War of Ideas against Islam Chapter # 4 Scholars at war with each other
There is another reason why there is extreme reluctance on the part of government officials and the media to openly criticize Islam. This also applies to many business people, bankers, and people who are involved in such specialties as international tourism. And, of course, there are the airlines, shipping companies, and the worldwide web.. Basically, this is to discuss people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. What also needs to be taken into account are trade deals between nations, multi-lateral treaties, international organizations, and the interests of the US State Department and similar agencies of other countries. Additionally there is the "fear factor." What happens when Islam becomes open to widespread criticism? The preponderant feeling is that "all hell would break loose." The result could easily be military conflict. Better to leave well enough alone, is a common sentiment, have faith in gradual reform and the workings of the kinds of social processes discussed in Francis Fukuyama's 1993 book, The End of History (the full title is The End of History and the Last Man). By that hypothesis, liberal democracy has already won the global cultural war, every other system is on the way out. The book isn't too difficult to read; parts are even fairly good reading. Much or most of it consists of in-depth analysis of the philosophical premises of different political systems. There is discussion of Hegel, Marx, Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Machiavelli, and still other thinkers in terms of how their ideas fit into the logic of international relations in the post-Cold War era after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not that I was in much of a rush to even buy the book. After all, it re-used the title of a journal article of mine, published in 1972 in Social Studies magazine, "The End of History." There are two Google entries available online. Essentially my article looked at the implications of abandonment of history requirements at an increasing number of colleges and universities, predicting a number of dire consequences which have largely come true. But, alas, I am not given any credit in Fukuyama's book. Still, his book, while it includes a number of very questionable conclusions, is thoughtful and information rich. And if his primary thesis is wrong, or no better than right now-and-then, he presents a model of how history works and the direction we are all headed in. According to Fukuyama, the thrust of civilization is like a wagon train of the American West during the heyday years of Manifest Destiny. Actually there are several wagon trains but they are all headed for Oregon Territory, viz, liberal democracy. Some wagon trains (countries) will get there first, others will follow during the coming months (which represent decades). One or another wagon train will set out to go someplace else but find that their destinations, like a Nevada desert (signifying a Soviet-style state), were not good and should be rejected. A few wagons might find special niches, like (both for the 19th century and the 21st century) the Mormons, or like Singapore with its authoritarian capitalist hybrid system, but by-and-large everyone else finds their way to Oregon, to liberal democracy in some form. This is the optimal system despite some flaws, and nothing else works nearly as well. History, defined as the search for "the best" feasible system, which gave rise to monarchies, totalitarian empires, mercantilist nations, theocracies, and so forth, comes to an end because all the alternatives to liberal democracy have been tested and found wanting. Approximately 90% of all societies, more like 95%, are or will be won over. The geopolitical process of experiment and testing has ended, or soon will end, and with that, history comes to its conclusion. You've got to admit that this does seem to be roughly true. History is kind of like a wagon train going to a destination. Some wagons are in the vanguard, some lag behind, most are in the middle. But what about the last such 'end of history,' say 1500 AD, when the system of state monarchies was triumphant just about everywhere? Any other alternative was virtually unthinkable. Yet today there are fewer and fewer monarchies -which exist as anachronisms where they exist at all. Given all the weaknesses of liberal democracy, like its susceptibility to nihilist values and half-baked libertarian panaceas, it would seem advisable to think that some new system would arise and make liberal democracy obsolete. The new system might still be liberal, still democratic, but be based on a strong source of cultural authority that renders nihilism and libertarianism unviable, left behind on the scrap heap. "End of history" theories like Fukuyama's not only are premature, they defy the laws of social evolution. On this subject, another book is very relevant, Samuel Huntington's 1996 opus, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. This book, which grew out of an article Huntington published in Foreign Affairs in 1993, says that history is culture-driven, if not totally, to very great extent, and if we want an objective view of geopolitical reality we need to think in