October 07, 2007
Between imperialism and Islamism
Pervez Hoodbhoy in Himal Southasian:
Many of us in the left, particularly in Southasia, have chosen to understand the rise of violent Islamic fundamentalism as a response to poverty, unemployment, poor access to justice, lack of educational opportunities, corruption, loss of faith in the political system, or the sufferings of peasants and workers. As partial truths, these are indisputable. Those condemned to living a life with little hope and happiness are indeed vulnerable to calls from religious demagogues who offer a happy hereafter in exchange for unquestioning obedience.
American imperialism is also held responsible. This, too, is a partial truth. Stung by the attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States lashed out against Muslims almost everywhere. America’s neoconservatives thought that cracking the whip would surely bring the world to order. Instead, the opposite happened. Islamists won massively in Iraq after a war waged on fraudulent grounds by a superpower filled with hubris, arrogance and ignorance. ‘Shock and Awe’ is now turning into ‘Cut and Run’. The US is leaving behind a snake pit, from which battle-hardened terrorists are stealthily making their way to countries around the world. Polls show that the US has become one of the most unpopular countries in the world, and that, in many places, George W Bush is more disliked than Osama bin Laden. Most Muslims see an oil-greedy America, in collusion with Israel, as a crusader force occupying a historic centre of Islamic civilisation. Al-Qaeda rejoices. Its mission was to convince Muslims that the war was between Islam and unbelief. Today it brags: We told you so!
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:18 AM | Permalink























Comments
There is so much to respond to in this article but unfortunatelz Ićm sitting at a kez board in which the y is where the z should be and so forth and so on. But nevertheless heres an attempt. PH writes half truths, some easy things to agree upon and some more insidious definitions and frameworks to analyye and use as an optic. And therefore his recommendations to the West are mostly old hat of noblesse oblige. Nothing new there. Easy to agree are things like ˝No ‘higher authority’ defines the leftwing agenda, and no covenant of belief defines a ‘leftist’. There is no card to be carried or oath to be taken. But secularism, universalistic ideas of human rights, and freedom of belief are non-negotiable.˝
I totally agree that thatćs the leftist way but he defines the conflict of today without using a secular optic at all by writing that the world when viewed from above would be one ˝ where imperial might and religious fundamentalism are locked in a bitter struggle.˝
I totally disagree and I think that the conflict is one between imperial might which is coupled with religious fundementalism and the forces of pluralism and modernity.
I also think that the advise and guidance he gives to the to the so called Muslim world for modeling itself attributes qualities to the west which were the hallmarks of muslim societies and thinking. Each individual muslim today who thinks being muslim is his or her identity should uphold and hold sacred the notions of science, enlightenment, questioning and logic.
Posted by: maniza | Oct 7, 2007 8:13:43 AM
Post a comment