Islamism and violence

A dialog from the political-islam list, January 1995

Michael Voytinsky wrote:

>You have not given an exact definition of Islamism. However, your
>definition seems to be something like A movement that seeks to
>implement a state run according to the Sharia.

I thought that my definition was quite clear: Socio-political movements which base their ideology on an islamic vision of the world.

I never mentioned the implementation of the Sharia:

Progressive or modernist islamists advocate a new reading of the Quran and the hadith so as to deduce new guidelines adapted to the present situation of the Muslim world.

(Even islamists who demand the implementation of the Sharia sometimes appear to have in mind a selected or at least revised version of it:

Interview of young FIS militants in Alger (before the elections): Of course we don't want to cut thieves' hands! We are all thieves. We would have to start by cutting our own hands.

Interview of a FIS leader: There is no question of implementing islamic penalty for theft in a country where many people have nothing to eat. We shall impose them only in a society in which nobody can be induced to steal by poverty or We shall not implement islamic penalty for unlawful sexual relations in a country where so many young people cannot marry because of the dramatic housing problem).

>>Islamism is NOT NECESSARILY violent, intolerant, etc. ..

>Certain interpretations of the Sharia are neccessarily violent and
>intolerant. Furthermore, such interpretations are by no means
>uncommon.

As you can read for yourself, I never said that islamism could NEVER be violent or intolerant. So, your statement does not contradict mine at all, as you write Certain interpretations...

>How can a movement based on a religious vision of the world not be a
>religious movement?

I said that all political ideologies, even the most pragmatical, are necessarily based on a certain philosophy of the world. This does not make them philosophical movements! For instance, I am sure that you do see the difference between a communist party and a philosophical school of marxist scholars occupying itself with discussing marxist theory (although the militants of the political movement might refer to the ideas of these scholars in their ideology). And, nobody ever had the idea of considering European Christian Democrat parties as religious movements although they claim to base their politics on a christian vision of the world and try to have abortion or contraception banned in parliament.

A religious movement occupies itself primarily with spreading, introducing or reforming religious ideas and religious practices, promoting or rejecting some theological conceptions, etc... Islamic movements don't do that at all. They want to promote a social and political system. Of course, they want to impose their socio-political conceptions on society, but a political movement which wins always does that, one way or another. (I personally do not agree with that, but no political system allows to do otherwise at present).

>However, in this case Islamism is not by itself adequate to
>describe many of the Islamic movements that are on the rise. Some
>further qualifier (with a definition) is need to specifically
>describe the Islamist movements characterised by
>intolerance,predesposition towards violence and strong anti-Western
>sentiment.

>In general, the term Islamic Fundamentalists is used specifically
>to refer to such groups.

(Distinguishing between different islamist movements on the base of their involvement in violent activities seems to me illegitimate, because that violence can be of very different nature in different cases. We can distinguish, for instance:

• Pure islamic violence: that would be: killing or threatening one's fellow countrymen who are considered as bad Muslims.
• The use of violence to destroy the existing order in situations where there is no hope of realizing changes by peaceful means. This is not a characteristic of islamic movements. All political movements in such a situation are confrontated with the same problem.
• Islamist movements developping in an already violent situation taking part in the violence or reacting against it. (For instance, the violent actions undertaken by the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not at all different from the attacks undertaken by all other Palestinian parties at a time of their history. This is not at all islamic violence. The question there is to go on or not with armed struggle).
• Islamist movements involved in a power struggle, but then again it is not a characteristic of islamic movements, secular parties do that as well.
• Of course, different types of violence can be mixed, in concrete situations, which does not make the distinctions easier).

Now I have to make a more general comment. What are we talking about? What is it that we are trying to define? Islamism in itself? Or the Western concerns about it?

There are no Islamist movements characterised by intolerance, and predisposition toward violence (they ALL have a strong anti-Western sentiment, but I don't see what is wrong with it. I even find that Arabs and non-Western people in general have been extraordinarily patient with the West until now). For the Muslims, islamist movements have much more important characteristics than those. A crucial concept in islamic ideology, which has not been mentioned by a single participant until now, is the concept of Social Justice. It is evident that for most Muslims the place taken by that aspect in the program of an islamic movement is a much more important characteristic than its propension to violence.

