The last six months have proved a climacteric in the history of Islam. An astonished world has witnessed the deposition of rulers in Egypt and Tunisia, revolts in Syria and Libya, the intensification in Iran of a struggle between President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei, and the United States’ imposition on Osama bin Laden of a wild but under the circumstances salutary justice.
Yet however tumultuous the events may be, Islam seems unlikely to undergo the reformation its most generous hearts and intelligent minds desire. The revolutions in the Arab states more nearly resemble the abortive ones of 1848 than the successful ones of 1989: Only the identity of the ruling cabals is likely to change. Osama is dead, but his cult and myth live on. He has already been enrolled by many Muslims in the register of their martyrs, while others piously approach his house in Abbottabad as they would a reliquary shrine.
Advertisement
In Iran the conflict between the messianic president and the apocalyptic ayatollah has been phrased, not in the language of liberty and the just limitation of power, but in a cryptic idiom concerned with the invocation of djins (genies or demons) and the proper method of computing the coming of the Mahdi, the redeemer of Islam, who, it is foretold, will raise a Black Standard, have a natural mascara around his eyes, and establish the new caliphate.
A small number of Islamic intellectuals, many of them educated in the West, have during the last few decades attempted to open the Islamic mind and reconcile the teachings of the prophet with individual liberty, freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and wide and accurate learning. They have sought to disprove the pessimistic conclusion of Charles Doughty, who after living for some time among the Arabs complained, in Travels in Arabia Deserta, that “the Moslem religion ever makes numbness and death in some part of the human understanding.”
These humane Islamic intellectuals — I met a few of them some years ago in Fez and Rabat — have been faithful to the spirit of Dr. Aziz in Forster’s A Passage to India. Aziz has an open mind; “for so young a man he had read largely; the themes he preferred were the decay of Islam and the brevity of love.” But however promising this humane Islam might be, it remains the dream of a few isolated philosophers whose idiom and orientation are largely Western, and who have no idea how to appeal to the sensibilities of ordinary Muslims.
The Islamic intellectual who seeks the regeneration of his faith finds promise in the mystic saints and learned faylasûfs (philosophers) of Islam’s golden age. But Islam today is very different from what it was in its springtime. A few years ago a U.N. report noted that “Spain translates in one year the number of books that have been translated into Arabic in the past 1,000 years.” Greece alone translates “five times more books every year from English to Greek than the entire Arab world translated from English to Arabic.”
The light of Averroes and Avicenna, of Rûmî and Junayd of Baghdad, long ago waxed dim, and when one today visits a country where Islam is the religion as by law established, it is difficult to escape the feeling that a darkness has come over the faith. Not the creative darkness that begets illumination but an oppressive darkness under cover of which millions of people live without freedom, opportunity, or the useful employment that offers a way out of squalor and sloth.
A rich spiritual life, it is true, might be an adequate or indeed a more than adequate compensation for the want of material felicity, and he is unwise who would dismiss the spiritual recompense of Islam. Coleridge, Mill said, “considered the long or extensive prevalence of any opinion as a presumption that it was not altogether a fallacy. . . . The long duration of a belief, he thought, is at least proof positive of an adaption in it to some portion or other of the human mind; and if, digging down to the root, we do not find, as is generally the case, some truth, we shall find some natural want or requirement of human nature which the doctrine in question is fitted to satisfy . . .”
Islam, to have flourished as it has, must put down deep roots in the soul. But in the present darkness even the spiritual virtues of Islam are blighted. Whatever is divine and true in its orthodoxy has been obscured by a vengeful and intolerant fanaticism. A wise soul might prefer a high, pure spiritual culture to what Emerson called the “vulgar aims,” the “erudition of sensation,” the “civility of trifles, of money and expense,” characteristic of a wholly materialist culture, as the West’s is perhaps coming to be; but the spiritual culture of Islam, in its most visible forms, seems no longer to be pure. On the contrary, it appears gloomy and bigoted — a machinery of intolerance and obscurantism manipulated by mob-masters and demagogues who, though they masquerade as holy men, derive power and profit from the malignant passions they excite.
Because the Islamic mind, in its present benightedness, is so largely a closed one, the Islamic state can only be barren and corrupt. A constructive renovation of the Islamic regimes, if it is to take place at all, can take place only after more light has been let into the intellectual part of the Islamic mind. But what prospect is there of this? What Islamic leader today is preaching sweetness and light? From India to China, non-Islamic Asians, many of whom grew up under the most oppressive authority, are opening their eyes. But the Islamic peoples, for the most part, vegetate in darkness.
As epochal as the events that have shaken Islamic civilization in the last six months seem to have been, they have not let in the sun and can bring forth little fruit. New tyrants will replace old tyrants; living terrorists will replace dead terrorists. The darkness will remain, and will not be dispelled until a new and different sort of leader emerges, to show his people a better way.
— Michael Knox Beran is a contributing editor of City Journal and the author, most recently, ofPathology of the Elites.
