The sence and nonsense of Islam-West Dialogue

The sence and nonsense of Islam-West Dialogue



Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad Fri Jan 12, 07 03:59:57 AM
The two weeks lecture and study tour in Berlin hosted by Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO) of more than a dozen Muslim activists and politicians engaged with German politicians and political parties, civil society groups (NGOs), students, the media and the German public, has impacted me significantly on the agenda of 'West-Islam or Muslim-Western Dialogue'.
The program witnessed intense debate of 'Islamists' with salient intellectuals and academics including Professor Anthony Milner of Australian National University and Prof. James Piscatori of the Oxford University.
Meeting with parliamentarians of the foreign committee, engagement with think-tankers of the Konrad Adenaeur-Stiftung, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, the Amensty International, Transparency International and lectures of Prof. Dieter Senghaas on the 'Clash Within Civilization' and 'German History' by Prof. U Preuss were simply intellectually stimulating to say the least, notwithstanding of our various public talks to the German public in the universities.
Shifting from the usual inter-elite or inter-academic discourses which invariably ended in the usual round of apologia and perhaps superficial exchange of courtesies, this experimental project of Dr Farish Noor of the ZMO, was meant to bring his so-called 'unapologetic practitioners' of 'Political Islam' from Malaysia and Indonesia with the 'Western World' with a hope of an outcome with a difference.
Precisely for the reasons mentioned above, I have my earlier apprehension about this West-Islam dialogue, and very reluctantly committed myself to Farish. While such efforts rarely do much harm, they have likewise failed to affect the intended benefit. The deep psychological scars on both sides are often emotional hurdles that make it harder to listen to each other.
Retrospectively though, I could honestly say that it was time well spent. Lest you think that we have solved many problems hence the reason of my satisfaction, the many discourses have indeed raised more questions than answers, which now necessitate further engagement and serious in-depth discourses.
Critical to the prerequisite of a meaningful dialogue must ultimately be premised on the understanding that neither side is required to transform its thought or behaviour. Rather, these must be allowed to remain useful and legitimate qualities recognized by both sides. The question then ceases to be, 'who is better or superior, but who acknowledges and legitimizes the other' in their respective pursuit of expressing and manifesting 'the self' and 'who does not'!
This to me is the defining criteria of a true democrat that understands the demands of plurality in a democracy. This would allow for their respective convictions and program be better appreciated as they would reveal their true nature to one another and possibly overcome or transform negative perceptions or stereotypes, hopefully substituting enmity with understanding and cooperation in due course.
I'm penning down briefly, some pertinent issues and personal reflection on the discourses of the trip.
Firstly, revisiting phraseology.
While not wanting to be excessively semantic or pedantic, ironing out 'politically-loaded' terms that are coinage of both Orientalist thinking and Socio-Political Scientists of both Western and Middle-Eastern origin such as Islamism or Political Islam, Islamic Fundamentalism or Neo-Fundamentalism, radical and moderate Islamist etc would be in order as they are both confusing at best and pejorative at worst.
! That said, some attempt at rationalizing them may be both noteworthy and necessary. It is important that PAS now proposes her own terminology as to how she wants to be described. Pejorative or negative term, the like of describing PAS as 'a fundamentalist Islamic party' invariably reinforces negative stereotyping and has negative implication on the ballot box while it hurts grievously our democratic credentials. Would Democratic Islamist be more favourable and politically-friendly? That alone warrants a discourse.
Insisting on the usage of 'Political Islam' to describe 'Islamic activism or Islamism' as proposed by many Western thinkers, may prove to be fundamentally flawed. Western discourse attempts at representing 'Political Islam', as asserted by Prof. Oliver Roy's basic definition, as 'the contemporary movement that conceives Islam as a political ideology' and describe the people who subscribe to this view as 'Islamists'.
This 'narrow' definition of Islamic activism as 'Islam in political mode' presupposes that Islam per se is apolitical or not political and 'benign'. That's grossly misconceived. In so far as Islam is inherently and intrinsically concerned and interested in matters of government and governance, it is in fact very political from the outset.
