You are here

The real debate that Islamism should spark

Jul 20,2017 - Last updated at Jul 20,2017

Every few years, it seems the world of Middle East and global policy analysis passes through a phase when a basic question rears its head in the media and in conversations across the world: Is Islamism a dangerous trend of the future in Muslim-majority societies, or a natural passing phase only?

I am struck by how often in conversation with friends and colleagues around the world the discussion so often reverts to this issue — while in daily discussions with Arabs and Muslims across the Middle East, the issue is less frequently raised.

I am not sure if that means that, a) the West is rightly obsessed with this genuine threat of long-term Islamist militancy b) the West has bought the line put out by assorted Arab autocrats who are directly threatened by Islamist uprisings or opposition forces or c) Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East who live with these issues every day recognise that Islamism and its manifestations like the Muslim Brotherhood or Daesh are primarily surface manifestations and symptoms of deeper issues that are not really about religion — but about politics, human nature, and the abuse of power that degrades hundreds of millions of citizens who have nowhere else to turn other than their religion.

I ask this question because it is important that every time this discussion revives, we make sure to debate the right issues, rather than being side-tracked by smoke screens and diversionary propaganda that is now widely disseminated through global public relations campaigns funded by a few wealthy Arab countries that are genuinely worried about the persistence of Islamist movements all around the region.

Do countries like Egypt and some wealthy oil-producers have good cause to fear the durability and even some expansion of Islamist groups regionally and even globally?

I would say the answer is both yes and no.

Yes, they should fear these signs of mass discontent by Islamists and secular others, because an agitated citizenry that translates discontent into political action can generate populist momentum that overthrows governments (Tunisia, Egypt) or sends some countries whose governments fight back into endless civil wars (Libya, Syria, Yemen).

No, they should not fear the persistence of Islamist politics if they correctly read this is a symptom of underlying mass discomfort among politically neutered and voiceless citizens who have been mistreated by their own societies, if these governments are prepared to address the underlying problems and fix them peacefully.

The condition and future of political-social-militant movements that wrap themselves in the banner of Islam and appeal to Muslims in a variety of ways usually sees people talking about “political Islam”.

This broad term can refer to a thousand different movements in a hundred different countries — from local volunteer bakeries that provide food for the needy, to globe-skirting political mobilisation movements that seek to unite all members of the Muslim community (umma) into a single Islamic nation, ideally under a revived caliphate.

I find it more useful to speak of “Islamist” movements, and add an appropriate adjective to identify them as pacifist, activist but non-violent, political action-oriented, community social services-oriented, militant, terrorist, or some other words that differentiate the movements we are talking about.

We all know what we are talking about.

A majority of these movements that frighten many people include, a) the traditional Muslim Brotherhood (that has existed longer than most Arab countries have been sovereign states) and its assorted national recent offshoots; b) killer terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Daesh that attack globally c) country-based armed resistance movements that fight to free their lands from Israeli occupation (like Hamas and Hizbollah); and, d) hundreds of smaller armed, jihadist, local or national movements in between that have now taken root in wild lands like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Mali and Libya.

My main criticism of this common debate is that the Islamist nature of the political groups involved too often frightens people so quickly that they neglect to make a more thorough analysis of why these movements suddenly came into being or expanded quickly across our region or in foreign countries.

The exaggerated emphasis on religion and Islam blocks the more important discussion of the underlying drivers of discontent and degradation in people’s lives that caused them to turn to their religion as a means to do what has mostly been impossible for them to do in other political, social, civic, or media dimensions of their lives — which is to express their grievances, engage in political decision making as full citizens should, hold power accountable, and seek to implement national policies that ensure, rather than restrict, the political, social, and economic rights of all citizens.

 

If governments and their small power elites do not allow citizens to complain about or redress the underlying conditions that disenfranchise and marginalise millions of people in their own societies, they should not be surprised that exacerbated men and women turn in desperation — or in the logical flow of human experience — to their deities to save them.

up
38 users have voted.

Comments

Muslim hatred of homosexuals is the sin. I know many homosexual couples who are wonderful people and good friends. To impose the ideas born a thousand or more years ago on a modern, educated society is ignorance in the name of God. Making women wear ugly covering robes against their will, while the men in their lives run around in shorts is misogyny run amok. The Muslim world will not advance until the religion has an Enlightenment, as has Christianity and Judaism. Thank :You

I don't know what 'Islamism' means, but Muslims who follow the Islamic faith correctly do NOT rise to overthrow Rulers since it is a major sin to do so. We have had civil democracy in Islam since it's beginning. If you ever read hadith or the biographies of the Companions or scholars, you would know it. However, democracy that the west is trying to force on Arabs and Muslims is wherein the c=values, morals and societal norms are destroyed by allowing/ accepting homosexuality, which is a major sin in all the monotheistic religions, according to their own books.

And, Stan, maybe the Arab world would be far more advance if the west hadn't restrained and oppressed it for so long. Your wrong that the people want to be behind. In addition, you should learn to respect all cultures for their intrinsic value and stop believing that following the west is to be modern--it isn't since I view the west as the most backward, hypocritical group of societies on earth.

Rami,
The problem is that both side are not democratic. You are just discussing which "autocratic" regime should be in power. The Arab people lose whomever is in power. So, you have to look at the true nature of the Arab people. The tribalism, the economic view, the view on rights of all.
All of it is pretty backward compared to the the rest of the world (there, I said it).
This is what you have to look at, how to get the Arab people into the 21st. century.
In conclusion, it is not the leaders, it is the people who allow this.

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.