Common Sense, the Left and Islam
- Thinking out of the Secular Box: The Left and Islam
By Gilad Atzmon
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Karl Marx 1843
Before I launch into a disclosure of liberal and leftist delusional treatment of religions, Islam and Palestine in particular, I would like to share with you a bad racist joke. Beware; you may not want to share this short tale with your feminist friends.
An American female activist who visited Afghanistan in the late 1990s was devastated to find out that women were marching 15 ft behind their men. She soon learned from her local translator that this was due to some religious guidelines that ruled [this is the way we show] respect for the `head of the family'. Once back in America the devastated activist launched campaigns after campaigns for women's rights in Afghanistan. As it happened, the same devoted activist visited Kabul last month. This time she was amazed to find a totally different reality. Women were actually marching 30 ft ahead of their husbands. The activist was quick to report to her headquarters in America: "The Women rights revolution is a great success here in Afghanistan. While in the past it was the man who marched in the front, now it is the women who takes the lead." Her Afghani translator, who overheard her report, took the activist aside and advised her that her interpretation was totally wrong. "The women" he said, "are walking in front because of the landmines. "
As tragic as it may sound to some, we are not as free as we believe ourselves to be. We are not exactly the author of most of our thoughts and realizations. Our human conditions are imposed on us; we are a product of our culture, language ideological indoctrination and in many cases, victims of our intellectual laziness. Like the semi-fictional American female activist above, in most cases we are trapped within our preconceived ideas and that stops us from seeing things for what they really are. Accordingly, we tend to interpret and in most cases misinterpret remote cultures employing our own value system and moral code.
This tendency has some grave consequences. For some reason `we' (the Westerners) tend to believe that `our' technological superiority together with our beloved `enlightenment' equips us with a `rational secularist anthropocentric, absolutist ethical system' of the very highest moral stand.
In the West we can detect two ideological components that compete for our hearts and minds; Both claim to know what is `wrong' and who is `right'. The Liberal would insist on praising individual liberty and civil equality; the Leftist would tend to believe to possess a `social scientific' tool helping to identify who is `progressive' and who is `reactionary'.
As things stand, it is these two modernist secularist precepts that act as our Western political ethical guard. But in fact, they have achieved the opposite. Each ideology in its own peculiar way has led us to a state of moral blindness. It is these two so-called `humanist' calls, that either consciously prepare the ground for criminal interventionalist colonial wars (the Liberal), or failed to oppose them while employing wrong ideologies and faulty arguments (the Left).
Both Liberal and Left, in their apparent banal Western forms suggest that secularism is the answer for the world's ailments. Without a doubt, Western secularism may be a remedy for some Western social malaise. However, Western Liberal and Left ideologies, in most cases, fail to understand that secularism is in itself a natural outcome of Christian culture, i.e., a direct product of Christian tradition and openness towards an independent civic existence. In the West, the spiritual and the civil sphere are largely separated . It is this very division that enabled the rise of secularity and the discourse of rationality. It is this very division that also led to the birth of a secular ethical value system in the spirit of enlightenment and modernism.
But this very division led also to the rise of some blunt forms of fundamental-secularism that matured into crude anti religious worldviews that are no different from bigotry. It is actually that very misleading fundamental secularism that brought the West to a total dismissal of a billion human beings out there just because they wear the wrong scarf or happen to believe in something we fail to grasp.
Progressive vs. Regressive
Islam and Judaism, unlike Christianity, are tribally orientated belief systems. Rather than `enlightened individualism' it is actually the survival of the extended family that is at the core interest of those two belief systems. The Taliban that is regarded by most Westerners as the ultimate possible darkest political setting, is simply not concerned at all with issues to do with personal liberties or personal rights. It is the safety of the tribe together with the maintenance of family values in the light of the Qur'an that stands at its core. Rabbinical Judaism is not different at all. It is basically there to preserve the Jewish tribe by maintaining Judaism as a `way of life'.
In both Islam and Judaism there is hardly a separation between the spiritual and the civil. Both religions stand as systems that provide thorough answers in terms of spiritual, civil, cultural and day to day matters. Jewish enlightenment (Haskalah) was largely a process of Jewish assimilation through secularization and emancipation, and spawning various modern forms of Jewish identities, Zionism included.
