I don't see this in a Huntington context, although i can see how the two could get easily conflated. I see this more as a discursive dialogue of societal norms that are being driven by the entrenchment of secularism vs the rigidness of religious traditions that are based interpreted ancient texts. Again, this transcends the likes of Nawaz or discussions about radicalism. Its an important debate to be had as society evolves and different cultures continue to interact with one another.
Maajid Nawaz
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I don't see this in a Huntington context, although i can see how the two could get easily conflated. I see this more as a discursive dialogue of societal norms that are being driven by the entrenchment of secularism vs the rigidness of religious traditions that are based interpreted ancient texts. Again, this transcends the likes of Nawaz or discussions about radicalism. Its an important debate to be had as society evolves and different cultures continue to interact with one another.
I gave you the examples already Raoul in my first reply to your question. He blacklisted a whole raft of peaceful Muslim organisation. Here is a link to the list itself:I've yet to find any evidence of this. Do you have any ?
It is rather troubling that you would like someone who has reformed his radical ways and is actively speaking out against it to be in prison.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57458694/Preventing-Terrorism-Where-Next-for-Britain-Quilliam-Foundation
And here is an article from the Guardian to place said list in its correct context:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/04/quilliam-foundation-list-alleged-extremism
Now, is that enough evidence for you?
It's only an entrenchment for the people who are on the extremes of the debate though Raoul. It's a total misnomer because it has been proven for decades that you can be religious and sincere in your belief and still thrive in a Western, democratic society. External circumstances have been responsible for the situation to develop in the way it has, and opportunists like Nawaz have capitalised upon it for their own gain and kudos.
Having this debate only helps those who either a) want to see the destruction of the Western hegemony; or b) want to see the destruction of organised religion. How people live their lives is of no consequence to me as a Muslim, and I'm sure that is the same for over a billion of likewise sincere, practising Muslims the world over. After all, one of the underpinning principles of the faith is that we are all held accountable for our own actions.
I do agree with some of this, although i don't see why both sides can't have their arguments heard in this as neither western hegemony nor organized religion should be immune from scrutiny. If for example, one view advances the idea that most of the problems are a residual response to colonialism then that's a valid view. If another view advances that interpreting ancient religious texts into modern day life is deeply problematic, the that too should be heard. Ultimately its about the intersection of different ideas and we should avoid situations where bad ideas don't go unchallenged out of fear that the insecure are offended. It doesn't have to be a binary debate between these two particular issues - it can be more nuanced, but we should never stifle discussion.
"This is a truly shocking document, and it is little wonder that the Quilliam Foundation marked it as being not for public disclosure. In effect, Quilliam – a body funded very generously by the government through Prevent – are attempting to set themselves up as arbiters of who is and is not an acceptable Muslim. Their document specifically contains a McCarthy-type list of large and established Muslim organisations that they regard as suspect and smears them as being 'Islamists'."I've yet to find any evidence of this. Do you have any ?
It is rather troubling that you would like someone who has reformed his radical ways and is actively speaking out against it to be in prison.
Full article can be found on the following link.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/04/quilliam-foundation-list-alleged-extremism
Thanks Sults, I read the article when Rotheram posted it. I don't see any issue with the list being confidential - as its a private document between the government and one of its then funded think tanks. As for the substance of the actual document, its a 65 page PDF, about 60 pages of which are a top to bottom assessment of Prevent within government and educational institutions, which doesn't seem anything objectionable since Quilliam was then a beneficiary of government funds and would be quite within its rights in providing the government an assessment of the current landscape as it sees it. Finally, and briefly, on pages 59-60, it breaks down what they see as three different cones of Militant, Revolutionary, and Entry level/Political Islamist groups (ie groups that have a political softspot for Islamist narratives). Some of the groups may or may not belong in their appropriate columns, I don't know enough about each group to make such a call.) Other than that, I see nothing remotely objectionable about the report - its basically a standard report commissioned by the government to a government funded think tank.
To be fair, I find it quite objectionable he lists majority of perfectly peaceful Muslims are either terrorists or sympathisers. It's on par to comparing most Americans agreed or sympathised with the horrendous crimes committed by some members of the US army.
