[lit-ideas] Re: Omar's Islamism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:51:23 -0800
Very interesting, Omar. I think you would fit to the Left of Egypt?s New
Islamists (assuming that the far right includes Saudi Salafists as well as
Qutb and Khomeini positions). I don?t recall reading that any of the New
Islamists dared to advance a symbolic interpretation of any portion of the
Koran or Haddiths. They just say such things as ?Qutb was no theologian and
simply got it wrong.?
The term Islamism has fairly consistently been applied to Radical, Militant
(especially terrorist forms of militancy), Political Islam, primarily that
which derives from the teachings of Sayyid Qutb (on the Sunni side) and
Khomeini (on the Shiite) side. The variations that we have to recognize can
be ignored as direct threats because it was only these two forms of Islamism
that engaged in terrorist activities, e.g., using suicide bombers as a form
of asymmetric warfare.
The strict Salafists of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia distance themselves (at least
officially) from Qutb Islamism. Of course the Salafists have been a great
recruiting ground for the Qutb-Islamists.
A similar thing can be said of the Maududi Islamists of India and Pakistan.
They have been ambivalent about engaging in political action, let alone
violent political action. However, the Qutb form of Islamism (read Al
Quaeda) has found ripe recruiting grounds in Pakistan.
In regard to Islamic eschatology, if you held to the universal success of
Islam as a goal to be achieved peacefully, then we could be pluralistic
about our different beliefs. However, would you allow Christian evangelists
into Arab lands just as we allow Islamic evangelists into Christian lands?
By the way, I think you will find that Attaturk enshrined religious
pluralism in Turkey if you check further.
I think your Islamism is a long way from the Islamism causing the world
trouble today. In fact if you were to move into Egypt or some other Muslim
countries today and advance your ideas, you would probably end up on jail.
Who you are, they would say, to advance theological views? You aren?t a
Mullah so you must be a trouble maker ? off to jail with you!
I don?t follow you in regard to Andalusia. Yes, Muslims did conquer the
Southern portion of Spain and lived there for several generations. Then the
Spanish Army got itself together and re-conquered their land. I read of
Arabs living across the Mediterranean from Spain who still had relics of
Andalusia, given them by their ancestors, tacked to their walls, but why
should they have a right to return to Spain? It probably wouldn?t be an
issue because I suspect Spain would accept them as immigrants on the (naïve
Liberal) assumption that they would integrate into Spanish society, but I
don?t see why they should have a right to return.
As to Salman Rushdie, I must confess that I haven?t managed to make it all
the way through his Satanic Verses ? cleverness tripping over itself into
obscurity, at least as far as I read.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:22 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Omar's Islamism
Lawrence writes:
You've called yourself Islamist, but I wonder if you
fit any definition I've
run across.
*Yes. As I said before, the power of definitions to
capture reality is limited, although I would still
like to know which definition you refer to in your
discussions. If I would venture my own definition, I'd
say that anyone who identifies with Islam and whose
political views / actions are grounded in their Muslim
identity can be considered an Islamist.
On reflection, I guess that we would have to accept
that someone like Ayatollah Sistani probably fits this
definition and should therefore be considered an
Islamist, which is all right as long as we remember
that there are very different Islamisms.
I mentioned reading Raymond William Baker's Islam
Without Fear,
Egypt and the New Islamists. The Islamists Baker is
fond of are
intellectuals of some note. They diverge from the Old
Islamists in that
they are not advocates of violence and while they
believe in adhering to the
Koran much as those who invoke the Sharia, they don't
hold to the Salafist
interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths and so don't
embrace such
troubling doctrines as Qutb's view on the Jihad.
*I have heard about Egypt's New Islamists. I am
different from them but I do respect their approach to
Islamism a lot. Certainly non-Salafi (i.e.
non-literal) interpretations of the Kuran and Ahaddith
are to be endorsed, especially as they have
conctituted the Islamic tradition for centuries.
(Salafism being a relatively recent phenomenon.) I am
of the view that the Kuran and the Ahadith should
often be read metaphorically and also with the mind to
the specific historical context in which they
originated.
The New Islamists share the Old Islamists view on
Palestine and Israel.
They would probably like to see the Jews out of there,
but would settle for
a divided state. Here they would eventually diverge
from the Old Islamists
who would never settle for a divided state.
*My views on Palestine are, I believe, well-known, and
they have not crucially changed. I don't think a
permanent political solution can be accepted if it
does not recognize the right of return of the
Palestinians to all of the historical Palestine which
they once inhabited, and the related right to return
of property. If this occurs, then some form of
bi-national state becomes necessary, which I believe
is anyway a preferable solution to two separate
mono-national states. However, I accept the current
position of the Hamas that a long-term truce is
possible on condition that all the territories
occuppied in 1967. are placed under Palestinian rule.
Sunni Islamists following Qutb
believe that no land conquered by Mohammad and his
followers can ever be
accepted as belonging to infidels. This applies not
only to Israel but also
Andalusia. And beyond that, it is the duty of
Islamists to engage in Jihad
as necessary to conquer the entire world for Allah.
Where do you stand on
these matters, Omar?
*It's not that simple. I can accept that historical
Muslim lands can belong to non-Muslims, but I am not
sure that they can be alienated from Muslims entirely.
This certainly applies to Palestine where we know that
many Muslims lived and we know who they or their
descendants are, so that we demand their right of
return and the political and personal rights related
to the exercise of that right. This is consistent with
the internationally recognized notions of human rights
etc.
The things are more murky with Andalusia; however, if
there are Muslims (or, for that matter, Jews) who can
prove that their ancestors lived in Spain I would also
advocate their right of return. It would be
problematic to advocate a restoration of Muslim
statehood in Andalusia and I would not demand this,
but those who condemn Muslim claims to Andalusia as
extremism could reflect that they are not esentially
different from the Zionist claims to Palestine. If the
Muslim rights to Andalusia, where they undoubtedly
once had a state, are so old as to have become
obsolete, then so have the Jewish rights to Israel
based on the Bible. (The fact of their current
presence there is of course a different matter.)
In regard to conquering the world for Allah, there is
a parallel with
Christian Postmillennialism. That view of eschatology
(which the majority
of Christians don't hold to, but some do) holds that
the entire world will
eventually be converted (through the work of
evangelism and the Holy Spirit)
to Christianity. I would be content if the followers
of Qutb would content
themselves with accomplishing their eschaton by the
same peaceful means, but
they advocate a Holy War and prescribe violence as a
legitimate means for
accomplishing their goal.
*I am sure that you know that Jihad has many meanings,
including the inner spiritual Jihad, the Jihad of the
tongue (i.e.) verbal, of the mind, of the hand
(broader than just the armed struggle, could include
also charity) etc. I don't think that the Muslims
should employ the armed Jihad as means of converting
the world to Islam and at any rate I think that this
goal should only be seen as an ideal. That said,
violence in the defence of Muslims or to liberate
Muslims from patent oppression is legitimate.
And where do you stand on Pluralism? I would be quite
content to have you
be an Islamist as long as you would be content for me
to be whatever I like.
*Fine.
Do you believe suicide bombers are martyrs and will go
to heaven?
* I do believe that some of them are true martyrs.
Will they go to heaven ? Umm, not sure.
Attaturk insisted that Turkey be pluralistic, and so
it is - sort of.
Though Turkey is officially pluralistic there has been
a hankering after the
Islamist view of the Sharia such that the military has
needed to step in and
bring the country back to Attaturk's standards from
time to time.
*Turkey is not officially pluralistic - its
constitution inherited from Ataturk defines it as a
secular state on the French model and so religion has
been excluded from many areas of public life. Several
times the need to preserve the secular character of
the state has served as a pre-text for establishing
military dictatures. However, in the recent years the
military seems to have become more tolerant, or less
vigilant, and this has enabled the Justice and
Development Party to rule with a (greatly
watered-down) version of Islamism.
Then there is the matter of economics. Mohammad's
economic system doesn't
compete well with modern Western economies. Thus
Islamic nations which do
want to get along with modern economies have needed to
find ways around
Mohammad's strictness, and have. Strict Islamist
Mullahs criticize such
deviations, but it seems clear that a strict adherence
to the Sharia by a
nation will prevent it from competing with modern
Western nations. Do you
believe in such a strict adherence?
*I don't believe that Islam sets obstacles to
establishing a modern economy. I know that there is
the matter of usury which is prohibited in Islam, and
this puts some limitations on banking and shares
transactions, and I know that there are ways to go
around this. I'm not an expert.
There is also the matter of women's rights under the
Sharia. Do you believe
they should have rights equal to men? Should they be
able to compete with
men in the work force on an equal basis?
*"On an equal basis" is a bit misleading. Women don't
as the matter of fact compete on an equal basis
anywhere. There are jobs for which women are prefered,
jobs for which men are prefered etc. There are also in
the recent years affirmative actions that seek to give
women and other groups more than strictly equal
opportunities. I support giving women maximal
opportunities in work, education, political life etc.
Do you believe Salman Rushdie and Orhan Pamuk should
be subject to legal
action for their writings?
*No, though I don't like Rushdie.
O.K.
Other related posts:
