[lit-ideas] Mainstream Islamist Movements
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:07:57 -0800
Omar,
I found the Carnegie Paper, No 87, that you reference
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view
<http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18095&pr
og=zgp&proj=zdrl,zme> &id=18095&prog=zgp&proj=zdrl,zme very interesting.
Its title is "Islamist Movements and the Democratic Process in the Arab
World: Exploring Gray Zones." The pdf file is 19 pages of text but well
worth reading. Having said that, it doesn't quite address the concerns I
had. I am truly interested in the activities in the various Islamist
organizations in the Middle East, but the Carnegie Paper authors don't
provide a description of Moderate Islam, which is what I sought. In fact
they pretty much concede that there isn't very much of it: "Mainstream
Islamist organizations are so influential because they have little
competition. No ideology in the Arab world has at present the appeal of the
Islamist message, which powerfully combines a religious ideal with the
concept of social justice . . ."
The three authors of the paper, Nathan Brown, Marina Ottawa, and Amr
Hamzaway seem to know the inner workings of the various Islamist
organizations very well. For the purposes of their paper they define
Mainstream Islamist Movements as "those that have eschewed or formally
renounced violence and are pursuing goals through peaceful political
activity. This is a minimalist definition, and it makes no assumptions
about what such Islamists truly believe. It does not assume that these
movements are genuinely committed to democracy, that they have given up on
the goal of making the Sharia, or Islamic law, the basis for all laws, or
that they truly accept equal rights for women. We have deliberately chosen
the minimalist definition as the starting point of a project that seeks to
clarify the beliefs, ultimate goals, and strategies of these nonviolent
movements."
I mentioned having read Raymond William Baker's Islam without fear, Egypt
and the New Islamists, 2003, and come away with the impression that the New
Islamists sound very like the Old Islamists except for the violence. The
"without fear' qualification seemed to mean that they weren't going to try
and kill you. I'll admit that the New Islamists represent a step in the
right direction if it is truly a step (i.e., the creation of a movement - a
viewpoint that gathers in popularity), but Baker couldn't provide evidence
that it was and neither can Brown, Ottawa and Hamzaway, although they
believe that "Evidence from the research leading to this analysis suggests
that the reformist currents in the Islamist movement are real, that they are
becoming much more sophisticated and flexible in their thinking, and that
recent political successes in some countries is increasing their influence
within their respective organizations. It also suggests that gray zones
remain extensive..."
The grey zones mentioned throughout are some of the characteristics of
Islamism, i.e., an emphasis upon a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia
Law, intolerance of minority religions, restriction of women's rights,
opposition to political pluralism, and opposition to civil rights. A good
definition of a "Moderate Muslim" would be one who does not advocate a
Fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia Law, tolerates minority religions,
gives equal rights to women, respects political pluralism and believes in
the protection of civil rights. The Carnegie authors call these "gray
zones" because the majority of the Islamists don't respect these points.
Thus, while not providing evidence that there are any Moderate Muslims, they
do provide evidence that some Islamists (Moderate or Mainstream) are moving
away from a hard-line Islamist view of the gray areas. I suppose we should
take some comfort in that.
The Carnegie Paper offers useful information on Islamist movements in the
Middle East. There are no Moderate Muslim movements or Moderate Muslims to
speak of. But there are Islamists organizations that have eschewed
violence. Of course violence against Israel isn't eschewed, that it is
still advocated, and secular governments view these non-violent Islamists
with a jaundiced eye, and while the authors aren't sure the secularists
aren't right, they believe some reformist trends are probably genuine.
Meanwhile back in Europe, is this going to be enough to placate Europeans'
growing anger? Is this going to be enough to assure Oriana Fallaci that she
has nothing to worry about, that no Islamists are going to deface Michael
Angelo's "David" because it is naked? Is this going to be enough to enable
the Arabs who have immigrated to Europe to see a need to integrate rather
than gather in Islamist enclaves? Is this going to be enough to sooth the
Europeans who fear the Islamists are intending to take Europe over and make
it Eurabia? Almost certainly not.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 11:18 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Olivier Roy, Daniel Pipes and Oriana Fallaci
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So quick with the ad hominem attacks that you miss
> the point, Omar. You and
> Judy are so quick to pick Oriana Fallaci out of the
> discussion to attack,
> because she attacked Islam, that you miss the point
*You also use the right to not take some of the
authors to whom we call attention seriously, so I
plead to be granted the same right in the case of
Fallaci. Her Islamophobic message aside, I couldn't
possibly be expected to read anyone who writes in such
a gushing style.
> - the point being that
> people aren't seeing any moderate Muslims out there.
*I think some here already pointed out that "people"
who live in countries/areas with Muslim majorities or
sizable Muslim minorities do see 'moderate Muslims' -
though I have some objections to this term - out
there. (I see them in China, too.)
Re our recent discussion on moderate Islamism, I would
recommend this paper (published by Carnegie Endowment,
hardly a Marxist or Islamist orginization):
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18095&pro
g=zgp&proj=zdrl,zme
Among the moderate Islamist parties in the Arab world
are said to be: Morocco's Parti de la Justice et du
Developpement (PJD), Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and
Al-Wasat (Center) Party, Yemen's Islah (Reform) Party,
Jordan's Islamic Action Front, Kuwait's Islamic
Constitutional Movement, and Bahrain's al-Wefaq
[Concordance] Society. (This does not include moderate
Islamist parties in Turkey, Malaysia etc. since the
discussion focuses on the Arab countries.) These are
described as "Mainstream Islamist movements, for the
purpose of this paper, are those that have eschewed or
formally renounced violence and are pursuing their
goals through peaceful political activity." The paper
also discusses the Hamas and the Hizbollah, which have
not renounced the use of violence against external
occuppier but participate in peaceful political
process internally. It's not yet clear what happens to
the Islamist parties in Iraq, such as the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Al-Da`wa.
You might have some difficulty to dismiss all this as
irrelevant.
O.K.
Other related posts:
