The World From Islam (excerpt of interview with Sheikh Khalfan al-Isry)

George Negus is a famous Australian journalist who wrote a book, The World From Islam, which was published by HarperCollins and panned by The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) as "a superficial piece of puffery that fluctuates in tone between the two poles of sanctimony and sycophancy." They are right in a way, but not because of any supposed 'anti-Semitic, T.E. Lawrence syndrome' the reviewer accuses him of. They are right because of this statement from Negus, found on the back cover: "Over the last twenty-five years, I've worked and travelled in more than a dozen Islamic countries. On the basis of this regular and varied contact, I would argue that more than 99.99 per cent of Muslims are not, repeat not, terrorists."

While the statement is, of course, true, it indicates how sickeningly flawed the general Western public discourse is on Islam. When an author feels it necessary to make such a statement, something is very very wrong with public perception. Despite Negus's good intentions, such a statement is presumptous and idiotic in the extreme. To demonstrate why, lets insert other stereotypes of social or religious groups into the equation. E.g.: "99.99% of Hindus don't practice 'sati'" or "99.99% of blacks aren't petty criminals and drug addicts." The very presumption in making such a statement demonstrates in and of itself (in spite of its possible good intentions) what a ridiculous starting point for true dialogue it is. What can those seeking a deeper view of Islam really get from such a facile starting point?

It turns out that Negus's book isn't all bad; there is an intriguing interview with Sheikh Khalfan al-Isry, a notable Omani sheikh who has his own radio program and gives regular programs (in English) about giving da'wah. I have reproduced portions of the interview below:

GN: Non-Muslims--not just in Australia where I come from but everywhere--are thirsty for first-hand knowledge of Muslims. That's why I want to talk to outspoken Muslims like your good self!
K: Yes, but I also think largely sentimental Muslims need to equip themselves with understanding of their own religion. Islam does not want you to follow it blindly. The first thing that is taught in Islam is knowledge. So you should go and open books, Islamic books, that try to teach Islam--how to pray and how to do things. The book of knowledge is the first book, the first chapter.
GN: Are you saying there are Muslims out there who don't really understand Islam themselves?
K: I know many Muslims who go and pray and I usually ask them: 'Why do you pray?' And they say, 'To worship God.' 'Do you know who is God, the one you're trying to worship?' I ask them. 'Yes I know him,' they say. 'He's the Creator. He's the one giver who gives us everything.'
GN: How do you reply?
K:I say 'no' to the slogans. That's what you've been taught, but it's what you know, what you believe that matters.
GN: The same could probably be said of many Christians or Jews.
K: Did you know that half of the Omani population is still at school? More than half, actually, are under the age of twenty. So I say that many Muslims have taken Islam by tradition, by inheritance--not by personal belief.

GN: Is Western materialism affecting Muslims?
K: We have been influenced by the glamour of Western civilization. Islam says that we have been made to be the agent of God on this Earth and that civilizations will be there for us if we have made a difference and co-exist with the differences. Its the differences that make us as we are. It's capitalising from each other, benefiting from each other. In the days of the Prophet himself, as he was advocating the message of the oneness of God, he co-existed with the Jews, the Christians, even with pagans. In the heart of Islam, he co-existed with them.
What we have seen though, is the glamorous picture of the West. Maybe that has influenced Muslims a lot. Maybe the crime of taking that glamour was moral disintegration. Not everything that's glamorous is good. The good thing is that these days the educated Islamic elite are the ones who are making the comparisons. Those advocating boycotting Western and US products are not religious, they are Islamic people who are perceived in the West to be 'civilized'.
An example! If you go to mosques today--not twenty years ago, but today, 2003--you see that mosques are filled, even for the early morning prayer, which is at 4:30, with not only the regulars; you see the working community--workers and professionals--and their kids. Twenty years ago, it was only the elders that went there for early prayers and they didn't have the persuasive skills to entic their kids to go to the mosque. The working community didn't care. They were raised that this was just basic tradition. But today they have gone beyond the obvious of why I have to pray, more to why I should pray, what do I get out of it? And seeing the benefit themselves, they say if this is the benefit I get, I'd better visit the mosque regularly.

More can be found in George Negus's book, The World From Islam.

Read more...

Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering (Book Review)

In the discourse on Islam prevalent in the popular media and academia, one frequent Manichaen dichotomy one finds is that between so-called 'liberal' Islam and 'radical' or 'Islamist' Islam. This dichotomy is predicated on a superficial understanding of Islamic philosophy and Islamic discourse, in which the theological and philosophical bases for categorization are rarely revealed. If they are, the categories are those of Western liberal discourse, which whatever their virtues as 'universal' values cannot help but operate under particular blind spots and presumptions when it comes to Islamic philosophy.

I view Dr. Sherman Jackson's intervention in Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering as an intervention aimed to correct that ignorance. As such it is one of the best books I have read that attempts the work of cultural translation: that is interpreting Islamic philosophers from the Classical period (8th-12th centuries) in a manner which respects their philosophical positions and imbues their positions with meaning and relevance for the current era.

