The failure of political Islam
by Scoop Shachtman, 14 March 2008
Stephen Howe, Professor in the History and Cultures of Colonialism at the University of Bristol, looks at our enemy’s (for that is what they are) political programme and finds it wanting:
Even from within the confines of a violently polarised worldview, one might expect to find some sign of a desire to “know your enemy”: but here, among Islamists, that appears virtually nonexistent. But then this may just be a manifestation of the general, dreadful intellectual poverty of today’s political Islamism. The movement identifies itself as engaged in a global, world-historical struggle of the oppressed. The notion is that the world’s Muslim peoples share a common fate and destiny, insofar as they are victims of and must struggle against a common enemy. Yet serious thinking about that struggle’s roots, its character, what may be hoped for if it is won, or even who the oppressed and the oppressor really are, is amazingly rare. I have looked for it quite hard. I have gone to the writings of people usually described as the most important, substantial Islamist political thinkers – al-Afghani or Maududi, Shariati, Nabhani or Qutb – in, I hope, a genuinely enquiring spirit. Indeed I expected to find there far more than I did. I remain surprised, disappointed, puzzled at how thin the ideas are. Can that really be all there is?
More, the jihadists, from Bin Laden to the would-be British foot soldiers, simply have no social programme, no coherent vision of the new society they want to build. In that they are unlike not only almost all other revolutionary movements of modern history but even the earlier Islamist thinkers from whom they claim inspiration. The thoughts – and sometimes the seeming absence of real thought – relayed by our memoirists appear to uphold the view that jihadist violence is an indicator of the failure of political Islam, not its growth, strength or threat.
Friday 14 March 2008 at 14:38
I think if you look at the societies around the world where Islam perdominates, you will see the utter poverty of their ideas. I am sorry to say that, but they have nothing to offer. For one reason they believe that there is no such thing as politics, only religion can lead you to a good life. So, issues like ownership of the means of production, taxation, provision of public services etc are totally alien to them. The other day I caught myself thinking how rich some of these countries are, and yet they still want us to provide development aid. Was that a heretical thought? The p[oint is, it seems to me that Islam is incapable of developing a healthy polity. Having said that, they can be bloody destructive. What we can do in the long run, I simply don’t know.
Friday 14 March 2008 at 15:07
More, the jihadists, from Bin Laden to the would-be British foot soldiers, simply have no social programme, no coherent vision of the new society they want to build.
The problem with political forms of religion, and what makes them quite unlike other forms of political activism (which are rooted in achieving goals in the here and now) is that they rely for their force on presumed rewards in an afterlife. These fanatasies are peculiarly dangerous, since they subordinate moral behaviour in this world to something other entirely: a make-believe place where one’s desires are completely satiated, whether with milk and honey or through sexual gratification with virgins. This lends itself to nihilism of the most depressing kind: a longing for death which allows little space for reasoned discussion or accommodation.
True, the earlier Islamist thinkers such as Maududi and Qutb did have some form of programme for the creation of a theocratic state, but these programmes derived their force not from love of humanity but from anti-Western hatred and the belief that the afterlife would only be gained by those who submitted their whole existence, including their lives, to their God.
This is a conflict which can only be won as Muslims come to embrace the complete separation of religion and politics: the importance of efforts of progressive groups such as British Muslims for Secular Democracy and MECO should not be underestimated.
Friday 14 March 2008 at 20:19
I’ve just watched a programme on Channel 4 in the ‘Unreported World’ series where a female Sudanese journalist travelled to Dafur and met some of the militias. It was very interesting, and I admire her so much. The point is that these militia men said they were recruited by the Sudanese government with promises to help their (Arab) villages, but, funnily enough, they are not getting the pay they were promised and have decided to go freelance. The question of who was provisioning them was not raised, as there were several thousand men in the middle of a desert. While the journalist was there the Sudanese government sent a message that they were prepared to give the militia what they wanted, and so the militia voted to rejoin the government forces. I was left confused because nowhere was it explained what it was that the militiamen wanted. Was it oodles of cash for each individual family or shiny new highways and waterpipes? They did not seem to be formulating political demands, and this will be the problem. At least the IRA and UDA had a political agenda to negotiate around, but the Islamic movement seems to just have vague appeals to strength and honour.
Saturday 15 March 2008 at 20:46
I was left confused because nowhere was it explained what it was that the militiamen wanted. …. At least the IRA and UDA had a political agenda to negotiate around, but the Islamic movement seems to just have vague appeals to strength and honour.
And right on cue..
Just seen a headline on news ‘Powell says we should negotiate with Al-Quaeda’
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1540182520080315
(Johnathan, Blairs chief advisor, not Co-lin). Negotiate with what though? And why do they they’d keep their word if they can’t even be bothered to claim responsibility for their own atrocities?
Saturday 15 March 2008 at 23:47
Once upon a time:
The early Home Guard believed that Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax was leading the call to give in. Michael Foot, who then backed a guerrilla war, had plans for Halifax if he did. The 93 year-old former Labour leader told this programme: “I’d have killed him.”
Saturday 15 March 2008 at 23:58
If anyone wants to listen to that radio broadcast it is available here (BBC no archivey. Archivey not). I recommend highly.
http://radiomensa.podOmatic.com/entry/2008-02-22T03_29_18-08_00
“Don’t tell him your name Trotsky”
Now I want to go shoot me some collaborators and shit.
Sunday 16 March 2008 at 0:04
BTW Sue, you can’t get away with blanket statements like the one with which you opened. Certainly, where literalist, political interpretations of Islam predominate such poverty of ideas abounds, however, that is not the case with the majority, particularly in South and South-East Asia where Islam is necessarily much more syncretic in form and practice.
Sunday 16 March 2008 at 0:52
BTW Sue.
You talk utter fucking bollocks. As do so many fuckwitted rightist loons of the clash of civilizations school of racist fuckwittery.
‘Where Islam predominates’ includes a very wide and disparate area of the globe - where islam predominates is fucking irrelevant — the sort of society that any fucking religious shit predominates is the issue - not the form that religiosity takes. The religious element merely reflects the base — religiosity is the superstructure.
Fuck all religion — fuck all its adherents and fuck all of the cunts who use shit as a mask for racist/biological/genetic explanations for history/poltics and shit like that.
Sunday 16 March 2008 at 0:57
PS. Why is it always me (or Hak Mao) who has to correct these muthafukkers and shit.
The rest of you got some arthritic disease that prevents you from typing or something?
Getting real tired of this fucking baloney now.
Sunday 16 March 2008 at 8:13
http://xkcd.com/386/
Sunday 16 March 2008 at 14:35
I’ve noticed that Islam predominates in the sunnier climates of the world, where tehre may be certain issues to do with drought, overheating, famine etc. Is it too much to ask that an ideology or social structure should attempt to deal with said problems and to equitably distribute teh goods of society? As far as I am aware this does not happen. In Western society, there is at least an idea of social autonomy and a space from which socialism could be built. I am sorry but I will go to my grave protesting that tehre is nothing progressive about a theory that teaches that women and non-Muslims are subhuman.
Monday 17 March 2008 at 1:20
Oh — dear fucking me.
I have had it with thick cunts for once and all.
Sue R — please fuck off and never darken this doorstep ever a-fucking-gain.
And that goes for the rest of any dozy fucking scum who think they are welcome here. Fuck off and fuck off again. Vile pissants and stupid ignorant tossers. I have had it up to my teeth with scumbags now. No more. Not ever again. I have had it. Fuck off and have a slow death you cunts.
Monday 17 March 2008 at 1:44
[as I said — tired of this shit]
Monday 17 March 2008 at 1:50
Fucking hell.
Haven’t even read it but know that it is a pile of shite.
Someone give me some full sugar cokey folar — and be quick a fucking bout it.
Monday 17 March 2008 at 4:09
[crap from inside clospie’s heed that has overflowed out of the waste pipe — watch you don’t slip on it]
Monday 17 March 2008 at 4:23
[pointless one liner — he’s now turned into the mad-hatter or something]
Monday 17 March 2008 at 10:43
[silly - fail]
Monday 17 March 2008 at 20:59
[you really are a strange and thick fuckwit clospie]
Tuesday 18 March 2008 at 3:29
[persistent — doesn’t get it tho]
Thursday 20 March 2008 at 3:21
[For some fucking reason this knackerdan keeps posting the same fucking shit over and over again — granted - using slightly different wording — seems to be trying to get a message through to the dead or something - that can be only but one explanation for it of course. Loathe as I am to resort to psychological explanations - perhaps there could also be ‘issues’ that lie in that domain - don’t really want to go down that avenue tho…]
Thursday 20 March 2008 at 3:35
Persistent yes.
But my football team (the Chiefs) are losing with fuck all chance at improving. The NZRFU morons picked us the worst coach around and let the brilliant assistant go to coach a crap Wales to 6 nations glory (he is that good) when he could have been ours. Half the team is injured. Too fuck depressing.
So political theorising on the web. Woohoo.
Thursday 20 March 2008 at 3:46
[attempted to get on my good side with this attempt]