Lecture

Political Islam

Lecture chaired by Geoff Catchpole

Professor Iftikhar Malik

Bath Spa University College

16 July 2004.

Professor Malik teaches International History and has been a Fellow at St Anthony’s College, Oxford. He is the author of 13 books and many academic papers, as well as contributing widely to the Press, radio and television around the world.

He began by examining how Muslims and Islam are popularly perceived. Some young British Muslims going overseas have been arrested as ‘suspect terrorists’, then released without charge. The British National Party remains active and may not simply be a few ‘hotheads’, as is suggested. The Press carries phrases such as ‘militant Islam’, ‘Muslim terrorists’, ‘Islamic fundamentalists’,etc. Media treatment of a Muslim cleric on a brief visit to Britain was hostile and a hoax attack on a Jewish lady in France brought much hostility to North African Muslims by officials and the media. A Sky TV poll recently showed that 79% of respondents wanted four British Moslems interned in Guantanemo Bay to be tried in America rather than Britain. He noted, however, that around two million British people protested against going to war against Iraq, although Blair ignored them and has since not apologized, despite new revelations.

The expression ‘Islam and the West’ gives what he believes to be a mistaken impression. He would rather use the expression ‘Islam in the West’, since Muslims are to be found all over the world. He showed that there are various kinds of ‘Islam’, which differ in ethnology, denominations, class, gender, language, culture, etc., as in the ‘West’. Attitudes to Islam may be found throughout history, from the Crusades, to colonialism and orientalism, more recently arising from the ‘fatwa’ against Salmon Rushdie, but culminating in ‘9/11’. It has also been acknowledged, however, that as well as ‘fundamentalist’ and intolerant groups within Islam, which threaten fellow-Muslims as well as others, there are (undefined) ‘moderate’ Muslims. He conceded that Islam may be regarded as more ‘political’ than other religions, but thought one cause was the political activity of Mahomet himself, who treated with local Jewish peoples and created an Islamic state. He stated that for most Muslims ‘religion and politics remain enmeshed’. In the West and in Islam much has been written about relationships between the perceived Islam and the West.

Francis Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ thesis is now outdated, but Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilisations’ claim has been revived. There are many views, however. Ann Marie Slaughter (of Princeton) has argued that ‘global networks’ of bureaucrats, diplomats, NGOs, etc run the world, rather than ‘polarised’ forces usually discussed. Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy, conversely, see the rise to power of Bush and the New Conservatives in America as the cause of such a ‘clash’. George Soros thinks US power is in decline. Some on the Left in Britain think class rather than culture causes the problems and Christopher Harmon has suggested that Muslims generally and socialists have similar interests, which they should jointly pursue. Francis Wheen and others regard a conservative Islam, rather than an enlightened West, as the cause of the problems. Michael Ignatieff suggests that the West might benevolently control the Middle East and parts of Asia until they are ‘able to stand on their own feet’. Similarly, Niall Ferguson, in ‘Colossus’, suggests that British imperial experience provides a model.

A French intellectual, Emmanuel Todd, thinks that Muslims, gaining education and with their populations under control in Europe and Russia, do not pose a demographic threat, but he does think that America has recently changed from being an ‘emancipator’ into being a ‘predator’. Holper and Clarke’s new book America Alone: the Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order details how some post-1945 American intellectuals established the new conservative forces now dominating American politics. Bernard Lewis, a very senior historian, has been very influential and he now claims that Muslims are racist, sexist and murderous, needing control by the West. The two authors regard that attitude as very dangerous, both for the Muslims and for the West, since it divides the world simplistically into ‘good’ and ‘evil’ sectors, but it is shared by fervent American missionaries, by ultra – Right Jewish elements and by others. In August 2003 Time Magazine devoted ten pages to an account of highly-subsidised missionary activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The New Conservatives believe that military power is required by the West, either multilateral or, if necessary, unilateral by America alone, to deal with both Iraq and Iran. The focus of their attention is the Middle East.