Dr. Jackson's book is structured as a response to another theological work, Is God a White Racist? by William Jones, which argues that traditional black theodicy overprivileges the idea of redemptive suffering, and that by implication they create the idea that God favors whites. In point of fact, Jones intellectual inspiration is more rooted in Camus and Sartre than any specific theologian from the Christian tradition.

To counter this bold and controversial statement, Jackson lays out the theological positions of the major Islamic theodicies: Mutazilite, Ash'arite, Mutiridite and Traditionalist. After an introduction and first chapter dealing with black theodicy and the problem of evil, he starts by outlining the basis of Quranic interpretation and the development of classical Islamic theology. He then systematically explains the arguments of the major schools over the basis of reason for interpreting truth, the real nature of God, the problem of free will, and God's omnibenevolence vs. God's omnipotence. At the end of discussing each school of thought, Jackson addresses the points of agreement and disagreement between their approach and Jones's.

This book actually works on two levels. Even if one does not have an interest in the various currents of black theology and theodicy as such, the book is one of the best explanations of classical Islamic philosophy I have read in English. It is simultaneously extremely erudite and accessible, a difficult balance pulled off by the author through his clear prose and consistent re-explanation of previous points in order to contrast them. He is passionate about taking the reader on a journey through these beliefs yet ultimately agnostic on his own preference, leaving that to the discerning reader. He does however, urge that blackAmerican Muslims equip themselves with the philosophical and conceptual tools to in order to shape the character of the Muslim community in America. His book is meant as a tool towards that end.

If I have one critique of this book, it is that Dr. Jackson does not historically situate many of these theological debates. Nor does he problematize to any great degree significant anti-black tendencies which inhere in the writings of some Arab scholars and poets. He writes of the hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owning thousands of slaves, but he does not see fit to question or criticize a great number of Islamic scholars who operated under similar conditions. This brings us to the question of the links between race and slavery in the Islamic world, an uncomfortable topic for many. And it points to the gaps between idealist conceptions of a belief or religion (for example Islam's teachings on slavery) and the actual practice of Muslims in societies with great numbers of slaves (for example 19th century Zanzibar). For more on this debate, Hishaam Aidi has an interesting article. I won't say more because the debate is complex and a bit of a rabbit hole, but suffice to say that Jackson finessed his approach in discussing these provocative issues.

For example, in one footnote Jackson argues that although there is a presumed opposition between "Islam" and "the West", there is no presumed opposition between Islam and blackness. While this is in part true, it ignores significant historical events where in fact the two did conflict (i.e. the Zanzibar Revolution). Jackson does not engage at all with Bernard Lewis's discussion of race and Islam in Race and Slavery in the Middle East. Even if one disagrees vehemently with Lewis's political stances and often reductive writing about Islam, the sources he presents bear engagement and critique with, especially if Jackson's point is to be strengthened. In the end, Jackson's analysis points to a difficulty Jackson himself raises: how in particular cases of overemphasis "blackness" or "Islamic" become neologisms, with more meaning to the person who uses them than a common agreement about their provenance and direction.

I don't necessarily see these omissions as faults per se. They nevertheless point to the need for a historical engagement with these issues. Jackson's book is a work of theology, and in this dimension is is a skillfully argued plea for Islam as a religion capable of meeting the challenge of black suffering as well as a clear explication of Islamic theodicy. It remarkably succeeds in both the academic register and as a sustained personal plea.

Read more...

Saba Mahmood interviews Talal Asad (excerpts)

full interview here.
Asad discusses modernity, religion, what agency is, Islamic reform, the difference between dependency theory and postcolonialism, and much much more. This is one of the best 'summations' of the various nature of Asad's intellectual pursuits and it maps out a great 'space' for scholars to follow up on his work in local contexts. Although its from 1996, over ten years ago, it is still a great read.

Talal Asad
modern power and the reconfiguration of religious traditions
Saba Mahmood

Contemporary politico-religious movements, such as Islamism, are often understood by social scientists as expressions of tradition hampering the progress of modernity. But given the recent intellectual challenges posed against dualistic and static conceptions of modernity/tradition, and calls for parochializing Western European experiences of modernity, do you think the religio-political movements (such as Islamism) force us to rethink our conceptions of modernity? If so, how?

Well, I think they should force us to rethink many things. There has been a certain amount of response from people in Western universities who are interested in analyzing these movements. But many of them still make assumptions that prevent them from questioning aspects of Western modernity. For example, they call these movements "reactionary" or "invented," making the assumption that Western modernity is not only the standard by which all contemporary developments must be judged, but also the only authentic trajectory for every tradition. One of the things the existence of such movements ought to bring into question is the old opposition between modernity and tradition, which is still fashionable. For example, many writers describe the movements in Iran and Egypt as only partly modern and suggest that its their mixing of tradition and modernity that accounts for their "pathological" character. This kind of description paints Islamic movements as being somehow inauthentically traditional on the assumption that "real tradition" is unchanging, repetitive, and non-rational. In this way, these movements cannot be understood on their own terms as being at once modern and traditional, both authentic and creative at the same time. The development of politico-religious movements ought to force people to rethink the uniquely Western model of secular modernity. One may want to challenge aspects of these movements, but this ought to be done on specific grounds. It won't do to measure everything by grand conceptions of authentic modernity. But that's precisely the kind of a priori thinking that many people indulge in when analyzing contemporary religious movements.

It has often been argued that the tradition of liberalism is based upon principles of pluralism and tolerance in ways that Islamic tradition is not, and that the concept of plurality remains foreign to Islam. How would you respond to that?

Well, I would say that it is certainly not a modern, liberal invention. The plurality of individual interests is what the liberal tradition has theorized best of all. On the other hand, the attempt to get some kind of representation for ethnic groups and minorities in Western countries has been difficult for liberalism to theorize. Liberalism has theories of tolerance by which spaces can be created for individuals to do what they wish, so long as they don't obstruct the ability of others to do likewise. But these aren't theories of pluralism in the sense we are beginning to understand the term today. Liberalism has theories of multiple "interests," interests which can be equalized, aggregated, and calculated through the electoral process and then negotiated in the process of formulating and applying governmental policies. But that is a very different kind of pluralism from the different ways of life which are (a) the preconditions and not the objects of individual interests, and which are, (b) in the final analysis, incommensurable.

Now the Islamic tradition, like many other non-liberal traditions, is based on the notion of plural social groupings and plural religious traditions--especially (but not only) of the Abrahamic traditions [ahl al-kitab]. And, of course, it has always accommodated a plurality of scriptural interpretations. There is a well- known dictum in the shari`a: ikhtilaf al-umma rahma [difference within the Islamic tradition is a blessing]. This is where the notions of ijtihad and ijm`a come in. As modes of developing and sustaining the Islamic tradition, they authorize the construction of coherent differences, not the imposition of homogeneity.

Of course there are always limits to difference if coherence is to be aimed at. If tolerance is not merely another name for indifference, there comes a point in every tradition beyond which difference cannot be tolerated. That simply means that there are differences which can't be accommodated within the tradition without threatening its very coherence. But there are, of course, many moments and conditions of such intolerance. One must not, therefore, equate intolerance with violence and cruelty.

On the whole, Muslim societies in the past have been much more accommodating of pluralism in the sense I have tried to outline than have European societies. It does not follow that they are therefore necessarily better. And I certainly don't wish to imply that Muslim rulers and populations were never prejudiced, that they never persecuted non-Muslims in their midst. My point is only that "the concept of plurality," as you put it, is not foreign to Islam.

Read more...

Secularism, hegemony, and fullness (Talal Asad)

I've posted some stuff from Talal Asad before, from his book Geneaologies of Religion. The link below will take you to a link where he critiques secularism in a very trenchant and incisive way.

Secularism, hegemony, and fullness

Posted using ShareThis

Read more...

Pensee #3: Reconceptualizing the "Regions" in "Area Studies"

I couldn't have said it better! As someone who has had the privilege to sit in Dr. Voll's class, his thoughts are on point and very welcome in light of the issues discussed in this blog.
by John Voll, Professor of Islamic History and Associate Director of the Prince al-Waleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
Article originally appeared in the International Journal of Middle East Studies
“Area studies” as a way of trying to understand human experience is undergoing a major transition. Questioning the connection between Middle East and African studies highlights important dimensions of the changing nature of area studies at the beginning of the 21st century.

The question reminds us that the “regions” at the core of the concept of “area” studies were and are constructs for the convenience of analysts. During the 1950s and 1960s, policymakers and scholars divided the world conceptually into regions for study. In the United States, the definition of these regions crystallized around the list of non-Western “world regions” studied in centers supported by funding initially authorized by the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Although world regions had been (and are still) defined in many different ways, this 1960s conceptual division of the world became widely accepted. It is in this context that the regions involved in “African” studies and “Middle East” studies came to be defined. African studies became primarily the study of sub-Saharan Africa rather than the continent as a whole. The emerging cadre of professional “Africanists” tended to exclude the countries of “North Africa”
from their subject matter.

The definition of the Middle East changed significantly from the early usage by military planners in the 1890s. However, virtually every definition excluded African areas beyond the Mediterranean coast. In one exception, the British War Office during World War II included the Horn of Africa, but by the 1960s, most people accepted the conclusion of one of the standard geography texts of the time that Sudan and the countries of the Horn were “more properly considered as parts of intertropical Africa.”

One important result of this division was that the two fields—African and Middle East studies—developed relatively separately, and the conceptual regions tended to become reified. People spoke of “culture continents” with distinctive identities,2 opening the way for a vision of the world made up of separate—and clashing—“civilizations.” Topics that did not fit into these two conceptual boxes tended to be marginalized in “mainstream” coverage of sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East in conferences and professional associations.

