==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On 22/01/2011 12:39, Dan wrote:
Fundamentalist islam, of the sort that is being spread by contemporary
preachers, is not a return to the traditional form of Islam practiced in
rural areas of the Muslim world.
There doesn't appear to be any sense in the category of 'fundamentalist
Islam'. Fundamentalism is a category from Protestantism adverting to a
literal interpretation of biblical texts. Islamism can take a variety
of forms, most of them involving itjihad at some level (ie, precisely
*not* literal interpretation). Though it has usually expressed itself
in a right-wing way, the indeterminacy of religious doxa is such that
Islamism has been compatible with a variety of political forms. Thus,
for instance, liberal Islamists would include Tariq Ramadan and Rachid
Ghannouchi, while leftist Islamists would have included the MEK back in
the day and their maitre penseur Ali Shariati. Egyptian intellectuals
like Hasan Hanafi have moved from leftist to liberal.
What Islamic fundamentalists are preaching is adherence to the strict
interpretation of Islam favoured by the Hanbalite school of thought, and
its Whahabite and Salafist forms.
I'm afraid this isn't very helpful. Salafism in its political uses (ie,
that championed by al-Afghani, Abdu Rida) has little to do with a
'strict interpretation of Islam'. That's one reason why many Salafists
don't accept the legacy of these thinkers, arguing that they were more
interested in building anti-colonial movements than in proper religious
jurisprudence.
Strict control over the body of the worshipper (five prayers a day
following a precise set of genuflections),
Five prayers a day has nothing to do with 'fundamentalist Islam'. Salat
is one of the five pillars of Islam. This tendency for the critique of
fundamentalism to always slip back into the demonisation of the faith
and its adherents is one of the dangers of not taking Islamophobia
seriously.
characterization of the modern
world as being in a state of jahiliya (ignorant idolatry).
This narrow-minded, sectarian world-view, in which the faithful are seen
as a the only true god-fearers amidst a world perverted by jahiliya,
This is Sayyid Qutb's idea, but a) Qutbism hardly exhausts the various
tendencies within Political Islam, and b) while sectarian in its
specific application by Qutb, the concept of jahilliya not necessarily a
sectarian idea. Most of the modern world does live in a state of
ignorance and idolatry. That's capitalism. The idea that marxists
would be scandalised by such a suggestion is frankly rather comical.
Again, it is my view that Islamism is a poison and not a useful ally
in the struggle against Imperialism.
Never mind useful allies. Some Islamists are fighting imperialism,
and some are not. Hamas Hezbollah are fighting imperialism, while the
Saudi clerical authorities are not. If you want to struggle against
imperialism in perfect isolation from everyone you disagree with,
denouncing those to your right as poison, then go ahead. But don't
then complain about 'sectarianism'. Your /noli me tangere/ attitude is
itself the absolute epitome of sectarianism, placing your specious
conception of integrity above the needs of the struggle.
--
*Richard Seymour*
Writer, blogger and PhD candidate
Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/leninology
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer)
Book 1: http://www.versobooks.com/books/307-the-liberal-defence-of-murder
Book 2:
http://www.zero-books.net/obookssite/book/detail/1107/The-Meaning-of-David-Cameron
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
