Executive summary:
This essay argues that the West is dangerously mistaken in treating Islamism as a
perversion of an otherwise benign Islam. Its central contention is that
Islamism derives directly from Islam’s foundational texts and universalist
political ambitions, including the aspiration to impose Sharia beyond Muslim
societies. “Moderate Muslims” may reject violence, but they do not necessarily
challenge the underlying ideological claims that Islamists exploit. A small,
highly committed minority can therefore exert disproportionate political and
cultural influence, particularly when reinforced by fear, institutional capture
and Western reluctance to confront uncomfortable religious doctrines. By
separating Islam from Islamism, Western commentators risk sanitising the ideology
and weakening resistance to its long-term objectives.
Unchallenged Terror Stories
Uncharted Territories is a Substack blog written by Tomas Pueyo. He is prolific, with very well-researched, written and
illustrated essays on a wide variety of subjects, all of which are
interesting. One that caught my eye was Islamismophobia, subtitled Support Islam. Oppose
Islamists. I thought Support Islam? I can't,
as a Humanist I oppose theocracy and as someone with centre-Left politics I
oppose the extreme Right. But I'm open for contrarian reasoning and
followed through on Pueyo's arguments. It's a popular concept with Middle
East experts like Daniel Pipes who evokes the same spirit – the problem is militant
Islamism, the solution is moderate Islam.[i] Three months after Pueyo’s essay, The
Economist published an article headed “Islamism is a threat to
Britain. Islam is not”, which demonstrates the success of Islamists’ control of
discourse and of Islam’s policy objectives.[ii]
Pueyo’s is a superbly presented piece, but sadly for the West, it has a
fundamental flaw in its reasoning. Put simply, Islamism, just as Pueyo
describes it, is the real Islam, not that of moderate Muslims.
"There is no radical or moderate Islam. There is only authentic
Islam." (Mohamed Achamlane.) Or to quote Conor Cruise O’Brien:
“Fundamentalist Islam is a misnomer which dulls our perceptions in a dangerous
way. It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is
well disposed to those who reject the Koran. There isn’t. Islam is a
universalist, triumphalist and political religion. It claims de jure dominion
over all humanity.”
Islam is based on the Koran, the eternal and uncreated word of Allah who said,
“This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favour upon
you and have approved for you Islam as religion.” (5:4). The laws laid
down in the Koran are eternal and not subject to interpretation.
Islam has a rules-based ethic and since Allah is a god for all mankind,
his rules apply to all mankind. Islam’s telos is global theocracy, and
the roles that ordinary Muslims play in its progress are vital to achieving its
goal. The 14th century philosopher Ibn Khaldun said, “In the Muslim
community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the
Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by
persuasion or by force.” In Milestones, called ‘the jihadists’
constitution’, Sayyid Qutb talks of Universal Sharia, not only applicable to
Islamic society but to all societies. Islam itself is a civilisation; the
nationality of a Muslim is his faith. All other identities based on the
modern nations-state should be abolished.
Much in Pueyo’s essay concerns Islamic violence, but as I detailed in Argumentum ad Cultro, another take on this is
intermittent reinforcement. When Allah says, “we will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve,” (3:151) there is no need to “…slay them
wherever you come upon them” (2:191) to obtain Islam’s goal. The occasional
beheading, driving cars into crowds, flying planes into buildings or just the threat
of violent riots, is enough to make people respect Islam through implicit
fear. It’s a far more economic process of conquest compared with, for
example, the Islamic conquest of the Balkan peninsula in the 14th and 15th
centuries even if it doesn’t produce hundreds of thousands of slaves.[iii]
Pueyo's defence of the Islam of the moderate Muslim is optimistic.
Moderate Muslims, for all their number, cannot and do not drive the Islamic
agenda. That’s what the Islamists do. Moderate Muslims are aware
that Islamists are more dedicated to Islam than they are, so they have no power
to influence them. Moderate Muslims have more to fear even than us
infidels since they will be regarded as apostates through takfirism[iv],
and their punishment is death. When push comes to shove and shove comes
to jihad, they will have to make a choice – be regarded as friends of the enemy
or support jihad. Latent or circumstantial jihadists will happily jump
into the fray, knowing what Allah wants, and his rewards for martyrdom. Meanwhile, moderate Muslims serve the
fundamentalists’ agenda in presenting Islam with a moderate face with its increasing
numbers of ‘Potemkin villagers’, and a lesser evil for pandering
purposes. I've expanded on this when commenting on Pauline Hanson's
"Good Muslims"
statement.
A generally unconsidered factor likely to play its part in Islam’s goal comes
from Harvard political scientist Erica Chenoweth who says
that according to the data, if 3.5% of the population happens to identify
enough with your cause to engage in some sort of activism, then society will
change in the direction of that cause. Gramsci's long march through
the institutions is a formidable example of its effects.
It’s not just Islamists that want Islam to prevail, it’s Islam. Islam is
the problem. Pueyo's and The Economist’s apologias will be welcomed
by Islamists who will regard it as a facilitating fallacy.
But there is a far deeper and greater issue that concerns people who are knowledgeable about Islam and its telos. Why is it that media and commentators give such an unwitting free pass to Islam? Its history is a matter of undisputed record – it conquers places and turns them into a virtual monoculture. Islam is less a religion and more of a mandated modus vivendi subservient to a 7th century set of moral imperatives. And influential writers support this. They must answer these questions. Why? Qui bono?
[i] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2005/01/militant-about-islamism-html
[ii] Paywalled; available from me on request.
[iii] Bostom, Andrew G. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Prometheus Books, 2008.
[iv] Takfirism is literally “excommunication and exile”, the ostracism of the insufficiently pure. Created by the 13th century Damascene Sunni scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, a takfiri is a Muslim who accuses another Muslim of apostasy. They consider secular Muslim society as heretical. It is permitted to kill such infidels and apostate Muslims, and to take their property. Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment