[lit-ideas] Omar's Islamism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:21:19 -0800
Omar,
You've called yourself Islamist, but I wonder if you fit any definition I've
run across. 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.
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. 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?
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.
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.
The Islamists I'm familiar with are not pluralists. I must be a Muslim and
adhere to the Sharia else I am an infidel and deserve to be killed. Nay,
more than that, I ought to be killed. If you were to hold to that Islamist
position, you will pardon me if I don't want you living next door to me.
Do you believe suicide bombers are martyrs and will go to heaven?
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.
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?
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?
Do you believe Salman Rushdie and Orhan Pamuk should be subject to legal
action for their writings?
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:49 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Guardian Unlimited: Denmark's new values
(I'll preserve the title of this thread, though it may
sound ironic.)
Julie and Lawrence were asking me to clarify my
definition of Islamism and / or say what it means to
me. I am not sure how to do this, but that is part of
my point. World seldom falls neatly into categories,
and an "Islamist" is largely a subjective, not to say
arbitrary concept to begin with. "Muslim" is also
subjective to some extent but it seems that a
necessary (though not sufficient) pre-condition is to
have been born into Muslim faith or to have officially
converted into it. However, the previous being a
given, following Islamic rules of conduct to some
degree is also required. "Islamist" is even more
fluffy and I submit that anyone who wants to can be an
Islamist, even if he /she is not formally Muslim or
does not follow Islamic rules. All that is required is
that you identify to some extent with Islam and that
this inspires your political views and ideas. (I
realize that Islamism so defined is not beyond
criticism, I'm trying to be honest here.)
Lawrence thinks that the distinction between Islamism
and Islamic fundamentalism is obsolete, I disagree
with this strongly. Islamism as I see it is a radical
movement, very far from the religious conservatism of
the Saudi rulers or ayatollah Sistani or even probably
the current rulers of Iran. (I'm not sure where to put
Ahmadinejad, the question will have to remain open for
the moment.) It's an anti-establishment movement on
the global level (hence usually opposed to US
hegemony), as well as on the regional and national
levels. So we see it working different ways in
different contexts - f.e. Mid-Eastern, European,
Balkan etc. It also tends to combine with other
suppressed ideologies, be it Marxism, liberalism,
conservatism, nationalism or whatever else is
struggling for breath in the given context.
Islamism in my view is primarily a political movement
and does not seek to control private lives to the
extent that, for example, Wahhabi Islam in Saudi
Arabia does. It does not accept the control of private
lives of Muslims as a price for political submission
to the US / Israeli / Western supremacy. I disagree
with the people here or on the previous list who were
trying to conflate Islamism with Wahhabism - OBL
happens to be Wahhabi but many Islamists are not
Wahhabi, and the established Wahhabism is not
Islamist. The closest example of Islamism gone
institutional would be the Hamas, but even the Hamas
represents only one brand of Islamism, in this case
closely tied to Palestinian nationalism. Also it
should be noted that not all Islamists approve of the
practical means employed by radicals like Al-Qaida or
the military wing of the Hamas, even if they do to
some extent sympathize with their political ideas.
These are some scattered thoughts and I don't pretend
to have exhausted the subject. Lawrence and I do agree
on one thing, Islamism is an important phenomenon that
requires informed and candid discussion.
O.K.
Other related posts:
