[lbo-talk] Islam: The New York Times Book Review version

[sharif islam]

While it is hearting to see your last name in the cover of the New
York Times Book Review, you suddenly realize that this is another
attempt to understand the issue of 'Islam' ('issue' is a much more
politically correct term that combines threat, crisis, problem etc.)
as preached by the mainstream media. As if the magic potion of
understanding the faith of 1.3 billion people will provide the
solution to all the problems of the world. Therefore, we can
anticipate a cover story next week that will define the American
electoral politics – "Mormon vs Southern Baptist". But alas, it won't
be the case, because we know that faith and religion while an
important aspect, does not necessarily define the whole spectrum of
humanity perhaps for those problem ridden countries of the world and
obviously the immigrants that are flocking towards the West for a
better life. Cynicism aside, the books reviewed in NY Times can be
looked at as a survey of current political landscape where the
rhetoric of understanding Islam is prevalent. But we need to closely
look at such rhetoric.

The editors acknowledge that the books selected are not comprehensive,
instead, they are a sampler of what is now available. The selection
does cover different aspects of Islam, from theology to politics, yet
it is heavily leaning towards the best seller sections. Books such as,
_The Flowering of Muslim Theology_ by Josef Van Ess or _Missing
Soluch_ Mahmoud Dowlatabadi should have made it to the list and thus
moving little closer to so called understanding. In any case, some of
the books are definitely worth reading and it is commendable that
there was at least an attempt for a balanced list.

The review starts with Tariq Ramadan's essay _Reading the Koran_ where
he emphasizes the complexity of studying Koran. He also emphasized the
universalist and pluralist interpretation of the Koran:

"Above and beyond these distinct levels of reading, we must take into
account the different interpretations put forward by the great Islamic
classical tradition. It goes without saying that all Muslims consider
the Koran to be the final divine revelation. But going back to the
direct experience of the Companions of the Prophet, it has always been
clear that the interpretation of its verses is plural in nature, and
that there has always existed an accepted diversity of readings among
Muslims."

While not all will agree with his above statement that there could be
pluralistic interpretation of any divine revelations, he makes a solid
argument: history shows there has been significant effort in
developing methodological tools to understand and interpret Koran,
therefore, the claim that multiple interpretation are impossible is a
baseless conclusion. However, he failed to connect the complexity of
reading Koran with the fact that the majority of Muslims (or any other
followers of a religion), are not involved in such rigorous studies.
They will rely on the interpretations provided to them that could
either be deemed as pluralistic or literal and such interpretations
depend more on social, political, and cultural than theological
factors.

The second essay that is worth pointing out is by Fouad Ajami where he
acknowledges his mistake that he doubted Samuel Huntington and his
clash of civilizations theory:

"I had questioned Huntington's suggestion that civilizations could be
found "whole and intact, watertight under an eternal sky." Furrows, I
observed, run across civilizations, and the modernist consensus would
hold in places like India, Egypt and Turkey. Huntington had written
that the Turks — rejecting Mecca, and rejected by Brussels — would
head toward Tashkent, choosing a pan-Turkic world."

Ajami's realization that there needs to be a "redefinition"
Huntington's prophesy is based on the recent election result of
Turkey:

"The Islamists have prevailed, but their desired destination, or so
they tell us, is still Brussels: in that European shelter, the
Islamists shrewdly hope they can find protection against the power of
the military. "

It seems according to Ajami, whose other Prophet is Bernard Lewis,
Turkey, where it is too soon to announce that Islamists have
prevailed, will lead the clash of civilizations. The Huntington
syndrome is still strong after all these years and Ajami does not
realize that the situation of secularism and Islamism in Turkey is
much more complex than just simple rejection of Keamalism and win of
Islamism. And the decision to enter the EU, which is contested by most
of Europe, is more to do with economics than ensuing the clash. Aijaz
Ahmad, in his recent article provides a cure to such Huntington
syndrome. Ahmad points out that the main attraction of Huntington's
theory is that it perpetuates the state of permanent warfare, which
ultimately supports the military industrial complex, be it in Turkey
or United States:

"In the clash between Christianity versus Islam, the Orthodox Church
and China, America must lead and the West must unite to defend itself.
The problem with the West has been that it has had the universalist
pretensions. Repudiation of universalism thus yields, in Huntington's
vision, not mutual accommodation or respect among the diverse cultures
but a state of permanent warfare. (p. 22)."

Ajami's conclusion is that we have failed to pay attention to
Huntington's vision -- Islam is remaining true to it's ideology, West
is not. Capitalism and World Wide Web failed to retain the
civilization. So the doom is imminent.

I am pretty sure, a bearded man in some cave having similar
conclusion: "Invert Huntington and you get Osama bin Laden" (Ahmad,
2008).

References:
Ahmad, Aijaz, 2008. ISLAM, ISLAMISMS AND THE WEST, Socialist Register.
New York Times Book Review: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/review/index.html

-- 
sharif islam
http://www.sharifislam.com