The two times I was in the Middle East, I made a point of listening to Arabs engaged in conversation. It seemed like the name "Allah" was invoked every seventh word or so. I thought to myself, "This can't be a good thing."
The odds of throwing off or modifying something this ingrained is about slim to none.
I don't think any leader will arise who will open up the Islamic mind. It has been tried. Turkey is an example. It is now sliding back into the ancient mode. As long as there is a large minority in an Islamic country willing to kill the "apostates" no single leader will be able to make a permanent change. I fear what will change the Islamic world is a die off brought about by starvation and disease due to world wide economic collapse and local war.
Productive discussion of Islam and the West cannot begin until it becomes possible to openly raise and resolve the question of whether the word and concept of "religion", as applied in the West to the Western religions, properly represent what Islam is and what it does.
I very much doubt whether a frank discussion of that question would be permitted in the pages of NR or on NRO.
The important thing is for us to edit the sacred texts of Islam. Then they can be read easliy. Today, and since the start of the religion, they are jumbled so they hide the story of Muhammed's life. That means the religion is learned by word of mouth, which allows authoritarian discipline. If only the life of Muhammed could be learned by people reading in their own homes then people would be able to think for themselves, and common decency would prevail.
Toad, interesting observations. The current Islamic threat to Western civilization is entirely our fault for grossly enriching a group of hostile, superstitious tribesmen. Today's slaughter of Christians all through the Islamic world does not bode well. If we were to normalize the Arab economy by buying no more oil, the sliding back of Islam into the ancient mode would be almost irrelevant.
I fear that Beran is right - but I see glimmers of hope. The chief hope is in rebellious teen-agers. It seems far-fetched to base a hope on that but ... what do teenagers and college kids feel about their life v life in the west? How many of these "teenagers" keep this feeling of "we can do like the west" in their hearts as they age - and then ... when there is an "Arab Spring" do these 40-60 something year olds help the new crop of college kids?
Am I grasping yes -- but societal changes are usually unnoticed until they erupt "unexpectedly."
So, Michael, why doesn't someone make the effort to translate the many from English (Or Chinese or Indian for that matter) into Arabic and make it generally available to the Islamic people and culture via the Internet? If they won't open themselves up, why don't we all open them up ourselves? Hey, they may pick up very little, but it would seem eventually the dam would burst
Only Biblical and historical illiterates imagine that Islam with an open mind is anything but an oxymoron considering it's very meaning is "submission." During the Crusades it was only Christianity that saved Europe from being overrun by Islam and that remains true today, no matter the delusion today, unknown to the Founders, that we can save ourselves withou our own strength. The Founding Fathers never intended a secular state, as is evidenced by the state churches, they rather only intended no National one, no matter the lies of antiChristian bigots like Earl Warren.
The long duration of a belief isn't necessarily a good thing. Humanism, for instance, which almost inevitably ends in tyranny, began at the Tower of Babel.
Like M. K. Beran, I have met and worked with some Muslims who have admirable qualities. And I have known some Muslims who are able to convince themselves with idiosyncratic and/or mystical “interpretations” of Islam that enable them to project their own ideas of good onto it. But count me and un-optimistic about their prospects of making their “interpretations” dominant or enduring in an atmosphere where people take their religion seriously.
M. K. Beran’s comments about having met “humane Islamic intellectuals” in Fez and Rabat reminds me of “the bubble.” The bubble is where VIPs (for us that's a broad category in the poorer corners of the region), academics, most journalists, tourists, students, senior officials, etc experience the Arab world. In the bubble, they hear what English speaking Arabs tell them. Arabs flatter them for their limited Arabic and knowledge of Arabs; they come to believe they deeply understand these flatterers. In the bubble, that vaunted (and superficial) Arab hospitality sets the agenda of what they see, do, and discuss. They talk mostly to people eager to impress, people who know what they want to hear. Everyone is selling a thin or and idea.
But after the rug merchant’s gracious kindness over tea with them, that same rug merchant berates and abuses the poor Dagestani refugee desperate to sell him some carpets. And while the Sheikh hosts them to a sumptuous meal in his impressive compound, the Bangladeshi servants who prepared it live in misery and fear. Get any of them speaking candidly about the Jews. Consider who uses actual Islamic scripture to support their world view and who uses sophistry to project a nice face onto to the supposed authority of Islam.
M. K. Beran tells us: “Islam, to have flourished as it has, must put down deep roots in the soul.” Yes, and cancer puts down deep roots in the body.
M. K. Beran tells us: “But in the present darkness even the spiritual virtues of Islam are blighted.” Oh? What if the present darkness is Islam taken seriously whereas the supposed light of the some idealized past is Islam taken less seriously?
M. K. Beran tells us: “Whatever is divine and true in its orthodoxy has been obscured by a vengeful and intolerant fanaticism.” Really? What if the vengeful and intolerant fanaticism is the real deal? Orthodoxy you say? This is orthodoxy.