Yet Enlightenment values of universalism have never been incorporated into the body of Jewish orthodoxy. Like in the case of Rabbinical Judaism, that is totally foreign to the spirit of Enlightenment, Islam is largely estranged to those values of Euro centric Modernism and rationality. If anything, due to the interpretation of the Scriptures (hermeneutic), both Islam and Judaism are actually closer to the spirit of post modernity .
Neither the Left ideology nor Liberalism engage intellectually or politically with these two religions. This fact is disastrous, for the biggest current threat to world peace is posed by the Israeli-Arab conflict; a conflict rapidly becoming a war between a Jewish expansionist state and Islamic resistance. And yet, both the Liberal and the Left ideologies are lacking the necessary theoretical means to understand the complexities of Islam and Judaism.
The Liberal would dismiss Islam as sinister for its take on human rights and women in particular. The Left would fall into the trap of denouncing religion in general as `reactionary'. Maybe without realizing it, both Lib and Left are falling here into a clear supremacist argument. Since both Islam and Judaism are more than just religions, they convey a `way of life' and stand as a totally thorough answer to questions regarding being in the world, the Western Lib-Left are at danger of a complete dismissal of a large chunk of humanity .
I have recently accused a genuine Leftist and good activist of being an Islamophobe for blaming Hamas for being `reactionary'. The activist, who is evidently a true supporter of Palestinian resistance was quick to defend himself claiming that it wasn't only `Islamism' that he didn't like, he actually equally hated Christianity and Judaism. For some reason he was sure that hating every religion equally was a proper humanist qualification. Accordingly, the fact that an Islamophobe is also a Judeophobe and Christiano-phobe is not necessarily a sign of a humanist commitment. I kept challenging that good man; he then argued that it was actually Islamism (i.e., political Islam) which he didn't approve of. I challenged him again and brought to his attention the fact that in Islam there is no real separation between the spiritual and the political. The notion of political Islam (Islamism) may as well be a Western delusional reading of Islam. I pointed out that Political Islam, and even the rare implementation of `armed jihad', are merely Islam in practice.
Sadly enough, this was more or less the end of the discussion. The Palestinian solidarity campaigner found it too difficult to cope with the Islamic unity of body and soul. The Left in general is doomed to fail here unless it elaborates by means of listening to the organic Islamic bond between the `material' and the so called `opium of the masses'. For the Leftist to do so, it is no less than a major intellectual shift.
Such a shift was suggested recently by Hisham Bustani, an independent Jordanian Marxist, stating:
"The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this `we know better' attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior."
Solidarity with Palestine is a very good opportunity to review the gravity of the situation. As it happens, in spite of the murderous Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, solidarity with Palestinians has yet to become a mass movement. It may well never make it as such a movement. Given the West's failure to uphold the rights of the oppressed, Palestinians seem to have learned their lesson, they democratically elected an Islamic party that promised them resistance. Interestingly enough, very few leftists were there to support the Palestinian people and their democratic choice.
Within the current template of conditional political solidarity, we are losing campaigners on each turn of this bumpy road. The reasons are as follows.
1. The Palestinian liberation movement is basically a national liberation movement. This acknowledgment is where we lose all the Left cosmopolitans, those who oppose nationalism.
2. Due to the political rise of Hamas, Palestinian resistance is now regarded as Islamic resistance. This is where we are losing the secularists and rabid atheists who oppose religion, catapulting them to being PEP (progressive except on Palestine) .
In fact the PEP are divided largely into two groups.
PEP1. Those who oppose Hamas for being `reactionary', yet approve Hamas for their operational success as a Resistance movement. Those activists are basically waiting for the Palestinians to change their mind and revert to a secular society. But they are willing to conditionally support the Palestinians as an oppressed people.
PEP2. Those who are against Hamas for being a `reactionary' force; and dismiss its operational success. These are waiting for the world revolution. They prefer to let the Palestinians wait for the time being, as if Gaza were a seashore holiday resort.