Islam is treated as a special entity by Muslims and non-Muslims. The effect in the West is ‘orientalism’, whereas in Muslim countries many groups foster ‘majoritarianism’, which ‘combines religion with an exclusivist form of nationalism’ said the speaker. Such ‘exceptionalism’ has an historic background, but it is dangerous. There is also a common view that because Islam never had renaissance and reformation as in the West its tradition inhibits modernization. Some Moslems question the need to modernize, others point out that Islam differs from continent to continent, state to state and that European Islam in particular is rapidly evolving. Alternatively, some argue that tradition is beneficial. One writer on ‘Islam and Modernity’ has claimed that from the 10^th century AD Islam has responded to changing circumstances. Another (Mohammed Iqbal), with other writers, has tried to combine Western philosophy with Islamic inheritance. Overall, from the 19^th century onwards, Islamic scholars have explored the degree to which Islam has in fact been modernizing since its earliest days.

A major concern, however, has been whether Islam can remain ‘authentic’ if it modernizes. One response in 19^th century India (as with Bin Laden today) was to seek its revival and ‘purification’. In the 20^th century others in Egypt, Iran and elsewhere have sought a ‘synthesis’. Today, while in intellectual circles the desirability of democracy, gender equality, free media and literary criticism, etc is accepted the fragmentation of the concept of ‘Islam’ is feared. That view disregards the existing variety of interpretations by Arabs, Africans, Indians, Persians, Turks, Chinese, etc. Moreover, while new generations in all Muslim countries debate such issues, their considerations are not newsworthy and are unrecognized. The Iranian Abdul Suroush thought ‘synthesis’ likely; the Tunisian Muhammad Alibi (and an exiled Ghannoushi) argued that a ‘consensus on co-Islamic values’ would overcome feelings of insecurity through modernization; the Syrian Muhammad Buti and the Sudanese Hassan Turabi believed that by participating within governments of whatever nature, Islamists could change societies; whereas Hassan Hanafi (an Egyptian) saw Islam as a reforming force on the left of politics. From colonial times onwards such debates have developed. One leading French scholar has argued that the ‘crisis’ is not primarily about Islam, but essentially about the Middle East. Many ‘synthesists’ are neither apologetic nor aggressive (as at the extremes), but seek to recreate the former synthesis, when through much history the various peoples and religions lived harmoniously together.

Over the last twenty years, largely unrecognized even by scholars, women (particularly in Iran) have been working towards synthesis while observing tradition. Many now run modern services. In Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere, as well as in the West, they may be threatened, but they are active and vocal.

Views on the desirability of modernity differ. Francis Wheen defends it on the basis of the Enlightenment, but John Grey (of LSE) argues that it prompts terrorism. While references to rationalism, human rights, democracy, gender equality, etc are seen as positive, others see dislocation from industrialization, state-building, cultural disturbances, ethnic cleansing, holocausts, etc. Some point to 180 million people killed in the ‘enlightened’ 20^th century. The speaker, however, noted that such problems were common to others and Muslims alike. He said that neither ‘celebration’ nor ‘denigration’ would solve them.

Turning to deal directly with the recent situation in America, Professor Malik discussed the writings of Bernard Lewis, influential on Arab history, whose later books became partisan and propagandist. His book ‘The Crisis of Islam’ was wholly negative, but very influential. Professor Daniel Pipes (of Yale) concentrated upon Muslim history of slave soldiers, giving rise to the charge ‘Militant Islam reaches America’, through their activist attempts to convert Americans for Islam, to change American policy towards Israel and the Arabs and then ‘9/11’- all being symptomatic of their militant attitude. (He has now been given a senior position by President Bush.) An influential writer, Anne Coulter, argued that flights should be Moslem-free and that 20% of Moslem militants (representing between 40 and 50 million Moslems overall) should be ‘got rid of’. The speaker believes that ‘this totalitarianism is more dangerous’ than all of the totalitarian forces, from fascism to communism, of the 20^th century.

