Our present war is made over ideas
By John E. Posted in Archived — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
WE peoples face a monumental problem: we are at war and we have not resolved precisely with whom and at root why; we must identify and come to grips with those whom we are at war; and we must resolve the means by which we make identification.
Though such a resolution would seem rudimentary to any war stance, it meets with a great resistance arising out of the fear that it will cause many (perhaps 1.3 billion), through the power of socio-cultural and its inhering religious identity to make themselves our enemy.
Paul J. Cella’s post, “Make them give us battle” shines light on the predicament. Acknowledging our lamentable state of war – all war is lamentable – with an enemy intent upon overcoming or else destroying us by insidious “terroristic” tactics, Paul asks how we might draw them into a traditional battle of direct confrontation.
Read on.
It is symptomatic of our problem that a number of interlocutors did not apply Paul’s challenge to the context of our global war, but rather, focused narrowly on Iraq as if that is an isolated war and even that is to be viewed merely as a war of insurgency: where our enemies are known only as those who are caught using arms against us; those not bearing arms are assumed to be civilians and innocents or perhaps even friends. And the precedential criterion employed by these interlocutors is that: our actions must not cause more of these innocents to take up arms against us. Can it be that this is a war without just cause, devoid of conflicting ideas of good and bad, where enemies are only motivated by their perceptions of our unjust actions, as if their perception of justice is all that matters and our own measure of justice is irrelevant? We can never successfully wage war as long as we define and identify our enemy merely by who bears arms against us. We cannot sustain the sacrifice pursuant to victory while believing that it is our actions that give them their just cause to fight us. We must know our enemy by the ideas that motivate them to fight us; ideas that must be diametrically hostile to ours, lest we should have no cause to fight each other at all.
Paul rightly directed our attention to history. History shows us cases where ideas: beliefs, doctrines and strategies; are packed together to produce a state of war with any social group in which those ideas have not achieved dominance. We must look critically, resolutely, fearlessly at Muhammad’s ideas.
Muhammad made a universal claim: there is no god but his god; and all men should recognize that he is the final spokesman for this god. And as a result of this claim, he came into conflict with the inhabitants of the small Arabian cities and Bedouins who were not inclined to submit to this regime. To those who did submit he gave them a duty and promised it to be honored as most holy: jihad – strive (including fighting to the death) until “all is for Allah.” And latching themselves to this duty and promise, these humble Bedouins and traders, against all imaginable odds of wealth, learning, established custom, established government and technology soon established a vast expanding political order founded on Islam’s first pillar: submission to Allah through Muhammad.
Observation reveals that these 1400 year old ideas have not lost their power, despite the political failure of the last Islamic caliphate in 1923. The proper order – following upon submission to Allah through Muhammad – of government by Islamic law still exists in various locations by degrees; and it can be restored and its extension resumed. The breast which lodges these ideas prepares enmity for that kafir – that is: non-Muslim a/k/a infidel – who does not submit. It is the ideas that generate a particular conception of the phenomenal world, that give a particular purpose to life, that instantiate tyranny, that signify enmity. It is by our ideas that we are known as infidel and it is by their ideas that we must ultimately know our enemy. Sadly, the individual who holds these ideas may have the integrity of sincere intent, but by the contrast in what we profess he assumes prima facie and a priori (by Allah’s instruction through Muhammad) superiority over us; and by our inferiority we are made subject us to numerous consequent harms. It is the ideas which powerfully generate evil; the man is the instrument.
To propose Shari’a as the law to govern social relationships is to propose submission to Muhammad. The Islamic version of god’s law defines a proper order of society whereby the followers of Muhammad must rule over – by a station of social superiority – those who do not profess Muhammad; thus submission is achieved in the social order even if it is not achieved in the individual spirit. No non-Muslim who has lived under the modern regime of liberty can receive such a system as other than tyranny.
I publicly proclaim what I sincerely believe: Muhammad is a prophet only of a figment (god) of his own imagination. I say that the objective morality of every act performed by him and his followers must be judged in this light. Under Muhammad’s regime, I will be justly silenced by whatever measure of force is required. To question Muhammad publicly is to insult him and this shall not be tolerated.
So to every individual in the world today who professes Islam – whether by birth or conversion – I ask: will you meet my proclamation by engaging me in respectful civil truth-seeking dialogue or will you brand as infidel and censure me? Will you be partner in the valuation of religious liberty, and the defense of all individuals from discrimination for particular theological belief, or will you partner with those under the regime of Islamic law who will meet my infidelity with Allah’s censuring justice? Will you engage me, condemn me, defend me, silence me or remain silent? I want to KNOW! But not only that, WE need to know! We NEED to insure that no one who makes partners with us on the bargain of religious liberty is hurt by those who make partners against us. What say you Hamza Yusuf, Hatem Bazian, Dr Sherman Jackson, Dr Parvez Ahmed, Abu Sahajj…?
To every non-Muslim I ask: do you comprehend this shape of the conflict? Can you guard as your own the liberty of the Muslim who will likewise guard yours? Do you understand the enmity toward non-believers born out of externalizing to the social order the idea of submission to Allah through Muhammad – that first pillar of Islam? Do you comprehend the history that shows the David-vs.-Goliath power of this system of ideas to rearrange the socio-political order to a procrustean form of tyranny? Do you believe that, for the good of all mankind, our social order rooted in liberty must prevail over Muhammad’s social order rooted in submission? What will you not do – as a matter of principle – in order to achieve this? In the Cold War with communist regimes, we were willing to deter their dominance by the will of mutually assured destruction in nuclear war; are you willing to go that far against an enemy who is clearly willing to sacrifice innumerable lives for the triumph of their ideas?