These conditions contributed to two difficulties in the area-studies approach that are now changing. The first is a regionalist primordialism, which endows regions with some essential identity. As a result, interactions among regions are viewed as “borrowing” or “foreign” influences. However, interactions between the Middle East and “Africa” have resulted in dynamic cultural syntheses that are distinctively local but no longer simply manifestations of some primordial essence that has “borrowed” some foreign elements. Studies of these developments require “area-studies” expertise but also require transcending regionalist primordialisms. An interesting example of this postprimordialist analysis is Donald Wright’s study of Islamization and globalization in “a very small place in Africa." A dual regional studies approach, combining African and Middle East studies, is an important part of going beyond the primordialist perspective.

A second difficulty is a monolithic view of the dimensions of human activities in the region under study. Classical area studies tended to see geographicphysical, economic, cultural, and religious boundaries as being roughly the same. However, looking at the Middle East and Africa together reminds us that important regions or networks of interaction cross borders. The networks of Muslim pilgrimage that run from the Atlantic coast of Africa to western Arabia are an integrated region rather than two regions interacting. The networks of economic interaction have little relationship to the boundaries assumed by area-studies definitions of the Middle East and Africa. The classic study of the trans-Saharan trade from antiquity by E. W. Bovill presents an important example of how economic enterprise does not conform to the regions of area
studies. Studies of religious and economic relations between South Arabia and East Africa by scholars like Anne Bang illustrate that there was no clear “regional” boundary between the Middle East and Africa in this broad swath of territory.

Within the framework of these thoughts, why and how should Middle East and African studies be connected? They need to be connected through scholarship that transcends the primordialism and monolithic definitions of old-style area studies because these two regions are not separate “areas” or discrete “civilizations.” Instead, they are interacting and diverse sets of human experiences that historically have influenced and shaped each other. Understanding this will help scholars build a perspective and a methodology that avoids the dangers of old-style cultural essentialism that can lead not only to the conception but also to the reality of a clash of civilizations.

Read more...

Ramadan Commercialized

An OLD but great article that resonates with my Ramadan experience last year in U.A.E. and Oman. Is this not the inevitable by-product of the Emirates wholehearted embrace of global capitalism? What about countries like Iran and Syria? I would imagine this is primarily an urban phenomenon.

The new Ramadan: It's beginning to look a lot like...
By Hassan M. Fattah
Published: Wednesday, October 12, 2005

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The decorations are hanging, the cash registers are clanging and the air of holiday cheer is everywhere. For a holy month, Ramadan, circa 2005, is nothing like it used to be.

Once an ascetic month of fasting, prayer and reflection on God, Ramadan has gradually taken on the commercial trappings of Christmas and Hannukah, straight from the hanging lights that festoon windows to the Ramadan greeting cards and Ramadan sales and advertising campaigns that have become the backbone of commerce for the holy month.

Marketers and businesses have caught on to the potential of 1.3 billion people at home fasting or breaking their daily fasts and getting back to normal life - a captive audience eager for entertainment and celebration, and more than willing to feast when the sun goes down.

Here in Dubai, the region's uber-mall, commercialism has taken on a life of its own as almost everything has been dressed in the cloak of Ramadan, straight from the sale of consumer goods to the sales of cars.

Dubai malls are open till the early morning, and the nights rock away at dinner parties in desert tents.

"Ramadan is changing from a religious month to a cultural or social event," said Mohammed el-Kuwaiz, a Saudi management consultant based in Dubai.

"You're using faith to commercialize something else," he continued. "It doesn't feel right."

Sheik Ahmed Abdelaziz Haddad, grand mufti of Dubai's Islamic Affairs Department, puts it even more succinctly.

"The problem isn't that people are trading and doing business," he said. "It's that people have taken this month to be a month of shopping."

Ramadan, which occurs during the ninth month of the Muslim lunar calendar, is considered the holiest month of the year, a time of fasting, family and reflection.

It is during this month, Muslims believe, that the Prophet Muhammad received his first revelations of the Koran from the angel Gabriel.Since then,Muslims have been ordered to forgo food, water and other worldly pleasures during daytime for the entire month as a pillar of their faith, a sacrifice to show they have not forgotten God.

The fast begins at dawn and lasts until sundown, with special prayers in the evenings in an air of heightened spirituality and meditation.

But walk through many Arab cities this month, and the spirit may also move you to buy, buy and buy some more.

In Egypt, hotels and restaurants advertise Ramadan feasts while an advertising sweepstakes calls on people to read all 30 days of ads to win a prize.

In Beirut, worshipers hang colored lights that say "Ramadan Kareem," or blessed Ramadan. A Mercedes ad in a Dubai newspaper plays on the theme of the crescent, a common Islamic symbol: "Welcome Ramadan with a visit to Gargash Enterprises and you'll soon be feeling over the moon."

In Cairo, companies and political candidates campaigning for parliamentary elections next month gave out traditional Ramadan lanterns emblazoned with their names and company logos.

A shopping mall in Dubai even features a Ramadan display with an uncanny resemblance to a nativity scene, complete with moving camels, a village elder reading stories and a desert scene.

And a huge sign outside another mall touts its "Spend & Win" promotion: "Ramadan Kareem. Win Dhs. 1 million and enjoy shopping until 1 a.m." That's about $275,000 in the local currency, dirhams.

For advertisers, Ramadan is like a 30-day Super Bowl weekend, where television channels broadcast their best programming and competitors jostle for market share.

Some brands spend as much as half their advertising budget in this month alone. With those kinds of resources being brought to bear, it may be no wonder that many people are troubled by the creeping commercialism.

"It is supposed to be about spirituality, but it drives me crazy that it is all about food and banquets," said Naglaa Abdel Fattah, 30, a secretary in Cairo.

"I do not feel the spirit of Ramadan anymore. I call my friend and all she talks about is the 10 dishes her family is preparing for iftar," when the fast is broken. "This is extravagant."

On the second day of Ramadan, Haddad, the Dubai mufti, beseeched Muslims in a written note to take the month more seriously.

"A Muslim who is focused on the worldly trade will miss the benefits he could get in the hereafter," he said. "What we see happening today in the commercialism of Ramadan is caused by Muslim ignorance of what is required of them to benefit their souls.

"God defined this month to save them and to protect their souls."

But even he admitted he is facing an uphill battle.

A special program in Dubai called "Dubai, the city that cares" offers a different twist, donating half the proceeds of a million-dirham raffle to local and international charities. "It's not something bad to have increased shopping in Ramadan," said Mohammed Mahgoub, a commercial adviser for the campaign.

The more people buy, he says, the more they share. "If you buy a lot of food, you try to invite a lot of people, which is one of the aims of Ramadan, of people coming together."

Nada el Sawy contributed reporting from Dubai and Abeer Allam from Cairo.

Read more...

Reshaping Muslim World Narratives?

The Rand Corporation is working up a new proposal to 'reshape Muslim world narratives'. This proposal states that the basic problem of Muslim countries is the narrative they possess (that is, the life story that contributes to their identity) is basically 'hostile' and 'violent'. Thus RAND's project " aims to develop national social and historical narratives that can enhance positive cohesion in Muslim world nations." According to the briefing:

"The benefits of such an outcome are obvious. A narrative of this kind can help these societies clarify common goals and direction. It can lend sense' to tragic events of the near and distant past. It can lay the foundation for reconciliation and shared national identity. It can address the deficit of dignity and pride that many believe are at the heart of the current anger and violence emanating from the region."

The author of the briefing is impressed with the US narrative, because it:

"allows each member of society, regardless of which side his or ancestors were on, to identify with all sides of a past conflict--with those who suffered an injustice, with those who were a party to injustice, with the losing side, with the winning side—while still embracing the outcome as the right thing to have happened. Additionally, those whose ancestors were not involved can still identify with the broad themes of unjust suffering, courageous resistance, social advancement, and progress towards greater justice."

So basically there are no losers in the US narrative, only winners, because the US always moves forward in the spirit of justice. While this is, at best, insulting to the thousands of activists who gave their lives in order to make justice a reality for the oppressed and poor of the United States, it is also symptomatic of the false historical narrative of American exceptionalism which we as a nation still believe in (most of us). And the RAND would like to export this model:

"In Phase I, a team of historians, educators, media experts, and political analysts will disassemble the American narrative, identifying the essential components of the narrative, including its themes, catalytic events, and integrative techniques, and create a neutral template from these for application to other nations."

This is the sort of dangerous cultural hubris that should be avoided, not encouraged in US foreign policy. The problem is not the narrative; Arabs are not idiots, and they are quite capable of crafting a resonant historical narrative given the opportunity. I seriously doubt they require the assistance of a special US project. And from the little traveling I have done, residents of these countries are quite capable on the whole, of separating US policy from US citizens.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intent of the project, but it seems to me that the real purpose of this project, is to get those who are clear that the US is responsible for a great many of their security issues (i.e. in the targeted nations of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq) to stop thinking of the US as an invader and more as a trusted ally. But you cannot change the facts on the ground. No amount of narrative re-shaping can undo the chaos the US has left in the wake of not one, but two invasions of majority Muslim countries in the past eight years.

Instead, US foreign policy should start from the premise that people are quite capable of crafting their own positive narrative, which will place the US in a constellation of relationships with other nations, IF the US will stop playing carrot-and-stick with Syria, stop propping up the corrupt Mubarak regime, and end the Iraqi occupation. Trying to cram false positivity into an explosive situation will most assuredly have an adverse effect: the US will be seen (correctly) as engaging in cultural propaganda and this will embolden reactionary regimes even further.

Read more...

Hizbu'llah and Terrorism: Dispelling the Misconceptions

Sura al-Qasas (28) :5 (English): And we wished to be gracious to those who were being oppressed in the land, to make them leaders and make them heirs.

