|
|
|
| CPDS Home Contact | |
| Introduction + |
Introduction In September 2002 the present writer suggested that challenging the ideology of Islamist radicals, rather than reliance on security / military tactics, would be the most effective method of dealing with the risk of terrorism by extremists (see Discouraging Pointless Extremism).. In April 2009 others noted that a process for de-radicalizing potential terrorists (by challenging the ideology of Islamist extremism) had been developed as a matter of necessity in Muslim-dominated nations. and could potentially be of value elsewhere ("A radical case for treatment", The Australian, 4-5 April 2009).
Unfortunately the suggested this process is too narrow. It can only solve part of the risk that extremists pose to their own and to others' societies (ie the 'religious' component of Islamism). It can not deal with its 'political' component. A significant motivator of the Islamist view that others are seeking to destroy Islam appears to be the pervasive economic weakness of Muslim dominated societies and their often-unsatisfactory political systems. Those political and economic limitations arguably have their origin internally in the broader world-view that scholars have erected around the religion of Islam - as this (for example) leads to social arrangements that constrain people's ability to learn and achieve the rapid change that economic prosperity requires (see Discouraging Pointless Extremism, 2002). While challenging radical 'religious' ideology will reduce security risks to others, it will not be sufficient to overcome the constraints on the prospects of Muslim dominated societies that arise from the broader world-views that Muslim-insiders have erected around the religion of Islam. This document records an exchange (with an individual whose name has been suppressed) that arose as a consequence of circulating comments along the above lines on 4 April 2009. |
| Response 16/4/09 + | Response 16/4/09 from
XXX - and CPDS Reply of 17/4/09
CPDS Reply of 17/4/09 Thanks for your suggestion that people should not impose their way of life on others. It deserves a considered response - which can't be simple. I thoroughly agree with you that using force in other countries is undesirable. However, as I understand it, there are many reasons that countries do so. At times this might involve an attempt to capture other territory / resources / assets or expand a country's influence. Such motives were certainly common in history (eg consider the spread of Islam in the 7th century, or the spread of European influence around the world between 16th and 19th centuries). At present, most major powers would claim that their goal is defensive. For example, US strategists who are concerned about the possibility of major future wars seem to take the view that 'pre-emptive (minor) wars' can stop the development of threats which that lead to major future wars. They also respond (understandably) to threats of terrorism which, in the current environment, are likely to eventually result in the use of WMD. Though, most of the Islamist extremists who have been responsible for attacks against Western societies have probably been based in Western societies, the grievances that motivate the extremists seem to arise from problems in Muslim-dominated societies which are thus seen to need to be 'fixed' to eliminate the terrorist threat - and this suits the Western Islamist extremists because they hope such interventions will mobilize many to their cause. I suspect that we would both agree (and that even US strategists are finally beginning to suspect) that pre-emption and trying to 'fix' other's problems by the use of force is likely to be counter-productive to everyone's interests. The same weakness, of course applies, to Muslims who might attempt to impose their way of life on others by force (eg see comments about No Dialogue: Only Da'wa - which apparently was an extremist's virtual declaration of holy war in 2004 to force everyone to change to Islam; and claims of violence on the borders between Muslim societies and many others as attempts are made to expand the faith, perhaps at a cost of about 250,000 human lives annually). However, even without the complexity of force, attempts to impose a different way of life may well be ineffectual. For example, the US's goal in Iraq was presumably not only to eliminate the destabilizing influence on the Middle East of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, but also to impose a successful political and economic system which could be a model for, and thus potentially transform, the Middle East. However the US's idea of such a system was democratic capitalism - because this is what works in the US. But the domestic effectiveness of democratic capitalism in the US (such as it is) depends on a large number of cultural and institutional preconditions that were simply not available in a country like Iraq (see Fatal Flaws). Thus, even if there had been no conflict involved, it is unlikely that the system that has made the US successful could have been grafted into Iraq. In history, peoples' ways of life have constantly been changing as a result of external influences. For example innovations such as agriculture, the smelting of iron, industrialization etc have spread from their origins - because others saw them to be advantageous rather than because they were imposed. Similarly social innovations (such as companies) and intellectual innovations (such as science) have been copied and enhanced by societies other than those that originated them. Even where change has been imposed by external force, history shows that at times the effects can be beneficial. For example, the British Isles has arguably been the most invaded region on earth over the past 2000 years. But the people's ability (for some reason) to absorb (rather than perpetually resist) whatever new influences were thrust upon them by endless invasions created a society which at one time was immensely successful - and whose influence spread through the world and remains - eg through the free association of 'Commonwealth' countries which based their political and economic systems on the 'British' models that had emerged from so many different sources. You suggested that the world should be big enough for people to live and let live. I suspect that this is now impractical, because improvements in communication systems and high levels of international social, economic and political interactions now make isolationism impossible. Also, while I don't agree with imposing changes (by force or otherwise), I believe that it can be immoral not to attempt to influence others' way of life - if that way of life causes others to suffer disadvantages. For example, indigenous communities world-wide want to both: (a) maintain their traditional way of life; and (b) enjoy the material benefits that can come from modernisation. A recent UN declaration on the rights of of indigenous people seems internally contradictory and a formula for perpetuating the disadvantages those peoples suffer, and thus to be dubious morally (see UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Perpetuating Disadvantage?). Culture is arguably a major factor in people's ability to be materially successful and to live in harmony with others because it affects people's goals and aspirations; the way they understand reality (and thus how they go about solving problems, and whether they can develop technologies); their ability to learn, to cope with risk and to change; and the institutions their society maintains. The fact that few want to consider the practical consequences of cultural assumptions (out of a 'virtuous' desire to 'live and let live') may be the main cause of conflict in the world (see Competing Civilizations). It is also arguably the main cause of the humanitarian disaster reflected in the existence of (about) 21m refugees in the world. Cultural limitations affect Muslim dominated societies in particular - ie people wish to maintain their traditional way of life even though (for reasons that they presumably don't suspect) it probably disadvantages them. This was the theme of my earlier email (see above). As I understand the situation, the broader world view that was constructed around the religion of Islam (which perhaps simply reflected earlier traditions in the Arabic societies in which Islam emerged) has imposed an inability to learn, adapt and change on Muslim people that has unnecessarily disadvantaged them (eg see also About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science). I don't accept your suggestion that "The only thing that is radicalizing people is this [ie outsiders'] insistence in interfering, occupying and imposing ones will on others". As I understand it, frustration with the Muslim world's lack of progress in recent centuries is the major problem - and, while it is convenient to blame this on others' interference, this is not the real problem. People need the opportunity to work these things out for themselves, rather than having change imposed. This was the reason for the process I suggested in Discouraging Pointless Extremism, which would allow the practical implications of the Islamist ideology that seems to motivate extremists to be better understood by Muslims. Pakistan's recent decision to allow the application of Shari'a Law in parts of that country is likely to prove in 10-15 years time to have been a useful step towards increasing understanding of the limitations of Islamism - providing conflict can be contained. But the problem is even more complex - because a desire to preserve a traditional way of life from outside influence (ie for isolationism) can lead to attempts to force others to change their way of life. I recently saw a presentation (America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony) which suggested that East Asian societies preferred dominance by China to the current Western style world order because they like to be 'isolationist' (eg they prefer outsiders not to mention internal 'human rights' abuses) - and it is my understanding that they prefer this because they have a different (ie communitarian rather than individualistic) notion of what constitutes 'human rights'. However the presentation also suggested that traditionally 'isolationist' China is now seeking to become the world's dominant power - because the intensity and immediacy of influences on it from the broader world have made isolationism seem impossible. If this is so, China's goal in seeking to change the nature of the global order would probably not only be to create a global order in which Han Chinese people were dominant, but also a world in which people would in future not interfere in others' way of life. This was one of the principles for collaboration that China's premier implied in an address in Australia a few years ago (see China as the Future of the World). However this would; (a) involve not doing anything to help those who were disadvantaged by their way of life; and (b) involve a system in which social elites were regarded as the ultimate authority on the nature of moral behaviour - outcomes that would probably be of some concern to truly serious Muslims. |
| Response of 18/4/09 + |
Response of 18/4/09 from XXX + CPDS Reply of 18/4/09
