[lit-ideas] Re: The Reality of Our Image
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:33:42 -0800
Omar Kusturica wrote, "I do appreciate the fact that, on this occasion,
Lawrence was willing to listen and pay attention. He sometimes is, more so
than some others here. On the other hand, one should keep in mind the
caution that I expressed before that some of these newspapers are government
controlled (or at least, government-supervised) and so they may not
accurately reflect the majority attitudes in those countries. This will be
the case notably with the Saudi Arab News and also with Pakistan's Daily
Times. Lebanon's Daily Star is pretty much independent I think (although
there are limits to what they would publish, but they did publish articles
critical of the Hezbollah) and perhaps also the Dubai Gulf News (somewhat
too pro-American for my taste actually). Egypt's Al-Ahram is
government-controlled but sometimes dares to publish articles moderately
critical of the government and the Middle East Times does although it
sometimes gets into trouble with the government. So it's shades of grey so
to speak. Most of these newspapers, except perhaps the Saudi, are secular
in outlook; my post did not include the moderate or liberal Islamist
websites since I posted these before when that was the subject."
I have been interested in this subject for some time, but as I said, I was
no longer willing to take people's word that there were huge numbers of
Traditionalists and Moderates out there and that the Fundamentalists and
Radicals were in the minority. Perhaps it is my Aerospace background that
influences me here. I mentioned representing Engineering on the C-17 Change
Board for several years. I would take no engineer's word on something for
which he had no evidence - not if it pertained to a change he wanted
approval for. That pattern seems to hold true for me here. The matter of
Radicals and Fundamentalists vs. Moderates and Traditionalists in Islam is
of vital concern. And yet evidence is hard to come by. Scholars and
Journalists somehow, with inadequate evidence, come down on one side or the
other (that is, that there are only a few Radicals and no one else to worry
about, or that we have to worry about all of Islam) and base their writings
on their assumptions. In my view, it is sloppy to think in this manner.
None of us has evidence in my opinion that enables us to speak with
justifiable certainty about these matters. None of us has justification to
go beyond an "if/then" conditional argument.
I became intolerant at some point of those who assumed that there were a
majority of Moderates and Traditionalists in the Middle East. I had not
seen the evidence. I found plenty of evidence of Fundamentalists and
Radicals speaking out, but where were the Moderates? Now Pakistan isn't
strictly speaking, the Middle East, but I haven't quibbled about that
because it shares the same elements I have been concerned about in the
Middle East proper, namely a large Islamist population that is bearing down
upon the government and society attempting to bend them to their
Fundamentalist/Radical beliefs. In fact as I have said on occasion, I have
been more concerned about Pakistan than the Middle Eastern nations because
it has nuclear power and has in the past, through their nuclear expert Khan,
exported that technology to others. So I was especially encouraged to hear
from Rasul Bkhsh Rais of the "healthy thing that has happened in Pakistan,"
namely "free speech with the proliferation of electronic media."
Now if Dr. Rais were an engineer coming before me on the C-17 Change Board
and recommending the "change" that I accept that Pakistan now has free
speech, I would question him further. Does everyone have the right to speak
as he wishes? I don't have in mind abuses like treason, slander, or
salaciousness, but Religion and Politics - can people say what they like
about those matters. Dr. Rais' article and comments provide evidence that
he is able to speak out on these subjects without fear of being attacked
physically by Fundamentalists or punished by the Government, but I wonder if
he could write that same article with the same impunity in Urdu. As he
wrote, English is the "language and medium of instruction in universities
and professional colleges," and "the intelligentsia, official class and good
numbers of politicians do read English," so it may be that Fundamentalist
and Radical Pakistani Muslims will not have read his article and therefore
won't be inclined to attack him. In other words, I still have questions
about how far Pakistani Free Speech extends and on the other side, the
extent and nature of Fundamentalism and Radicalism in Pakistan.
While Maududi is described as a predecessor of Sayyid Qutb, his teachings
never struck me as being quite as violent as Qutb's. My impression is that
the Deobandi school was mild rather than activist in their fundamentalism
until the Saudi Salafists entered the picture. It was after that these
young Deobandi students became the Taliban that took over Afghanistan. What
I am getting at here is that the Fundamentalists of Pakistan may not be
quite as militant as those more directly influenced by Qutb amongst the
Sunnis or Khomeini amongst the Shiites.
And so moving more directly into Omar's statement that he earlier presented
a list of Islamist "Moderates" and has implied in the past that I was not
listening or paying attention when I rejected them as being true Moderates,
I would remind him that Raymond William Baker in Islam without Fear, Egypt
and the New Islamists dealt directly with these Islamist Moderates - as an
advocate. He approved of these "New Islamists," but in reading his book I
could find no clear distinction between his "New Islamists" and the "Old
Islamists" except in regard to the Jihad. Now some would argue that's a
huge difference and from the standpoint of world security it is. The New
Islamists did not believe in the Old Islamist's (Qutbist Islamist's) Jihad.
Now while that is a good thing, I did not find their beliefs either
"Moderate" or "Traditional." Also, by invoking the "ism" they clearly
intended to politicize their Islam, and in examining their politicization
(as presented by their Baker) I didn't find a huge gap between their beliefs
and those of the Qutbists. Less threatening, certainly, but hardly
Moderate.
Lawrence
cc: Rasul Bakhsh Rais
Other related posts:
