news details |
|
|
| The Pope and the debate on Islam | | |
Hasan Suroor
The question that arises is whether this is the way to conduct an argument. Both sides need to raise their game if they are truly interested in a serious dialogue, and not in scoring points.
AFTER THE Pope's expression of regret, the controversy over his remarks about Islam — needless to start with — should hopefully end now. But anyone genuinely interested in a sensible debate on the issues raised by him or on the relations between two of the world's most important religions must reflect on the events of the past week and ask themselves: is this the way to conduct an argument?
Muslims, as on previous occasions, hugely over-reacted reinforcing the image of an intolerant community quick to take offence at anything that does not accord with its own image of itself or its religion. There is nothing in what the Pope said that can be termed an "insult" to Islam. The violent streak in early Islam — a result of the circumstances of its birth — is a fact and has been acknowledged even by Muslim scholars. Moreover, Islamic theologians are free to join issue with the Pope by pointing to Christianity's own blood-soaked history and the Vatican's regressive position on important issues to do with individual freedom and choice. That is the way to debate and clarify issues.
By reacting to perceived "hurts" the way they invariably do, Muslims are in danger of losing the few friends they have, and of becoming even more isolated than they already are in a world where ideas and belief systems are routinely questioned.
My quarrel is not over what the Pope said but that he diminished the level of the debate by relying on a quote from an obscure Islam-baiting emperor who spent much of his life battling the Ottoman Empire. He is said to have made the remarks, quoted by the Pope, at a time of heightened confrontation with the Turks who not only imprisoned him but also laid a five-year-long siege to his capital, Constantinople.
The Pope's argument would have carried greater weight had he drawn on a more authoritative and neutral source. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI himself is an erudite scholar and could have used his own vast scholarship to examine an issue he feels so strongly about. Professor Hans Kung, a former colleague of the Pope at Tubingen University, told a newspaper that he found it "incredible" that he sought to build his case on a quote from a known "Christian adversary of Islam." Both sides need to raise their game if they are truly interested in a serious dialogue, and not in scoring points.
Hardening of discourse
Meanwhile, the tone of public discourse on Islam in the West is hardening, tilting more and more towards the idea that there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam, and what the world is witnessing is, really, a clash between two "irreconcilable" value systems — a "superior" but "spiritually bereft" Western model of freedom and democracy and a "backward" and "undemocratic" Islam driven by an almost narcissistic belief in its spiritual strength. This has led to two contrary responses. On the one hand, there is a whiff of Christian triumphalism which, some commentators see reflected in the Pope's remarks and, on the other, an overwhelming fear that because of its spiritual "poverty," the West will not be able to hold out against Islam if the "war" drags on.
It is the latter — a creeping sense of defeatism, especially among intellectuals — that I find more intriguing. According to this view, Islamists are "winning" and it is only a matter of time before the world becomes one large Caliphate replacing the Western values of freedom and democracy. It is end of history, we are told, though in quite the reverse direction than Francis Fukuyama's end-of-history thesis which envisaged that, after the collapse of the Soviet-style socialism, the Western model of liberal democracy had come to stay. Now it seems, there is an "Islamist" alternative and it is knocking at the door.
Judging by the almost apocalyptic scenarios, evoked by leading novelists and essayists, Samuel Huntington's theory of the clash of civilisations would seem to be simply waiting to come true. David Selbourne, author of The Losing Battle with Islam, has enumerated "ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated" in the West's war against jihad. Writing in The Times, he explained at length why he believed Islam (he makes no distinction between mainstream Muslims and Islamists) had the upper hand.
The reasons he enumerated included the "political division in the non-Muslim world" about how to respond to Islamist extremism; the tendency to underestimate the "strengths of the world community of Muslims" and misunderstand the "nature of Islam"; the "low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States"; the "disarray" in Western policy-making; the "vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America's reverses"; the "moral poverty" of the West; the skilful use being made of the media (by jihadists); the West's dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries; and its "delusional" belief in the superiority of its technology-driven modernity.
Exploring the same theme in a rambling essay in The Observer, to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11, British novelist Martin Amis concluded that the war had been already won by militant Islam. He wrote: "Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with here, is a `civil war' within Islam. That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam. Well, the civil war appears to be over. And Islamism won it."
Amis points to a lack of moderate Muslim voices claiming that they seem to be confined to the "op-ed" pages, and suggests that this is consistent with the Islamic ethos where umma takes precedence over the individual. "Indeed there is no individual; there is only the umma — the community of believers," he says arguing that the "totalitarian" nature of Islam demands of its followers total "surrender of independence of mind." An independent-minded Muslim is a contradiction, according to him.
Yet, this unquestioning belief of Islam in its own certainties is also its strength against a West which is seen to have lost its spiritual compass and has stopped believing in anything — even in fairy tales. It is a recurring theme in Western writings on Islam these days. Like Selbourne, Amis argues that an important factor that has given a push to an imminent Islamist "victory" is the widespread hatred of the Bush administration, especially for its failures in Iraq.
"There are vast pluralities all over the West that are thirsting for American failure in Iraq — because they hate George Bush. Perhaps they do not realise that they are co-synchronously thirsting for an Islamist victory that will dramatically worsen the lives of their children. And this may come to pass," he writes.
Amis the novelist then tries to imagine a world ruled by the mullahs but the scenario he paints is such a cliché that I would spare him the blushes by not reproducing it here.
American novelist, Robert Ferrigno, portrays the aftermath of an Islamist victory more dramatically in his new novel Prayers for the Assassin. He evokes the vision of an America overrun by Islamic militants and transformed into an Islamic Republic. The United States of America becomes the Islamic States of America; sharia replaces America's secular laws; Los Angeles airport is renamed Bin Laden International; a major sports stadium is called Khomeini stadium; cities, teeming with burqa-clad women, echo with the calls for prayers; and "Black Robes" prowl the streets to check inappropriate dress or behaviour.
Prayers for the Assassin may be a fictional vision of an alternative Islamist world order but its author seriously believes that it could come to pass because of what, in a newspaper interview, he described as the "spiritual void at the centre of current Western society."
The West, he said, was "spiritually bereft" and therefore "ill-suited" to fight a long war with people motivated by religion and strong spiritual belief.
The novel reflects the new tone of the debate which nobody who has been following it closely will have failed to notice. So what is going on? What is driving these fears? The fact is that there has been no terror attack on America since 9/11, and likewise Europe has been quiet for sometime barring the London bombings more than a year ago. Claims by American and European security agencies to have foiled a number of terror plots show that terrorists are in fact not winning. They may have succeeded in creating a fear psychosis and disrupting normal life but what is important is that they have not been able to strike.
Why this paranoia then? Is it simply a case of crying wolf? Idle speculation? Or is there a trick here that my non-western sensibilities are missing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
