Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a strong aversion Islam. My rather sharp reaction to the article that I commented on below which highlights a possible interweaving of the British state with Islam is due to what I perceive as the discouragements toward apostasy implicit within the proposals suggested. But, during my recent trip to Bangladesh, I found that my most religiously orthodox relatives were the easiest to reason with during disagreements. Frankly, this surprised me.
The key to understanding this is that much of the “traditionalism” that I object to (or dissent from on a personal level) in Bangladeshi society is implicit. Because of its implicitness, dissenting from or examining the customs and traditions of old is a very difficult proposition, the upholders of custom & tradition are not prepared to, and likely can not, elaborate the reasons behind their beliefs. In contrast, the Muslim religious reformers in Bangladeshi societies often hew to explicit axioms which serve as the basis for their conception of a “perfect” society. Because I was dissimulating, and hid my atheism, it was an easy trick to selectively pick hadiths that my uncles mentioned, and turn them around to justify my positions which tended to express a stance that exhalted individual choice and preference (I just had to make sure I nested that choice within the constraint of the will of Allah).
The only caveat that I would like to reiterate is that my uncles are highly educated, and so amenable to rationalized and axiomatically grounded arguments. I am not so sure that all Muslim reformists have this viewpoint, though I suspect that many of the leaders do. Within the more militant segments I suspect though that a different, more unbalanced personality type, tends to rise to leadership positions.
In any case, I will offer the tentative idea that perhaps we must expect many Muslim societies to make a transition through some form of “fundamentalism” to prime them for an axiomatically oriented liberalism (the axioms being undergirded by an organic skeleton formed during the transitory period). That is, though many “traditional” societies in the Third World are more tolerant and pluralistic on the whole than Islamist societies, their openness is illusory and not manifest on the individual level. The “fundamentalist” stage might be conceived of as a transitional state that reduces the organic social structures that block the emergence of a liberal democratic individualist society (think of Europe during the age of the Wars of Religion).
Addendum: One must note that the democratic societies of the Far East, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, have not gone through such a “fundamentalist” state, but at least in the case of Japan (the society that has been democratic the longest), it seems that a genuine liberal democratic individualist spirit in the Western sense has not emerged. Rather, a different, more communal form of liberal democracy reigns.
Clarification: I used the term “fundamentalist” above. I hate to get too picky about semantic issues, but I guess I should define exactly what I mean. One of my uncles is very active in the Tabligh movement, while another is an imam who is associated with it. Here is what you need to know:
Tabligh an arabic word that means to reach out, to make known or to publicise. To make Islam’s message known to people is called tabligh. Tabligh movement tries to inspire everybody to do virtuous acts, and refrain from doing misdeeds and to call others to follow the true path of Islam. Allah has sent prophets in different times for tabligh and in the absence of prophets, the responsibility is believed to have been devolved upon the tabligh.
The activities of Tabligh Jam’at began in Delhi in 1920 at the initiative of Maulana Mohammad Ilyas (1885-1944). Today the tabligh movement has transcended the borders of the subcontinent and taken the shape of an international organisation. Ever since its inception, the movement has been working for strengthening the belief of Muslims in the fundamentals of Islam and inspiring them to abide by them.
The movement, from what I gather, and from the literature I’ve seen, tries to stay out of politics (ergo, political violence, etc.). Its focus is on “personal virtue” and making sure Muslims follow the shariah. It is basically a lay movement to reform Islam in the subcontinent. In addition to the 5 pillars of Islam, the movement has 6 principles that its followers adhere to. In general, it is a “rational” movement in that books are central to the propogation, and once you can wrap yourself around one of its principles, you can convince them of anything (my experience) so long as it doesn’t contravene Islam. A good analogy is probably with Christian revival movements that try to “purify” the practice and belief of people who are already within the fold.
Posted by razib at 04:44 PM