>
> i agree, but this is exactly the point i've made on this list several
> times -- it's not the study of the bible or the qur'an that will help
> us understand, because their religious ideologies are ultimately
> grounded outside the text. but that doesn't make them any less
grounded
> in christianity (or islam) UNLESS you want to reduce the expression of
> a religion to consistency with some particular interpretation of the
> scripture. i think that would be a mistake.
That brings us to the role of legitimating ideology in social movements. Weber and also to a some extent Marx (esp. in The 18th brummaire...), view the relationship between culture, religion, ideology etc. and material interests of a social movement or interest group as that of "elective affinity" - interest groups pick up ideologies, religious beliefs etc that best legitimate their particular interests. If the group successfully dominates the political and economic area, that belief also becomes the dominant ideology. Thus, Weber argues, Protestantism gained popularity among the merchant classes because it provided a better legitmation of their economic interests (accumulation) than Catholicism, and gained political dominance with the rise of the merchant class. Of course, by that time the merchant class did not need religious sanction anymore, but "their" religion trickled down to the petit bourgeois masses and thus outlived its original legitimating function.
Alexander Gerschenkron makes a similar argument about Marxism, or rather its Soviet variety. Bastardized version of Marxism was espoused by Soviet leaders to gain legitimacy for their radical social programs, which were alien to the peasant masses. The leaders picked those elements of Marxist ideology that best resonated with the peasant weltanschauung - especially communalism, religious eschatology, personality cult and nationalism.
Similar argument can be made about Islamism. As I understand it, the main dividing line among the Islamic reformers for the past century or so has been between modernists and traditionalists. The modernists (mainly professionals) favored remaking Islamic societies along Western lines and were opposed almost from the start (i.e. Napoleonic reforms of the Egyptian society) by the traditionalists. The modernists gained upper hand after the successful reform program of Kemal Ataturk - whose model of military state was emulated in the Middle East (Nasser, Gadafy, and yes, Saddam Hussein). But what often lost in translation is the fact that these folks were also the sworn enemies of the traditional Islamists.
As long as the modern-secular model championed by Ataturk seemed to be a successful vehicle for advancing the interest of Arab nationalism - it was espoused by Arab intellectuals. But war in Afghanistan changed that, as the US threw its support behind the most traditionalist and reactionary forces in Islam - and these forces prevailed in Afghanistan. So from that point of view the US - or rather the political myopia of Reagan and his handlers - share the lion responsibility for the rise of the so-called "Muslim terrorism."
The anti-western ideology espoused by these folks is directed mainly against Arab modernists rather than the West itself, and the US serves manly as a "punching boy" to make the traditionalist more attractive for Arab audiences.
Of course, US-sers do not want to think of themselves as being a mere tool of someone else's machinations, so they invented the myth of the clash of civilizations, Muslim hatred of our so-called "values," etc. - just to show that Us is the main target and not a side show.
The bottom line is, however, that religion and culture is merely a window dressing - costumes borrowed from the past (as Marx aptly described it in the 18th brummaire) to give new legitimacy to Arab nationalism. That also explains why Islamism is now espoused by many members of the Arab professional class who used to support Western-style secularism.
Wojtek