I urge that all men, Muslim and non-Muslim, come together by conviction in the propriety of the social pact that is highlighted by a valuation of liberty: We shall each, on behalf of the other, defend the expectation for equity in the social order for all, irrespective of their conception of god and choice of the manner of worship. This conception of liberty inheres in the values of the civilization which undergirds these United States.
A demand for submission to Muhammad (for example, imposition of Shari’a) is incompatible with this pact; for one must not impose Muhammad* on others, whether a family member or neighbor, non-believer or one-time believer, cartoonist or writer. Those who propose to do so, by the history of their ideas, declare themselves the enemy of our civilization. They abrogate any claim to the fellowship of our civility and to expectations of our defense of their liberties. These ideas of theirs prove themselves hostile and evil. These ideas make war on our cherished way of life and we must make war on these ideas; we must eradicate them. Our humanity makes us hope and pray that we can eradicate the idea without exterminating millions of its human hosts. Our religious sensitivity makes us hope we can eradicate the idea without abolishing an entire religious faith tradition. But we must face the reality with the necessary action, whatever it may be. We must get to the business of precisely referencing the ideas which make for the enmity, and engage in a ubiquitous public effort of rebuke. This will fissure friend from foe. And wherever there is proximity between the two, we best be ready to aid our allied warrior or refugee. The implications are vast and frightening but we must steel our gaze. It may be exactly what bin Laden wants. It may make them give us battle.
Meanwhile we must not begrudge the Muslim’s practice of the volitional devotional aspects of Islam: personal submission, fasting, pilgrimage, alms-giving, prayer. It is the exportation of submission to the socio-political order that we avert. It is our valuation of liberties that undergirds constitutional democracy; government of the people, by the people, for the people with legislation produced by representation. Our political order and consequent laws assert legitimacy through the endorsement of the people. By contrast, Shari’a asserts its legitimacy by the authority of Allah. It is imposed as a divine whole as a consequence of the first pillar of submission and is not to be amended or contradicted by the people’s representatives; its legitimacy does not derive from the consent of the governed. The propriety of the valuation of liberty over the exportation of submission is what we must demand and defend. It is an antecedent to democracy.
This tension between the valuation of liberties and submission may well be an impediment – to democracy and our other goals in Iraq – that persists even after sectarian violence is quelled. Our true allies there, the ones we are obligated to defend, are the ones who value societal liberty over this enforced submission; the ones who wish to teach this to their families and neighbors and establish a social order upon it. What strategy will allow them to prevail?
And what are the implications and prospects for our foreign and domestic policy if we realize and then reify this shape of the conflict? If we wage all out (cold) war in the realm of ideas what will be the impact upon the wars in the field? What does history teach us regarding the strategies and tactics of this opponent and the aptness of countermeasures? Ataturk or the crusades? There are many vexing questions, subjects of anxious thought. But this is the shape of a conflict that has existed for 1400 years, so it is not likely to fade away, especially since the host of this idea continuously organically grows in size. How can we expect that delay will make the prospects less cataclysmic? If we truly believe that our valuation of liberties better serves our species (present and future) than this usurper, then our will must triumph over our enemy’s will, our devotion must exceed his, our resignation to sacrifice must be tougher than his – though he casts aside humane limits on behalf of his cause, ours is more just and we cannot allow him to use our tender sensibilities to cower us.
The dialogue needs continuation and expansion. Comprehension is presently a prime necessity.
Here is a good recent examination, by Peter Wehner, an advisor to President Bush, of the historical foundations of our conflict.
*FOOTNOTE: Nor may one impose Christ; who I personally do believe is a true godsend. And it is an amazing contrasting fact that Christ and his immediate followers did not propose to impose belief but offered it as a rich spiritual gift. It appears that for a period of history the Caesar co-opted the Christ and used the Church to advance its positions. The Church’s hierarchical order of spiritual authority presented a tempting fruit for ambitious men. But Jesus did not assert his authority over the socio-political order. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Jesus as Christ did universalize the god of Israel but did so through the personal sacrifice that signifies the love of god for all. He urged profession of Christ as a personal choice that may bear ultimately on one’s relationship to god, but not on conventional socio-political status. He met disbelief and insult with personal sacrifice. Muhammad universalized the god of Israel by becoming a kind of Moses for all men: everywhere is Canaan-land and god’s newly revealed law and order should be asserted over all its inhabitants in order to establish right relations with god on all the earth.
John E.
will you meet my proclamation by engaging me in respectful civil truth-seeking dialogue or will you brand as infidel and censure me?
you mean, with regard to your proclamation of disbelief in the Prophet SAW? Neither. I will just invoke Qur'an 109:6. It may shock you, but I honestly don't care what you believe, or don't believe.
Will you be partner in the valuation of religious liberty, and the defense of all individuals from discrimination for particular theological belief, or will you [irrelevant nonsense]
the premise of this question is insulting. Still, I will reply. I will certainly continue to defend the principles of freedom of religion and speech, and furthermore I will not make my defense of these principles contingent upon reciprocation by you - because at this time it appears to me that there are those who are willing and eager to cast aside those very same principles in a heartbeat should it serve their purposes.
