Tarek Heggy of Winds of Change has posted the first in a series of posts in which he will examine the present and future of Islam (and, I suspect, necessarily the past). I’m terribly poorly informed on Islam so I look forward to future posts.
From what I’ve seen in his first post in which he points to the many competing strains of jurisprudence, scriptural interpretation, and practice in Islam, I wonder if ground that I’ve covered before on Catholicism might not be relevant. There are important distinctions among dogma, doctrine, discipline, and folk practice that don’t seem to be drawn often enough.
Again, I’m terribly ignorant in this area but, as far as I’ve been able to determine, there is no magisterium in Islam. This leaves Muslims vulnerable to another Middle Eastern tradition: prophets i.e. charismatic figures who become significant religious leaders largely by the power of their personalities. IMO this is a problem for reform Christianity, as well.
Additionally, I’d like to add an observation of Ernest Gellner’s I’ve mentioned before: among the strains of Islam are a bourgeois urban tradition and a rural tradition. The urban tradition has almost completely succumbed and the rural tradition prevails not only in the countryside but among the urban poor.
The relevance of these various points is that you’ve got to compare apples and apples. A tremendous amount of what those who stand up in defense of Islam point to are dogmatic and doctrinal features that are part of the urban tradition. And a lot of what the West has a legitimate complaint about including the subordination of women, religious intolerance, tribalism, and Arab nationalism cloaked in Islamic trappings are folk practices associated with the rural tradition.
In my opinion this is how both those who believe the West is locked in a mortal combat with Islam and those who, like my good friend Dean Esmay, say the problem isn’t with Islam but with Islamicist Arab fascism can be right. Can modernism co-exist peacefully with traditional Arab folk practice of Islam?
Where I differ from Dean is that I believe that the evidence isn’t in yet and the burden of proof is on Muslims.
Islamicist Arab Fascism?
I rather wish this foolish formulation would go away. Islamism is a rather unpleasant political movement in general, but it is not fascism. Of course perhaps I am rare in actually desiring having words mean something.
That aside, traditional MENA region folk practice of Islam may very well be able to coexist with “modernism” (whatever the bloody fuck that means) – however that is not really the question.
The real question is how Muslim communities will confront the transition from more or less traditional (and especially rural) socio-economic structures to more modern (and we can say urban) socio-economic structures.
Urbanisation, transition from quasi familial economic structures to urban and more impersonal socio-economic structures.
Specifiy the right bloody problem and you may begin to have a clue.
It’s not my formulation—it’s Dean’s (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). I think your formulation is an excellent way to put it—that’s the direction I was trying (however ineffectually) to suggest with my post.
For example, see the comments to this post.
According to my dictionary:
Fascism:
1a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
1b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Saddam was a classic fascist who later added islamic fascism into his mix. Iran has been fascist since the Ayatollah Khomenei designed his “Islamic Republic.”
My use of the term is completely correct. Islamic fascism, such as that seen in Saudi Arabia and Iran, or in even more extreme forms as advocated by Osama Bin Laden, is still fascism.
Ah, dictionary definitions. They’re nice, in that they provide a good sense of common usage, but they’re not that precise.
Anyway, I just wanted to comment on Dave’s earlier post from way back in November.
1) Dumézil’s hypothesis is fascinating, but really can’t be proved or disproved; a lot of the assumptions about an ur-group of Indo-Europeans are, well, tendentious. Moreover, there are similar social stratifications in a wide variety of other settings, such as Shang China.
2) My current book deals, in some part, with the Peace of Westphalia (as does a chapter I have coming out in an edited volume in early 2006). In terms of Westphalia as a symbol, I think the analysis you cite and extend. In practice, Westphalia does not strike me as a radical break in European history on either the issue of religion, or on interventions, or on political forms.