I could be wrong here, but the objection is with the third grouping of "Entry level / political Islamist groups". Its perfectly conceivable that the while these groups may be benign and working towards helping communities, that elements of their membership, including various leaders, may have expressed views that are sympathetic with Islamist narratives.
You're wrong, Raoul.
Like @rotherham_red already pointed out most Muslims groups in the UK are apolitical and follow the Sufi tradition. Like yourself, I don't expect posters on here to know the difference.
Have you read the report Sults ? It specifically references Sufi groups as being a force for good, which spefically matches up with what you're suggesting.
Traditional South Asian and Sufi approaches to Islam
The majority of practicing British Muslims ascribe to traditional South Asian schools and traditions of
Islam. These traditions are most often represented by the Deobandi and Barelwi schools of thought,
while other ethnic groups such as Somalis also follow their own local Sufi orders.These traditionalist
groups are unlikely to have any sympathy with the modern ideology of Islamism, although some
individuals from these groups may well hold conservative social values which can threaten
to undermine integration and threaten national cohesion. These groups do not, however, generally
represent a terrorism-related security threat and engagement involving (where necessary) a values-
based challenge could, if done correctly, yield positive results.
• Many of the largest mosques in Leeds, Bradford,East London and Luton follow traditional
South Asian forms of Islam.
• In addition, there are several national groups that are mostly influenced by Sufism . At present,
many of these groups are still growing but in time they may become a substantial force for good.
The majority of practicing British Muslims ascribe to traditional South Asian schools and traditions of
Islam. These traditions are most often represented by the Deobandi and Barelwi schools of thought,
while other ethnic groups such as Somalis also follow their own local Sufi orders.These traditionalist
groups are unlikely to have any sympathy with the modern ideology of Islamism, although some
individuals from these groups may well hold conservative social values which can threaten
to undermine integration and threaten national cohesion. These groups do not, however, generally
represent a terrorism-related security threat and engagement involving (where necessary) a values-
based challenge could, if done correctly, yield positive results.
• Many of the largest mosques in Leeds, Bradford,East London and Luton follow traditional
South Asian forms of Islam.
• In addition, there are several national groups that are mostly influenced by Sufism . At present,
many of these groups are still growing but in time they may become a substantial force for good.
Cheers Raoul. I had not come across the article previously. However, being very active in community matters I knew most UK Muslims follow the Sufi tradition.
I agree that there should be a forum or arena where ideas, even around religious dogma, can be challenged, and indeed, Islam's past (especially during the Middle Ages) shows that the religion itself is not opposed to the wide circulation of ideas or debate.
The problem however, is that this debate is always considered in almost a vacuum; a vacuum in which Islam and Muslims are forced onto the defensive. And I'm not sure if this is the appropriate method in which this debate can exist, because as 'bad' as these ideas may be to you or anyone else, these ideas are taken to be the literal commands of God to over a billion people. The vast majority of whom live under repressive dictatorships which have been propped up by a Eurocentric & American imperial hegemony, or live under difficult conditions due to either the foreign &/or the economic policies of these very same nations.
So as you can see and hopefully appreciate, that this arena for debate could be taken to be yet another attack on Islam as a way of life. If this debate was framed in such a way as to be sensitive to the adherents of faith, then I have little doubt there would be cause for concern amongst Muslims. When we see frankly disgusting Islamaphobic imagery from the likes of Charlie Hebdo, then you would see why Muslims take umbrage at Western pleas for debate.
Furthermore, you rarely, if ever, see a debate framed where the actions of the powerful are held under any form of scrutiny. Unfortunately, it's a natural phenomena and one that is almost impossible to change.
JzK bro :-)
The problem is Raoul, his statements since this report have been to vilify the Deobandis. These are two examples from his Twitter feed after one simple Google search, both of which were on the first page of the search:
And when the Charlie Hebdo incident had occurred, a demonstration of mainly Barelvis had protested in defence of the Prophet. These people, lest we forget, are nothing more than taxi drivers, and shopkeepers, who's most political activity is to vote Labour when the General Election comes around. Maajid's response? Was to tar them with the 'Islamist' brush. Calling these people the same people who urged death to Salman Rushdie during the Satanic Verses. When it was in fact, the Shia Ayatollah of Iran who put the Fatwa bounty on his head... As I've said numerous times, he's scum and his apparent kudos with non-Muslim liberals is probably in the gutter, along with his long-lost respect amongst Muslims and his soon to be ended political career.