Will you engage me, condemn me, defend me, silence me or remain silent?
I will reply to reasonable questions about my faith - MY time permitting. I will not debate that faith. I will not answer accusations or respond if you demand I condemn something for condemnations' sake.
I will reply to those who treat me as an equal, as a independent human being of shared humanity, as a fellow citizen and a patriot. In fact I have not been silent over these past four years, and I am hardly alone.
I want to KNOW! But not only that, WE need to know! We NEED to insure that no one who makes partners with us on the bargain of religious liberty is hurt by those who make partners against us.
I cannot help you if you choose to be blind. I have given you numerous examples here that if you choose to follow, may open your eyes to see just how much of a natural alliance we are predisposed to. It is MY people, not yours, who suffer the most grievously at the hands of our common enemy. If there is only one place you go, then go here, and you will find answers you seek. But I will not spoon feed you further.
cross-posted to City of Brass.
the premise of this question is insulting
The premise of the question is that both in theory and in practice, Islam has never been accomodating to different beliefs. (To put it politely.) Admitting that the problem exists would be a good beginning.
You directed me to your website over a year ago. I learned much from it and the links. I believe you and other like-minded Muslims do share in the eminence of the valuation of religious liberty in the public sphere. I believe that you prove yourselves to be my ally and that I will prove myself to be yours. (Though the discourse on Jihad by Dr Sherman Jackson that your links led me to caused me significant consternation).
I must say though that the valuation of religious liberty is not some abstract principle I swear myself to, as in “I shall never tell a lie.” Its good is realized in the social order and so I believe it is only binding as a pact.
That “irrelevant nonsense” is codified reality in some parts of the world and there are Islamic movements which seek to extend it. If the premise is unfair, I will try to take the unfairness out of it; but not merely for the sake of removing insult. According to the ancient biographies, your prophet found insult in such disregard as I hold him and dealt harshly with those like me. Justice was not done. He was wrong and should have been hanged for his murders. My beliefs are insulting. It is well that you don’t care. But I know some will want to murder me for them in order to meet out Muhammad’s justice.
All that said, I am willing to defend your liberty with my own life as you are willing to defend mine. The same who would do me in would make you submit as well.
John E.
That “irrelevant nonsense” is codified reality in some parts of the world
but has nothing to do with me, here, or the other muslims whom you said you wanted desperately to ally with. If you would have us stand together, then stop casting us into teh same pool as those.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
"then stop casting us into the same pool as those"
That's just what I want to do. That is what I am trying to be very careful to do, here and in all my posts. That is what makes this dialogue so very dicey and tricky, since it inevitably turns on religion, but more precisely at that point where religious belief strong-arms itself into the socio-political order.
I have defined two pools: a socio-political order hung on a valuation of liberty; a socio-political order hung on submission to Muhammad. (I suppose there is a default pool of those people who don't care about either). I am asking people about their values, to self-identify. I think you have self-identified with the first pool because I think you believe in personal submission to Muhammad without exporting that submission to the socio-political sphere. And you argue that as a point of divine principle with your co-religionists by references to Sura 109 in a way which I have no business doing.
I can't help that the second pool contains a reference to Muhammad; I believe people need to comprehend the situation for what it is, not watered down. And it is an unfortunate complexity that Muslims and non-Muslims alike must understand: the pools are not neatly divided by Muslim and non-Muslim, except perhaps from the perspective of those in the second pool.
I do not believe I have made Islam a target. Yes I do criticize the imposition of Islamic law as an extension of submission; but not Islamic devotional practice or personal virtue.
However, I will look to benefit from your constructive criticism if you avail me.
John E.
your initial questions, and your reply to me, keep holding me to account for the actions and beliefs of teh extremists.
Its not about your beliefs or lack or difference thereof. Its not about Islam being a target. Its about starting from the principle that we - you, and I - are genuinely in this together. Or not. Anytime you take pains to remind me that there are evil people elsewhere in the world who are muslim and then ask me whether Isupport them in word, you are casting me aside.
I am afraid that I dont have the eloquence today to persuade you of the point I am trying to make. Maybe I will try again later. I certainly encourage you to visit eteraz.org and participate there to get more than just my views.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I must add that I expected more than just reproof from you. I have visited your sites and others. I appreciate your coming here. It cannot be entirely incumbent upon me to read and extrapolate how you stand on these issues. I am solicitous and I am willing to submit to your tone (which has harshness in it). I want us to include each other. But perhaps I am wrong to put words in your mouth and answer my questions on your behalf.
I do not see how I have held you to account for extremists. I have not identified you with them unless you share their belief in exporting submission to Allah. And a desire to impose Shari'a law is a marker of that, so a belief in that by corollary.
I observe that these ideas are the fissure point. I do not make it so by fiat. If this is not the fissure point, then I expect to learn my error. If it is the fissure point, and you feel cast aside by it, then you are being jostled by your own incongruities. It is due to no labor on my part.
I oppose the ideas that lead people to seek to impose this tyranny upon us. I oppose those who host these ideas. I ask where you stand. It is your choice that casts you to a side, one side or the other. No choice leaves you in ambiguity. Perhaps I offend by opening the door to Schrodinger's box?
John E.
