Are Islamic fundamentalists against democracy/modernity? This started in another thread but seems to be a core disagreement. Are fundamentalist really against democracy or is that just rhetoric from the administration? Not really interested in seeing the Bush/anti crowd square off again with mindless insults, but rather can we get a good picture of what fundamentalists really want. This article paints a startling picture...I put some of the relevant passages in Bold so you don't have to read the whole thing to get the point. The Intellectual Fathers of Fundamentalism and Osama's Library In a TV interview this week, we could see Osama bin Laden in front of his bookshelves. Ma’alim fi al-tariq (Milestones) is probably among the titles. This best seller by Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual father of Islamic fundamentalism, is said to have been published in close to 2,000 editions. What Sayyid Qutb has to say makes Samuel P. Huntington’s controversial The Clash of Civilizations appear relatively tame. “After the complete breakdown of democracy, Western civilization has nothing else to give humanity....The dominance of Western man has reached its end. The time has come for Islam to take the lead, ” writes Qutb. Most of Qutb’s books can no longer be ordered at bookstores. Just recently, they were banned by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. But millions of pirate copies are being distributed. In Germany, copies are available from Islamic religious associations. The common theme in Qutb’s writings is his prognosis that the Western, secularized world, which is deeply inferior to Islam, must be replaced by an Islamic world order. Qutb made this assessment upon his return to Egypt after completing his academic education in the United States in 1950. But for former Egyptian President Gamal Nasser, such trains of thought were all too subversive, and in 1966 he had Qutb executed. This is explained by Bassam Tibi, a professor of political science at Göttingen, Germany, and at Harvard. Tibi is one of the world’s leading authorities on Islamic fundamentalism. As a Muslim born and raised in Syria, and as a student of Max Horkheimer at Frankfurt on the Main, he had the early advantage of living and working in two civilizations. In a large number of books, he analyzes the development of Islamic fundamentalism in relationship to other movements within the Muslim world. He also points to the political implications this development brings with it for the world’s 55 Islamic nations, for Europe with its 23 million Muslim immigrants, and for global development. In book after book, Tibi repeatedly stresses the importance of distinguishing between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism or Islamism. The latter is a new phenomenon with ideological roots in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928. The humiliation of the Six-Day War in 1967 [against Israel] gave rise to a repoliticization of Islam with “revolt against the West” as the leading train of thought. But according to the Islamists, the West isn’t only found in the West. Since a considerable portion of the Muslim world adopted elements of modernity, Islamists are directing their fight equally as much against the “Westernization” of their own civilization—a type of Muslim civil war. This war against their fellow believers—albeit apostate—is being waged with terror, especially in Algeria, where approximately 100,000 people have been murdered. The explicit goal is to spread Islamism across the entire Muslim world. According to Tibi, after the election victory of the fundamentalists in Algeria in 1991, a strategy was drawn up for the complete Islamization of the Mediterranean region, complete with maps. Yet, even if most of modernity is rejected as ungodly, an exception is made for technology and science, such as weapons technology. “Our goal is to learn how to handle modern weapons, how to produce and develop them further, so that we can conquer our enemies,” proclaims the Egyptian Islamist Hasan al-Sharqawi in another best seller al-Muslimun ‘ulama’ wa-hukama (Muslims and Scientists) from 1987. In his books and interviews, Tibi goes straight to the heart of the matter: “The goal of the Islamic fundamentalists is to abolish the Western, secular world order and replace it with a new Islamist divine order....The goal of the Islamists is a new imperial, absolutist Islamic world power.” One of the Muslim world’s most widely read social theorists, Tibi points out, is Pakistani Abu al A’la al-Maududi (1903-79), a follower of Sayyid Qutb. One of the central themes for al-Maududi is his plea for Hakimiyyat Allah, in other words, the supremacy of God—in contrast to democracy. But democracy, a “dreadful system,” according to al-Maududi, is incompatible with Islam. That people should govern themselves instead of God and his representatives is a heretical idea. Democracy is therefore a symptom of kufr (lack of faith), writes al-Maududi in his best seller al-islam wa al-madaniyya al-haditha (Islam and Modern Civilization). The same trains of thought are presented by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a sheik from Egypt, who is considered to be Islam’s foremost contemporary ideologue. In three comprehensive volumes, Hatmiyyat al-hallal-Islami, al-Quaradawi presents an “Islamic solution” in contrast to “imported solutions.” In addition to abolishing democracy, he also contends that the rise of nation-states has contributed to the decline of Islam. Instead, a return should be made to the Islamic community, the umma. A common theme for Islamists is their desire to close off their world from the Western world. This is behind the demand of Bin Laden and other prominent figures to exclude non-Muslims from the Muslim world. The same self-chosen ghettoization can be found among Islamists in the Muslim-European diaspora, a deeply disturbing trend, observes Tibi. Tibi himself commutes between West and East as a sort of messenger of peace and is among a handful of prominent Muslim intellectuals who are demanding the separation of religion and politics. He views the events in September as a considerable setback. “Today, I must admit that the fundamentalists’ war—up until now a war of values—has taken on a military dimension that has manifested itself in the jihad-soldier’s terrorism.”
I think they are against our way of life. They like the old male dominated society, and want no part of equality for women and others. Ultimately they are about power over people, and nothing else. DD
That is a good question. I think we can look at Iran as what we can expect. There are elections that have heavy participation but there is still the Islamic council that sets the rules and conditions. I don't think they are interested in a democracy without restrictions that adhere to the fundamentalist beliefs.
I'm just incredibly not "anti-Muslim centric," or else naive, but my first assumption upon seeing the thread title was that the question was directed towards American Christian fundamentalists, and their view of where they want our country to go. I think I'll reply to that topic, anyway. I think a large percentage of Christian fundamentalists, the really hardcore ones who worry about a "drift" of the Bush Administration towards the left, for differng reasons, would like to turn back the clock in the United States to a time prior to the democratic modernity of the post-FDR era. They would see the Bible back in the classrooms, American women "back in their proper place," and science disregarded for the science fiction that is so much of their mindset towards modern science. In my opinion. I think I have read enough Muslim bashing, in one form or another, intentional or otherwise, in D&D lately. I'll take a good wack at the Christian extremists instead. Wack! Keep D&D Civil!!
I think religious fundamentalists of practically all religions are against democracy and modernity. Religious fundamentalism of established religions is by nature socially conservative and anti-scientific as they are pushing for a way of life that they believe to be religiously pure.
OK, I understand what you mean and know that we are better...but the US is still clearly an old (white) male dominated society. We are farther down the road than a lot of places, but still very far from the goal.
Enjoyed reading that HayesStreet, thanks for posting it. I have made the assertion once before that the Wahhabist/Salafist brand of Islam is a 'supremacist' movement that absolutely does preach the superiority of Islam/Muslims and how Muslims must impose their rule on the rest of the world, especially 'Christendom' and their 'Jewish agents'. Ultimately, you can't reconcile democracy with the ideals of Qutb and his followers, and in that sense it is very much a clash between Western 'secular humanism' and Qutb/Abdul-Wahhab inspired 'Islamic supremacy'. I think the article makes an excellent point that is rarely addressed here, and that is the biggest enemy of those radicals are Muslims themselves and 'Westernized' Muslim governments. Why? Simple: the only way they can fully pursue their grand objective -- one Muslim 'umma' united from the Atlantic to the Russian/Chinese/Indian borders that would wage relentless fight to subdue all competing forces -- is if they successfully get ordinary Muslims on their sides. This can be done in one of two ways: 1) Through scholarship, mosques, and other venues they would seek to thoroughly convince their fellow -- although misguided -- Muslims of their vision for the future, and by doing so hoping to unite Muslims against a 'greater evil', namely the secular world order sponsored and promoted by the 'West'. OR 2) Plan B: in case Plan A fails, then we must 'force' our fellow Muslims to unite behind us against the 'greater evil', which is best done by thoroughly convincing them of the 'evilness' of the West, and thus forcing them to choose the 'lesser of two evils': them. IMO, the first option was going nowhere fast, because the majority of Muslims didn't buy into it, they didn't really believe in it. They found themselves attracted to some aspects of Western culture (the consumerism part) and repulsed by other aspects of it. Therefore, plan B became a necessity. In this sense, winning 'hearts and minds' means a LOT more and has a LOT more riding on it than most would think. Now, while that might very well be the primary motivation behind Al-Qaida movement, it's not exactly an attractive cause that would have recruits rushing in. Therefore, what could be better than 'hijacking' legitimate Muslim causes (Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, etc) that are causing a lot of anger and dispair among the youth and claiming them as your own? An interesting fact: Bin Laden's sole 'grievance' against the West (at least as he initially proclaimed to the world) was US presence in Saudi: 'getting the Crusaders out of the holy land of Arabia', he said. Bin Laden never bothered to mention Palestine or Iraq or anything else until later on when people questioned as to why he was merely concentrating on the Saudi Royals and seemingly obsessed with them. It also isn't a coincidence, IMO, that the name of his organization is Al-Qaida, or 'The Base'. The question is: the base of what? This is exactly why I have always seen Bin Laden more as a determined politician (who is very charismatic and very good with words) rather than a fanatical terrorist who is willing to give up his own life for the cause. If you have read his speeches, you will see a great deal of politics in it, and a keen understanding of how the world operates. He is clearly after something, and that something IMO is self-glory by bringing about the expulsion (or exclusion) of non-Muslims from what every Muslim regards as the birthplace and 'center' of Islam: the Arabian peninsula. It is also important to understand that while Bin Laden himself and the Al-Qaida brass (Zarqawi, Zawahiri, etc) might have their own priorities, their followers (ie the foot soldiers) could very well be a sincere group of people who firmly believe in what they are doing, namely defending Muslim lands and inflicting pain and suffering against the enemy. Anyways, that's just one view/theory of many behind what motivates Al-Qaida in particular and terrorists in general to do what they do.
Glad you liked it. I went looking for something like it because in the other thread several people (including me) were unsure of exactly how prominent the core conflict is - and this makes it pretty apparent. Question - what legitimate grievance are you talking about in terms of Afghanistan? Rimbaud - right as usual. We're farther ahead but we've got a long way to go.
Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. What I meant was that the occupation of any Muslim land (regardless of reason) can be used as a rallying cry against the occupier, and therefore is seen as a 'legitimate cause' for recruiting fighters and such. Afghanistan and Iraq would fit the bill, as well as Chechnya.
I'm not sure what the point is. Hitler justified the holocaust because the Jews held positions of influence and were an easy scapegoat. AND? If your point is that someone can have an unacceptable 'worldview' in their context, then sure - but what does that mean? Stalin had his worldview, so did Jeff Dahlmer. Saying people 'think what they think' and acting like that's a revelation is somewhat pointless. They think what they think for a reason doesn't really help either. Yes, obviously they think what they think for a reason. Certainly we don't legitimize that thought just because they thought it.
It's clear to me Al-Qaida's current goal is to impose their form of tyranny on the whole world, regardless of their stated rationale a few years ago. They want to start in the Middle East and eventually expand from there. The Middle East is the primary battlefield right now. I wouldn't use Iran as an example of what Bin Laden and his type are after. In fact, Al-Qaida considers Shiism a complete heresy, and they consistently bomb Shia mosques in Pakistan and other countries. While Iran's democracy is far from perfect, people are allowed to vote and have, on occassion, gone against the religious heirarchy's wishes. Also in Iran, the fundamentalist's have actually loosened up some to increase their own popularity among the (voting) public. Bin Laden and his ilk would never do that. For an example, check out how the Taliban operated before we invaded Afghanistan.