The above verse constitutes one of the foundational beliefs on which the organization of Hizbu'llah draw. There is an all too common misconception, perpetrated by so-called journalists--who write copy using the worst sort of cliches to lock certain mental images into their readers' minds, that Hizbu'llah is a fundamentalist sectarian and terrorist organization. Two relatively recent books help to dispel this notion by placing Hizbu'llah's accomplishments within the framework of Shi'ite political mobilization, the political opportunities offered by the civil war, and the heteregenous nature of Lebanese society. Each book shows the development of Hizbu'llah from a guerilla movement who at times engaged in what the international community deemed as acts of 'terror' into a full-fledged political party with a stake in Lebanese politics.

The first book, by former U.N. observer Augustus Richard Norton, is a short but authoritative account of Hizbu'llah's development in the context of recent Lebanese history. It has the advantage of including some analysis of the 2006 war with Israel, in which Hizbu'llah emerged from a devastating bombardment organizationally intact.

The second book is an older account by a Lebanese insider, based on interviews, televised speeches, and an excellent review and critique of the secondary literature about the organization. Amal Saad Ghorayeb analyzes Hizbu'llah through the paradigm of 'oppression' and sees Hizbu'llah as a theologically flexible, guerilla movement which stands ideologically on the side of the oppressed. This is a helpful paradigm, because it sees Hizbu'llah as basically responding to opportunities to organize people against oppression, using Islam as an idiom, not as an Islamic movement to 'Islamisize' Lebanon and the world.

Hizbu'llah's mission (if not always its tactics) stand in the best traditions of Islamic liberation theology, and are fundamentally consistent with Biblical teaching about God's special concern for the poor (see Matthew 5:5 for the Biblical precursor to the Islamic idea).

One thing both authors stress is the evolution of the party, from a entity existing outside of the system, to a major player on the Lebanese political scene. Hizbu'llah's challenge will be to remain relevant to its mass base and yet manuever within the convulutions of Lebanese politics without being corrupted by the alliances it forges.

Read more...

The Uses of History: Meditations on the Production of Historical and Anthropological Knowledge

"If colonial history has been written, the 'history of colonization' remains yet to be written along the lines of a new vision, one resolutely attentive to the local peoples for whom colonization constitutes an important aspect of their history,"
Ndaywel e Nziem

All philosophies and theories of history are in the end, also anthropologies. Now it is true, we cannot insert ourselves into the lives of the historical actors of the past, which is why history occurs at the intersection between current events and collective memory (both archived and oral). What are the "social loci of our knowledge production"? History is not merely done or told, it is done for someone or to someone.

This is why I think it important to examine the ontology of our historical knowledge, because I see that this is so much of what the colonial project developed into. I salute our desire to define our terms precisely, but I also believe that this desire to do so using language, in other words to try and abstract an idea of colonialism from its effects, it interrelationships, its lived experiences, is to push the Sisyphean boulder. At some point, we must, if our work is to have any relevance, leave the shoals of postmodern deconstruction and hesitation, and venture out into the ocean. Certainty is an unattainable goal, but uncertainty is not a refuge.

Indeed, to do as I have suggested is as much a project of personal ethnography as it is a historical project. It is to question the underlying foundations of our knowledge production, to examine the very grain of our categorizations, and to turn the lens of historical consciousness upon ourselves. While we are engaged in such a task, we also, MUST ask ourselves about our own social position. We have yet to truly consider ourselves as beneficiaries, in a sense, of colonialism, or how our position in this university shapes the discourse we present. To those fashioning their dissertation or engaged in the other grueling work of acheiving their Ph.D., such questions perhaps pose useless distractions from the pressing need to theorize and draw conclusions. But unless they are answered precisely, history becomes a game, a playing field on which to experiment with our personal tastes and interests. For one interesting, if revolting, example of this fascination with 'history' as object of distraction is the blogspot called Return to Darkest Africa

I wish to ask us: How can we hope to recover those histories of colonizer and colonized, the context in which they occur, and the 'life-worlds' of both sets of actors, if we have not turned an analytical lens on ourselves, our own categories of knowledge, the way in which we inhabit either (or perhaps both) category (colonizer/colonized) in ourselves. We have to interrogate what Foucault called our 'episteme'--the standards of acceptability that shape our discourse, the conventions of our representation.

This brings us back to another question I posed: Why study comparative colonialism? I suggest that the answer to this question will determine a great deal about the discourse we generate on the topic. I imagine some might say we are engaged in this work to sharpen our brain, to understand a particular historical field better and thus to deepen our analysis of it. But that still leaves the question open of why: What uses will it serve? Is history history for history's sake? My answer, which I share with Thucydides, is that history is useful to those in crisis as a guide for action.

This is where some of the distinction emerges between postcolonialism and postmodernism, though both share some of the same critiques of meta-history. While post-modernism and post-colonialism share the resistance to 'totalitizing narratives', post-colonialism asks us to remain committed to a struggle, a specific SITE of historical interpretation, while post-modernism has (in my view) not decided this question.

