Politic » 14 Agustus 2006 » Hit: 225
Arab Imperialism
There are a couple of interesting articles regarding Islam in the New York Times today. First off, we have the famous Nicholas Kristoff: Today, his column focuses on on the anti-modern tradition of thought that has plagued Islam for an inordinately long period of time:
The barbarity of the "hudud," or ancient Islamic punishments, raises a larger question: To what extent should Muslims turn to literal prescriptions in the Koran for guidance in the 21st century?
This is critical, for one of the impediments to development in the Islamic world — and one reason for terrorism against the West — is that many people are struggling to hold on to literal interpretations of the Koran in a world in which that no longer makes sense. If Muslim countries are to modernize, they must find ways to update traditional religious doctrines about punishment, the role of women, the ban on interest payments that precludes modern banking and so on.
Islamic countries simply cannot build 21st-century economies on seventh-century scripture, not least because that would exclude economic participation by half the population.
Yep. As I pointed out last week, it can be said that Islamic law defines itself by outrightly sanctioning male chauvinist piggery. Islamic law was bought about to serve cultural and political ends; nowhere did it have to meet scientific standards of realism. And no where else is this more in evidence than in the treatment of Muslim women throughout history. Of course, to realise this is nothing new. But Kristoff seems to be somewhat optimistic when talking at length about modern Islam's future prospects. In doing so, he makes some comparisons with Christianity and Judaism that, in my opinion, are not entirely accurate in depicting the likely future of Islam. Through some dicussions with other bloggers, it has become increasingly clear in which direction Islam, as it currently stands, is heading. This is a big topic, and I think this should serve as a post in its own right. So in these next few days, I shall blog these thoughts under a new heading: The Question Of Islam. Islamists who read it will certainly not like what they see, but then being brutally honest was not really their territory anyway. Also, by way of formulating those opinions, I came across this interesting article by Ralph Peters on why it is the Arabs who constitute the threat to modernity, and not necessarily the Muslim world per se. Incidentally, Peters wrote a good and powerful diagnosis of the Saudi threat earlier this year. It's a good read (and via instapundit).
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Indonesia's liberal Muslims are, theologically and politically speaking, fighting it out with the more strident literalists who make it their aim to - surprise, surprise! - establish an Islamic Khalifah.
The party's goal is nothing less than to impose the traditional Shariah, or Koranic law, on this secular nation. Justice Party supporters contend that such a change would instill a sense of purpose, pride and self-confidence in Indonesians and restore a moral focus in a country that has fallen into chaos and widespread corruption.
About 90 percent of Indonesians are Muslims, though most of them practice a more relaxed, less politically motivated form of their religion than can be found in some other countries with large Muslim populations.
But now Muslim political parties, including the Justice Party, control about 24 percent of Parliament. With elections coming up in 2004, President Megawati Sukarnoputri has been behaving cautiously on many issues, including Washington's war on terror, for fear of destabilizing a delicate equilibrium.
Interestingly enough, the "Justice" Party also betrays the now all-too-obvious link between "Saudi" Arabia and strident Islamist ideology:
[Megawati] will have to tread carefully with the Justice Party. Its top echelon — the party leader, Hidayat Nur Wahid; Annis Matta, the secretary general; and Lutsi Ishak, the treasurer — are all graduates of Saudi Arabian universities.
Many of the members join after passing through the strident Islamic student organization, the Indonesian Muslim Student Action Union, known for its aggressive street protests in favor of an Islamic state. (emphasis mine)
Clearly, the Arabs have a lot to answer for. Indeed, the insidiously hidden hypocrisy and statist totalitarianism - qualities in high abundance among the Arab world - which underlie a seemingly gentle Arab personage, have also been exported from the Arab world into Indonesia:
But the party believes in the soft-gloved approach. No militant jihad jargon issues from Dr. Zulkieflimansyh's lips. Instead, he speaks of empowering villagers, setting a clean moral example, and spreading a pure vision of Islam.
"We don't like the idea of forcing people to join Islam," Dr. Zulkieflimansyh said during a meeting at the party headquarters. "We like to invite them." Literature asserting that Jews organized the attack on the World Trade Center is on sale at the front counter.