With these rapidly evaporating solidarity forces we are left with a miniature Palestinian solidarity movement with an embarrassingly limited (Western) intellectual power and even less positive performance on the grass roots level. This tragic situation was disclosed recently by Nadine Rosa-Rosso, a Brussels-based independent Marxist. She states: "The vast majority of the Left, including communists, agrees in supporting the people of Gaza against Israeli aggression, but refuses to support its political expressions such as Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon." This leads Rossa-Rosso to wonder "why do the Left and far Left mobilize such small numbers? And indeed, to be clear, are the Left and far Left still able to mobilize on these issues?"
"If the left's support for human rights in Palestine is conditional and dependent on the Palestinians denouncing their religion and ideological beliefs, cultural heritage, and social traditions and adopting a new set of beliefs, alien values and social behaviours that matches what its culture deems acceptable; that means the world is denying them a most basic human right, the right to think, and to live within a chosen ethical code." Nahida Izzat.
The current left discourse of solidarity is futile. It estranges itself from its subject, it achieves very little and it seems to go nowhere. If we want to help the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the other millions of victims of Western imperialism we really must stop for a second, take a big breath and start again from scratch.
We must learn to listen. Rather than imposing our belief on others we better learn to listen to what others believe in.
Can we follow Bustani's and Rossa-Rosso's suggestions and revise our entire notion of Islam, its spiritual roots, its structure, its unified balance between the civil and the spirit, its vision of itself as a `way of living'? Whether we can do so or not is a good question.
Another option is to reassess our blindness and to encounter humanist issues from a humanist perspective (as opposed to political). Rather than loving ourselves through the suffering of others, which is the ultimate form of self-loving, we better for the first time, exercise the notion of real empathy. We put ourselves in the place of the other accepting that we may never fully understand that very other.
Rather than loving ourselves through the Palestinians and at their expense, we need to accept Palestinians for what they are and support them for who they are regardless of our own views on things. This is the only real form of solidarity. It aims at ethical rather than ideological conformity. It puts humanity at its very centre. It reflects on Marx's deep understanding of religion as the "sigh of the oppressed". If we claim to be compassionate about people we better learn to love them for what they are rather than what we expect them to be.
 Something to do with a low Roman heritage and the early development of Christianity as an expansionist concept aiming to spread itself to remote cultures and civilizations.
 It can be argued that the primary agenda behind postmodern attempts is to destabilize the foundations of modern knowledge and [ethics by challenging the possibility of modern universal applicability. As eloquently put by Muqtedar Khan, the postmodernist seeks to privilege the `here and now' over the global. Both postmodern philosophy and Religious theology, says Khan "reject the modernist claim in the infallibility of reason". Like the postmodernist, Islam and Judaism are skeptical towards the sovereignty of reason and discourses of rationality.
 The rather common bizarre Marxist suggestion that `quite a few out there' are in fact `reactionary' for being religious entails the necessary assumption that the Marxist himself is settled comfortably in an absolute moral high ground. Such an assumption is rather faulty for two obvious reasons:
Claiming to know more than others on base of ideological or political affiliation is nothing less than supremacy in practice;
The claim for possession of the highest moral ground X cannot be verified scientifically unless validated by another superior and higher moral ground X'. For the Marxist to sustain his `highest moral ground' position, he would have to move on and claim to be holding the highest position X'. In order to verify X' he will need to move on to a superior X' and so on. We are facing here an infinite search for the validation of ethical meaning. Such a model of thought may help us grasp why Western Marxism has managed to detach itself from ethical reality and ethical thinking and hardly engage with issues to do with true equality.
The obvious problem with the Marxist implementation of the `progressive vs reactionary' dichotomy is that the Marxists suitably claim to be among progressives and conveniently claim that the `adversary' is found among the reactionaries. This is obviously slightly suspicious or even dubious to say the least.
 Phil Weiss in his invaluable MondoWeiss blog recently coined the useful political term PEP: progressive except on Palestine term.
a version of this (without footnotes) appeared on:
Convincing the Soul of the Muslim world:
A New Drive for `Common Sense'
By Ruby Amatulla
It has taken a long bloody history to convince many parts of humanity that it is only through constructive engagements and integrated efforts and not through wars, conflicts and exploiting others that a win-win situation is possible in human affairs.
After hundreds of years of incessant bloodshed and violence, Europe finally came to grips with this truth. Seeing the enormous effects of the integration and cooperation of the diverse community of the 50 states across the Atlantic Europe, after World War II and its massive death and destruction started to pursue constructive engagement and integration in its own affairs.
