Radical Islam is NOT the new COMINTERN!
[A friend has sent along the following comment on mine suggesting the erroneous parallels being drawn by the neocons (the Bush administration) between a "war on terror" against Muslims all too loosely identified and their previous war on communism. Ed Kent]
"Radical Islam" (the problem of a practical accurate label) has become the "new COMINTERN." In some ways, the comparison is helpful showing some problems with the notions of "war on terror" and reliance upon military power. But the "Radical Islam is the new COMINTERN" view can be misleading and damaging.
As your note brought up, the ways of fighting the old COMINTERN and the
numerous blunders and abuses are being repeated.
Another, more subtle but nasty, hazard is slipping into a parallel of the Cold War tendency to see no "Communist" as moderate and of seeing all "pinkos" and "fellow travelers" as dangerous. That is, the entire range of "The Other" is regarded as the enemy. For now, there is the general realization that being Muslim is not, in itself, bad. (Ah, but that realization is flawed because it doesn't consider a positive value as much as the neutralization of dangerousness.) The criteria for "radical Islam" could, however, end up being expanded to encompass most Muslims. The "secular Muslims" now being courted by various people as the desirable "future of Islam" might be deemed the exception.
Although the "secular Muslims" mentioned in the Al-Jazeera article are a part of the ummah and have some good to contribute, they are NOT a wise model for the future of Islam. The placement of people such as Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a pedestal is setting them up for a big fall along with the bit of good they contribute.
They are more of an exception to the trends among Muslims and are outside of the mainstream [so] that alienation rather than reform is going to be the result. They are already seen by many as puppets of the Bush Administration and its allies' agenda. (For example, Ms. Ali is now a resident fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative US think tank. http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.117/scholar.asp )
Geneive Abdo is the Liaison for the United Nation’s Alliance of Civilizations and author of "Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601941.html
Her op-ed comments upon the "secular Muslims" and reactions of various other Muslims. She comments,
---
The secular Muslim agenda is promoted because these ideas reflect a Western vision for the future of Islam. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, everyone from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to the author Salman Rushdie has prescribed a preferred remedy for Islam: Reform the faith so it is imbued with Western values -- the privatization of religion, the flourishing of Western-style democracy -- and rulers who are secular, not religious, Muslims. The problem with this prescription is that it is divorced from reality. It is built upon the principle that if Muslims are fed a steady diet of Western influence, they, too, will embrace modernity, secularism and everything else the West has to offer.
---
But Abdo notes that such a direction is not likely given trends among Muslims in many parts of the world. What is happening is "Muslims living in the West and those in the Islamic world are searching for this middle ground -- one that fuses aspects of globalization with the Islamic tradition." The West would do better seeking to work with trends rather than hope for a full assimilation as Westerners.
One of the expressions of the "secular Muslims" is the St. Peterburg
Declaration made at a recent conference.
<
http://www.secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration
The St. Petersburg Declaration is good in some ways but there are some points that are prone to playing into some unwise and potentially destructive ends.
One of the difficult issues is that of Sharia. To many people Sharia is seen only in the brutal expressions such as the canings, beheadings, and subjugation of women. But to many Muslims, other aspects of Sharia are liberating by limiting the power of governments in some societies.
(This is too complex of a matter to explain here. Suffice it to say, Sharia is nowhere as simple as many portray it and it is not as negative as claimed. A very loose parallel may be Torah and Halacha in Jewish life or the Bible and religious traditions in Christian life. They can be expressed in stifling and hurtful ways but, expressed in other ways, they can be supportive of human values.)
Among other things, the St. Petersburg Declaration calls upon governments to "reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights..." Sounds good to many people but this is a big loaded statement prone to much trouble. (The rejection of state-sanctioned religion can cut in multiple directions, not only in the direction of Islamic countries. Israel and the USA have legally or seemingly de facto state sanctioned religions.)
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FindingHumaneJobs
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net
"Radical Islam" (the problem of a practical accurate label) has become the "new COMINTERN." In some ways, the comparison is helpful showing some problems with the notions of "war on terror" and reliance upon military power. But the "Radical Islam is the new COMINTERN" view can be misleading and damaging.
As your note brought up, the ways of fighting the old COMINTERN and the
numerous blunders and abuses are being repeated.
Another, more subtle but nasty, hazard is slipping into a parallel of the Cold War tendency to see no "Communist" as moderate and of seeing all "pinkos" and "fellow travelers" as dangerous. That is, the entire range of "The Other" is regarded as the enemy. For now, there is the general realization that being Muslim is not, in itself, bad. (Ah, but that realization is flawed because it doesn't consider a positive value as much as the neutralization of dangerousness.) The criteria for "radical Islam" could, however, end up being expanded to encompass most Muslims. The "secular Muslims" now being courted by various people as the desirable "future of Islam" might be deemed the exception.
Although the "secular Muslims" mentioned in the Al-Jazeera article are a part of the ummah and have some good to contribute, they are NOT a wise model for the future of Islam. The placement of people such as Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a pedestal is setting them up for a big fall along with the bit of good they contribute.
They are more of an exception to the trends among Muslims and are outside of the mainstream [so] that alienation rather than reform is going to be the result. They are already seen by many as puppets of the Bush Administration and its allies' agenda. (For example, Ms. Ali is now a resident fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative US think tank. http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.117/scholar.asp )
Geneive Abdo is the Liaison for the United Nation’s Alliance of Civilizations and author of "Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601941.html
Her op-ed comments upon the "secular Muslims" and reactions of various other Muslims. She comments,
---
The secular Muslim agenda is promoted because these ideas reflect a Western vision for the future of Islam. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, everyone from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to the author Salman Rushdie has prescribed a preferred remedy for Islam: Reform the faith so it is imbued with Western values -- the privatization of religion, the flourishing of Western-style democracy -- and rulers who are secular, not religious, Muslims. The problem with this prescription is that it is divorced from reality. It is built upon the principle that if Muslims are fed a steady diet of Western influence, they, too, will embrace modernity, secularism and everything else the West has to offer.
---
But Abdo notes that such a direction is not likely given trends among Muslims in many parts of the world. What is happening is "Muslims living in the West and those in the Islamic world are searching for this middle ground -- one that fuses aspects of globalization with the Islamic tradition." The West would do better seeking to work with trends rather than hope for a full assimilation as Westerners.
One of the expressions of the "secular Muslims" is the St. Peterburg
Declaration made at a recent conference.
<
http://www.secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration
The St. Petersburg Declaration is good in some ways but there are some points that are prone to playing into some unwise and potentially destructive ends.
One of the difficult issues is that of Sharia. To many people Sharia is seen only in the brutal expressions such as the canings, beheadings, and subjugation of women. But to many Muslims, other aspects of Sharia are liberating by limiting the power of governments in some societies.
(This is too complex of a matter to explain here. Suffice it to say, Sharia is nowhere as simple as many portray it and it is not as negative as claimed. A very loose parallel may be Torah and Halacha in Jewish life or the Bible and religious traditions in Christian life. They can be expressed in stifling and hurtful ways but, expressed in other ways, they can be supportive of human values.)
Among other things, the St. Petersburg Declaration calls upon governments to "reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights..." Sounds good to many people but this is a big loaded statement prone to much trouble. (The rejection of state-sanctioned religion can cut in multiple directions, not only in the direction of Islamic countries. Israel and the USA have legally or seemingly de facto state sanctioned religions.)
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FindingHumaneJobs
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net
posted by Ed Kent at 7:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home