Was this the protest - http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rotest-against-muhammad-cartoon-charlie-hebdo
If so I agree with you that it's silly and stupid to compare the people in that protest, with others who hand out deaths threats.Also I've heard Maajid mention the 'Islamist' thing as well before and I've thought it was a silly and just adds to the stereotyping. It's just better to call it what it is, if someone has bigoted opinions whether it's be because of their religion or not call them a bigot. All these sub groups and names is too black and white(and unhelpful for everyone involved)
Although I will say that protest(And I'm not trying to stick up for Maajid here)is a clearly a worry still.
Last edited:
Yep, it was that exact one. He had a Twitter rant about them on the day it occurred but it has seemingly been lost amidst all his recent debacles.
I understand how such a protest may seem like overkill to what may be a relatively innocuous coverpage, but the thing is (and I know it is a hard concept to fathom) we as Muslims, especially the Barelvi Muslims in the UK, are brought up to place the Prophet ahead of our own blood. What his example represents, is perfection in human form. When that is denigrated, the very least that you are expected to do, is defend it.
In Britain, popular protest has been an instrument for legitimate dissent. From the days of the Chartists in the 16th and 17th Centuries, right up to the Miners' Strikes in the 80s. So in essence, all the protests were, were a legitimate recourse to express our dissatisfaction, and Maajid, the self-professed progressive Liberal, was at the very least mischievous and hypocritical in his denouncements of that protest.
Sorry I update my last post when you quoted me.
I've never being religious myself,so the idea as you mentioned of the Prophet(Or any higher power) being a head of your own blood is a concept I don't think I ever understand.
But I agree with you that naming these people as 'Islamist' is well pretty stupid and more importantly untrue. I've got the impression Maajid is somehow trying to connect the civil rights moment that happened US with what's happing now. Although I have no idea how that would work, let alone if it's even a good idea. But yes naming a group of thousand as one ideology has never worked out well for anyone.
However I do think that it was sad that the no news outlets the showed Charlie Hebdo cartoons particularly the one's after the attack(Although they did show the cartoons on newsnight which was odd).I mean the protesters in the article are protesting against the same very laws(freedom of expression)that they are using, which is...... well anyway.
At the moment there's lots of people from the far left and far right looking for answers(I'd also image there's a decent living to be made of this so called 'conflict' e.g. George Galloway,Bill Maher ) when there really none out there. Well not that won't years or even decades.
It's all a bit shit really.
Last edited:
Ah apologies mate, just seen your edits.
Yeah, it is a shame when you put it like that. But what you have to remember is the context. A lot of those involved at the protest were simple people from areas of low educational attainment and low socioeconomic status, who were unhappy at the turn of events. They certainly weren't supporting the attacks (Muslims from groups such as the Barelvis are considered heretics from the likes of ISIS et al).
I doubt they thought much of the concept of Freedom of Expression, because in their minds, the debate is not framed in this manner (largely because they don't have much of a clue about the ECHR). All they see, is a figure who is beloved to them being attacked, and all they are doing is attempting to defend his name and honour. It really is as simple as that.
The concepts of the Freedom to express, offend, or criticise are not issues which tax the mind of the ordinary, everyday Muslim in the UK, as they are more concerned with what is going on back in their mother countries. I mean, the people of my dad's generation get their news and current affairs from the Satellite TV Stations in Pak & India FFS! They literally don't have a clue what is happening on their doorsteps... Hopefully things will get better in this regard in the coming generation. Certainly, thanks to the internet, there is a much larger circulation of ideas across the globe and Muslims are perhaps potentially the biggest beneficiaries of this dispersal of ideas.
Personally, I didn't agree with the protest because they have been shown to be inadequate in the modern, globalised era. I would have preferred the use of such things as the #WhoIsMuhammad hashtag which was a real eye opener to many non-Muslims and which showed the beauty of his character, and offered a glimpse as to why over a billion people attempt to follow his example in all aspects of their lives.
