Six Views of Islam

Timothy Garton Ash lays out six different takes on what exactly lies at the root of the clash between Islam and Western sensibilities. Despite my defense of sharia-based voluntary arbitration, it's hardly a secret that my view of the problem is not 3, 4 or 5. To be precise, I reject Garton Ash's preamble to point 2, in which he states that "The fundamental problem is not religion itself, but the particular religion of Islam." Religion is fundamentally* the problem in itself; it just so happens to be the case that certain manifestations of the religious impulse are more problematic than others. Taoists and Buddhists aren't the ones keeping people awake at night worrying about swarthy young men on planes and subways, and they aren't the ones slitting the throats of foreigners on camera in the name of an imaginary being. As for the idea that all would be well with the world if only the West were to forever stay out of Middle Eastern affairs and Israelis were to commit national suicide, the non-Muslims of nations as disparate as Thailand, the Phillipines, Iran, the Sudan and Nigeria would vehemently disagree.

[Via MeFi.]

*What a propitious term to use here, don't you think?

Comments

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The most correct answer is 6--except I don't believe it is correct to say that it only implicates a very few. It implicates a frighteningly large number.

[Abiola Lapite]

If 6 is the correct answer, how do you explain Darfur or any of the other non-Western places I've mentioned? You won't see any billboards advertising "America's Next Top Model" in Kano, but that hasn't stopped its inhabitants from going on anti-kufr rampages and indulging in anti-Western conspiracy theories.

As nice as it would be to think that all it would take to ease Muslim resentment is material prosperity, consider that Bin Laden had the money to buy all the wine and women he could have wanted (and in his youth, he did just that), and that quite a few of the "freedom fighters" currently in Iraq are native-born Kuwaitis. Muslim men aren't the only immigrants who've arrived in the West only to see their dreams frustrated either.

[Chuckles]

I am inclined to say I disagree with everything. However, I am most sympathetic to 2 and 6, if reformulated.
The Problem is not Islam verus the West. It is Islam versus *everything* not Islam. This could be the West, pagan Habe in Nigeria or in Darfur or anywhere else.
It is not the hedonistic excesses of the West that is the problem--it is the excess of a refusal to submit to Islam under any condition - from whence flaunting this refusal to submit becomes an even graver iniquity.
I disagree with 1 because irreligious, illiberal people can be just as violent as their religious counterparts.
If Ash had said that the problem is Illiberalism, I would have agreed. But as formulated, in 1, he says it is religion wherein an absence of religion would be a palliative. This is not neccesarily the case; not even for an absence of evangelical religion - c.f. the Mongols.
But as it is, I see no formulation that truly satisfies me.
I cannot agree with 2 per se because I see no reason to believe that Senegalese Muslims or Yoruba Muslims would be as violent as their Arab counterparts - or even as dislocated in the West.
Let me say 2 and 6 appeal most to me, if reformulated. 3 is irrelevant since it assumes knowledge of what *pure* Islamic practice entails. 4 is ridiculous. 5 is laughable. Where are all the Black Africans blowing up buses in London - the heart of Empire?

[dsquared]

[Where are all the Black Africans blowing up buses in London - the heart of Empire?]

chuckles, are you being an idiot for the sake of it?

[Oliver]

Maybe you should take into consideration that there is Yoruba or eg. Indonesian culture outside Islam. This is not true for Arab culture and to a very small extent only in Iran if you replace Islam with its Shia branch.

[Chuckles]

[...chuckles, are you being an idiot for the sake of it?...]

Eh? *We* not *they* are the root of the problem? *That* is idiocy. Whats your problem with my invocation of Black Africans or London?

[...From the Crusades to Iraq, western imperialism, colonialism, Christian and post-Christian ideological hegemonism have themselves created this antipathy to western liberal democracy; and, at the extreme, its mortal enemies...]

Why is it that people coming from a certain ideological background are the only ones suffering from this terrorist leaning antipathy? Are they the only victims of Imperialism? And *No*, the IRA and the Tamils dont count.

[Chuckles]

[...Maybe you should take into consideration that there is Yoruba or eg. Indonesian culture outside Islam. This is not true for Arab culture and to a very small extent only in Iran if you replace Islam with its Shia branch...]

Quite false. Last I checked, there were still recognizeable Arab Xtians. If there were no Arab identity outside of Islam, then an Arab Xtian would be oxymoronic. There are Xtians in Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Baghdad, once the capital of the Islamic world contained a robust Xtian minority that suffered for centuries under Dhimmi. You seem to have forgotten that the Levant was for centuries the heart of Xtianity. Saying there is *now* no Arab culture outside of Islam is just ridiculous. There are Arab Atheists. What you call Arab culture is simply reification of a recent phenomenon. No Arab is predestined to be a Muslim.

[Oliver]

An Arab muslim considers considers an Arab christian a member of a protected minority of lesser rights. He is not a contribution to his culture, rather a relict destined to eventually vanish.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"As nice as it would be to think that all it would take to ease Muslim resentment is material prosperity, consider that Bin Laden had the money to buy all the wine and women he could have wanted (and in his youth, he did just that), and that quite a few of the "freedom fighters" currently in Iraq are native-born Kuwaitis. Muslim men aren't the only immigrants who've arrived in the West only to see their dreams frustrated either."