Paul Berman has advocated a range of civil and military solutions to combat Muslim activists. Fareed Zakaria (Indian Editor of ‘Newsweek’) and Michael Ignatieff have argued that if democracy spreads in Islam clerics will take over and those countries will become anti-US and anti-West, so they suggest that either the West undertakes imperial control or promotes liberalization of Muslim societies- of their women, technology and education. V.S.Naipaul visited Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia and sees Islam as subject to Arab imperialism, requiring non-Arab societies to adopt Arab Islamic culture. He sees an intolerant India and he approves of attempts to assert Hindu dominance.

Faced with such views, arguments and events involving violence and refugees, which present constant negative influences, many Moslems are becoming more ‘marginalised’- the young in the diaspora and globally react as dropouts or become aggressive (about treatment of their ‘brothers and sisters’), but some are involved in debate on the commonalities in the world. The speaker has been encouraged by the responsible behaviour of Moslem demonstrators in Britain and he notes the groups on both sides of division who are attempting to ‘build bridges’. He is also encouraged by the trend among Muslim intellectuals, who are gradually moving towards ‘synthesis’. They look forward to strengthening civil societies, reducing violence (e.g. through Shia/Sunni divisions, gender issues, etc.), building a ‘consensus’ through a common minimum definition of ‘Moslem’personal to the individual, which would collectively govern views and practices- but he recognizes those as long-term goals. He would like regional co-operation by Muslim states and deplores emphasis on arms imports in the Middle East – between 1989 and 1992 alone, such imports were worth 25 billion dollars, which was not otherwise spent on health, housing, education, etc. Many scholars want interstate conflicts (e.g. between Iran and Iraq) to be the focus of policy and for multilateral bodies such as the UN, EU, etc. to be strengthened.

Professor Malik concluded his lecture by advocating three E’s: Empowerment (consensus on democracy); Education (particularly of women); Economy (addressing widespread poverty, particularly among the young-roughly 65% of Moslem populations). Fundamentalism appeals to the poor, who are very vulnerable to clerics who promise a better world beyond death. He believes that a ‘consensus’ is emerging, however, and he urges the West to change its agenda appropriately- military activities make situations worse. He acknowledges that the next twenty years will be difficult and that there are no short cuts. Moslems are now discussing the Japanese and South Korea solutions as models, where culture and languages are retained whilst modernization is adopted. Development should have priority over defence if fundamental problems are to be tackled successfully.

Post-lecture discussion

The speaker answered questions on religious influences. Muslim reformers are now arguing that misplaced emphasis on duties to God at the expense of duties to society should be reviewed, e.g. in the 1200 British mosques fully attended. While socialist regimes are now discredited, brotherhood and ‘fair shares’ are still valuable aims, promoted by Mahomet himself- respect life and share wealth. History shows much interaction of faiths and their followers, but the current ‘literalist’ interpretations of the Koran falsely deny that. Questioned on ‘European Islam’, he noted that around 70% of British Muslims were either born or grew up here- many having no link with the former countries. Whilst first generation immigrants were often rural, illiterate and tradition-bound, who found links difficult to make outside their own community, the next generation were more easily assimilated, although various pressures have remained. (He remarked that whilst scarfs were not worn in SE Asia, they have been adopted in the West.) Scholars anticipate more participation by Muslim women in Western society and more dialogue between Muslims and others in the West. He suggested that the democratic framework of the West may allow an Islamic Renaissance to develop. However, while ‘Sharia law’ is not likely to be a problem here, various models are followed in the Arab world, where there is increasing emphasis upon becoming more ‘Islamic’. To a suggestion that Western policy on oil access is a fundamental cause of frictions, the speaker thought it was often used as a ‘scapegoat’ for more basic problems arising from poor leadership in Moslem countries. To a final question on Moslem education in the West, he replied that syllabus revisions are needed and that governments should be seen as ‘partners’ rather than ‘arbiters’ – more integration would bring greater enrichment from all sides and local communities should have more choices but develop greater integration.

Geoffrey Catchpole

Select bibliography(current books by Professor Malik)

Islam, Globalisation and Modernity: the Tragedy of Bosnia (Vanguard, Lahore, 2004)

Jihad, Hindutva and the Taleban: South Asia at the Crossroads (OUP, 2004)

Culture and Customs of Pakistan (Greenwood Press, Westport CT, 2005)