They may not like the idea of forcible conversions but, hey, they are quite happy to resort to intimidatory proselytising if they have to. And, as always, the real undercurrents of their idealistic statements are always betrayed by their subscription to silly and childish conspiracy theories.
The party's senior leaders insist that they are not interested in establishing in Indonesia all aspects of Wahhabism, the conservative form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
But the introduction of Shariah is a basic goal. "The implementation of Shariah would mean justice would be upheld," Mr. Zulkieflimansyh told a recent seminar where everyone in the room knew that a series of high-profile corruption trials under way in Jakarta were unlikely to result in severe sentences.
Under Shariah, he said, "There is no privilege for Muslims if you do something wrong."
Outwardly the party appears to be tolerant of educated women, and one of its most fervent organizers is Nursanita Nasution, a lecturer in accounting at the University of Indonesia and the mother of seven children.
Seven children! It seems to me that she has chosen to psychologically rationalise her current situation and her past effort in bearing children, in a manner that probably involved complete subordination to the husband and male elders, and thereby taking comfort from Islamist notions of "political redemption". Indeed, it would be a big comfort to somebody who is not prepared to be intellectually honest, and hence unable to confront the issues which lead to such predicaments. Instead, such people try to square their experiences with real life by going down the opposite direction; by reinforcing their acceptance of the issues which have led to the prison that is the status quo. In fact, this is the sort of mentality I personally come across in numerous Muslim communities throughout Britain. The absence of a respectable option compels many women to reinforce their own prison walls; they must seem to remain submissive, and train their daughters to be submissive, because the only alternative is a disgraceful isolation from her relatives, friends and community. For uneducated women, the alternatives can all too easily descend into suicide or even prostitution. Generally speaking, in such restrictive conditions, women easily become submissive to the needs and wants of the male elders round them, and at the most wishing only for a limited compromise between the old restricted culture they inherit and the new culture they may be educated in.
Clearly, the liberal Muslims in Indonesia have a massive responsibility on their shoulders. Unless they can bring back the rule of law, and therey allow the economy to essentially become market-driven and prosperous, there will be little incentive for the populace to keep them in power. None of this will properly take place without liberating the womenfolk of their country. Otherwise they are likely to lose power to the competing Islamists. Watch this space.
The barbarity of the "hudud," or ancient Islamic punishments, raises a larger question: To what extent should Muslims turn to literal prescriptions in the Koran for guidance in the 21st century?
This is critical, for one of the impediments to development in the Islamic world — and one reason for terrorism against the West — is that many people are struggling to hold on to literal interpretations of the Koran in a world in which that no longer makes sense. If Muslim countries are to modernize, they must find ways to update traditional religious doctrines about punishment, the role of women, the ban on interest payments that precludes modern banking and so on.
Islamic countries simply cannot build 21st-century economies on seventh-century scripture, not least because that would exclude economic participation by half the population.
Yep. As I pointed out last week, it can be said that Islamic law defines itself by outrightly sanctioning male chauvinist piggery. Islamic law was bought about to serve cultural and political ends; nowhere did it have to meet scientific standards of realism. And no where else is this more in evidence than in the treatment of Muslim women throughout history. Of course, to realise this is nothing new. But Kristoff seems to be somewhat optimistic when talking at length about modern Islam's future prospects. In doing so, he makes some comparisons with Christianity and Judaism that, in my opinion, are not entirely accurate in depicting the likely future of Islam. Through some dicussions with other bloggers, it has become increasingly clear in which direction Islam, as it currently stands, is heading. This is a big topic, and I think this should serve as a post in its own right. So in these next few days, I shall blog these thoughts under a new heading: The Question Of Islam. Islamists who read it will certainly not like what they see, but then being brutally honest was not really their territory anyway. Also, by way of formulating those opinions, I came across this interesting article by Ralph Peters on why it is the Arabs who constitute the threat to modernity, and not necessarily the Muslim world per se. Incidentally, Peters wrote a good and powerful diagnosis of the Saudi threat earlier this year. It's a good read (and via instapundit).
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Indonesia's liberal Muslims are, theologically and politically speaking, fighting it out with the more strident literalists who make it their aim to - surprise, surprise! - establish an Islamic Khalifah.