CPDS Reply of 18/4/09 What I was trying to suggest is that there is a need to look within for the major causes of the problems that Muslim dominated societies have suffered. Living in accord with the Islamic way of life may seem normal and desirable - but there are limitations in assumptions about the world / universe generally that have been elaborated around Islam that need reconsideration in my opinion. I have made some study of the path to 'progress' in both Western and East Asian societies, and can see serious constraints in the assumptions that have been made by some Islamic scholars. For example, while at one time scientific progress was led by Islamic civilization, this did not result in all that much application of the results and since that time assumptions seem to have prevailed which impede progress even in pure scientific knowledge (see Islamic Science). It is of concern to me that those who promote Islamism (ie the adoption of Islam as the basis of state power) do not seem to be asked to prove to their followers that this would actually work in practice. The assumption that all problems must be the fault of outsiders who (for some obscure reason) want to 'enslave the Muslim world' is a convenient excuse for ignoring such practical questions, but until it is challenged Muslim people's situation is unlikely to improve. You suggested that "Islam has never been a turn the other cheek way of life". If this is so, and remains unchanged, I fear it will take Muslim people a long time (perhaps forever) to get beyond real and imagined past injustices to look at what is required for practical success. |
| Response of 23/4/09 |
Response of 23/3/09 from XXX + CPDS Reply of 23/4/09 CPDS Reply 23/4/09 Certainly being left alone to 'get on with it' would be of benefit - as there would then be no one left to blame. This was the reason that I suggested that moves such as establishing a region in which Shari'a law applied in Pakistan would be of benefit in demonstrating whether Islamism would actually work. But whether such an experiment would have any chance at all depends on eliminating violence - and it seems to me that people whose world-view is based on the assumption that their problems are the result of external oppression would have great difficulty renouncing violence (and thus that they would not just be left alone). Leaving people alone to 'get on with it' was the basis of the containment policies applied to the former Soviet Union (for example). It took from 1917 to 1989 for Russian people to recognise that the communist model was an economic and political failure - and for about half of this period the world faced the threat of nuclear war. The world is going to demand a pretty high standard of non-violence from any other system of experimental political economy - because the risks otherwise will be seen to be too high in an era in which WMD have proliferated. Iran is a situation were an Islamist model has been given a chance - and (as I understand it) the outcome has been an economic disaster (and a social disaster also if European journalists can be trusted as reliable observers). If Muslim people want to be left alone to 'get on with it' they simply need to renounce the use of violence - like Ghandi did in his passive resistance movement which saw India gain independence in 1947. However it is worth noting that India took decades after being left alone to 'get on with it' before it actually started to succeed. My suggestion is that Muslims would benefit by finding out now whether the creation of an Islamist state would actually be worth achieving. My suspician is that, if this were done, Islamism would be recognised to be likely to reinforce the main causes of the political problems and economic weaknesses that Muslim peoples have tended to suffer in recent centuries. Why not do the 'thought experiment'? Outside interference can't prevent Muslims from doing this. |
| Response #2 of 23/4/09 | Response #2 of
23/4/09
from XXX + CPDS Reply of 27/4/09
CPDS Reply of 27/4/09 I am on the record as suggesting that security / militaristic 'solutions' are unlikely to be effective as a response to violence - and I would respectfully suggest that, if you genuinely wish to advantage Muslim peoples, you could take a useful lead in espousing a similar response to violence by others. Malcolm-X has not been alone in taking the view that "We will be non-violent with people who are non-violent with us". Thus violence begets little but more violence. Unless someone breaks the cycle it will, as I suggested before, take Muslim people a long time (perhaps forever) to get beyond real and imagined past injustices to look at what is required for practical success. Yasir Arafat's was hopeless in a practical sense when when given a chance to govern as the first president of the Palestinian National Authority because the PLO had never seriously studied the arts of peace, only the arts of war. It's situation was, of course, complicated by conflicts between Hamas and Israel - but that problem might have been greatly reduced if Arafat's regime had not been so ineffectual in actually governing. Regimes founded on violence tend to be be unstable - because people have long memories and such regimes are seen to lack legitimacy. France established its First Republic through revolution in 1792 - whereas Britain negotiated a similar transition (from the ancient regime in which kings and nobility ruled autocratically) with very little violence. France has had something like 5 subsequent revolutions. Britain has had none. I noted that you have some suggestions about how a future state based on Islam might function, and would like to suggest that some of those principles need further consideration. For example:
|
| Response of 28/4/09 |
Response of 28/4/09 from XXX + CPDS Reply of 28/4/09
CPDS Reply of 28/4/09 Thank you for clarifying where you think the world (or at least part of it) is heading. Some observations are:
|