Seeing the predisposition to violence as a main characteristic of a movement and classifying it on this base, is a Western concern. But this is a preoccupation for security services, not for people who try to understand the phenomenon.

First we have to ask ourselves: Why has Islamism become such an important topic? The answer is: because it is becoming more and more important, because it has more and more followers, because it is successful!

Then, if you want to understand the phenomenon, you have to understand why people are attracted to it, thus, what are its attractive aspects, and not begin with defining it by its aspects which are repugnant to the West! As I already stated, the promise of Social Justice plays a crucial role (in a Western world where it is fashionable to be anti-social under the pretense that socialism is obsolete, that kind of detail is deemed an insufficient excuse for the, for the West, unpleasant sides)

Another aspect which needs urgent study, but which, for reasons which I shall mention below, totally escaped to Western attention, is the NEGATIVE side of Islamist theory, and by negative I mean its critics of the present world. Western thinking has become so furiously positivist in the past decade that it has lost any capacity to apprehend or comprehend negative thinking. Accordingly, the West has taken the habit of designing solutions which it is interested to implement, and, afterwards, creating problems which are supposed to be solved by the projected reforms. (Problems for which no solution has been devised, are considered as non existing, as, in positivist thinking, negative is the same as zero). It goes so far that, when someone expresses a critic or formulates a problem, he is immediately asked: what is it that you want to do?, because mentioning a problem is experienced as a rhetoric formulation to introduce a solution.

So, when Islamists criticize the present world, the West does not pay any attention to the essence of the critics, but thinks:They want to implement a solution. In that way, many Islamic movements are condemned in advance, not on the ground of what they do, but on the ground of what they would probably do in the future if they get the chance.

Being a very old fashion person who still believes in the power of the Negative, I have been much more impressed by the negative side of Islamist theory, i.e. its critic of the present world (the Western world as well as the existing regimes in the Muslim world), than by Western predictions about its future. The important point is ISLAMISM DOES ADDRESS THE CRUCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE PRESENT WORLD

The world is confrontated with a very deep crisis which is

• social
• spiritual
• cultural
• ethical

(The West, which is not able - and does not want to - address that kind of issues, invented a supposed economic crisis, with which it hopes to intimidate those who would raise the real issues).

Islamism addresses those issues explicitely. In that, it is the most modern political movement existing at this moment.

It is only natural that many people feel attracted by a movement which at least formulates the real problems, even if the solutions are not clear yet. It gives them at least the hope that solutions can be found, which is not the case with movements or regimes who just talk about something else.

This is only a superficial indication of the kind of issues I am interested in. The main point at this stage is: What do we want to discuss in this list? The essence of the Islamist phenomenon or the fears it inspires to the West?

Christine Prat, Amsterdam

P.S.: You asked: What is an islamic state? Well, that is just the problem: nobody knows exactly.

Alaa Zeineldine says, in part, The fact is unless forced, most Islamic groups have been trying political or other non-violent means for achieving their aims.

My concern is that the aims, however they are achieved, include the denial of rights to women - women cannot vote, cannot fully participate in society, a woman's testimony in court is only worth half that of a man's, she cannot choose her manner of dress, is not permitted to drive a car etc. etc. Then there is the Islamic law that allows for stoning to death, cutting off hands etc. Islam is repressive and any means that might be employed to achieve an Islamic regime that would not allow for diversity within any given society is of concern to me. of course the violent methods are abhorrent.

I do, however, feel concerned about the cancelling of the election in Algeria - and how can one know the true facts about it. Were tha ballots rigged? Were people intimidated or was it a true reflection of the people's desire to have an Islamic government? In my readings (true or false) there was an indication that if the Muslim <fundamentalists> had won government they would dismantle the democratic system. This presents us with a classical dilemma - was democracy abused in order to preserve democracy? Do the ends justify the means? If we accept that then are we accepting violence as a means to, in some peoples' view, a justified end?

Rosemary

Dr Rosemary Coates

> Alaa Zeineldine says, in part, The fact is unless forced, most
> Islamic groups have been trying political or other non-violent means
> for achieving their aims.