I think we'll be here all day with Hebdo. My issues with it are more the fact that it was symptomatic of the general media attitude towards Muslims. Only, it went to the extent of flaunting its disdain towards Muslims (among other groups - often minorities, it has to be said).
I didn't really care much for it, and if it had been published, I don't think I would have been arsed either way. Where the issue is, is with the presence of the fringe minority of fanatics whose bait Hebdo took when they published the cartoons (as I said earlier, this debate only plays into the hands of those who exist at the extremes of the debate). Even disregarding the notion that they shouldn't have published the cartoons because it caused offence; they should have taken security concerns into account, if for nothing else, it would have been an act of self-preservation.
Furthermore, unfettered Freedom of Speech/Expression simply does not exist. We didn't let Gerry Adams talk to the TV screens of the UK for national security reasons during the 80s and 90s, for example.
Yeah, it is a shame when you put it like that. But what you have to remember is the context. A lot of those involved at the protest were simple people from areas of low educational attainment and low socioeconomic status, who were unhappy at the turn of events. They certainly weren't supporting the attacks (Muslims from groups such as the Barelvis are considered heretics from the likes of ISIS et al).
I doubt they thought much of the concept of Freedom of Expression, because in their minds, the debate is not framed in this manner (largely because they don't have much of a clue about the ECHR). All they see, is a figure who is beloved to them being attacked, and all they are doing is attempting to defend his name and honour. It really is as simple as that.
The concepts of the Freedom to express, offend, or criticise are not issues which tax the mind of the ordinary, everyday Muslim in the UK, as they are more concerned with what is going on back in their mother countries. I mean, the people of my dad's generation get their news and current affairs from the Satellite TV Stations in Pak & India FFS! They literally don't have a clue what is happening on their doorsteps... Hopefully things will get better in this regard in the coming generation. Certainly, thanks to the internet, there is a much larger circulation of ideas across the globe and Muslims are perhaps potentially the biggest beneficiaries of this dispersal of ideas.
Personally, I didn't agree with the protest because they have been shown to be inadequate in the modern, globalised era. I would have preferred the use of such things as the #WhoIsMuhammad hashtag which was a real eye opener to many non-Muslims and which showed the beauty of his character, and offered a glimpse as to why over a billion people attempt to follow his example in all aspects of their lives.
I think we'll be here all day with Hebdo. My issues with it are more the fact that it was symptomatic of the general media attitude towards Muslims. Only, it went to the extent of flaunting its disdain towards Muslims (among other groups - often minorities, it has to be said).
I didn't really care much for it, and if it had been published, I don't think I would have been arsed either way. Where the issue is, is with the presence of the fringe minority of fanatics whose bait Hebdo took when they published the cartoons (as I said earlier, this debate only plays into the hands of those who exist at the extremes of the debate). Even disregarding the notion that they shouldn't have published the cartoons because it caused offence; they should have taken security concerns into account, if for nothing else, it would have been an act of self-preservation.
Furthermore, unfettered Freedom of Speech/Expression simply does not exist. We didn't let Gerry Adams talk to the TV screens of the UK for national security reasons during the 80s and 90s, for example.
As a Muslim i would also second what rotherham_red and Sultan have been saying about Nawaz, he appears to be completely out of touch with the dynamics of Muslims in Britain and more importantly the dynamics of the different sub groups. His vindictive and blanket assertion on groups that have no problems of radicalisation as being terrorist sympathisers alienates him even more, radicalisation is not a big issue in British mosques, someone of his 'expertise' should know that on the contrary it's the people who stray from the main groups that get radicalised majority of the time online.
The Barelwis and Deobandis/Salafis are busy quarreling with each other over Aqida issues let alone propagating Sharia law in the UK or discussing apostasy. He makes big issues that are completely irrelevant to Muslims in Britain, the whole over emphasis on stoning issue for example has absolutely no relevance to British Muslims as this is not an issue for us in our day to to day lives. We live in a country that allows us to practice our religion freely and our religion teaches us to abide by the law of the land and the vast majority do, obviously you get the odd idiots like Anjem Choudhary who get a platform just because he says controversial things but he's part of the minority. One thing for sure is that this radicalisation is not happing within the mainstream Muslims/groups and someone with Nawaz's supposed 'expertise' should know that.
