April 14, 2004
ALL REFORM IS NOT HELPFUL:
Islam confronts its demons (Tony Blankley, April 14, 2004, Townhall)
Looking at today's Islam, a growing number of Western long-chinned pundits have been suggesting that what Islam needs is reform -- much as Christianity and Judaism have reformed over the past 500 years. Christian reform, driven by the Reformation and then the Enlightenment, brought itself into comfortable compatibility with modernity. But what if, in the context of Islamic history, for today's Islam, Bin Ladenism is the reform? That is one of the startling suggestions of a deeply informing article by Max Rodenbeck in this month's New York Review of Books, titled "Islam confronts its demons." [...]As Mr. Rodenbeck reviews 14 centuries of Islamic reform history, he explains that there have been some reform efforts aimed at modernism and enlightened manners, which tried to break free from Koranic textual literalism. But that "more often than not, 'reform' in Islam has pushed in the other direction, toward the reassertion of the primacy of founding text ... using the double-barreled power of the sword and the book ... to launch jihad-minded movements."
In that context he places Bin Laden in that long line of successful "reformists": "It may sound odd to classify a terrorist group as reformist, but a radical remake of the faith is indeed the underlying intention of Bin Laden." He notes that: "This 'reform' agenda has met with a certain amount of success ... Yet in places where their fighting message has run its course, recruitment has fallen off rapidly, both in response to the ugliness of their methods and, ultimately, to the radical utopianism of their aims. Countries such as Afghanistan, Algeria and Egypt have already passed, with varying degrees of pain, through the historical gauntlet of extremist militancy."
Understanding both the potency, and the limitations, of the Bin Laden message permits us to begin to calibrate our responses rationally -- avoiding both the fatalism that an exaggerated estimate of his movement may induce and an insufficient effort that minimizing his influence may induce.
Of course, the anticipated reform (or more neutrally expressed: change) of Islam is closely related to the political perception of the Bush Administration and its theoreticians in and out of government who see the Middle East as sick and dysfunctional. They see democracy, free markets and prosperity as the cure. I have supported that theory of success -- and continue to. If some form of self-government that respects fundamental rights can be instituted in Iraq, we would be a measurable distance down the path toward a safer world.
To that end we should persevere in Iraq with as many resources and force as necessary. The Democracy project is difficult, but not without support amongst some Muslim reformists. The Dutch historian Rudolph Peters is quoted in the article contrasting the two competing impulses of reform as: "those who would subordinate Islam to progress and those who would subordinate progress to Islam."
They both have authentic sources in the history of Islam.
It would seem fairly obvious that bin Ladenism is a reform movement. If his brand of Islamicism were the default position of Islam the religion would not have endured for 14 centuries. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 14, 2004 8:10 AM
Reform Islam, therefore kill infidels? If you are going to reform a religion, should you not deal with the religion. If I want to reform Christianity, do I kill Hindu. There are some people with too much time on their hands.
An alternative explanation would be that, personal desire for power is the attraction that drives a would be leader ( Bin Laden, Hitler) to tap into the unfulfilled fantasies and hatred of the populace (Muslims, Germans) thereby focussing on an outside group (White Europeans, Jews) for the purpose of venting their murderous rage.
Did not Bin Laden recognize that that was what occurred in Iran, when Khomeini "inspired" Iranians into their hysteria?
Which explanation fits the facts?
Posted by: h-man at April 14, 2004 9:13 AMHitler was a reformer.
Posted by: oj at April 14, 2004 9:26 AMIf, in the end, the only way to deal with reformed islam is to eradicate it like smallpox, will we end up with two vials of the virulent stuff, one in a freezer somewhere in Russia and another in a freezer at Fort Detrick?
Posted by: M. Murcek at April 14, 2004 10:04 AMCall Hitler a reformer if you must, (call him a consumer advocate, if you want to be totally silly), but he wasn't reforming Christianity and neither is Bin Laden reforming or improving , or running a PR campaign, for Islam. He is hell bent on leading "his people" to killing as many infidels as necessary to achieve what they and/or he feels is their appropriate status. These issues of reform or a new theology is NOT occurring except in your imagination. What change has occurred in Islam since the Mullahs took over in Iran 25 years ago? Egypt?, Turkey?. Is mosque attendance up or down? A more loving Islam? More hateful one? You won't find any change because that's not the reason for these endless Jihads.
I bet that if it were measurable, solidarity with other Muslims (regardless of whether fundamentalist, or moderate) is up a great deal, because unchecked violence against the "others" (meaning infidels, Europeans, Jews) brings the believers great psychic pleasure. That is why you are not hearing thorough, full-throated condemnation of Bin Laden from Muslims in this country or in Arab countries.
Posted by: h-man at April 14, 2004 10:16 AM
Hitler wasn't Christian, what he was reforming was the modern rationalist state.
You're confusing reform with improvement. Of course bin Ladenism is a dead end, so was socialism.
Posted by: oj at April 14, 2004 10:26 AMAbsolutely correct OJ. Before I rant next time I might try reading what you actually say, rather than what I think you said.
Posted by: h-man at April 14, 2004 4:07 PMHitler was an idealist.
If by state, you mean some functioning bureaucracy that minds the store, he had no interest in reforming it. He wanted to destroy it.
Bid Laden is an idealistic reformer, like very many in the past, Almohads etc.
The struggle between those who would change in the direction of modernity and those who would change in the direction of a purer, primitive faith mirrors, in some respects, the struggle in Russia between the westernizers and the Orthodox.
As you may recall, it wasn't the westernizers who won.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 14, 2004 10:52 PMIt didn't win, did it?
I don't think it is quintessentially western, either.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 15, 2004 12:42 AMYes it did--there is no Russia left.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 8:20 AM>Yes it did--there is no Russia left.
No, there is no USSR/Imperial Russia left. There is still a land of Russia, with Russian-speaking people who refer to themselves as Russians, following the Russian pattern of Autocracy even in their current strong president/weak parliament government.
Posted by: Ken at April 15, 2004 12:34 PMHistoricist pseudo-science sure as heck ain't oriental.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 15, 2004 12:43 PMKen:
with negative fertility rates, declining life expectancies, etc. Russia is gone--all that remains is the rationalist wasteland.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 12:55 PM