The islamist groups relationship to voilence can't be reduced only to repression from the part of the impopular regimes in the muslim world!. Other factors are very predominant in this relationship for example ideology. Ideologues of the islamist mouvments like Sayyid Qutb legitimated voilence (Jihad) against the Jahili (ignorant) states of the islamic world. The Group of Takfir oua alhijra in Egypt resorted to the fatwa of Ibn taymia (the validity of jihad against the bad Muslims Tatar) to launch their jihad against the kaffir<.q> rulers of Egypt. In Algeria before the regime cancelled the elections of 1992, islamist groups launched their compaign of Jihad (military actions) against the ruling elite of algeria. I think it was in the beginnig of the eighties. Hassan.

Rosemary Coates:

>Alaa Zeineldine says, in part, The fact is unless forced, most
>Islamic groups have been trying political or other non-violent means
>for achieving their aims.
>
>My concern is that the aims, however they are achieved, include the
>denial of rights to women - women cannot vote, cannot fully
>participate in

As far as I know women are allowed to vote in any Muslim country that actually has elections. Nor are there any Islamic groups that suggest that women should not be permitted to vote.

>society, a woman's testimony in court is only worth half that of a
> man's,

True as far as I know.

>she cannot choose her manner of dress, is not permitted to drive a
>car etc.

To the best of by knowledge only the Saudis explicitly prohibit women to drive.

Islam requires modestly of both men and women (eg. miniskirts and muscle shirts would be equally forbidden). The actual definitions of modesty differ considerably and are a subject of much debate among Muslims.

>etc. Then there is the Islamic law that allows for stoning to death,

Stoning to death for adultery is a little excessive, but as long as everyone involved knew ahead of time what the penalty is they should not complain.

It must be added that the Sharia has some fairly strict standards for proof in cases of adultery. Four male witnesses of known good character must see the actual act of penetration - simply having the accussed in bed together is not adequate. (I am speaking here in the normative sense.)

(To the best of my knowledge there is no agreement on whether death or 100 lashes is the appropriate punishment for adultery.)

>cutting off hands etc.

A little excessive, but it does not apply to those forced to steal because of poverty. I believe there is a minimum amount that has to be stolen before the Hadd punishment for theft is applied, but I do not believe there is an agreement to what exactly it should be.

>Islam is repressive

Islam can be repressive, but that is not its essential characteristic.

>and any means that might be employed to achieve an Islamic regime
>that would not allow for diversity within any given society is of
>concern to me.

Any society must have limits on diversity.

There is considerable diversity among the one billion Muslims in the world - and I am not aware of any Islamic group that finds this, in and of itself, objectionable.

>of course the violent methods are abhorrent.

Of course. You must remember, however, that a headline Muslim Does Not Kill Anyone simply would not sell newspapers despite being a better description of a vast majority of Muslims than Muslim Terrorists Hijack Jet, Threaten to Kill Everyone.

>I do, however, feel concerned about the cancelling of the election in
>Algeria - and how can one know the true facts about it. Were the
>ballots rigged?

Not as far as anyone knowns. The Islamic Salvation Front won those elections. If the government was not willing to had over power to whoever won the elections, they should not have bothered with the farce.

>Were people intimidated or was it a true reflection of the people's
>desire to have an Islamic government?

It was a vote though a secret ballot to the best of my knowledge.

>In my readings (true or false) there was an indication that if the
>Muslim fundamentalists had won government they would dismantle the
>democratic system.

Dismantle what democratic system? Algeria does not, and did not have one.

According to one book dealing with the subject of a (hypothetical) Islamic state (I can not recall the title of the book), the government of an Islamic state would not have the authority to introduce any law that is contrary to the Sharia - regardless of voter wishes.

This is not inherently anti-democratic - the governments of many Western nations have no authority to introduce laws that are contrary to their constitutions, regardless of voter wishes. (The difference being that constitution can be changed, with some difficulty - while the Sharia is often regarded as eternal.)

>This presents us with a classical dilemma - was democracy abused in
>order to preserve democracy?

There was no democracy there to abuse.

>Do the ends justify the means?

That depends on the ends and the means.

Michael Voytinsky
michaelv@globalx.net