Home > Decoding the Islamic Riddle, Pt. 2
Religions-Beliefs Governments USA
Leadership over people who share in a given group feeling
cannot be vested in those not of the same descent.
"The Muqaddimah" ibn Khaldun
The Administration’s use of the term, Islamo (Islamic) Fascism is unfortunate not only because it’s a blatant misrepresentation of both radical Islam and true Fascism but because it further confuses an extraordinarily complex situation. Rather than deal with the complexities, the Neocon tacticians have opted for schoolyard name calling in order to hyperinflate the drama, or more precisely, are themselves acting radical in demonizing an enemy that is otherwise difficult to define. Obviously, the more accurate, ragtag terrorists, or, rogue Islamic militants, aren’t capable of generating as much fear. And now that ballots in America will soon be cast, fear is of paramount importance, which begs the question: Home of the brave? Yeah, in part, but not on the whole.
What people ought to be most afraid of is that the Administration misperceives the circumstances so badly that one misstep after another in a tragic series of asinine moves and the world will inexorably be engaged in WWIII, not very long from now. Which would invariably lead to an extreme shortage of oil supplies, a meltdown of the U.S. economy, a reinstatement of the draft, millions of innocent lives lost, a restructuring of global allegiances that would prompt China to choose sides, a good chance for a pandemic, vast environmental waste, and the end of democracy as we know it. And Israel? Who knows what will be left of it. Currently, it’s got quite a few formidable enemies outside of Islamic circles, much less the ones within them.
What needs to be understood in order to prevent this relentless chain of woeful miscalculations from continuing? The overall perspective that Muslims in general and Iraqis in particular have regarding the West, democracy, secularism, and the modernity that is rapidly encroaching into their world as an unsolicited, and often, unwanted phenomenon. Granted, such insight could fill books and still there would be mysteries. But one key element of Islamic life is largely being neglected, which, if it were better understood, could reorient the debate and shift priorities: Tribalism.
Because of the peculiarities of Western evolution, especially Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Enlightenment, and the ascent of individualism, the concept of tribe was significantly weakened at an accelerated rate when compared with the rest of the world. Yes, Jews have great affinity with one another, as do Italians, the Irish, and African Americans, to name a few, but quite often these relationships are subordinated by geographical separation, corporate and/or political loyalties, and upward mobility whereby individuals go off on their own pursuing prosperity without relying on tribal connections. There are exceptions, but they’re minimal, e.g., nepotism, small businesses run by families, insider connections. Even in many of those cases, the connections yield opportunities as opposed to mutual sacrifices and increased interdependency, which have historically served as the basis of tribal living.
Trace many lines of succession back to their roots in America, such as banking, and you’ll customarily see values-related ties such as Protestantism, prestigious universities and country clubs, that far outweigh tribal connections. At the heart of this development is Emerson’s self-reliance, along with the sense of self-sufficiency a nation full of roving immigrants developed through their journeys to improved living. This notion, which is inextricably tied to the sense of democracy and capitalism America is attempting to spread around the world, is alien to cultures that still heavily rely on tribal connectivity, especially many Islamic societies.
That’s because the world has evolved in different ways, at different times, and isn’t all headed in the same direction, much to the chagrin of the Neocons who want a uniform, end-of-history democratization of all the so-called backwards people of the world. The terror of 9/11 may have been the animating factor, but the Neocons already had a plan in place - PNAC - to reshape the Middle East, and any other region that got in the way in order to pacify prospective trouble spots. And since imperialism is no longer acceptable among civilized nations, the program of pacification was essentially designed as a Convert-to-Democracy campaign. And under the auspices of spreading what appears to be an unimpeachable idea - good old democracy - politicians, the media, and many American voters have given the Neocons a pass without seriously examining the efficacy of such a utopian aim.
Few people in high places have publicly asked, "And what do the Muslims think of such a plan?" "Will Muslims do better in democratic societies?" "What are the odds that those societies, like America in 1676, aren’t ready for institutionalized democracy?"
For ibn Khaldun, the brilliant Muslim historian, it is qubila - tribal solidarity - that is essential for maintaining the sense of community necessary for a great society. Without it, he insisted, societies decline and fall. His view is similar to the scheme Vico put forth: All nations rise and fall in a cycle consisting of three phases. The first phase is the poetic age of the gods, e.g., Homer. The second is the age of heroes, e.g., Alexander the Great. The third is the age of humans, e.g., the Enlightenment, when the sense of the divine has been lost and luxuries triumph. For Khaldun a society’s embrace of luxuries fractures the tribal solidarity necessary for defending itself against infidels and maintaining a level of trust so that palpable unity can thrive.
Tribal solidarity is an ancient idea, and, granted, one that varies over time. But, in the Islamic world, which is ruled by the poetic spirituality of Muhammad’s Qu’ran, there remains a taste of the ancient that’s more implicit than explicit, more metaphysical and less materialistic. After all, the Prophet cannot be visualized, to a great extent because amorphous poeticism cannot be rigorously deconstructed and delegitimized as easily. This poetic attachment to antiquity is, effectively, a defense mechanism for the sake of sustaining Islamic supremacy. It keeps many Muslims with one foot in yesterday and one foot in today, which makes it exceedingly hard to step into tomorrow - the domain Neocons are pressuring Islamic countries to be in.
The age of heroes for Muslims is also quite different. Muhammad is, universally (except for secularists), the supreme hero. After that, however, the chain of command is far less certain, in large part because of the imperialist history of the Ottoman Empire, and because, at least on paper, nearly every hero has to be a righteous Muslim. Exacerbating the situation is widespread illiteracy. A rule of thumb is that the less people read, the more likely Muhammad serves as their unitary hero.
Clearly, because the Islamic world hasn’t yet experienced a revolutionary event like the Enlightenment, it hasn’t yet moved into Vico’s third age. And because of the fear of modernity expressed by Khaldun as well as more modern ideologues like Sayyid Qutb, there’s a distinct lack of enthusiasm for doing so. Just as Europe was less than enthusiastic to adopt Enlightenment ideas during the Dark Ages. Consciousness hasn’t yet reached that point. Yet they’re feeling the pressure to change. But because of their historical affinities to tribal living, other worldly religious affiliations, and their distaste for Western imperialism and materialism, there is, and will continue to be, great resistance.
Just as Bush has confused the situation here by calling "Them" Islamic fascists, they are, likewise, calling "Us" devils. The definitions are different, but the demonization is the same. As long as the discourse remains polarized, the chances for accommodation are very slim. If, however, the dialogue would change, and reflect the anthropological circumstance - the level of societal evolution - that has occurred in the Islamic world in an exchange that would itself be democratic, then quite possibly Muslims would increasingly develop an appetite for Emerson’s self-reliance and Jefferson’s sense of liberty. Until then it’s going to seem like a bad western with the good guys wearing white and the bad guys wearing black.
Following are three links providing excellent narratives about the relevance of Tribalism in Islamic culture:
http://www.mepc.org/journal/9406_fa...