite it tomorrow.
"(As an Indian, I have known more Muslims, non-practicing or practicing, than you have, so your comments on my Muslim network are futile.)"
ReplyDeleteYou have literally no idea who I am or where I am or what my cultural and intellectual background is. How can you be so both confident and condescending to about this when you obviously lack all of this knowledge? I am a complete and utter stranger to you. That's what 'Anonymous' means. This is shockingly embarrassing.
"I had links to statements by Ibn Khaldun and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali that established the limits of tolerable dissent in Islam, which pretty much leaves no doubt that Koran is not open to interpretation."
Don't you get it? It doesn't matter who said what. As you have personally demonstrated numerous times in this very conversation, merely a single word can be the cause of grinding confusion. So to ascertain with moral authority that an entire text--filled with metaphors, and is openly acknowledged to contain large contradictions--is open to only a very small band of interpretation based on what a couple other human beings said hundreds of years ago, is ludicrous. (But note: that's open to interpretation.)
So then, in a span of six posts you have demonstrated that you:
1) Do not understand coherence
2) Do not understand definitions of the very words that you use and you argue against
3) Do not understand civility in discourse
4) Do not understand anonymity
5) Do not understand religion in general
6) Do not understand Islam in particular
So to me, I see you are filled with a lot of confusion. My prescription, again, is further and broader study, meditation, and contact with society at large. You can overcome this. I believe in you.
I had posted a reply to you, Prateek, here a couple of hours ago, but now it appears to be gone. Any thoughts on this, DK? I'll admit it was strongly worded, but it didn't contain any swears or calls for violence. And I thought it ended on a positive note.
ReplyDeleteTo condense it, I guess: I still don't think you, Prateek, are as knowledgeable on this subject as you think you are--your allusions to incoming posts only further imbed those beliefs in me.
Again, I plead you to study and meditate this matter further.
"On the other hand, these cases of honour killings, spontaneous savage attacks on noncoreligionists,.etc - you can see plenty of them from people who are supposed to be moderates. Upper class Muslim families living across Asia, Europe, and North America have far far too many cases of honour killings among their ranks."
ReplyDeleteIt was all blowback as a result of US imperialism abroad. Well, that's the only answer I was able to get from all four corners of Mises.org