The Barelwis and Deobandis/Salafis are busy quarreling with each other over Aqida issues let alone propagating Sharia law in the UK or discussing apostasy. He makes big issues that are completely irrelevant to Muslims in Britain, the whole over emphasis on stoning issue for example has absolutely no relevance to British Muslims as this is not an issue for us in our day to to day lives. We live in a country that allows us to practice our religion freely and our religion teaches us to abide by the law of the land and the vast majority do, obviously you get the odd idiots like Anjem Choudhary who get a platform just because he says controversial things but he's part of the minority. One thing for sure is that this radicalisation is not happing within the mainstream Muslims/groups and someone with Nawaz's supposed 'expertise' should know that.
Something that I've just come across today that you may find of interest Raoul, specifically regarding your above contention:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/eras...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
@Sultan you might like to have a read also
Something that I've just come across today that you may find of interest Raoul, specifically regarding your above contention:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/04/islam-philosophy-and-west?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/a_millennium_old_argument&utm_content=buffer998d8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
@Sultan you might like to have a read also
Thanks, good article. I also watched Neil DeGrasse Tyson's linked YouTube clip, which is well worth a watch to contextualize his argument relative to the article. An interesting question that comes out of this is....What the hell happened to intellectual advancement in the Islamic world from 1100 to the 20th century ? I'm not much of a history buff, but have always been curious why it lagged behind Europe so much during much of that period ?
The Mongols decimated Baghdad and the House of Wisdom. I think the library at the time had 70,000 books or works, and less than 10% of that was saved.
@2cents will probably be able to add more depth.
@rotherham_red - Great article (and great posts from earlier). Have you read 'O, my beloved son?'
@Uzz pretty much gave the short answer regarding Baghdad, but even in the Levant and Islamic Spain, there was a lot of intellectual enquiry during what the West would term the Dark Ages. I personally feel the Muslims of that time felt complacent and were too busy engaging in infighting (there was as much as 4 different Caliphates during this period at any one time), and when the Reformation and Enlightenment had occurred in Europe, the Muslims (or rather, the rulers) just didn't adapt to the new order. The blame predominantly rests with the Caliphs of that era for not keeping their eyes on the ball, instead trying to cling to power when their Empires were crumbling from within, both literally and in intellectual terms.
@Uzz I can't say I've come across it, but I'll see if I can grab a copy somewhere, thanks for the recommendation bro
This was a massive factor, imo. I remember the Hashashin sect perpetually would cause minor uprisings, or little pockets of strife, which didn't help. The crusades also set us back a fair bit too.
@Uzz I can't say I've come across it, but I'll see if I can grab a copy somewhere, thanks for the recommendation bro
Tbh, I haven't actually read it myself. I stupidly turned down a 10 week course on studying the book (and now regretting it)! I just thought you might've read it. But it's definitely on my list as well.
inshaAllah
Yeah, then you had the Safavids in Iran in almost perpetual conflict with the Ottomans, who were also not the biggest fans of the Fatimids of Egypt... And lets not even get started on the extent of the Regicide that occurred within the Caliphates also.
There's a reason why the vast majority of Muslims don't regard none of the Caliphs beyond the first 4 Rightly Guided as being true Caliphates.
Europe had plenty of infighting and feckery too.
Exactly.inshaAllah
Yeah, then you had the Safavids in Iran in almost perpetual conflict with the Ottomans, who were also not the biggest fans of the Fatimids of Egypt... And lets not even get started on the extent of the Regicide that occurred within the Caliphates also.
There's a reason why the vast majority of Muslims don't regard none of the Caliphs beyond the first 4 Rightly Guided as being true Caliphates.
On the Caliphs - my own personal view on the issue is that we need to look at what the Caliphs did for Islam. The Umayyads and Abbasids, although not perfect, did a lot for Islam, in terms of spreading the message, territorial gains, etc. on a case by case basis. I know plenty of people who dislike Mu'awiyah, but then, plenty of people think he's good. It's an interesting topic, nonetheless.
There are a huge range of opinions on this. The classic 'Orientalist' view was that Muslims got complacent, and convinced of their own superiority they felt they had nothing useful to learn from infidels beyond military technology. This is not really accepted by today's historians, who point to, for example, the amazing cultural achievements of the Ottomans, Safavid Iran, and Mughal India deep into the 17th century (e.g. the Taj Mahal was completed in 1648).
One factor commonly cited by mainly Arab Muslims of a nationalist leaning in the last century and a half was that the ascendency of the Turks in Islam, with their martial traditions and lack of intellectual curiosity, stymied the further development of Islamic civilization. Something not much talked about anymore is that from around the mid-9th century onwards, the major Islamic dynasties were often ruled by Turkish slave-soldiers who lived very much in isolation over the Arab and Persian populations they ruled, and who valued power and stability over the kind of free-thinking which generally helps drive intellectual achievement.
On the other hand, some historians believe the coming of the Turks actually helped not only to save Islam (the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt, which is the supreme example of a Turkish slave-soldier dynasty, expelled the last Crusaders from the Syrian coast and defeated the Mongol advance west from Baghdad), but also to spread the faith into new lands, most notably Anatolia and India in the 11th century, and south-east Europe from the 14th century onwards.
Another obvious factor is the change in the world's economy produced by the European voyages of discovery. Not only did the discovery of the Americas saturate the world's gold market, driving prices down at the expense of the Middle East, but the Indian Ocean trade was diverted around southern Africa, cutting out the large Islamic landmass sitting between Europe and East Asia where Muslim merchants had acted as middlemen. The associated loss in profits could only have hurt the progress of Islamic culture.
I would say that pinpointing one particular event, such as the destruction of Baghdad or the Crusades, does not help explain much. The Crusades in particular had very little effect on Islamic civilization, confined as they were to a very small part of the Islamic world. It's only really in modern times that Muslims have become focused on the Crusades, as they seek to draw parallels with modern European imperialism. But at the time, they were regarded as a minor episode. The Mongol invasions were obviously a major event - Ibn Taymiyya, who ISIS guys seem to regard as semi-divine, wrote his major works in the aftermath of the Mongol destruction of the Middle East, hence his gloomy worldview. On the other hand, the Mongols soon embraced Islam, and helped to drive the post-1258 cultural advancement which peaked in Mughal India.
It should always be remembered that the apparent 'decline' of the Islamic world vis-a-vis Europe is hardly unique, it's something all the major civilizations (China, India, etc.) have had to grapple with since the rise of Western power.
Here's an interesting blurb from a book on the economic decline of the Middle East I've been meaning to read for a while, haven't got round to it yet. As far as I know, despite the title the book is NOT a basic restating of the classic Orientalist view:
(Edit): One of his articles here, well worth a read - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67035/timur-kuran/west-is-best
(Edit): One of his articles here, well worth a read - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67035/timur-kuran/west-is-best
Good posts @2cents, this topic is something that I am really interested in, and if it wasn't for the fact that my major interest in my Masters was on Development as opposed to my minor (which was International Political Economy), I would have probably done my dissertation on a topic on something similar to these posts, as opposed to what I did do it on, the effects of the Israeli occupation upon the disabled in Palestine.
I can't say that I have read around the topic as much as you have, I just have a passing interest at this point in time. My personal view, as a Muslim, is that the fundamentals of the religion were forgotten by the later Caliphs, where the predominant view was to hold on to power at all costs, be it from external rivals such as the British & European powers in general; or the internal tensions and strifes they had with their fellow Islamic rivals. The Ottomans for example, were far too politically naive, especially during the episodes with Russia. This hunger and lust for power, fed into and fortified their interests in subjugating the masses, by curtailing the extents to which intellectual debate could occur. Furthermore, the diffusion of ideas and debates from around the world was speeding up with the rapid developments brought about by the Industrial Revolution was something which the Muslims did not take much heed of initially, and when they did, it was too little, too late.
I'm probably wrong though, and its certainly a simplistic view of a situation which, as you have highlighted, is open to a fair degree of debate and nuance. Either way, I definitely need to read around it a little more as it is fascinating, as economic history and the histories of development always are.
