Since after the September 11th 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the US, many attempts have been made to understand why some followers of Islam would carry out such an act. Among some of the reasons that have been given is that of the resurgence of religion in the contemporary world. This narrative that stresses the importance of religion has even argued that unlike Western liberal societies that prize individual freedom, many non-Western societies, including Muslim societies, see religion as paramount. The warnings went out that unless religion is taken seriously, the Western world will fail to understand much of contemporary international relations.
My aim here is not to suggest that religion is not important - in fact, religion is important to both Westerners and other peoples around the world. However, my aim here is to point out that such a reading of the place of religion in non-Western societies, including Islamic countries, mistook oppression for religious resurgence. Most people around the world have always been religious. There is no clear proof that more people in the non-Western world have suddenly become religious, as the language of religious resurgence might suggest. What has rather been going on in much of the non-Western world is that people have been so oppressed in these societies that they have been gripped by fear. This fear has made them docile and this docility has made them to allow a few selfish people to define what the interest of the majority is or should be. Thus it is that a few people like Osama Bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Qaddafi, Ben Ali, have argued that Arabs be understood mostly in religious terms. Thus, North Africa and the Middle East have come to be interpreted in mostly religious terms. Since the goal in international relations was perceived as putting a lid on religious fundamentalists, issues of standards of living and the need for freedom have hardly been addressed. Oppression thus came to be interpreted as the resurgence of religion, as scholars went on to argue that Islamic militancy must not be understood in economic terms. According to these authors, people are not mad because their economic situation is despicable; they are mad because their religion is not respected. Supporting dictatorships in the Arab world was rationalized as attempts to undermine religious zealots.
The current uprising in North Africa and the Middle, if anything, gives the lie to this narrative. It says that even though people love the religious life they also love democracy and a better standard of living. The cry we have been hearing from demonstrators have been cries for freedom and better standards of living. These cries even confounded Osama Bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood, quintessential representatives of the supposed religious resurgence. Henceforth, no leader, not even a religious leader, in North Africa and the Middle East will be safe if they fail to grant their people freedom and a better standard of living. Nick Kristof is essentially correct when he insists that the fear that religious fundamentalists would take over in these countries is unfounded. In the future, religion will continue to be important, but it will be just as important as freedom and a better standard of living for the people.
My aim here is not to suggest that religion is not important - in fact, religion is important to both Westerners and other peoples around the world. However, my aim here is to point out that such a reading of the place of religion in non-Western societies, including Islamic countries, mistook oppression for religious resurgence. Most people around the world have always been religious. There is no clear proof that more people in the non-Western world have suddenly become religious, as the language of religious resurgence might suggest. What has rather been going on in much of the non-Western world is that people have been so oppressed in these societies that they have been gripped by fear. This fear has made them docile and this docility has made them to allow a few selfish people to define what the interest of the majority is or should be. Thus it is that a few people like Osama Bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Qaddafi, Ben Ali, have argued that Arabs be understood mostly in religious terms. Thus, North Africa and the Middle East have come to be interpreted in mostly religious terms. Since the goal in international relations was perceived as putting a lid on religious fundamentalists, issues of standards of living and the need for freedom have hardly been addressed. Oppression thus came to be interpreted as the resurgence of religion, as scholars went on to argue that Islamic militancy must not be understood in economic terms. According to these authors, people are not mad because their economic situation is despicable; they are mad because their religion is not respected. Supporting dictatorships in the Arab world was rationalized as attempts to undermine religious zealots.
The current uprising in North Africa and the Middle, if anything, gives the lie to this narrative. It says that even though people love the religious life they also love democracy and a better standard of living. The cry we have been hearing from demonstrators have been cries for freedom and better standards of living. These cries even confounded Osama Bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood, quintessential representatives of the supposed religious resurgence. Henceforth, no leader, not even a religious leader, in North Africa and the Middle East will be safe if they fail to grant their people freedom and a better standard of living. Nick Kristof is essentially correct when he insists that the fear that religious fundamentalists would take over in these countries is unfounded. In the future, religion will continue to be important, but it will be just as important as freedom and a better standard of living for the people.
1 comment:
Being from the South, I know that without a desire to know more about Islam, what it stands for and what its true practices are, you will be left in a false light of images and lies the media will feed you. And without the necessary knowledge to grasp the true intentions and desires of true muslims, I can see how easily these false points of view are garnered. The points made about oppression are very important in understanding the Middle East and Islam, it is not correct to think that Osama bin Ladin and those behind the 9/11 attacks, etc. are practicing jihadi (jihadi is only justifiable in counter attack situations). Oppression by these high profile individuals can eaily be mistaken for a resurgence of religion. But these leaders are just as bad as the worst African dictator, ruthless regardless of religion. The upsurge in calls for higher standards of living and freedom should be viewed as strictly democratic. They are only citizens wanting the same opportunities we as westerners have. They just happen to be Muslim, Americans happen to be a conglomeration.
Post a Comment