And this “reformation” M. K. Beran tells us nice Muslims want a “reformation” Really? A Reformation? Is Islam Christianity in funny hats? It just hasn’t had its “reformation” yet? No. Islam is Islam. If we must compare it to Christianity and it must have something analogous to the Reformation, then it has already happened; and people who don’t like it call it Wahabism. The Salifis are the reformed Muslims in the “Reformation” sense. Sorry.
Islam is not a religion in the sense that the West understands. It is a totalitarian management system for any society that it subdues.
Islam, through Sharia, governs every aspect of a Muslim's life--and most of the penalties for departing from Sharia involve maiming and/or death.
I spent 20 years in the USAF dealing w/ this after the end of the Cold War, and I see no reason for optimism. Bottom line is that this is an ideology that needs to be defeated, just like Communism.
Until we face that very unpleasant fact, we will make no progress. I constantly hear "we are not at war with Islam". Inside the PC beltway, that is certainly the case--but I guarantee that Islam is at war with us, as commanded by the Koran. The way ahead is going to be brutal and ugly once we wake up to these facts. The longer we sleep, the uglier the fix will be.
The revolutions of 1848 were a failure in themselves but were part of the prossess that raised Europe from the dominance of state religion to the tolerance now enjoyed.
We can hope that this rise from superstition to enlightenment will be replicated in the Islamic world (especially as the revolutions of 2011 have been non-religious)
With the emergence of instant communication this time it should be quicker
(Not to play 'Gotcha' - but did you mean 'the light of Averroes....long ago waned dim?)
Two years before my unit guarded the Kuwait Naval Base, that job was done briefly by a unit of the Oklahoma National Guard. We man the perimeter towers and guard the main entry gate alongside Kuwaiti naval personnel.
During Ramadan one of the Indonesian "serfs" walking through the gate was carrying bottled water. Not drinking it, just carrying it. One of the Kuwatis started yelling at the man and beating him. One of the Oklahomans moved to stop this. The Kuwaiti then turned his rage on the American, who promptly felled him with one punch. He jumped up and came at the Oklahoman again...with the same one-punch result. This time, after peeling himself off the blacktop, the Kuwaiti grabbed a length of rebar. At this point another Oklahoman drew his sidearm and convinced the Kuwaiti to desist.
The puncher was flown home overnight to avoid an incident.
While we Buckeyes were there we studiously avoided eating, drinking, or smoking during Ramadan where Kuwaitis could see us. One Kuwaiti officer noticed this and asked why. We told him we didn't want to offend. He replied, "We know you are not muslims. We don't care if you smoke."
If only there were about a billion more guys like him.
Kent B gets it.
I've been reading the Koran (know thy enemy) and there is nothing within its pages to suggest in the least that its followers practice tolerance, acceptance, or moderation.
Quite the opposite in fact.
All this hot air about "moderate muslims" is based on ignorance. There are no moderate muslims - their religion doesn't tolerate it, to even suggest such is apostasy.
Even in the "moderate" emirates the English newspapers are full of hate and ortodoxy. Last week I was in Qatar and the English newspaper was giving an example how Islam is good to women by telling a story on how the prophet (PBUH) made sure he slept every night with a different wife !
KentB and sombreros divertidos are on the same page. I think, though, KentB should have stopped after the word 'religion' (as in: Islam is not a religion). Indeed, Islam is a political ideology pretending to be a religion, and how do you reform a political ideology?
Only men write about the Koran being a religion that offers hope, tolerance, or any form of freedom or pursuit of happiness. Makes me wonder, and saddens me, that they see this Male driven oppressive religion as something that has any redeeming graces to it. The Koran says that half the human race, it’s women, are cattle, no rights except what their men give them, and no pursuit of any kind without the permission of the all-powerful male authority. It is a kind of slavery that the Judaic-Christian women have NEVER been subject to. Even in the darkest of the Dark Ages, the Church upheld it’s women. The only women in Islam that have any freedom are those who’s families are following the ways of the Christian influenced Western world. Yet Western men write about how Islam needs to go through “Reformation and enlightenment” like the Christian church-but that requires going back to the basic’s in your scripture and the basics of the Koran is that women have no rights, their only purpose is to please their husbands and produce children. The Koran never even address women going to its heaven, only one passage that says that IF you please your husband you may join him in Paradise and serve him –never a relationship with Allah, just the man. So don’t give me this great religion that needs reform-it can’t do that without changing its very core.
Interesting point on the state of Islam today. I've posed this question to people I talk to regarding what is going on in the world today. Is it Revolution 1979 or Revolution 1989? I agree, to a degree, with the previous post regarding an Islamic "reformation." After reading the books of Aayan Hirsi Ali & Nonie Darwish, it's apparent Islam needs to go through an enlightenment as the west did. It is something I don't think non-Islamic cultures can impose. All we can do is "get our act together," project our ideas of representative democracy, pluralism, and human dignity. Once we project strength and show we are never going to acquiesce our freedoms and ways of life to Islam, I think the reformers will start to gain some influence. Whether it will happen in our lifetimes, I simply don't know. However, the sooner the better for all of humanity.