Aziz is a self described liberal. Thus, he is a victim. And you, by definition, are victimizing him.
Very nice try though.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
THat being all there is to it, I am now breathing a big sigh of relief, comic relief. WRoarrrrra uuunngh
John E.
a very calm man or really heavily medicated.
Your exchange would have had me in a white coat a long time ago. I'm not impressed by much, but your effort at a rational exchange was pretty darn impressive.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
at rational exchange is rapidly becoming the stuff of legend.
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
my tone is defensive, not harsh - I am frustrated, not offended. It's because in your initial questions you do place entirely upon me the onus of action. I'm simply not sure what I can say in this exchange to give you what you are looking that four years of writing elsewhere cannot. So yes, in one sense, it is incumbent upon you to search for that you seek.
the downthread nastiness about liberals and whatnot is also not helpful. Have I said I am a victim? I have only demanded equal treatment. I have not complained, I have only set ground rules. Those are fair as you conceded above. Why do you suddenly lapse into teh easy vilify liberals nonsense to characterize me? You've added another layer to the barriers between us.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Yes, you are right. The bit about liberals is crass stereotyping based on imputing the Folk Marxism-&-Folk Lockeism filters. Seriously, I would be relieved if that accounted for the tension between us and in a spirit of good nature - without being hateful and laughing at myself too - I can say it may account for some. That characteriture (I don't know how to spell that) makes villains out of both of us to some extent: me mean and you whiny; and somewhat humorously so. But that really does just clutter up this serious nut we are cracking and I would not have introduced it. Alas...the nature of the medium, so I choose to take it in good-natured stride rather than stridently. My hand is out to you. And I know this may be a somewhat hostile political medium. I will continue this dialogue on your site if you prefer.
I think you may take some assurance that I have been searching and reading elsewhere, including your links (which I thank you for taking the effort to provide, last year and now). I have learned that the point of discrimination is not at being Muslim. And you could confirm that is clear from what I wrote. And you could also confirm that the point at which I discriminate is the proper point, that my analysis is correct.
From your blog, I know that you also vouch for discrimination at some point and confirm the social pact nature of our valuation of liberty, for you say...
If you don't understand how freedom of speech is the guarantee of religion's pursuit, then you're an ignorant fool and you'll never have my support or brotherhood, even if you do claim to follow the true Deen.
Of course, I am on the defensive too. I have a guy below calling me fascist. And I am also on the defensive for our liberties.
I don't want you defending yourself from me. I hope you will see that my hand is out to you and that we will firmly grasp each others. We are for defending liberty against this gnarly - all tangled and imbued with religious power - submission meme. I have firmly set myself against a particular idea(s) and you join me in opposition to those ideas don't you? We must know and identify what we are up against, don't you agree? And I have tried to do so and I open it up for critical examination; which I welcome from you and others. You are not a target for my antipathy; it tracks with the ideas I have marked out.
John E.
I don't want you defending yourself from me. I hope you will see that my hand is out to you and that we will firmly grasp each others.
I respect what you are trying to do, John - I bear you no ill will. At present, however, there are those who would cast the general struggle of barbarians vs civilized peoples in a religious sense, and tose people are the ones who will not settle for anything less than moderate and reasonable pious men like myself being forced to renounce the basics of our faith, rather than support us as we articulate the answer to teh extremists firmly within the context of our faith. Jihadwatch and Paul's own ongoing series of essays about what he calls the "global Jihad" - all of these things serve only to validate the extremists' views and delegitimzie mine in the mainstream.
If we accept as an axiom that you and I are on opposite sides of a given poltical fence, then let me say that "your side" needs to do a better job of promoting "my side"'s interpretations of jihad, or faith, etc. A simple and tremendously helpful start woudl simply be to stop using the word jihad and start using hirabah to characterize the actions of teh extremists whom you agree should be distinguished from me and my mainstream religionists. And to hold your own "side" to the same. Surely you can see why such a simple change in terminology would have tremendous strategic usefulness?
And then there is the issue of "dhimmi". This medieval concept has applictaion to the twisted gradiose dreams of the extremists, but absolutely no bearing on the actions and aspirations of the muslim american community. For god's sake did you see the outcry over Keith Ellison and Jeffferson's Qur'an? right here at Redstate!
and not last and not least is taqqiya. In essence, muslims are liars. What more need to be said?
I see your hand stretched out to me, John, and I give you mine too. But that is an empty gesture next to the various ways in which "your side" relegates me to the status of Other. Until i see more voices like yours, raised in direct opposition to these divisive ideas, our handshakes remain nothing more than symbolic. Right here at RedState is where you can start.
I am not being one sided. I have my own burdens to bear, not least of which being eternal vigilance within my mosque for the seeds of alien thought. I have to teach my daughter to be a patriot. I have to bear the suspiicion and scrutiny of my fellow citizens without complaint. These rae my duties. I will attend to them. If you attend to yours, then we will really get somewhere.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I am glad you have taken the effort to explain. I believe I can now say I can grasp your frustration, and I can sympathize with you, against myself so to speak. Now, when I try to step back and look at it from both our sides, I see a dilemma; and it puts pressure on the only thing over which we each have direct control, our choice of what to do.