The party's goal is nothing less than to impose the traditional Shariah, or Koranic law, on this secular nation. Justice Party supporters contend that such a change would instill a sense of purpose, pride and self-confidence in Indonesians and restore a moral focus in a country that has fallen into chaos and widespread corruption.
About 90 percent of Indonesians are Muslims, though most of them practice a more relaxed, less politically motivated form of their religion than can be found in some other countries with large Muslim populations.
But now Muslim political parties, including the Justice Party, control about 24 percent of Parliament. With elections coming up in 2004, President Megawati Sukarnoputri has been behaving cautiously on many issues, including Washington's war on terror, for fear of destabilizing a delicate equilibrium.
Interestingly enough, the "Justice" Party also betrays the now all-too-obvious link between "Saudi" Arabia and strident Islamist ideology:
[Megawati] will have to tread carefully with the Justice Party. Its top echelon — the party leader, Hidayat Nur Wahid; Annis Matta, the secretary general; and Lutsi Ishak, the treasurer — are all graduates of Saudi Arabian universities.
Many of the members join after passing through the strident Islamic student organization, the Indonesian Muslim Student Action Union, known for its aggressive street protests in favor of an Islamic state. (emphasis mine)
Clearly, the Arabs have a lot to answer for. Indeed, the insidiously hidden hypocrisy and statist totalitarianism - qualities in high abundance among the Arab world - which underlie a seemingly gentle Arab personage, have also been exported from the Arab world into Indonesia:
But the party believes in the soft-gloved approach. No militant jihad jargon issues from Dr. Zulkieflimansyh's lips. Instead, he speaks of empowering villagers, setting a clean moral example, and spreading a pure vision of Islam.
"We don't like the idea of forcing people to join Islam," Dr. Zulkieflimansyh said during a meeting at the party headquarters. "We like to invite them." Literature asserting that Jews organized the attack on the World Trade Center is on sale at the front counter.
They may not like the idea of forcible conversions but, hey, they are quite happy to resort to intimidatory proselytising if they have to. And, as always, the real undercurrents of their idealistic statements are always betrayed by their subscription to silly and childish conspiracy theories.
The party's senior leaders insist that they are not interested in establishing in Indonesia all aspects of Wahhabism, the conservative form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
But the introduction of Shariah is a basic goal. "The implementation of Shariah would mean justice would be upheld," Mr. Zulkieflimansyh told a recent seminar where everyone in the room knew that a series of high-profile corruption trials under way in Jakarta were unlikely to result in severe sentences.
Under Shariah, he said, "There is no privilege for Muslims if you do something wrong."
Outwardly the party appears to be tolerant of educated women, and one of its most fervent organizers is Nursanita Nasution, a lecturer in accounting at the University of Indonesia and the mother of seven children.
Seven children! It seems to me that she has chosen to psychologically rationalise her current situation and her past effort in bearing children, in a manner that probably involved complete subordination to the husband and male elders, and thereby taking comfort from Islamist notions of "political redemption". Indeed, it would be a big comfort to somebody who is not prepared to be intellectually honest, and hence unable to confront the issues which lead to such predicaments. Instead, such people try to square their experiences with real life by going down the opposite direction; by reinforcing their acceptance of the issues which have led to the prison that is the status quo. In fact, this is the sort of mentality I personally come across in numerous Muslim communities throughout Britain. The absence of a respectable option compels many women to reinforce their own prison walls; they must seem to remain submissive, and train their daughters to be submissive, because the only alternative is a disgraceful isolation from her relatives, friends and community. For uneducated women, the alternatives can all too easily descend into suicide or even prostitution. Generally speaking, in such restrictive conditions, women easily become submissive to the needs and wants of the male elders round them, and at the most wishing only for a limited compromise between the old restricted culture they inherit and the new culture they may be educated in.
Clearly, the liberal Muslims in Indonesia have a massive responsibility on their shoulders. Unless they can bring back the rule of law, and therey allow the economy to essentially become market-driven and prosperous, there will be little incentive for the populace to keep them in power. None of this will properly take place without liberating the womenfolk of their country. Otherwise they are likely to lose power to the competing Islamists. Watch this space.