On Kuran's article that you posted though, I've only skimmed through it so I may be wrong, but I'm a little bit concerned that it views the potential future development of the Middle East as hinging on the extent to which the economic institutions of the West are mimicked. This is a view which I am a little wary of tbh, that whole Modernization agenda espoused by the likes of Rostow et al just smacks of Eurocentricity, I would even call it a form of economic Orientalism.
My views on such aspects of development are coincidentally enough on my blog, which I had to write for one of my modules on my MSc last year, though this module was more focused on the politics of the development, as opposed to the economic theories, though obviously there is a big degree of overlap. Feel free to take a look: https://omarrashid01709.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/theories-of-political-development/
Just as an aside, is this an academic interest of yours? It certainly seems like it!
I can't say that I have read around the topic as much as you have, I just have a passing interest at this point in time. My personal view, as a Muslim, is that the fundamentals of the religion were forgotten by the later Caliphs, where the predominant view was to hold on to power at all costs, be it from external rivals such as the British & European powers in general; or the internal tensions and strifes they had with their fellow Islamic rivals. The Ottomans for example, were far too politically naive, especially during the episodes with Russia. This hunger and lust for power, fed into and fortified their interests in subjugating the masses, by curtailing the extents to which intellectual debate could occur. Furthermore, the diffusion of ideas and debates from around the world was speeding up with the rapid developments brought about by the Industrial Revolution was something which the Muslims did not take much heed of initially, and when they did, it was too little, too late.
I'm probably wrong though, and its certainly a simplistic view of a situation which, as you have highlighted, is open to a fair degree of debate and nuance. Either way, I definitely need to read around it a little more as it is fascinating, as economic history and the histories of development always are.
On Kuran's article that you posted though, I've only skimmed through it so I may be wrong, but I'm a little bit concerned that it views the potential future development of the Middle East as hinging on the extent to which the economic institutions of the West are mimicked. This is a view which I am a little wary of tbh, that whole Modernization agenda espoused by the likes of Rostow et al just smacks of Eurocentricity, I would even call it a form of economic Orientalism.
My views on such aspects of development are coincidentally enough on my blog, which I had to write for one of my modules on my MSc last year, though this module was more focused on the politics of the development, as opposed to the economic theories, though obviously there is a big degree of overlap. Feel free to take a look: https://omarrashid01709.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/theories-of-political-development/
Just as an aside, is this an academic interest of yours? It certainly seems like it!
Yeah I'm no expert at all on economic history, much of it goes over my head. I'll be sure to have a look at your blog.
Last edited:
Ah good stuff mate.. Like I said, it's something that I am definitely interested in myself. Hope the PhD goes well for you!
Something to consider perhaps regarding counter-messaging
I read this earlier today! Very illuminating, but couldn't post it as I read it from my phone and it was too difficult copy pasting across.
If anything, it reaffirms my assertions earlier that he is, and always has been, a dodgy git.
Yep, those halfbaked conspiracies that our community loves to regurgitate, of which I thought this was one, don't seem so halfbaked now :/I read this earlier today! Very illuminating, but couldn't post it as I read it from my phone and it was too difficult copy pasting across.
If anything, it reaffirms my assertions earlier that he is, and always has been, a dodgy git.
Not a very good article, as evidenced by the critiques in the comments section. Its like the guy who wrote it went fishing for things to discredit Quilliam with and came up with a rather unconvincing straw clutch that seeks to link Quilliam to Chad Sweet, then Sweet to Ted Cruz and Jesse Helms. There's no attempt to engage issues or ideas, just a negative attempt at discrediting Maajid and Quilliam.
Thanks!
There's very little doubt Nawaaz is using Islam for personal gains by parroting the narratives the West needs to hear. He's found a nice little niche.
The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-left-s-hypocritical-embrace-of-islamism.html
Anti-extremist campaigner Maajid Nawaz embodies grievance that liberals claim to care about. So why is he being viciously attacked by them?
The desire to impose religion over society is otherwise known as theocracy. Being veterans of the struggle to push back against fundamentalist Christians, American liberals are well acquainted with the pitfalls of the neoconservative flirtation with the religious-right. How ironic, then, that in Europe it is those on the left—led by the Guardian—who flirt with religious theocrats. For in the UK, our theocrats are brown, from minority communities, and are overwhelmingly Muslim.