I believe you understand what is at stake just as I do; that you see the religious dimensions which shape the conflict in a way that many do not: Bill below for example. You, in the most personal way, are in a struggle for the heart and soul of your religion, and the consequences are monumental. I am an outsider to that struggle but am forcing the issue in a way that is not helpful to your inside struggle; because I am focused on the outside struggle – one which joins us – between the politicized hegemonic version of the religion and our liberties.
I think I am correct to say you understand the shape, but when you yourself cast this as “barbarians vs. civilized” you give me cause to doubt. I hope you will seriously consider how that misrepresents the matter, but if you think it does not then there is a great space between us that needs to be bridged by an application of critical thinking. Those people that threaten us are men and women spurred by integrity of belief. It is not merely commitment to “barbaric” means that marks them. We must consider the goal. But my intuition tells me you know this even better than I do.
There are very many who do not understand the dimensions and what is at stake. There are others who may understand – I think of some world leaders – but refrain from articulating it. This gives cover in a way which benefits your cause in the internal struggle. Time and the progression of events have caused many of us to take a deeper look at what is going on. Jihadwatch, Paul and I are all alike in sounding alarm, for we perceive an ascendant threat which capitalizes on the present ignorance. Granted, we should guard against becoming alarmists. I will commit to carefully attend to my judgment by respecting criticism in that regard. I am presently convinced that we cannot safely permit the present ignorance; and that requires that we carefully expose the religious dimensions which shape the conflict. In my alarms, I am careful to make the space for those like you. Paul and I have political differences that affect our attitudes toward cultural homogeneity and some of that colors his alarms to our disaffection. But I sincerely believe he makes this space too. And I have heard him announce as epiphany that our strong opposition to this threat will offer a sense of security to those Muslims who likewise comprehend the shape of the conflict; who are likewise under threat. Paul, I and others desperately need a bolstered confidence that we will be able to distinguish them. I must acknowledge that you are right to fearfully observe that some too blithely give up hope for this. But this is best confronted with evidence joined to principle and principle alone will not do. The sense of alarm that I share with Paul makes our political difference modest in comparison; just as my even more significant political differences with you are dwarfed.
My sympathy for your cause in the internal struggle first counsels patient silence on my part, but my present judgment of the circumstances cuts me off. Where may I find the requisite confidence that we will triumph in the outer struggle through the triumphant progress of the inner one? There are some 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. When you refer to “me and my mainstream religionists” you make me expect to find overwhelming condemnation of all but the personal spiritual aspects of Jihad, of the idea of Caliphate, of the desire that Shari’a should anywhere be imposed as the law of the land, of any universal socio-political aspirations of the religion. If I see this I will counsel patient silence (but then that begs the question of why my announcements would be considered provocative). I have been looking and I must act on what I see.
You offer me another means to employ my sympathy; by aiding your internal struggle through enjoining the co-option of the problematic traditional terms by elision. This also puts pressure against my ability to sound alarm. But more than that; as much as I root for your victory in the internal struggle, I have formed my own perception on these matters. I ought to refrain from entering upon internal theological and Quranic debates. But I cannot refrain where in the examination of history I find the confluence of the religious with the political. As I hinted earlier, Dr. Sherman Jackson’s attempt to reclaim – in the popular Muslim mindset – Jihad from traditionalists yields far too much space to the political confluences to give me any comfort whatsoever. By hirabah you make violence the marker, as if that were the only issue, and while that is a useful strategy for some, I think it fatally obscures the essential issue of universal submission. Again, we step up to that space requiring disinterested critical thinking.
You make me sensitive to the point that not all Muslims subscribe to the doctrine of lying for the political-religious cause, but yet some do subscribe to it. We are faced with the need to carefully discriminate and a very difficult problem of how to effectively do so. All these issues you mention, Ellison or dhimminitude, are they not just symptomatic of the rising angst? Are we not all better off by clearly and precisely defining the root of the issue as I have tried to do? Then our concerns could be constrained by the proper limits and focused on the necessary tasks, not the distracting and divisive tangents. I believe the American Islamic community would be very well served by this. There is a cat and mouse ambiguity of representation that is breeding distrust on “my side.” This may just be a vicious cycle of distrust, or there may be more to it. I would like to explore this point further if you think it has explanatory power.
You may note that the construction I offered in the diary made scant use of the term jihad, or any other Quranic term or quote. I tried to cast the issue in terms of descriptive history and common western concepts. However I cannot avoid reference to Muhammad as a historic figure and the injunction to strive until all is for Allah as the externalized universalization of the first pillar of Islam. I don’t know if this helps your cause of not, but if you think so, I will try to work with it that way. When those controversial terms come up though, I can hardly take any other than the interpretation of them that suggests itself most strongly to me, even though it is not the one I hope will eventually rule the day; when all Muslims strive until all their heart is for Allah, not everything else too.
Scrutiny is a burden being foist upon you in increasing measure. I thank you for bearing it and I will continue to hammer out your space in the fold. I applaud your vigilance; by that you are doubtless presently giving more practical contribution and effort to our common cause than I, as alarm sounder. Call upon me to vouch for you personally. We may yet have significant disagreements. What I say may not suit you and vice a versa, but I will defend you where it counts because I believe we are joined at that point. At that essential point you are not Other; and your declaration on that point: liberty vs. submission; ought to clearly purchase your indisputable position in the fold. The idea which marks the Other needs discrediting and I can only hope that the ranks of the Other are depleted into ours by such measures. My judgment might still be influenced but I am presently falling in with those who believe the time of necessity has come for to open the Schrodinger’s box.
i thank you for the lengthy reply. i wish I had more time to devote to it and mean no disrespect to the significant efort you are making by only choosing the following to comment on:
At that essential point you are not Other; and your declaration on that point: liberty vs. submission; ought to clearly purchase your indisputable position in the fold.