The embodiment of the Prophet Muhammad testified to that fact, besides of course the numerous textual evidences and its exegesis. Islam is as much a religion of peace and tranquility of the souls as it is a religion of law that contains and arranges the affairs of and binding on the believers, much like the Ten Commandments of Judaism but with no counterpart in Christianity.
The proposition that Islamists are subscribing to 'Islamism', while 'ordinary Muslims' conform to a form of religious belief that is essentially a private matter is equally unrealistic and faulty. For a large proportion of 'ordinary Muslims' (the ummah) to be responsive to the proposition of the 'Islamists' or the activist minorities, actually reflect the understanding of the vast majority of the 'ordinary Muslims' of the position of Islam as being an intrinsically public matter and its corpus of legal prescription as in fact 'the blueprint of a social order'.
Hence the underpinning reason why so-called 'Islamists parties' throughout the Muslim World have emerged as a major power brokers when allowed to compete in free elections and mandated by the 'ordinary Muslims'. The West must come to grasp with this basic fact, sooner rather than later the better.
Secondly, the lumping of all forms of 'Political Islam' as if they are undifferentiated and a homogenous and monolithic entity, is equally erroneous in its assumptions and misleading in its policy prescriptions by the 'West'. Lumping all 'Islamists' under the rubric of 'fundamentalism' does not help the West to understand Islamic activism and its effervescent tendencies.
It is most unfortunate that the term 'fundamentalist' coined in America in the 19th century to describe anti-modernist Christians, has today become exclusively reserved for Muslims or rather Muslims activists. Initially meant for those who adhere to the literal interpretation of the text, the 'fundamentalist' are now equally demonized and shrewdly made synonymous with 'terrorists', who use illegal force for the fulfillment of their political objectives.
While not wanting to dwell on this topic in great depth, the West must now realize that there are numerous shades of Islamic activism. What they hold in common is their conviction that they found their activism in the tradition and teachings of Islam as contained in scripture and authoritative commentaries. There are significant distinctions in regard to the forms t! hat focuses on political activism, missionary activity or those that have to finally resort to military struggle.
The differentiating varieties of Islamic activism are not so much the relative militancy or moderation with which they express their ideological convictions, but rather determined by the nature of the ideological conviction they subscribed to.
Political Islamists or activists make an issue of the gross mismanagement, corruption, social injustices and failures of Muslim governments and advocate socio-political and legal reforms through democratic process within the ambit of democracy. I have come to be fully convinced that not only is the term 'Political Islam' far from monolithic, each individual actor of the Islamist group must also be studied within its own particular socio-political context rather than resorting to absolute conceptions and stereotyping of what Islamism is or is not.
Missionary Islamists harp on of the corruption of Islamic values and moral decadency of the society at large and give priority to enhancing social and spiritual revival of the 'ummah' for collective salvation and redemption.
Jihadi Islamists admittedly champion the issue of the oppressive weight of the Western political domination and military power in the Islamic world and engage in armed struggle. The West must understand that political radicalization of Islam finds it causes in the very hegemonistic US policies and the diabolical role of the Western power in the Muslim World.
The 'Latin Americanisation' of the American Imperialism in the Middle East, the brutal occupation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state of Israel who of late is hell-bent on strangulating the legitimate Hamas government of the people, the multiple humiliation of Muslims in so many different countries namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and latest in Somalia, marginalization and oppression of several Muslims minorities in Kashmir, Chechnya, Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand and others, invariably make the Muslim world to believe that they are under siege and must fight back.
Little wonder why the Muslim World is enraged.
There could be no justification to any form of violence and terrorism. However, there are underlying reasons why it happened and continue to happen. This is a vicious negative cycle of violence begetting further violence.
Further engagement and discourses should be geared towards articulating the installation of 'Circuit-Breakers' (borrowing Farish's words) in the West-Islam confrontational dialectical paradigm, if the world is ever to witness the light at the end of the tunnel in this very complex and precarious relationship.
Otherwise, the global community will continue to question the sense or perhaps more of the nonsense of this Islam-West Dialogue!
Director,PAS Research Centre.
The sence and nonsense of Islam-West Dialogue



Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad Fri Jan 12, 07 03:59:57 AM
The two weeks lecture and study tour in Berlin hosted by Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO) of more than a dozen Muslim activists and politicians engaged with German politicians and political parties, civil society groups (NGOs), students, the media and the German public, has impacted me significantly on the agenda of 'West-Islam or Muslim-Western Dialogue'.
The program witnessed intense debate of 'Islamists' with salient intellectuals and academics including Professor Anthony Milner of Australian National University and Prof. James Piscatori of the Oxford University.
Meeting with parliamentarians of the foreign committee, engagement with think-tankers of the Konrad Adenaeur-Stiftung, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, the Amensty International, Transparency International and lectures of Prof. Dieter Senghaas on the 'Clash Within Civilization' and 'German History' by Prof. U Preuss were simply intellectually stimulating to say the least, notwithstanding of our various public talks to the German public in the universities.
Shifting from the usual inter-elite or inter-academic discourses which invariably ended in the usual round of apologia and perhaps superficial exchange of courtesies, this experimental project of Dr Farish Noor of the ZMO, was meant to bring his so-called 'unapologetic practitioners' of 'Political Islam' from Malaysia and Indonesia with the 'Western World' with a hope of an outcome with a difference.
Precisely for the reasons mentioned above, I have my earlier apprehension about this West-Islam dialogue, and very reluctantly committed myself to Farish. While such efforts rarely do much harm, they have likewise failed to affect the intended benefit. The deep psychological scars on both sides are often emotional hurdles that make it harder to listen to each other.
Retrospectively though, I could honestly say that it was time well spent. Lest you think that we have solved many problems hence the reason of my satisfaction, the many discourses have indeed raised more questions than answers, which now necessitate further engagement and serious in-depth discourses.
Critical to the prerequisite of a meaningful dialogue must ultimately be premised on the understanding that neither side is required to transform its thought or behaviour. Rather, these must be allowed to remain useful and legitimate qualities recognized by both sides. The question then ceases to be, 'who is better or superior, but who acknowledges and legitimizes the other' in their respective pursuit of expressing and manifesting 'the self' and 'who does not'!
This to me is the defining criteria of a true democrat that understands the demands of plurality in a democracy. This would allow for their respective convictions and program be better appreciated as they would reveal their true nature to one another and possibly overcome or transform negative perceptions or stereotypes, hopefully substituting enmity with understanding and cooperation in due course.
I'm penning down briefly, some pertinent issues and personal reflection on the discourses of the trip.
Firstly, revisiting phraseology.
While not wanting to be excessively semantic or pedantic, ironing out 'politically-loaded' terms that are coinage of both Orientalist thinking and Socio-Political Scientists of both Western and Middle-Eastern origin such as Islamism or Political Islam, Islamic Fundamentalism or Neo-Fundamentalism, radical and moderate Islamist etc would be in order as they are both confusing at best and pejorative at worst.
! That said, some attempt at rationalizing them may be both noteworthy and necessary. It is important that PAS now proposes her own terminology as to how she wants to be described. Pejorative or negative term, the like of describing PAS as 'a fundamentalist Islamic party' invariably reinforces negative stereotyping and has negative implication on the ballot box while it hurts grievously our democratic credentials. Would Democratic Islamist be more favourable and politically-friendly? That alone warrants a discourse.
Insisting on the usage of 'Political Islam' to describe 'Islamic activism or Islamism' as proposed by many Western thinkers, may prove to be fundamentally flawed. Western discourse attempts at representing 'Political Islam', as asserted by Prof. Oliver Roy's basic definition, as 'the contemporary movement that conceives Islam as a political ideology' and describe the people who subscribe to this view as 'Islamists'.
This 'narrow' definition of Islamic activism as 'Islam in political mode' presupposes that Islam per se is apolitical or not political and 'benign'. That's grossly misconceived. In so far as Islam is inherently and intrinsically concerned and interested in matters of government and governance, it is in fact very political from the outset.
