Re: Islamic Militancy: It is their problem

---

Greetings,

Since this debate is turning out to be extremely useful for me to think through 
some issues related to world systems, I'd like to spend a little more time on 
it and respond to the useful responses made by Hussain, Stremlin, Sherman and 
Boles.

First, Hussain (and Stremlin):
<<I don't know what to tell your Wal Mart employee as to why he makes a minimum 
wage>>
The point I was trying to make with introducing the Wal Mart employee is to 
simply remind us that while many of us have no problem in seeing the limits of 
an Oscar Lewis type of explaination with the plight of this one working class 
example, we get ourselves confused when we turn our attention to explaining 
such other issues like the rise of Islamic militancy.  All too often I am 
confronted, no barraged, daily with extremely orientalist like explanations 
when Islam is at issue, and not just with the Huntingtonites (Clash of 
Civilization) of the world but by self proclaimed progressives as well. I mean, 
just imagine if I made the argument that the Wal Mart minimum wage worker is 
where he is at in life because his cultural universe is tainted with a 
dysfunctional like quality that is holding him back.  We would all know 
immediately where this position stands in relation to the Bill Gates of the 
world.  Yet when it comes to the Islamic world it is not uncommon to hear from 
those same people that the Islamic world contains deep within its soul an 
essential propensity to pull out its sword and massacre innocent civilians in 
the name of Jihad.  Look at, for example, Benjamin Barber's otherwise useful 
study, Jihad vs. McWorld.  He does an excellent job demonstrating the mutual 
dependence of global corporate capitalism with that of cummunalist and 
fundamentalist movements in many parts of the world.  But when he comes to 
Islam all of a sudden he changes the tone of the argument to one where he 
returns to a classic orientalist line: the Islamic world is different than 
Europe in so far that it fails to separate the two spheres of religion and 
politics.  What's his proof?: The Quran.  Hence, there is no need to look at 
the past century where in fact the state of Islam (its political body) was so 
dismembered that an individual living in 1850 would not be able to recognize 
the same Islamic real estate some 70 years later, no matter how much he read 
the Quran and no matter how much he prayed to Allah and no matter how much h
e repeated the call to Holy War then or now.  Abraham, Moses, Mohammad, 
Ishmael, Isaac may all still dance in his imagined head at night, but the fact 
that US warships, Israeli helicopters, Bay Watch, Arnold Schwartznager, Colin 
Powell, and McDonalds are located a stone throw away from his most sacred 
religious site in Mecca, that dance is going to be to a very different tune.  
Hence, the expression may feel and look like it was taught to him/her by 
reading scriptures in the madrassa, but in actuality it is a product of 
confronting a world in which your livelihood is at the hands of a superpower, 
and by that I don't mean Allah but the good old US of A.  
Now for Sherman's response:
<<implied in Samman's analyses is that when "the modern world system arrives", 
previous local dynamics become irrelevant>>
As you can see with Wal Mart, I always make my arguments with analogies.  This 
time I'm going to use slavery.  Some of you may know much of these debate, but 
one of those has led to a cluster of political claims.  Many of us know that 
slavery was transformed radically in the sixteenth century when it became 
linked to race and brought in to the new plantation system.  Yet conservatives 
of course don't see it that way.  They see it from "time-immemorial", and by 
that they mean "stop blaming Europe for Slavery.  The Arabs, even the Africans 
themselves practiced slavery centuries before the Europeans."  Hence, in making 
this a-historical claim they think they can wash Europe's hands clean from 
their role in instituting a modern form of labor control.  In this instance we 
know what these people are up to and can respond with little hesitation and 
argue that in fact their historical arguments are but anything historical. Yet, 
again, when it comes to Islam all is lost.  Both Sherman and Hussain are, 
admittadely, better social scientists than Bernard Lewis, and there hearts are 
in the right place.  But their arguments, while more convincing, would be 
something appreciated by people they despise.  Yes, we need to consider the way 
"local dynamics" become relevant, especially the way they are appropriated 
historically.  But what part of history are you talking about?  I don't think 
Sherman means that what happened in seventh century Arabia is by definition the 
"local dynamics" of Sept. 11th 2001?  No, I think that what he means is that 
when a Palestinian's home is being destroyed by Israeli US made helicopters and 
four of his children are walking around with no limbs, the fact that he carries 
a green flag with citations of the Quran is related to local dynamics of that 
struggle for existence.  I'm not being sarcastic.  I know Steve's politics, and 
he is exceptionally pro-Palestinian.  But he, like the rest of us, need to be 
careful to use historical arguments in context of history.  Hussain's remarks 
(first posting) that 
Sherman is calling useful was conflating religious revival movements of 
centuries past to claim that Islam has always had a militant streak.  Thus, 
history has been told.  No, that is not history I am afraid, but a Bernard 
Lewis like argument: "Islam has always been militant, and the west has nothing 
to do with the chaos of the region".  Hence, just like slavery, the Bill Gates 
of the world has once again washed their hands clean.  But unlike Slavery, many 
of us miss the ideological ramifications of our claims.

(Boles, I'm sorry I didn't respond to you but I'm tired).

Khaldoun Samman  

---