It ought to, but it clearly does not, and until such time as it does then I do have to play defense rather than offense in my interaction with my non-muslim fellow citizens. Thats just reality.
I do hope you join the eteraz community; I had some small part to play in its founding and I think it provides a better framework for these types of discussions you are seeking to initiate. I'll see you there, brother.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I'm fairly sure that we do not have a common enemy. The Bush administration and the Republican party have committed American lives and money towards trying to root out certain types of people in the Muslim world, the type of people who have driven many Muslims to come here to escape them. The Muslim-American community has not exactly embraced the Republicans for doing so, has it?
Bin Laden and those like him are the ememy of those on this site, but not of the Democratic party and its supporters.
Perhaps your analysis of Islam and its history, as well as the prophetic religiosity which undergirds your whole argument, are skewing and simplifying a far more complicated reality.
True, submission is a key concept in Islam, as in Christianity, a spiritual act that opens one to god. There have been 'infidels' living, and indeed at times prospering, in the lands of Islam for over a millenia, and save for a non-Muslim tax imposed especially on Balkan subjects, the religon and culture of Islam can be fairly seen as vastly more tolerant of non-believers than, say, Christian Europe in the 19th century. At least the argument can certainly be made.
Islamic intolerance of non-believers is I think a more recent phenomenon, and therefore not rooted in, as you suggest, the very foundations of the belief. Perhaps there are more important roots in responses to the technological and industrial age, to Zionism and the perverse propaganda created to support the early anti-Zionist cause (Fromkin's A Peace to End all Peace is a good history on that) as well as the lack of information transfer across the geography of the Islamic world, a disparate and wide ranging culture bound tightly by the Koran (bound so tightly perhaps because it is spread so thin) Simple facts of spacial geography can indeed impede free societies.
Add to that a power structure weighed so heavily in favor of a very few, entrenched from a deluge of wealth, watching over a disadvantaged and unfree society.
It would be no question that the Koran would free the Muslims of the Arab world, of South and Central Asia, of Africa and even Europe. But what interpretation? (how can it be purchased?)
and it was. Not by the old power structure, but one equally opposed to liberalism (in its classical sense please) and freedom.
So the Islamist Revolution is against the West, BECAUSE much of the Islamic world can't help becoming more like the West. Because modernity, riding the shoulders of the Information revolution, poses the threat of becoming more popular than the Islamic revolution.
Your article was intensely interesting at first, but then it occurred to me that the post was just a vigorous vocab exercise with a sprinkle of fascism:
"Our religious sensitivity makes us hope we can eradicate the idea without abolishing an entire religious faith tradition. But we must face the reality with the necessary action, whatever it may be."
Come now, why be in the business of eradicating ideas, when we can just offer better ones?
Have faith in the power of freedom.
Bill, I will definitely grant you that there is a very complicated reality and that you have captured some of it. I’ll grant you that people and their lives cannot be boiled down to and explained in terms of a simple belief. I’ll grant you that there are many causes for anti-western attitudes and oppositional enmity.
I have provided a lens for identifying a specific enemy. It is simplifying by design. I’ll answer to the quality of the lens on that account.
In the diary I have been careful to draw the distinction between submission as a personal act of devotion and the imposition of submission in the social and political order. To simplify my language I will ask you to read that term in the latter sense unless I preface it.
Yes, Western Europeans imposed religious submission (I’ll forgo quibbling with your dates). but the evolution of the valuation of liberty eventually changed that and 18th century USA produced religious liberty. That innovation – a social order with some measure of eminence given to the valuation of liberty – is what we are presently concerned with defending. If you or I were required to live under those historic Islamic regimes you mentioned, or if we were a Jew or some other sect in old Europe, would we not know them as profoundly intolerant, as tyranny? The imposition of Shari’a over us in today’s world would be no less so. If there is any recent (in the historical sense) phenomenon which exposes religious intolerance (Islamic or European), it is the innovation of liberty. That is my rejoinder to your analysis, and my defense of my lens.
Whatever the complex and disaffecting causes (and you offer good ones) for the Islamic Revolution they do join together under that historic and old idea of submission. And that idea captures others as well who are not so disaffected or inclined to violence.
It is the reassertion of submission over the innovation of liberty that must be resisted. Yes, to use you words, we are offering freedom as an alternative. But think about it and I think you will see that the circumstances require us to demand it as an alternative. I don’t consider the imposition of submission as an alternative I am willing to accept or condone. I consider this position anti-fascist. But whatever you want to call it, what I care about is being on the right side of what is good for mankind. The ideas that would impose submission are bad ones and they threaten good ones. So call me a fascist for the triumph of liberty over the threat of submission if you like. I have faith that if violence were not possible, and folk Marxism and relativism don’t muck with the process of cultural evolution, that the power of freedom would overcome this tradition of submission. But that is oversimplifying. And of course, I seek to persuade you and I really do believe this.
There appears to be a glitch in your post, so I may have missed some line of your thinking.
John E.
Thanks for your response John.
