Re: inquiry

I concur with your comments below, and agreed with the substance of what
you had said earlier, my only objection being the characterization of
Islam as "70% war".  I realize that you did not intend to promote any sort
of jingoism, but it is a fact that some posts bearing the subject heading
of "some religion of peace!" (or something along those lines) have been
making the rounds on the internet, hastening to inform all by means of a
few out-of context quotes how Islam means permamnet war against the
infidel.  Like all religions (monotheistic or not, and, I would add,
other-worldly or not), Islam can justify war:  I'm just wary of any
claims of a special propensity to do so on its part.

Having said that, I'm not sure what to make of Khaldoun's parallel between
the Walmart employee and Islam.  Surely, the question of which analytical
framework to implement depends on which question is being asked.  It is
not clear to me that the world-systems perspective is necessarily relevant
if the question is "why is person X poor".  Similarly, in questioning
Muslim attitudes toward militancy, the relevant vantage point of the
totality is that of Islam and not of the modern world-system.  In any
event, Islam, unlike the Walmart employee, certainly existed before
capitalism.  To insist that if it weren't for capitalism, Islam would be
peace isn't substantially different than to insist (as Bush does) that if
it weren't for the terrorists, it would be peace.  There's nothing
contextual about these sorts of readings.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Syed Khurram Hussain wrote:

> 
> 
> At 02:08 AM 10/29/01 -0500, Boris Stremlin wrote:
> >I'm not familiar enough with scripture to give percentage figures, but
> >singling out any religion in particular as the repository of militant
> >values is somewhat problematic.  
> 
> 
> No doubt.  There are militancies all over the world, so its obvious that no
> one religion has a monopoly on militant values.
> 
> 
> 
> >Let's not forget the deuteronomic history
> >of the conquest of the Holy Land (a chronicle whose strict historical
> >value is highly suspect), which has been used as the basis of the entire
> >Zionist project as well as fodder for various types of militant
> >Protestantisms, etc.  I would, like Wallerstein, advise one to stay away
> >from President Bush's theological formulations (though perhaps he will
> >soon restore the caliphate and be crowned defender of the faithful) - it
> >seems to me one can easily condemn the actions of 9/11 without challenging
> >bin Laden on his interpretations of the Quran.
> >
> 
> 
> Agreed too.  Lets keep our distance from George Bush and his rhetoric in
> most matters.  
> 
> But....
> 
> It is misleading to say that "Islam means peace..." in the context of the
> present war.  Islam also means war to some people, in some circumstances.
> Second, it is entirely facile to try and locate the roots of contemporary
> Islamic inspired militancy exclusively in terms of capitalism, modernity
> peripheralization etc...  There is an internal history to the matter too.
> An adequate explanation must locate the rise of inspired militancy in the
> Islamic world at the point where an internal militant trajectory intersects
> with modern conditions.  There are numerous examples of inspired
> militancies in Islamic history prior to its peripheralization under
> historical capitalism.  The point is to locate how that tradition enters
> into the modern world, and selectively appropriates certain aspects of it.
> To argue that all Islamic inspired militancy is exclusively a product of
> modern conditions misses a very long history.
> 
> 
> 
> Khurram Husain
> 
> 
> 
> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Syed Khurram Hussain wrote:
> >
> >> Two things regarding this question:
> >> 
> >> First: suicide bombings were used by the Vietcong and Cuban revolutionaries
> >> as a war fighting tactic long before they appeared in the Muslim world.
> >> They are currently employed by the Tamil Tigers to far deadlier effect than
> >> any Muslim group until the WTC bombings.  So what the "Islamic concept of
> >> heaven" has to do with "9/11 and the US response" baffles me.
> >> 
> >> Second:  it is true that "Islam means peace," but what is meant by peace
> >> here is not peace between states, or  peace defined as an absence of war.
> >> More specifically, Islam means "peace through submission" to God.  Peace
> >> here refers more to a spiritual state than a condition in society.  If you
> >> read the Quran, you will find that 70 percent or so of it is full of talk
> >> of war.  In the rush to counter warmongering jingoism, lets not kid
> >> ourselves.  War is not alien to Islam.  The Salafiyah cadres know their
> >> doctrines on Jihad very well.  They argue that this inner state of peace is
> >> essential to victory in war.  We may not like to agree with them, but it is
> >> not true that war is anathema to Islam altogether.  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Khurram Husain
> >> 
> >> 
> >> At 02:03 PM 10/27/01 EDT, KSamman@aol.com wrote:
> >> >>can anyone briefly discuss the Islamic concept of heaven. in particular,
> >> what role does gender play in >>their conception of heaven. a good friend
> >> is writing a column for a popular audience on 9/11 and the US >>response 
> >> >
> >> >He may want to also ask the question: 
> >> >
> >> >In order to learn more about the Oklahoma bombing and the US sponsoring of
> >> terrorist organizations like the Contras (which killed 20,000 civilians
> >> with the financial aid and training by the US), I'm also interested in the
> >> Christian concept of heaven and especially how it pertains to the issue of
> >> social justice.  Isn't the fact that this question is not asked of "the
> >> West" but yet made repeatedly for Muslims a racialized question, even by
> >> those liberals who are well meaning?  I for one am tired for speaking for
> >> the Muslim world.  "Islam means peace . . ." and all that stuff.
> >> >
> >> >Khaldoun Samman
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >
> >-- 
> >Boris Stremlin
> >bstremli@binghamton.edu
> >
> >
> 

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bstremli@binghamton.edu