THE CLASH WITHIN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
Absolutists and Secularists
Many apparent paradoxes are evident when we look at the poor state of relations between Muslims and Western people. To Western people it appears that most Muslims support authoritarian politics, politicized religion, and are hostile toward the West. Yet Muslims value democracy just as much as Western people do. They are also largely opposed to radical and violent types of political Islam. And they are far more hostile toward the foreign policies of Western governments than they are to Western people. What is it, then, that Western people tend to get wrong about ordinary Muslims and what accounts for the rather sorry state of relations between the peoples of these two civilizations?
Akeel Bilgrami in “Islam and the West: Conflict, Democracy, Identity,” explains the views of Muslims toward the West in terms of a clash within Islamic civilization. He divides devout Muslims into two groups, the minority of absolutists (fundamentalists) and the vast majority of secularists (moderates). Both absolutists and secularists may view the West, and especially the United States, as a political and economic threat, but they differ concerning the existence of a religious threat from the West. Another great difference is that, unlike the absolutists, secularists are willing to accept a political order not based on religious principles and practices.
Despite the overwhelming numerical superiority of secular Muslims, the absolutists are able to hinder the realization of democracy in Muslim states due to the reluctance of moderates to criticize them. The reason for the reluctance of moderates to criticize fundamentalists stems from a deeply-rooted psychology. There is a background of many decades of colonial history marked by oppression and condescending attitudes, accompanied by deep feelings of powerlessness in a world dominated by America where Israel occupies and expands its territory. Under these circumstances, Muslims, even those who are moderate, see any kind of criticism of their own people as letting them down and giving in to a long history of oppression and assaults upon their self-esteem.
Moderate Muslims experience a division or clash within themselves between dislike for fundamentalism and defensive feelings of resentment against the former colonial powers. Unless they are able to resolve this internal clash, moderates will not have the confidence to oppose and overcome fundamentalism. However, the behavior of Western organizational and government representatives leads to greater resentment and defensiveness among Muslims. Such behavior includes the “cruelty of wars, of bombings, of occupations, of expansionist settlements, of embargoes and sanctions, of support of corrupt elites” and the “often transparently exploitative pursuit of Western corporate interests in these regions.”
If moderates criticize and overcome fundamentalists, Muslim societies would be democratized and a clash of civilization would be avoided. But moderate Muslims would have to give up certain aspects of their religion as they now practice it in order to take a clear stand against fundamentalists and in favor of secularism. “They would have to relinquish certain ideas about relations to non-Muslims, ideas about gender relations in institutions such as marriage, divorce, alimony, etc., and commitments to censorship and punishment of blasphemy.” Such a revision of Islam is conceivable since internal debate and negotiation can produce new Muslim identities in which devout Muslims let go of certain aspects of their faith while remaining strongly committed to that faith.
The Question of Identity
In another essay, “What Is a Muslim: Fundamental Commitment and Cultural Identity,” Bilgrami links Muslim reluctance to actively oppose the absolutists to identity questions. Although many Muslims have a deep level of commitment to their religion, it is only the absolutists that have a total commitment to it, which makes their position non-negotiable, since there are no other values that motivate them and need to be taken into account. It is true that in Islam commitment to the faith includes engagement with public issues, that is, politics. But there is not just one particular stance that Muslims must take on political matters. Since there are different ways in which the Quran can be interpreted, one’s own position is negotiable and reasoning plays an important role.
As Bilgrami points out, there is a significant difference between the verses written in Mecca and those later composed after the move to Medina. The Mecca verses are more universal and emphasize spiritual claims and commitments, whereas the post-Medina ones were a vehicle for converting a regional population, often nomadic, to whom the social and interpersonal issues that Muhammad addressed were an important concern. As a result, the later verses involve specific political commitments that are relevant to that specific time and place. But the context has greatly changed since that time.
The use of reason to reevaluate fundamental commitments within the Muslim faith is a practice that needs to be revived. As Bilgrami stresses, it is also imperative to take agency and responsibility for one’s values and actions, that is, to be self-critical. The tendency on the part of Muslims to say that they cannot question the absolutists’ demands without giving support to the enemies of Islam is self-defeating. Their fundamental commitment to Islam does not have to be based on a defensive reaction to Western imperialism; in addition, criticisms of absolutist positions are not equal to a surrender to the West. And this is not to deny that the West continues to dominate the Muslim world and to express contempt for their culture.
Such defensive reactions are self-defeating because the underlying assumption is that Muslims cannot do anything about their present situation, even though they know that the absolutists, a minority, are leading their societies astray. It is as if they are locked into a situation in which the present must repeat the past rather than doing what they can to strengthen themselves and better their condition. By failing to take constructive action, Muslims have allowed themselves to be trapped and subjugated by the West and their societies held hostage to groups that are not acting in ways that are the highest expressions of their religion, ways which do not benefit Muslims.
What the West Can Do
Bilgrami emphasizes that to help bring about greater secularism within the Islamic world, Western rhetoric and policy must move away from an emphasis on a clash of civilizations to a focus on the clashes that are taking place within Islamic civilization itself. By understanding this internal division, the temptation to treat all Muslims as unalterably opposed to Western values can be resisted.
I would add that it is also necessary to recognize that there are several versions of secularism. The one most common in the West is that it requires the banishing of religion from the public sphere. But a secular society can also mean one in which there is no preference for a single religion; in other words, there is no state religion, freedom of religion is promoted, and religion plays an important part in public life.
This form of secularism is an aspiration in societies where there are almost no non-believers, for example, in many predominantly Muslim societies or India. In these societies, many people’s lives are saturated with religion. How could governments not take this reality into account when deciding the social role of religion? Western attempts to interfere in the Muslim world by putting pressure on Muslims to adopt the Western form of secularism are bound to fail. The consequence of such interference is that Muslims become more defensive and reactive, and the idea that the West is out to destroy Islam seems more persuasive.
Western people can benefit from a clearer understanding of the diversity within Islamic civilizations, the reasons for negative perceptions of Western governments, and the nature and extent of cultural differences between the two civilizations. With regard to this last point, there are universal values that Islam and the West share such as a commitment to the value and dignity of the person, human equality, rational discussion, and democratic deliberation and consultation. Therefore, the cultural gaps between the two civilizations, although not negligible, is considerably less that many Western people imagine.
— -