"In the diary I have been careful to draw the distinction between submission as a personal act of devotion and the imposition of submission in the social and political order. To simplify my language I will ask you to read that term in the latter sense unless I preface it."
Submission in social and political order, by dogma or any other power structure is certainly nothing new (and certainly will continue) and is not confined to the Islamic world. I think of the rigid caste system of India, a system rooted in Hinduism, a historical opponent to Islam. Or I think of Europe again, throughout much of its history, with submission ever-present to a social and political order that put Christians ahead of Jews, royalty ahead of nobles, and so on, a system that was so rigid in economic mobility that it still persists.
Or I think of the Japanese, considered one of the more racist societies in the world, with a tremendously strong sense of submission to social and political order. Why not demand the eradication of those ideas? Why not say: ‘we hope we don’t have to exterminate all who profess support for this system of submission, but we will have to do whatever it takes’?
The short answer: the Japanese did not attack us with airplanes used as missiles.
Or, rather, they did. Eventually the US defeated Japan, and in the process nearly destroyed all semblance of Japanese society. It was necessary. But their culture did not necessarily change, their form of government did. We did not demand the eradication of the ideas of submission and intolerance; indeed we used them to our advantage. There is still to this day a strong sense of submission in Japan, of racism and intolerance of others. But they are now, more importantly, a free society, a thriving democracy. This example indicates how one doesn't need to eradicate the foundation of ideas at all costs. It indicates, as I said earlier, that intolerance and tyranny sometimes (not always) have more important roots in more recent, even more superficial, developments.
In short, I don't think our enemies are the ideas of Islamic submission, the founding perceptions of infidels and the notion of spreading Islam to every corner of the globe. I think our enemies are a much smaller slice of the Islamic world, who cleverly use the media to make their revolution seem so much larger, who have a good deal of backing on the Arab street because they so such a good job of driving wedges between totalitarian governments and the people (which is, of course, not a difficult wedge to drive at all).
"Whatever the complex and disaffecting causes (and you offer good ones) for the Islamic Revolution they do join together under that historic and old idea of submission. And that idea captures others as well who are not so disaffected or inclined to violence."
And this is why I contended that the foundation is often less telling than some specific occurrence which has taken place. How about an example. The culture of the American West was one dominated by the law of the gun. Violence was an everyday part of life. Today we have a serious problem with school violence, and I think of Columbine in Colorado. Does this violence stem from the historic law of the gun in the Wild West, or is it a product of more recent developments? I don’t want to imply that this example is similar to the problem of Islamic intolerance, but there is some correlation here in the method of thinking.
Also, I should say I am of course hesitant to use the much overused label of fascist, but it seems your post implied that if these ideas cannot be uprooted from the religion itself, then we must eradicate the religion. And there’s only one way to eradicate the religion.
And if that happens, we will have certainly lost this war, and our ideals.
Keep chipping away at me Bill; we will set what is left.
Let me address as your thesis: _ Submission in social and political order, by dogma or any other power structure is certainly nothing new (and certainly will continue) and is not confined to the Islamic world;_ and as your consequent implication: one doesn't need to eradicate the foundation of ideas at all costs._
It is obvious that I grant that it is nothing new and that it has not been confined to the Islamic world. I buck you on the claim that it “certainly will continue.” I advocate that it certainly _ought_ not continue and I hardly think that you will advocate that it _ought_ continue. You apparently content yourself with it because why?..there is nothing we can do about it? What, no faith Bill? :)
I should think that we have already celebrated its demise in Europe. And our conflict with Nazi Germany shows some of the lengths to which our approbation may carry us when it is ascendant and universalized; Pre-war Japan as well. We celebrate its demise in the end of the Leninist/Stalinist communism of the USSR. We went to great costs to block its expanse, eventually broke it and celebrate that as great success. We are on a roll, no? (I am not going to grant you the equivalence on “economic mobility;” so I suggest we best just write that one off as due to differences in our political views).
With regards to modern day Japan, I should think that we can reasonably discern between the collectivist/individualist ranges over liberty and the submission meme (which I think we did eradicate). I don’t expect you to try to defend this as case-in-point for your thesis so I will not elaborate unless make dispute. And again, there are some equivalences you are making that I have no patience for, but I will respect it as differences in politics. Parts of Shinto were eradicated, and it survives much more weakly in this form.
I believe we do condemn the caste system in India. I have read accounts where textbooks on Indian history whitewash it from their history, to hide the shame. To the extent that it still exists, what endorsements do we find of it? Show me the man who advocates it and I will join many who challenge him. It is not ascendant nor is it universalized; important and vital distinctions. Are there groups of Indians who wish to reorganize the socio-political order in Europe or elsewhere based on the caste system? Hinduism needs to get along without it. My impression is that they are on that course. Show that it is ascendant and I will worry. Show that Hinduism has a history of universalizing the caste system all over the world and that there are efforts to do so, and then we will have a the similar cause for concern.
Why not mention China? I will answer you that it is opening up to allow the “power of freedom” to work upon its people, so I will exercise some of that “faith” you mention there. But we are not silent regarding its need to change. We believe that its totalitarianism should be eradicated but while it is not being universalized and is not ascendant, we are content to give it time to whither, as it should.
How about the DPRK? Will you use it to demonstrate your thesis?