terms of Western civilization, Confucian-derived civilization, eastern Orthodox primarily Russian civilization, etc, and the antagonism between all these civilizations and Islam. To be sure, there are rivalries between, say, Western civilization and Confucian civilization, between Western Civilization and Orthodox Russian civilization, etc, but the major fault line now is between all other civilizations and Dar al-Islam. And in at least one instance the fault line is constantly active and always lethal, that between Hindu civilization and Islam. In other words, the 20th century was an aberration. The rise of large scale ideological states with secular agendas was followed in each case by the fall of these empires. Good riddance to Communism and Fascism / Nazism. And with these ideologies behind us, the cultural past -based on a foundation of religion- is reasserting itself nearly everywhere. There are exceptions, of course, specifically the Anglosphere (America, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc), Europe, and Japan, and we might add that Latin America is moving in this direction, but elsewhere religion is on the rebound, with India leading the pack. And one of the major phenomena of modern times has been the massive growth of Christianity in the global South, especially in Africa. Lutherans in Africa now outnumber Lutherans in Germany on the order of 2:1, for example. Meanwhile Pentecostalism and its Christian sibling, Charismatic faith, now totals somewhere around 300 million adherents -found in places like Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines. All of this cannot be ignored. Not that there aren't problems with the "Huntington thesis" also. And let us note that Huntington also borrowed a title for one of his books, The Third Wave, which originally was a 1980 volume by Alvin Toffler, in that case also on the subject of the rise and fall of civilizations. Huntington's book of that title explored the vagaries of how democracies spread and their problems along the way. But is culture, rather than state interest, really what explains why wars are fought? This proposition is often true but it is far from consistently true. Among other things there never seems to be a shortage of lunatics who are able to gain power, and no dearth of criminal dictators, either. And how does anyone explain Saddam Hussein by reference to the "Clash of Civilizations" metaphor? After all, the Iran vs. Iraq war was fought within a civilization. As have a number of wars in Sub-Saharan Africa. What all of this says is that Fukuyama's hypothesis is a reasonable approximation of the direction of history in all civilizations -except Islam. Huntington is all-too-right about the incompatibility of Islam with all other civilizations even if he isn't clear about why this is so, namely, the structure of Muhammad's religion itself, which sees the world in terms of its mission to conquer every society on Earth, hence its intrinsic enmity to all other religions even when some forms of accommodation are allowed like second class 'citizenship' for dhimmis, Jews and Christians and sometimes some additional faith like Zoroastrianism in Iran. Still, no political system is ever "pure." All political systems are mixtures of some kind. And if liberal democracy is everywhere ascendant this hardly means that state capitalism isn't viable in countries like China and Saudi Arabia, or that democracy may not exist in a form that is limited in scope as it is in Singapore, Argentina, or Kenya. Or the Philippines with its history of corruption in government, making it an on-again / off-again kleptocracy. But where are there true liberal democracies in the Muslim world? There once was one in post-colonial Pakistan, which even elected a woman as head of state. But increasing Islamification has meant decreasing democracy and the rise of anti-liberal Shariah law. And you can say something similar for Turkiye and Indonesia. . Elsewhere in Dar al-Islam you find various forms of authoritarianism even if, as in Iran, there is a similitude of democracy; but ultimate power rests with the mullahs and the so-called Republican Guard. In other Muslim lands the situation often is much worse, as it is in Gaza, Mali, Sudan, Afghanistan, and so forth. Where the situation is better, as it is in the Gulf States and Jordan, it is always necessary to add "yes, but" inasmuch as the rulers are monarchs or sheikhs or the like. And, of course, Islam also generates more failed states than any other civilization, hence Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Maybe Sub-Saharan Africa is approximately as bad, but this is a comparison that has no upside. Anyone who is objective even in a minimalist sense has to admit that Islam and democracy are no better than a bad fit and often do not fit at all. And why would anyone think it could be otherwise? Islam is intended, by design, to encompass both religion and the state. This is engraved in its so-called holy writ and sanctioned by centuries of authoritarian rule in the name of God. Islam is "other," it is antithetical to Western and other modern cultures and to liberal democratic values. It is about time we said so, clearly, unmistakably, and openly. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