The embodiment of the Prophet Muhammad testified to that fact, besides of course the numerous textual evidences and its exegesis. Islam is as much a religion of peace and tranquility of the souls as it is a religion of law that contains and arranges the affairs of and binding on the believers, much like the Ten Commandments of Judaism but with no counterpart in Christianity.
The proposition that Islamists are subscribing to 'Islamism', while 'ordinary Muslims' conform to a form of religious belief that is essentially a private matter is equally unrealistic and faulty. For a large proportion of 'ordinary Muslims' (the ummah) to be responsive to the proposition of the 'Islamists' or the activist minorities, actually reflect the understanding of the vast majority of the 'ordinary Muslims' of the position of Islam as being an intrinsically public matter and its corpus of legal prescription as in fact 'the blueprint of a social order'.
Hence the underpinning reason why so-called 'Islamists parties' throughout the Muslim World have emerged as a major power brokers when allowed to compete in free elections and mandated by the 'ordinary Muslims'. The West must come to grasp with this basic fact, sooner rather than later the better.
Secondly, the lumping of all forms of 'Political Islam' as if they are undifferentiated and a homogenous and monolithic entity, is equally erroneous in its assumptions and misleading in its policy prescriptions by the 'West'. Lumping all 'Islamists' under the rubric of 'fundamentalism' does not help the West to understand Islamic activism and its effervescent tendencies.
It is most unfortunate that the term 'fundamentalist' coined in America in the 19th century to describe anti-modernist Christians, has today become exclusively reserved for Muslims or rather Muslims activists. Initially meant for those who adhere to the literal interpretation of the text, the 'fundamentalist' are now equally demonized and shrewdly made synonymous with 'terrorists', who use illegal force for the fulfillment of their political objectives.
While not wanting to dwell on this topic in great depth, the West must now realize that there are numerous shades of Islamic activism. What they hold in common is their conviction that they found their activism in the tradition and teachings of Islam as contained in scripture and authoritative commentaries. There are significant distinctions in regard to the forms t! hat focuses on political activism, missionary activity or those that have to finally resort to military struggle.
The differentiating varieties of Islamic activism are not so much the relative militancy or moderation with which they express their ideological convictions, but rather determined by the nature of the ideological conviction they subscribed to.
Political Islamists or activists make an issue of the gross mismanagement, corruption, social injustices and failures of Muslim governments and advocate socio-political and legal reforms through democratic process within the ambit of democracy. I have come to be fully convinced that not only is the term 'Political Islam' far from monolithic, each individual actor of the Islamist group must also be studied within its own particular socio-political context rather than resorting to absolute conceptions and stereotyping of what Islamism is or is not.
Missionary Islamists harp on of the corruption of Islamic values and moral decadency of the society at large and give priority to enhancing social and spiritual revival of the 'ummah' for collective salvation and redemption.
Jihadi Islamists admittedly champion the issue of the oppressive weight of the Western political domination and military power in the Islamic world and engage in armed struggle. The West must understand that political radicalization of Islam finds it causes in the very hegemonistic US policies and the diabolical role of the Western power in the Muslim World.
The 'Latin Americanisation' of the American Imperialism in the Middle East, the brutal occupation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state of Israel who of late is hell-bent on strangulating the legitimate Hamas government of the people, the multiple humiliation of Muslims in so many different countries namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and latest in Somalia, marginalization and oppression of several Muslims minorities in Kashmir, Chechnya, Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand and others, invariably make the Muslim world to believe that they are under siege and must fight back.
Little wonder why the Muslim World is enraged.
There could be no justification to any form of violence and terrorism. However, there are underlying reasons why it happened and continue to happen. This is a vicious negative cycle of violence begetting further violence.
Further engagement and discourses should be geared towards articulating the installation of 'Circuit-Breakers' (borrowing Farish's words) in the West-Islam confrontational dialectical paradigm, if the world is ever to witness the light at the end of the tunnel in this very complex and precarious relationship.
Otherwise, the global community will continue to question the sense or perhaps more of the nonsense of this Islam-West Dialogue!

Director,PAS Research Centre.