I will grant you that different circumstances require different action; that the costs we commit ourselves to as necessary are varied by the circumstances; it isn’t always necessary to reach the all-costs ante. But I think even the circumstances discussed show that we, as a matter of principle on this matter, have been and should be ready to reach the all-costs ante when the circumstances make it necessary. I do not expect you to argue, as a matter of principle, against that. You don’t, do you? If not, then our focus should be on taking measure of what we face.
So we have to look at the context. We have been attacked. We are under assault. We are at war. And liberty is at stake. There are many who seek to extend the reach and power of Islamic law. Not just in the ME, but Europe, North America and everywhere is its proper domain. If the ME were its only range, even there it should be pressed with condemnation until descendent. The idea that motivates this is to be condemned, no? Those who have declared their violent war on us have also declared their intentions to reestablish the Caliphate, linking them to the ancient ideas in my article. Their violence certainly damns them. But the idea, which links them to many others who have not joined their violent ranks, is hostile to liberty. It is universalized and it is challenging liberty on many fronts, and not always at the point of a gun. It may well be that “intolerance and tyranny sometimes (not always) have more important roots in more recent, even more superficial, developments;” but start with Muhammad and you will see the historical roots of these ideas and their power to join groups with disparate experiences, in a goal and a hope and a dream and a doctrine and a strategy. Whatever else you have said, you have not eliminated this.
As long as this idea is ascendant and universalized, we do need to prepare ourselves to do what ever is necessary to eradicate it. It has lived and shown its power for 1400 years. It asserts itself over and over again in that history. It does so now. Whatever recent ancillary causes and developments you rightly identify, you still find it. It is not explained away. It is rallied upon as “the answer.” Look at history and you will see its power. Then let us talk of what may be necessary.
The first step is to condemn it, to call it what it is, to call for it to be given up because it is bad. That is ordinary in all the cases you offered. Will you go that far? If you will, and we all should, it may stir up the hornets nest. Is that unnecessary or too high a cost for you? Will you condemn it and challenge its advocates for hosting this bad idea, or is this cost too high, the risk of becoming the target of ire? If I were an Egyptian living in Egypt saying the things I have said, do you know what personal cost would I be risking, with no hope of success? See what personal cost some of the Dutchmen (and women) bear. Many examples of risk are common knowledge. But will you not only decline to join me but shame me for speaking up? I say that speaking up and condemning this is necessary. It bears a risk and danger. But we must do what is necessary and be willing to make the all-costs ante and be thankful if we have the strength to prevail. If the idea goes descendant and stays on that trajectory as a result, then all is well. If not, then on with what is necessary, whatever the cost.
So, so far, whatever your intuitions are, I don’t find that your thesis and implication have succeeded in any way that faults my claims. So I maintain that your identification of enemies, while right as far as it goes, is too narrow. You only mark those who would do us harm with a weapon for their own personal reasons and you fail to see the idea which they embrace and which unifies them with many others. And you misunderestimate the integrity of these enemies you identify. The synopsis I gave you of Muhammad’s career is accurate and a person who understands the force of sincere religious belief can grasp its effect. If you think about it, you should not fail to grasp the import. But I will continue to answer your objections.
*To the wild west analogy*
Bill, honestly, I do not get this. You say my method of thinking is similar to an argument which says: the men of the wild west lived a way of life requiring vigilante justice, often with their own guns, and this way of life is what motivates the violent use of guns we see in Western high schools; obviously so because both involve violence; so in order to stop this form of violence we have to condemn the way of life in the old west.
Well I agree that would be a sloppy (and worse) method of thinking.
Honestly Bill, I don’t think I have used any such reasoning, either in the quote you cite or elsewhere. I am not making any correlations based on violence. I am identifying an ancient idea, which has a clear history associated with it, and correlating to people today who expressly believe that idea, who advocate that idea. If you think that is a similar method of thinking, you are going to have to do the work of making the similarities explicit.
*To your final point*
Yes, the ideas need to be eradicated by whatever means necessary. I hope you see that I admit a range of means depending on the circumstances. But if it were to turn out that the religion could not survive without those ideas – and as you may see from dialogue above, I have reason to believe that is not the case – then we would have to face the necessity of that cost. If that were to turn out to be the case, you seem to indicate that you would give up your liberty as already lost. I hope that you would not. And if you did, I hope you would be the exception. And whatever the case may be, I will whip myself to join with those others who will defend our liberties at all cost, to my life or others, and hope that we prevail for the sake of all mankind. There is not some ideal we may lose. This is a heartfelt value. And that which we value can be taken away; indeed it can be lost. Whatever “ideals” you think would be lost – and I am having trouble articulating in my own mind what specific ideals you may be referring to – by our actions are worthless and misleading figments of imagination. What we must need not lose is our shared valuation of liberties which pays its dividends in our socio-political order. And preserving this is precisely what is being advocated. If you are making a paradox out of this, I propose there is a flaw in your thinking.
John E.
Also, just one more thing. At the risk of stating the obvious I should say that I do believe there is a fundamental problem in the Islamic World right now. There is intolerance and tyranny and our War on Terror is a confrontation with that.
Islam is not the enemy, nor are any pillars of Islam. Radicalism (as usual) is the enemy. A perverse interpretation of Islam offered by men who are hungry for power and drunk on hatred.
The disagreements I have with this, though hardly insignificant, are outweighed by the agreement. Well done.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.