Today, another vital part of humanity containing 1.5 billion Muslims appears not to take heed of this truth. A mosaic of different tribes, sects, ethnicities and groups of Muslims remain deeply divided, unstable and conflict-prone.
Despite controlling 76% of the world's oil reserves, this huge community has failed to assert itself as a legitimate power-broker or a significant partner in the affairs of the world. The state of affairs of many key areas of the Muslim world remains degrading and disturbing.
The cause of the grim reality in the Muslim world is its failure to unite, integrate and engage constructively, both among its own populace and with others. And this failure is largely, if not entirely, due to the absence or lack of an `impartial' and balanced rule of law.
We often talk about equality and freedom as being essential factors of democratic rule, but we fail to recognize its paramount influence in stabilizing and integrating a nation. With the existence of an `impartial' rule of law that prohibits destructive ways of resolving issues in society and that does not allow any group to take undue advantage over others by virtue of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc., the people ultimately accept and build a culture of coexistence and constructive engagement.
This is the key to integrating a nation on the fundamental ideas of equality and liberty.
I am convinced that America, by providing the most forceful and impartial system of due process, has become the superpower in our time. By providing the most progressive program of integration to the most diverse community in the world it has tapped a treasure that is unparalleled in its importance and impact in leading a nation towards prosperity.
This is the secret of America's enormous success.
Good governance is the solution for a dysfunctional state. An accountable, transparent and representative government stabilizes a society. Serious grievances and the possibility of turmoil are less likely, as the citizens hold the ultimate power. The legitimacy of that governance increasingly builds up trust and confidence among its people and institutions to participate and help sustain a stable and consistent pattern of rule. The broad decision making process and the balance of power in a democratically managed society work as shields against tendencies of tyranny and/or domination of one group by another. Self-rule offers important incentives for a society to become stable and progressive.
Importantly for the deeply-religious Muslim world, a democratic system does not need to be `secular,' if secularism is defined as a system discouraging religion. A good governing system should not be averse to religion as religions and religious institutions play a vital and profoundly important role in society but it must be impartial as to a specific religion and/or a specific interpretation of a religion. `Impartial' rule of law and avoiding endorsing a religion is how the conflict-prone Thirteen Colonies were saved from disintegration.
Democracy provides a secure environment for all its citizens to practice their respective faiths. If a government maintains neutrality in its rule of law and enforces the resolution of conflicts only through constructive engagements among its citizens, it builds a stable society with a mindset of coexistence, integration and collective welfare.
The Quran is unequivocal in commanding that: `There is no compulsion or imposition in religion.' [2:256]. A faith or conviction must be the outcome of the exercise of free will, for which an individual is responsible only to God and to no one else in the society.
Therefore a state that enforces a religious injunction, or an interpretation [denominations or sects] thereof, violates this fundamental tenet of Islam by enforcing on those who do not believe or accept that interpretation of faith.
A democratic spirit was exemplified in the very first Muslim community under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad (s) in Medina fourteen centuries ago. The Charter of Medina has amazing similarities with the constitution drafted more than eleven hundred years later among the Thirteen Colonies who united to form the United States of America.
The similarities among these documents are to be found in their establishment of federalism, impartiality, consultative decision-making processes and the use of constructive engagement to resolve disputes.
These structures allowed the society to maintain security and functionality, as well as to provide freedom of religion. They also allowed diverse groups of people in the case of Medina then, the Muslims, Jews, and Pagans to manage their own community affairs and maintain their own lifestyles within the greater legal framework of society . This paramount example of the Prophet (s) has largely gone unnoticed by the Muslim world.
More than two hundred years ago a small pamphlet called "Common Sense" made a huge impact among the people of the Thirteen Colonies and their leaders. It allowed them to come together and fight against the British, the most formidable power then, to establish self-rule. How powerful and constructive this self-rule has been to integrate the most diverse community in the world and to create a superpower!
More than two hundred years later, a Muslim citizen of the nation that `Common Sense' helped to establish is wondering what degree of human welfare could flow out of a new drive for common sense in one of the most vital parts of humanity: the Muslim world with which the interest and welfare of the world is intricately and profoundly connected! Facing the enormous challenges of our time, how badly needed is that drive!
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to: