Political Islam

international | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis

Tuesday January 17, 2006 18:32

by Paul Baynes

Although the mass media often links Islam with militancy, Political Islam can refer to a wide range of movements - many of them progressive.

The phrase ‘political Islam’ often conjures up ideas of jihadists and militants, but there is a much wider range of political approaches that are linked to the Muslim faith. There are many variants of political Islam other that of the fundamentalist, militant Islamists in Al-Qaeda and other similar groups.

It should also be remembered that fundamentalists are never orthodox. Fundamentalism is always a move away from the basics of any religion. And so, Islamic fundamentalists do not have what most Muslims would call a normal view of their faith. Islamic fundamentalism is a move away from the traditional beliefs of Islam.

It is often thought that one of the reasons for Islamic fundamentalism is that, unlike Christianity, there has never been any reformation within Islam. However, at present there are many modernising and progressive trends occurring within Islam. It can be argued that Islam is presently experiencing a reformation of its own.

One example of this is Iran. Iran is host to a vibrant civil society movement in favour of democracy, transparency, and more equality for women. An underground culture of blogging, listening to and playing Western rock music, and reading banned books has sprung up in Iran. It should be remembered that Iran’s 1979 revolution, while it was certainly a self-consciously Islamic revolution, was also a response to the authoritarian rule of the Shahs, the deprived material conditions of the mass of the population, and the foreign domination of Iran. Although Iran was never a formal colony, it existed as a semi-colony during the period of the Shah, and the 1979 revolution established the independence of the country.

However, rather than fostering these progressive movements within Iranian society, the US has categorised Iran as a rogue state over the last ten years. By putting pressure on its client states in the region (which are authoritarian governments themselves), the US has helped to sideline Iran within the Middle East. Any incursion into Iran in a similar vein to Iraq would succeed in marginalizing any existing progressive movements within Iranian society. In fact, the US war on terror has contributed greatly to the radicalising of populations in the Middle East. Young people - who may otherwise be drawn to modernising movements - are angered by US arrogance towards fellow Muslim populations in Iraq and Palestine, and are more likely to be drawn into anti-American militancy.

The US’s supposed democratisation project in the Middle East would be better served by fostering progressive civil society movements in the region. However, it seems that such movements are a threat to US interests. This is why the discourse surrounding the war on terror has identified Islam with militancy and the West with democracy.

______________
For more info:
Interview with Professor Fred Halliday:
http://www.angelfire.com/dc/mbooks/mythofconfrontation.html

OpenDemocracy.net article "Arab states, Islamism and the West" (requires membership, but membership is free):
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=5&debateId=57&articleId=419

save preference

Comments (21 of 21)

Jump To Comment:

...

by So lets swap

Wed Jan 18, 2006 15:45

One repressive religion of Christianity with another in Islam?

Wed Jan 18, 2006 18:44

Personally I'm an athiest - the point is that the media creates the distorted perception that Islam and modernity are incompatible.

paul

by pat c

Wed Jan 18, 2006 19:15

they are incompatible. any religion that teachs that women should wear the veil or hijab is medieval, worse even than the catholic church.

down with all mullahs be they islamic, catholic or judaic!

Nigeria to outlaw same-sex unions

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:54

Wonderful news in Nigeria! Political Islam joins up with Political Christianity to ban Gay marriage.

*********************************

Nigeria to outlaw same-sex unions

Nigeria's government is planning a specific ban on same-sex marriages, with five years in jail for anyone who has a gay wedding or officiates at one.

Information Minister Frank Nweke told the BBC the government was taking the "pre-emptive step" because of developments elsewhere in the world.

Five northern states are governed by Islamic Sharia law and mandate death by stoning for adultery, including gay sex.
***********************************
Full article at link.

Europe diary: Banning the veil

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:59

Europe diary: Banning the veil
19 January 2006

In his diary this week, BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell discusses moves to ban the burqa in Belgium and the Netherlands, offers a new definition of journalistic objectivity, and pays tribute to a British MEP.

Full article at link.

Pat c

by K.J

Pat c, I'm glad that you are seeing the way islam actually treats women in some countries. Its beyond me why they force women to wear veils in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Did you know that some women actually refuse to take them off and are convinced that they should be worn..

Saudis allow women to watch match

Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:01

Saudis allow women to watch match

Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow women to attend a football match against Sweden, reversing an earlier decision. On Monday, Saudi authorities had told the Swedish Football Association that a change of stadium meant women could not watch the match in the capital, Riyadh.

But after intervention by Swedish diplomats on Tuesday, the Saudi authorities backed down.

The ban on women spectators had caused upset in Sweden, one of the world's leading nations on gender equality.

*********
Full article at link.

How backward is that...

Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:06

There you go.. Women are treated like animals in Saudi Arabia and its about time the rest of the world woke up and started intervening to abolish the insanity of pre-stoneage religion from the hands of the Saudi authorities and introduce equality for women in Saudi Arabia. The thing that I can't understand is the fact that some women actually refuse to take off their veils-that they are actually poisioned to think that they have to be worn.

Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:12

"Did you know that some women actually refuse to take them off and are convinced that they should be worn.."

yeah, people are brain washed by religion. whats a lot worse though is when you have trots demonstrating in favour of hijabs. and supposed islamic feminists saying what a great thing the hijab is. yeah, its really great to make little girls wear a headscarf from the age of 4 at school, that will teach them that they are inferior to the boys.

allah is truly great.

Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:17

I also see the insanity of this. The thing I can't get over is when they were to come to another country like France, they refused to take off their scarf/veil and it actually took that much trouble just to get them to observe and respect French School rules.

Thu Jan 19, 2006 14:13

i'm uncomfortable with the idea of the state ruling that a veil or hijab should not be worn. but this law should be seen in the context of the french seperation of church & state. catholic symbols have been banned from french state schools for more than 100 years. never saw the trots protesting about that.

it would be better if school students and womens groups started a campaign against hijabs in schools.

it is obscene though that trots would demonstrate in support of a symbol which is used to oppress women.

Thanks for the responses...

Thu Jan 19, 2006 14:30

...I agree with your position on the veiling of women (particularly the full body version, leaving just the eyes visible).

But the whole of Islam can’t be reduced to this – there’s a lot of other currents within Islam which are progressive. Of course we should oppose the oppressive forms of Islam – misogyny, homophobia etc. But the best way to do this is not by Western intervention, but by fostering progressive movements from within these communities. So while I agree with KJ when he says it’s time “the world woke up and started intervening”, I think it’s very important to remember that certain types of intervention are tinged with cultural superiority.

And, as Pat C says, it’s just as authoritarian to tell somebody they CAN'T wear the veil as to tell them that they MUST. I’m in favour of personal choice, not in favour of banning the headscarf, whatever my personal views on it. But this is only a small part of Islam.

Islam is a culture as well as a religion, and to say that Islam is not compatible with modernity is risky, because these kind of sentiments can be used to suggest that the broad mass of people in the Middle East are backward. This is suggested by the Bush doctrine, which characterises the terrorists as emerging out of a non-Western civilisation: “they hate our freedoms”. The reality is that a great many Muslims in the Middle East aspire to true democracy from within, but not to the imposed US project of supposed democratisation. My fear is that these progressive Muslims will be radicalised by the Western intervention. It would be far better for the West to support internal, progressive movements, which have instead been sidelined by the US administration.

Rather than emanating from Islamic civilisation and a ‘hatred of our freedoms’, much terrorism is actually a result of political and ideological opposition to Western dominance in the region. Terrorist acts are crimes against humanity and are not justified. But this does not mean there are no legitimate grievances to be addressed. Although bin Laden and his ilk characterise themselves as Islamic, there are plenty of other non-religious factors influencing their violent action.

As Chomsky said last night, they don't hate our freedoms, they hate our policies. (Again, this does not justify terrorist crimes against humanity).

Another openDemocracy article (link below – membership required but membership is free) rubbishes the claim that democracy and Islam are incompatible, showing that it is possible to interpret Sharia law in a much more tolerant way than the repressive version which is being imposed in Kano, Kaduna and elsewhere in northern Nigeria and beyond.

Democracy in the Arab world: the Islamic foundation
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-opening/islam_2990.jsp

Responses

Thu Jan 19, 2006 15:17

Paul,
I'm not disputing what you are saying in any way. I am a moderate myself. But what would be your strategy on this? If we continue to stay quiet on this one, then its not going to change at all. What I meant is that it was about time other Governments put pressure on the Saudi Govt to abolish their pre-stone age fundamental religious laws that oppress those who are women or of a different religion.

Thu Jan 19, 2006 17:15

I suppose my take on things is that you should always challenge anyone who claims there is an essential difference between Westerners and Muslim populations living in the Middle East.

I don’t think that anyone should restrict their criticism of Islam – but there is a difference between specific criticism and outright dismissal of Islam generally. If we are ever going to get anywhere with these kinds of crises, there will have to be engagement between different traditions and cultures, and to do that effectively it’s essential that that there is respect for difference.

I’ve certainly never been in favour of staying quiet on anything!

As I’m sure you’re aware, the Saudi Arabian government you are talking about is a client state of the US, and is a recipient of huge US support. This is completely in contradiction to the US claim to be interested in democratising the Middle East. The US is in a perfect position to have a positive influence on the Saudi government. They could incentivise exactly the kind of reform that you’re talking about. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Who are the Mad Mullahs really?

by Deciso

Fri Jan 20, 2006 06:13

The Clash of Civilisations argument doesn't hold water with Bush and his cronies. It gets in the way of doing business with their allied elitist governents in Saudi, Jordan, Egypt and other client states as Chomsky would refer to them as. The War on Terror does not discriminate Islam from Christianity only by degrees of obedience to US economic and military hegemony. Saddam led a secular state look where it got him. Islamist parties are often reforming ones and radicalise at civil society grassroots level. Hamas have filled a political vacuum in Gaza for their reputation of tackling corruption and inequality on the ground. There are problems surrounding the level of fundamentalism that Mullahs use to 'interpret' the Koran but fundamentalism (as opposed to radicalism) is a common international denominator of societal repression and control delinked to any specific ideology. The Christian neo-con creationist Republican lobby in the US would scare me a lot more regarding international relations stability than anything Osama Bin Laden could throw at me. In fact they probably helped create him. They need him as much as he needs them to fulfill their own individual fundamentalist crusades. But as Paul has correctly stated personal liberty and democratic reform are not only linked to liberal democracy and the West. Cultural relativism arguments can be made to challenge the universality of the Western neo-liberal form of government as a geo-political blueprint for Islamic countries. Gender roles and patriarchy are clearly challenges to such states but should not draw a second veil over the potential of political Islam to fight for very different kinds of 'freedoms' that Bush.com is attempting to proscribe as part of the neo-con project of neo-liberal 'reform'. Anyway a complex argument with so many angles to develop here. Hopefully Fukayama is wrong after all and that this is not the end of history as we know it.

Really?

by Righteous Pragmatist

Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:51

"The Christian neo-con creationist Republican lobby in the US would scare me a lot more regarding international relations stability than anything Osama Bin Laden could throw at me"

The Christian neo-con creationist Republican lobby are not advocating women wearing burkas, stoning or beheading adulterers, hanging homosexuals or demanding that everyone become religious or face persecution, imprisonment, torture and death.

Ossam Bin Laden is advocating all of those things throughout the world.

silly

by Peter

Sat Jan 21, 2006 17:09

Lets just keep religious obscurantism out of politics. Simple. No more Mullahs, Pharisees or Inquisitions!

reply to op

by Elisa O'Donovan

Sun Jan 22, 2006 15:11

Its appaling the way the media in this country foccuses on extreme political islam such as suicide bombers etc.I wish the irish independent and rte would focus on groups such as the young group in iran who just want a fairer sociaty for both sexes and more equal opportunities.Alas i think the media in this country will never change and political islam will always be viewed as violent crazed extremists to most.

To elisa

by moderate observer

Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47

Ireland.com (the irish times) has actually said in the past that "we wan't to get as many views as possible" regarding their media coverage. I doubt that the media would be able to just focus on all the good things you wish them to focus on because there has to be an equal balance between the good things and the bad things that happen around the world.

how backward is that...

by Modern Muslim

Fri Feb 01, 2008 19:31

It is the ignorant people like yourselves that do not take the time to understand Islam. You talk about the Hijab as if it is influencing terrorism. Do you even know why women wear Hijab? Do you know that women have a choice to wear Hijab? Why is it okay for the nuns to be covered from their head to their toes but, it is not okay for muslim women to wear Hijab? I never read any where about anyone raising an issue of the nun's head covering. If it is not hurting anyone then, why bother with it. There are so many serious issues such as hunger and poverty in other countries (not to mention U.S.), why not intervene in these issues. Stop wasting time on "Hijab" it is only a covering. Concentrate on more serious issues.

With Islamist like you & "Modern Muslim", why Islam is in urgent need of reformation!!!

by Noor Aza Othman

Fri Feb 01, 2008 21:19

noorazao at hotmail dot com

Malaysia

00-602-5394924

Religion should not be political. It's an aspect of cultural tradition that has to do with personal enlightenment and self-discovery. And culture is based on living daily experiences; so it's not static but dynamic. Why the world is in chaos; is because religion especially Islam has been politicized and embedded in rigid institutional dogmas! My whole life, living under Islamic oppression is enough. Every religion supposedly guides you towards high moral ethics that include kindness, tolerance and humanity; so your praising of the barbaric Iranian regime, is unacceptable. For example, women are still stoned to death in that glorious Islamic regime of yours, Iran, or being murdered for horrible "honor killing" just because of being adulterous or not towing to the male authority line (can you imagine that?) and human rights activists tortured and imprisoned for speaking out! Might as well you don't believe in God! I'm a leftist; who were deceived before in supporting such idiocy of "political Islam" due to legacy of UK capitalist imperialism and in this century, the Iraq War, but I've woken up after being blinded by irrational rage and thinking.

By the way, "Modern Muslim", before you start praising the veil blindly out of a false sense of loyalty to what is actually male chauvinism and barbaric sexism; it's not about choice. When Muslim girls including before puberty are forced to wear the veils; is that about choice then? Besides, being prohibited from enjoying their lives normally as young girls and teenagers. By the way, most women's consent are manufactured to wear the veil; not out of free will. I can say that with conviction; I was forced into wearing it when I was still a teenager. And many women are wearing the veil also due to avoid being harassed sexually by idiots who thinks women are fair game if they don't cover their chastity! So, wearing the veil is indeed a very fundamental issue because it's one of the most symbolic and practical oppression of women since young that dominate and control their lives in most ways; according to how women should behave in the both male-dominated world and religious institution of Islam.

So wake up; and it's time for true reformation in Islam! It's long overdue!

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Political Islam

Comments (21 of 21)