====================================================================== 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