I don't see this as being the key feature of #6. Intersections with Western secular modernity is not just a materialist function. It is a problem of how women are treated. It is a problem of how knowledge is treated. It is a problem of how sex is treated. It is a problem of how respect for authority is treated. The materialist aspects of the West are very prominent--and certainly are a big deal. But the other aspects are also very important.

[Chuckles]

[...An Arab muslim considers considers an Arab christian a member of a protected minority of lesser rights. He is not a contribution to his culture, rather a relict destined to eventually vanish...]

You dont get it. What the Arab Muslim *thinks* is entirely irrelevant for my own purposes. There is no law, or rule, or even any evidence from History that leads me to conclude that the only true Arab is a Muslim one. "Arabs" predate Muhammed - and hopefully, they will postdate Islam (or some particularly nefarious forms of it).
Whether the Arab Muslim considers the Xtian a true Arab or not is Irrelevant. There are whites who dont consider blacks or Hispanics "true" Americans. Just because you are in the majority doesnt give you the right to define everybody else's identity. At a time, there were more Arab Xtians in the Levant than Muslims - defining "Arab Culture" as essentially Islamic is just ridiculous. Look at what happened to Europe and fancy notions of Christendom. Hillaire Belloc once said "Europe is the Faith" - well it aint so no more. I see no reason to go along with the bigoted opinions of some Arab Muslims - and there is no evidence from History either. The true Arab is not *neccesarily* Muslim. Ergo, saying that there is little Arab culture outside Islam doesnt hold up to scrutiny.

[Oliver]

This is not a question about right of definition. The terrorists are predominantly members of an ethnical and religious subgroup. As the decision to become a terrorist is a mental process, it is only relevant what members of that group think and feel. It is utterly irrelevant whether their position seen from outside is plainly wrong or ridiculous. All that matters is the internal view.

We are just discussing what that view is and why it is held.

[Chuckles]

[...All that matters is the internal view...]

Absolutely wrong. You mentioned that I should consider that there was a defineable Yoruba and Senegalese culture outside of Islam. Whatever for? This itself invokes the perspective of an outsider. If extra-Islamic identity applies to Yoruba, it applies to Arabs to. That is the point.

And what exactly is this:

[...This is not true for Arab culture and to a very small extent only in Iran if you replace Islam with its Shia branch...]

supposed to mean? It quite clearly is false: and if *internal* views attest to it, those views are myopic. There is an Arab identity outside Islam and if terrorists see that to be false, it is only further testament to their delusion - which is why option 5 is still laughable.

[...We are just discussing what that view is and why it is held...]

Err - I have a good idea of why that view is held. The Muslims who overran the Maghreb werent doing so because of Imperialism or schmuck. This was 1500 years ago. Should Western Imperialism have never occurred, Muslims would still be terrorizing the West.

[Oliver]

"I should consider that there was a defineable Yoruba and Senegalese culture outside of Islam. Whatever for?"

To understand the role of Islam in the respective cultures.

"If extra-Islamic identity applies to Yoruba, it applies to Arabs to. That is the point."

Check the self chosen symbols of eg. Indonesia. You will have a strong preislamic influence.

"those views are myopic"

Of course they are. Would a foresighted group get in a war against the US? It doesn't matter how wise these views are. If they are held, they are held.

"Should Western Imperialism have never occurred"

Arab expansion ended after a few centuries only. Their civilisation crumbled like rotten wood before the Mongols. The Ottoman empire went into decline before western imperialism got of the ground. That is no explanation.

[Chuckles]

[...That is no explanation...]

Explanation for what? If the argument is that Western Imperialism is spurring the Islamic backlash (option 5) then we have to ask why other peoples who have been more victimized than Muslims arent even beginning to approach the level of carnage being wrecked. Furthermore, we have to understand that even before Western Imperialism, Muslims had been displaying this kind of behavior.
Option 2: If you claim that the reason Arabs are more dislocated in the West is because there is little Arab culture oustide of Islam, as compared to the Senegalese and Yoruba - then you are implicitly admitting that Islam defines Arabs in a way it doesnt define Yoruba Muslims or Senegalese Muslims. Where is the evidence for that? This is not about what the Arab Muslim thinks - it is about why anyone should accept either options 2 or 5 as viable explanations.

[eoin]

"Arab expansion ended after a few centuries only"

They retreated back to Arabia, did they? There is a tendancy for less successful empires to be seen as more guilty of "colonialism" only because they leave behind people to complain. Americans tend to bleat about European colonialism, while American colonialism ( the original 13 colonies expansion into it's present area) is ignored as the colonialists never retreated nor got beaten back by the natives.

In fact the term "colonialism" is loosely applied. It should mean the planting of colonies, imperialism is govermental control of a foreign area - which may, or may not, have significant colonies.

Had the crusaders won their state and kept it until modernity it would just be European country with a history of some islamic occupation subsequently beaten back: like Hungary. In the long run of history North Africa - once Christian/Hellentistic - has been far more succesfully colonised by Arabs thanby the West. If it were a succesful western colony, it would now be European, not arabic.