The reformation of Islam, part two: Political evolution

[Banquo's Ghost]

I offer this intriguing and well-argued article for consideration in the debate about how we in the West might faciliate a reformation of Islam that marginalises and removes the dangerous Islamicist movement.

It offers one of the best rationales I have seen for the appropriate adoption of the term "Islamo-fascist" and looks at the development of political Islam and thought behind that evolution.

I will be interested in any thoughts provoked, preferably constructive. (The article is long, but well worth persisting with).

While both the clerical establishment and al-Qaeda revile such “whisky liberals”, they see as their real adversary the Islamist reformers who advocate far-reaching change, many of whom have rediscovered the thinking of Islamic revivalists of a century ago. The ideas of, for example, Mohammed Abduh on maslaha (public interest), shura (consultation) and above all of ijtihad, or independent reasoning to marry Islamic belief with modern challenges, have resurfaced almost as a newly minted currency. The idea of civil society was reborn, with Muslim credentials the Wahhabi establishment justly fears. The turning point was the 2003 petition, called “A vision for the present and future of the homeland”, signed by leading Islamist reformers and liberals – although the former were and are the real force. As this pluralism implies, the document is founded on the principles of confessional and political diversity in Saudi Arabia. But for the first time, reformers both liberal and Islamist broke the taboo about speaking out against Wahhabism, implying that its totalitarian ideology was the deathly hand holding back the emergence of Saudi Arabia as a successful modern state its citizens would easily support.

[Fragony]

There is a very big error in that article.

"Yet the west should be able to see the similarities between Islamism (or Islamic revivalism) and 19th-century nationalism in Europe. Both started as a sort of forced march into the future and then they detoured in sinister and destructive ways: fascism then and the jihadi cult of death now."

It really goes from here, 19th century nationalism was a throwback on the tie that binds, the shared past with which people could legitimize a nation, it was inward in nature, nobody wanted the return of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. For islamism that shared past would be the caliphate; outward.

[Tribesman]

nobody wanted the return of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne.

Actually they did , the good old teutons and the germanic empire that was split with the reformation and the seperation of the Austrians shall be reunited by the good volk .
The third reich was the succesor to the first reich of Charlemagne according to those crazy german nationalists .

[aimlesswanderer]

I haven't read the article, but it has been said that it took how long for Christian nations to sort out the whole church/state thing? Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, so they have had 600 less years to sort things out. What was the relationship between religion and politics in Europe in 1400? A bit of a mess, as any M2TW player will attest!

[Fragony]

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, so they have had 600 less years to sort things out.

If they can wear a tie on tv.

[Furunculus]

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, so they have had 600 less years to sort things out.

essentially my belief too.

[Husar]

Actually they did , the good old teutons and the germanic empire that was split with the reformation and the seperation of the Austrians shall be reunited by the good volk .
The third reich was the succesor to the first reich of Charlemagne according to those crazy german nationalists .

Well yes, if you ask me we should clone Charlemagne ASAP and make him Kaiser of the EU.

On topic, I do think that Islam will loosen up, but it takes time, every generation loosens up a bit and even in Christianity some hardliners remained who never loosened up much, but on a whole they will most likely change, influenced by capitalist luxury etc. the devil's ways are just too tempting for most.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On topic, I do think that Islam will loosen up, but it takes time, every generation loosens up a bit and even in Christianity some hardliners remained who never loosened up much, but on a whole they will most likely change, influenced by capitalist luxury etc. the devil's ways are just too tempting for most.

Using Husar's post as an anchor, but I think many of you are missing the point. Islam is not a monolithic structure and Islamofascism is not the only option.

There are substantial and ideologically sound alternatives that have been developed in recent history. Because of the West's predilection for "safe" strongmen, those alternatives have been sidelined by the fanatics as somehow "less pure" and the more we characterise political Islam as only fanaticism, the stronger we make our enemies. The example of Clinton's fatheaded treatment of Khatami in Iran is apposite, getting us only the more dangerous Ahmadinejad.

We are terrified of advocating more democracy (or greater freedoms) in Islamic states because of the Hamas factor - maybe all we'll get is elected fanatics. But maybe advocating and supporting more moves like King Hussein's (Syria now being a good example) would make greater gains for marginalising Islamicism.

Simply characterising all Islam as mediaeval is a cop out and simply gives the dangerous men even more fertile ground to threaten our interests - because they do the same thing in characterising the west as an imperial hegemony.

Islam had a Golden Age of tolerance and scientific progress that Europe only dreamt of for five hundred years. Surely we can think constructively about what events impacted that culture so badly that Islamofascism has the currency it currently does?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't buy into this "Islam just needs time to grow up" mentality, not least because it belittles Islam as a system of thought. When we were grubbing around in the dirt and divided into petty post-Roman kingdoms, with mass illiteracy, and military and organisational collapse perpetually immenant the Caliphate was building schools, hospitals, universities, translating Aristotle and Palto.

Were it not for Islam we would not have access to many ancient philosophical works, histories etc. 1000 years ago Islam was 500 years ahead of us, now they are 500 years behind. We need to recognise this and understand how it happened. The Muslim world has in many ways remained static, or regressed. In few has it progressed.

I also think we need to stop comparing Islam to Christianity, the two have less in common than they do different. For one thing the Christian story is bottom-up, Islam top-down. That means that Christianity can survive political marginalisation much better, while Islam flourishes when it is the religion of the elite.

I believe that the best we can do now is leave the Arab world alone, without Western support despots will either have to loosen their grip on power, or be ousted. If the region decends into bloody carnage we send in medical supplies and food directly to the people. We support the people not the regimes.

So I suppose I agree with Banquo in part, but at this point I would advocate extreme non-involement at the governmental level.

We make the Arabs like the West by being nice to them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It really goes from here, 19th century nationalism was a throwback on the tie that binds, the shared past with which people could legitimize a nation, it was inward in nature, nobody wanted the return of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. For islamism that shared past would be the caliphate; outward.

It was pretty outward a lot of the time. Colonies were seen as vital to the prestige of any nation, look at how Mussolini wanted to rebuild a Roman Empire by looking for colonies in eastern Africa.

[Furunculus]

i don't know how they are going to do it, but it needs to be done in the next 25 years before the oil disappears otherwise there won't be a useful arab/muslim society for the next hundred years.