Islam is a religion like any other. Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society. When expressed through violence, I call it jihadism. It is obvious to an American liberal that Christian fundamentalism must be made to respect personal choice. Likewise, it is as plain as the light of day to me—a Pakistani-British liberal Muslim—that any desire to impose any version of Islam over anyone anywhere, ever, is a fundamental violation of our basic civil liberties. But Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with theCharlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves. In a case that has come to symbolize the extent of the problem, an entire family of 12 recently migrated to the Islamic State. By any reasonable assessment, something has gone badly wrong in Britain.
But for those who I have come to call Europe’s regressive-left how could Islamist tyranny—such as burying women neck deep in the ground and stoning them to death—possibly be anything other than an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony? For don’t you know Muslims are angry? So angry, in fact, that they wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex, throw Syrian gays off tall buildings and burn people alive? All because… Israel. For Europe’s regressive-left—which is fast penetrating U.S. circles too—Muslims are notexpected to be civilized. And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic fascism are nothing but an inconvenience to an uncannily Weimar-like populism that screams simplistically: It is all the West’s fault.
It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from this patronizing, self-pity inspiring mollycoddling. And just as American Muslims, with some reason, fear becoming targeted by right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice, British Muslims are being spoon-fed regressive-left sedatives, encouraging a perpetual state of victimhood in order to score their petty ideological points against “the West.” In the name of cultural diversity, aspiration is being stifled, expectations have been tempered and because Muslims have their own culture don't you know,self-segregation and ghettoization have thrived.
Finally, on July 20 the British Prime Minister David Cameron mustered the political will to deliver a comprehensive speech setting out the UK’s approach to tackling the long rising tide of theocratic extremism in our communities. At last, Cameron named and shamed the Islamist ideology as a major factor behind the rise of such extremism. As founding chairman ofQuilliam—an organization that seeks to challenge Islamism though civic debate across political divides—I was proud to have played a role in advising Downing Street on some of the core messages for this speech. I did this despite my being a Liberal, and not a member of the Prime Minster’s Conservative party. I did this because extremism affects our national, not just party-political, interests.
“I have been stabbed at by neo-Nazis, falsely arrested at gunpoint by Essex police, expelled from college, divorced, estranged from my child, and tortured in Egyptian prison, and mandatorily profiled…Yet their first-world bourgeois brains seem to malfunction because I refuse to spew theocratic hate, or fit their little ‘angry Muslim’ box.”
The Guardian, it seems, was not happy. Rather than react by providing much beleaguered feminist, gay or ex-Muslims with a crucial platform—as one would expect from a progressive newspaper—they featured a doting interviewwith the UK front-leader for the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) complaining about the Prime Minster’s speech. HT wishes to resurrect a theocratic caliphate, in which—according to its draft constitution available online—they would execute “apostates.” They also believe in ISIS-style medieval punishments, such as stoning, amputations, punishing homosexuals, and approving of slavery in principle. I should know, for 13 years I was on the leadership of this group, serving five of those years as a political prisoner on its behalf in Egypt.
But this is not new for the Guardian. As the UK media industry magazine Private Eye later noted, over the years the paper has provided column space to supporters of al-Qaida, including Bin-Laden himself. On 23 February this year, the paperpublished a column by the leader of HT’s Australian branch, Uthman Badar, in which he makes it clear that though HT does not support ISIS, “neither will we condemn them,” for to do such a thing would be “morally repugnant.” Indeed, 10 years ago the Guardian even had a member of HT on its staff as a trainee journalist. Dilpazier Aslam’s affiliation was exposed on the blogosphere after he wrote an equivocating piece on the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. Amidst public outrage, the paper was forced to pay him £30,000 as severance, probably to avoid a hearing at which editors may have had to admit that they knew about his HT affiliations all along. Like the Daily Mail of old, which to its eternal shame appeased the rise of Nazism, theGuardian is blinded by its infantilizing approach to minority communities, promoting the most regressive of theocrats, simply to “stick it to the man.”