Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

[Roguish Lawyer]

by Olivier Roy (Columbia University Press, 2004). This book addresses a hotly debated topic on this Board -- whether we are at war with Islam.

The author teaches at the School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences in Paris. Yes, he's French. Even admits it in a funny footnote. The book is a sequel to an earlier book entitled The Failure of Political Islam, which originally was published in French in 1992 and then translated into English in 1994. This time, he's writing in English in the first instance. You can tell that English is not his first language, as he uses some archaic spellings like "gaol" instead of "jail." Anyway, my impression is that this guy probably is a fairly well-regarded academic in this area, if not one of the top guys. Some, for example, give him credit for coming up with the term "fatwa." Much of the book is based on his review and analysis of Islamic websites, but he also appears to have conducted many interviews and reviewed other literature. The interviews are pretty high level -- he interviewed Zia, for example.

Jimbo recommended the book to me, so it has to be good, right? Jimbo, I expect you to reply to this thread with some developed thoughts now that I read this thing!

OK, so I think there are two main points made in the book.

First, Roy believes that people are oversimplifying the issue of whether we are at war with Islam. Islam is a religion, yet people often speak and write about it as if it were a culture. There are many schools of thought on key political issues, including, for example, whether jihad is a collective or individual duty. Thus, according to Roy, "there is no systematic link between a radical political position and theological thinking." Furthermore, Roy contends that believers in Islam inherently are influenced by the cultures in which they live, and that their beliefs and customs are far from homogeneous. "Neofundamentalists" like the Taliban are fighting against any cultural influence and effectively seeking to remove culture from Muslim lives and establish a purely religious state.

Second, Roy contends that neofundamentalism is driven by what he calls "deculturation" and "individualization." Most participants in various ongoing jihads around the world do so for nationalistic or other reasons not linked to Islam per se. These people (e.g., Palestinians) are doing what they are doing for local reasons, not to take over the world. The neofundamentalists (i.e., al Qaeda et al.), however, are motivated by faith in a radical worldview that grows out of these two phenomena. These people generally do not have real homes -- they have moved around the world, they may have multiple citizenships, etc. They don't have any natural sense of belonging to any particular culture or country. As a result, there is a psychological vacuum to be filled, as they need to belong to something. Enter the Ummah. Screw all these cultures, screw all these countries, I'm a Muslim and I belong to the imaginary global Ummah -- regulated by homogeneous religious norms divorced from any cultural influence. Anyone can join. (Roy often compares these people to the so-called Christian Right in the US, since anyone can belong and all you need is faith.) So you have a small group, basically a bunch of losers, who dream of achieving something that is completely impossible since most Muslims (and obviously most non-Muslims)have no interest in their program.

Ultimately, Roy thinks that the neofundamentalists' agenda is self-limiting. While it is a security threat, he thinks it should be dealt with through police and intelligence rather than military action.

OK, I'm being told that I've been working on this too long. Gotta go. May edit or add more later. Has anyone else read this?

Sir, how does he define culture?

Martin

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Martin

Sir, how does he define culture?

Martin

Ooooh! Good question!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Martin

Sir, how does he define culture?

Martin

I don't believe he does, but I would have to go back and check.

The basic concept as I understand it is that culture is the way people are living, not necessarily because of religious requirements, but because that's how things are done in the area. Like Americans watch NFL football on Sundays and tailgate, for example.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Jimbo, I expect you to reply to this thread with some developed thoughts now that I read this thing!

My semester ends on Tuesday. I'll chime in with some thoughts after then. I'm glad you read the book.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

...The basic concept as I understand it is that culture is the way people are living, not necessarily because of religious requirements, but because that's how things are done in the area. Like Americans watch NFL football on Sundays and tailgate, for example.

The problem is that culture is different around the globe. The majority of conflicts around the world involve Muslims. The one thing that binds them is not the culture but the religion.

As a minority in most countries, the Muslim individual is silently cheering on their "heros". Thats why they will not march in the streets to end terrorism against the west.

People will bring up the groups protesting in the middle east right now. They are not protesting against terrorism done to the west but to themselves. Key difference.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Pete

The problem is that culture is different around the globe. The majority of conflicts around the world involve Muslims. The one thing that binds them is not the culture but the religion.

As a minority in most countries, the Muslim individual is silently cheering on their "heros". Thats why they will not march in the streets to end terrorism against the west.

People will bring up the groups protesting in the middle east right now. They are not protesting against terrorism done to the west but to themselves. Key difference.

I believe that Roy contends that the cultural differences divide them more than religion binds them.

Not agreeing with him, just reporting his position. If I am wrong, I am sure Jimbo will correct me.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

I believe that Roy contends that the cultural differences divide them more than religion binds them....

It is a case that can be made but I do not agree with it.

The Muslims can move in a sea of support as they travel around the world. As long as they target the "enemy" and do not bring too much heat down on the locals they will be supported. The "turning" in Iraq is because the terrorists are hitting the locals too hard.

The key right now is that they are small groups right with no country or region. It is when they try and form the Greater Muslim State that the cultural differences and religious sects will stand in the way.

Africa and the middle east are ruled by "strong man" governments that use terror and police state tactics to hold power. The Jewish issue is used to focus the rabble's attention away from their own government. It is used as a call to arms in countries like ours.l

I'm rambling now but the whole interaction of the region, religion and governments could fill hundreds of books.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Pete

It is when they try and form the Greater Muslim State that the cultural differences and religious sects will stand in the way.

The cultural differences have stood in the way long before forming the greater Muslim state.

I don't have a ton of time to write about it, but there were serious divisions and animosity between the Afghan muj and the Arab muj in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets. There was less significant tension between the locals and the imports in Chechnya. There is ongoing tension between Iraqis and the foreign fighters.