---
The great flaw in Salafi Islamist ideology, is that by its nature, it is a paradoxical political philosophy. The Salafi states that the only way of life that is correct, decent and otherwise free of vice and corruption is that as detailed with the Quran, the sayings (hadith) and the example (sunna) of the Prophet. However, short of hitching a ride on a time machine back to the 7th century AD, the philosophy is impossible to implement practically.
The great paradox of this Islamist thought is that it hopes to implement a 7th century state in the 21st century, using the advances of the present to re-establish the past. The obvious example is Al-Qaeda's use of modern weapons and technology (including video recording) to further their cause. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia exploits the use of religious police and severely restricts internet access to protect its citizens from such vices as gambling and pornography.
How can you create a state that is pure in its reversion to early Islam by relying on modern inventions, methods and advancements - of which none are of Middle Eastern or Muslim origin? Let us say a militant faction gains control of a small town through use of arms and declares it an Islamist state. They have used modern weapons and technologies to put themselves in power. But to be a faithful replication of Muhammad's Medina, they would have to give up all innovations past the era they hope to copy. Such things they would have to give up includes:
- vehicles,
- phones,
- the internet,
- air conditioning,
- political philosophies beyond the caliphate,
- and even the small things like toothpaste.
How could they give these things up? Just to relinquish their modern weapons for swords would allow their subjects to rise up and revolt! A complex bureaucracy would be difficult to build and maintain, and generally speaking a 7th century state would prove to be very fragile in today's world. These are people trying to move from the modern to the archaic and it would mean giving up a lot of things that make up parts of today's culture and life.
The Islamists (and again, I'm speaking specifically of the Salafi brand) know these things, and so they would never relinquish modernity. They would instead have to compromise the past with the present, whether by the use of weapons, the internet or gaining power through democratic legitimacy. But to compromise with today entirely undermines Salafi philosophy. If the Quran, the Prophet's example and the 'state' he ruled are perfection, then it is by perfection's very nature uncompromiseable. What compromises are required to live in a perfect society? Perfection is faultless and in such a society all needs at every level, in every area would be met.
Thus, if the time Salafis harken back to is perfect, why must a compromise be made with the reality of today? Indeed, if it was perfect, then why did society move on, for better or worse, away from it? The early caliphs - the 'Rightly Guided' four immediately proceeding the Prophet - should have been content with their perfect lot, and all who entered the society should theoretically have adapted to be a part of this faultless clockwork. Yet political rivalry and corruption in Muslim society is as old as Islam itself. Muhammad had to deal with a number of rebellious tribes that rejected him and his new religion before the conquest of Mecca, while three of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs were murdered, two of their assassins politically motivated and one seeking personal vengeance. Early Islam was no closer to a perfect society than we are today.
I am reminded of a passage in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, which describes the titular character's need to believe that "the rock of the world was founded securely on a fairy's wing." He is talking of the fragile fiction on which Gatsby must view the world, lest his reality fall apart. This same observation can be applied to Islamists. Their dream of a reversion in time hinges on a fiction which reality upsets at every turn.
They realise this. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (who aren't Salafi, but the criticism applies) stated earlier this year that they would be moving their agenda away from the hardcore Islamism to adopt more popular ideas, and thus be a more marketable political party. In What's Really Wrong with the Middle East, Brian Whitaker suggests that Islamists can only advocate their philosophy without compromise when they are the opposition in an undemocratic society, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Mubarak's Egypt. Without any real chance to implement what they preach, they do not need a concrete plan of action to say how they aim to achieve their lofty goals. And as we have seen this year, they are aware of the need to adapt to have a real chance of a success in an active political environment, or else fall into obscurity - or condemnation - instead.
So, the Salafi ideal has no real basis. Religion and politics will remain inseperable in the Middle East for a long time to come, and this is not necessarily bad - though it isn't necessarily good either. But Islamist ideas such that we have been told by our western governments to fear, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda, are nothing but the empty promises resting on fairy wings.
The Saudi Case
Let's look at Saudi Arabia. They are not defined as Islamist, perhaps because they are close enough allies to the West for such labels to not apply to them - diplomacy has its kinks like that. But Saudi rule and law takes all its basis from religion, or so it claims. Wahhabi sheikhs have played and continue to have a vital role in shaping Saudi law and culture. They could even be said to be the men behind the curtains.
Robert Lacey's Inside the Kingdom, a history of Saudi Arabia from the mid 70's to the present day, pins much of the social regression and religious zeal in this generation of Saudis on the 1979 terrorist takeover of the Ka'ba by ultra-Wahhabis, led by the fearsome, if comically named, bedouin, Juhayman ('Angryface'). In an attempt to stifle any other would-be ultra-Wahhabi terrorist-reformers, many of their demands, boiling down to forging a more religious state out of Saudi, were met once the crisis was over. One of these 'reforms' included less literature, maths and sciences being taught in schools, as they were seen as being taught at the expense of religious studies. Today we have a generation of Saudis raised on a diet of over-zealous Wahhabi doctrine.
Besides the indoctrination, the government takes it upon itself to protect its subjects from vice. The regime blocks access to many websites it considers morally void, such as gambling websites and pornography - as well as politically controversial sites. It forbids the sale or ownership of alcohol and pork. Women have few things they can do without being accompanied by a male relation. The religious police take away anyone who pushes cultural and political boundaries to quell dissent. And what is it Saudi Arabia is know for?
It is known for its thousands-strong royal family, many of whom (including previous kings) lead a hedonistic lifestyle, completely hypocritical to everything their country supposedly stands for. One such prince was sentenced to prison here in the UK last year on the charge of murdering his manservant (and suspected gay lover). It is known for an ignorant, rude population, often looked down on when they come abroad, and stereotyped as being extremely messy - the result of a life spent with a servant, maid or imported worker doing all the menial tasks for them. It is known for the weekend exodus to neighbouring countries where nightclubs, women and alcohol can be enjoyed. It is known for its high percentage of homosexuals and rapists. The Saudi gay community can be placed on the same spectrum as the country's rapists, as most would not say they are gay by nature, rather that same-sex companionship is easier to have in a society with such rigid divides between men and women. The rapists of Saudi are often the same as these sexually and romantically frustrated homosexuals-by-choice, though they find relief in vastly more horrific acts.
What Saudi Arabia is not known for is its people's piety. And this is the Islamic state in the Middle East.
The political ideology simply does not work. As every generation is increasingly westernised, a process sped up by the advent of the internet, the fantasy of Islamism grows increasingly faint and is more damaging to young minds than it would claim to be.
I'll end this with a quick word on education. Islamists allow education as the Quran and Prophet both endorse it, but education must be on their highly religiously based terms. They want to teach the knowledge of religion, but without imparting the key component of a good education - the ability to think critically. But people are not stupid, and even those lacking analytical ability will realise, at least subconsciously, the impossibility of the 7th century state in the 21st century. Though the less critical minds may not internalise this, they will rebel against the impossible all the same, and it is for that reason that the prime Islamist state is not known for its piety.
No comments:
Post a Comment