This is why, in spite of his historical limitations, I would rather read Frantz Fanon than Fred Cooper. I believe colonialism is one aspect of what Cedric Robinson calls, "a dangerous power set loose in the world." In my view, even if there were notable exceptions-- interstices of opportunity for particular groups within the incomplete hegemony of the colonial project(s)--overall colonialism entailed a very dramatic lessening, something that has been stripped away or taken off balance.

The intellectual output of postcolonial scholars like Fanon, Cesaire, Dubois, C.L.R. James, Martin Delany, and Cabral (to name a few of the most prominent in the Atlantic world and Africa) emerges from crisis, and is marked by a concern to serve as a historical witness against totalizing projects, in doing so it provides the possibility of the consciousness to resist rather than simply serve the dominant powers of the age. Their theories, diverse as they are, do not invite uncritical acceptance, but rather passionate engagement, while their practice ought to inform the way we think about the uses of our historical knowledge. The practice of personal ethnography will inevitably change, or if not change, then clarify, the way we 'practice' history.

Read more...

Taqleed, Ijtihad, and Wujub al-nazr

You drown in an ocean of God and can't breath -Jedi Mind Tricks

Recently I have been digging into different facets of Islamic theology, and it is certainly interesting to see the early theologians having debates similar to what the early Christian theologians were debating (the nature of G-d, His attributes, free will, eternity, oneness.)

What I always find MOST interesting about these debates is the degree to which the debaters assume that all those in the conversation know how to ascertain that something is true. It is rarely questioned HOW we actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something is true.

Islamic theologians tried to address this systematically, but even they were limited by the ideas and ideology current at the time. Many of them borrowed heavily from Hellenistic philosophy in order to argue their theological and philosophical viewpoints. However, if one reads the average book of aqeedah, what one generally gets is not sophisticated argumentation but crude propositional logic using mostly hadith. In fact, I have found that these books are rarely encouraging believers towards the pursuit of knowledge but towards the pursuit of certainty and non-argumentation. This is disappointing but understandable, as religious scholars are often tied to state projects of social and political control and religious ideology offers a convenient prop for this. Even if said religious scholar is not tied to a state-project, he still exists within a milieu which requires him to convince his followers that he knows THE way: uncertainty is public enemy number one when it comes to religious knowledge.

After considering all this, and then reading more on the basic principles of knowing (i.e syllogistic knowledge, first order logic, etc) I came across the following concept from Jainism (an an Indian religious and intellectual tradition predating Hinduism and Buddhism):

Anekantavada--the principle of multiple viewpoints

Anekantavada is basically the idea that since everything changes, what we know to be 'true' ought to be tempered by another knowledge: that of our impermanence and extremely limited knowledge of the world. Reality itself is manifold in its manifestations. Special relativity demonstrates this is in regards to the nature of space and time: an object's experience of it may be profoundly different depending on the reference point and relative nature of motion. This is rarely present at the level of ordinary awareness, rather it becomes apparent only as one moves at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Our experience of the world presents a profound paradox which we can ignore existentially, but not philosophically. To me at least, anekantavada is like saying "Allahu 3lim."

Even math, otherwise one of the purest and clearest ways to see the world, has its own set of inherent limitations. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that since any given mathematical system complex enough to contain arithmetic, contains propositions that are true but not provable from within the system, then it may be possible that no single theory will be able to explain the whole world. To extrapolate beyond the abstraction: If we consider Islam as a "system" or a "special world-system" to borrow John Voll's words, then is it not the case that there are true propositions within it that are not provable using its internal methodology. (i.e the existence of G-d). By extension, doesn't this mean that there are things outside the system which are also true but not demonstrably true within the system? This does not invalidate the system's truths, but it does inject a sense of humility into the conclusions one draws within the logic of that system. In other words, the conclusions from our system or set, have to be part of a larger set of sets (The SET OF ALL TRUTH, if you will)

I will let al-Ghazali have the last word on this one, with his criticism of the Mutazilites:

"Don't you see that when you are asleep you believe certain things and imagine certain circumstances and believe they are fixed and lasting and entertain no doubts about that being their status? Then you wake up and know that all your imaginings and beliefs were groundless and unsubstantial. So while everything you believe through sensation or intellection in your waking state may be true in relation to that state, what assurance have you that you may not suddenly experience a state which would have the same relation to your waking state as the latter has to your dreaming, and your waking state would be dreaming in relation to that new and further state. If you found yourself in such a state, you would be sure that all your rational beliefs were unsubstantial fancies."

Al-Ghazali didn't reject reasoning, he simply said that it had its limits especially in regards to attaining the WHOLE truth of a situation. Thus he indirectly pointed to the principle of multiple viewpoints.

Now let us consider the application of this viewpoint to the science of knowledge leading to right guidance:

The central debate in Islam seems to be between taqleed (following a particular authority out of respect for their knowledge) and ijtihad (making a decision, particularly a legal decision, by independent judgement). Taqleed is what we 'ordinary' humans do, while ijtihad is for those well-versed in Islamic scholarship. There is a place in Islam for both of these concepts (for example, taqleed tells me that when I want an opinion about mathematics, I don't go to any random friend but to a mathematician or math teacher. That doesn't preclude my friend the Calculus II student from offering some brilliant analysis up to his level of expertise.)

Unfortunately the two been distorted into opposite poles (like when Western critics argue that "closing the gates of ijtihad" was the cause of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim world but ignore that there are plenty of Islamic commentators who have parsed this debate in different ways, with great skill.)

My question: Why can't an ordinary person perform ijtihad? Is there anything in the Quran prohibiting this? Unequivocally, no. Therefore, I am convinced that, with the availability of modern knowledge, one can easily perform ijtihad, and indeed should. One ought to have the deepest respect for true scholars, and be quick to point out factual errors, but the arguments against ijtihad only demonstrate how scared some 'ulama are of losing their power, as well as how far some have come from the reforming message of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him.

But even beyond ijtihad is the process of wujub al-nazar, or the obligation to reason to produce truth. Given the above limitations, proof with al-nazar will necessarily still be contained within a system (that of human thought) but it will be a larger system with more points of overlap. Whereas to reason from within ijtihad alone might also produce truth, but within a more limited system (the framework of Islamic law).

Now the question REALLY is: how does one parse out the differences between an obligation to use reasoning, and an obligation to obey the principles of a given system (Islam, for example). This is a very relevant question, especially when it comes to implementing Islamic law.
ASIDE: Please note that I don't use the word 'reason' (i.e. Western rationalism) but the word 'reasoning' to denote the process by which any group of humans produces its fundamental truth and which has produced a pretty stunning plurality of viewpoints on a range of ethical and ontological issues.
Many 'liberal' or 'modernist' Islamic scholars (I have problems with those two labels but we will address that later) have correctly pointed out that institutions which are now basically assumed to be the pillar of Islam as a 'system' are not in fact as ontologically sound as they have been purported to be and thus not to be relied on to establish the truth of a given proposition within that system. See, for example, Kassim Ahmad's Hadith: A Re-evaluation. The most shocking aspect of what Ahmad reveals is that the Prophet Muhammed himself (in an often ignored or misinterpreted hadith) clearly forbade his followers from writing down what he said.

Here is one of the reason's Prophet Muhammed's revelation was so important: he was specifically addressing the corruption and empty formalism that had arisen within the Judaic tradition due to the fact of relying on Talmudic interpretation and scholarly opinion. Using our earlier terminology, the logic of that system (Judaism) had become strained and unharmonious due to its overreliance on taqleed.

This produced a sort of disharmony between the obligation to reason speculatively towards the truth, and the opinions of past scholars. What the early Islamic scholars did, in an attempt to ensure that its system would not be corrupted along the same lines, is to try to ensure that there was a given system in place for discerning the accuracy of a given hadith. (Compare this to the Christian Church fathers decision to implement a priesthood)

But given that compilers like Bukhari didn't begin to write these down until some two centuries after the Prophet's death, isn't it ironic that Muslims would claim that the hadith are more accurate than say, the Gospels? (With a similar time lag between events and recording). I do not make this point in order to incite the ongoing battle of correct revelation; I am merely pointing out that theological controversies in Islam are a function of human limitation within that system, as is the case for Christianity, Judaism, etc. Any given system of religion will necessarily have a degree of pluralism; the question is never about eliminating that pluralism but of establishing its boundaries: how do we discern what is 'of the system' and 'not of the system'. Mathematically speaking, what is our set? And does our set harmonize with the set of sets? We are back to the principle of allahu 3lim.

Read more...

Western media is deceptive; it can make or destroy you

by Timothy Kalyegira
The Daily Monitor (Kampala, Uganda)

It is the media, more than any other field, that has helped give the Western world its ubiquitous presence and instant name and visual recognition on earth. If America is a superpower, much more than a military, political, and industrial, it is above all a media and news superpower.

The United States is the world’s leading producer of new book titles per year, and has the world’s largest readership. It has more than 4,000 FM radio stations and 4,800 AM stations; is the home of the Internet and has the largest presence on the Internet of any nation on earth.

Through its television comedies, films, news magazines and newspapers, Internet websites, 24-hour television news channels, Rock, Hip-Hop, Country, and Pop music, America has become the most recognisable and best-known nation in the world.

One of the best-selling authors in recent years in America has been John Grisham. The best-selling novels in America of 1994 (The Chamber), 1995 (The Rainmaker), 1996 (The Runway), 1997 (The Partner), 1998 (The Street Lawyer), 1999 (The Testament), 2000 (The Brethren), 2002 (The Summons), and 2005 (The Broker) were by Grisham.

Typically, they centre on the upper-middle class and delve into white-collar crimes, mysterious murders and fraud, courtrooms and law offices, and in sum portray the dark interior and double-dealing to be found in respectable, mostly White America.

The popularity of these Grisham novels (well more than 200 million books sold to date) should show us that Americans are thoughtful, skeptical people, intrigued by twists and turns, the unexpected and the improbable.

So how come these same sophisticated Americans are so easily deceived and so gullible? I’ve observed a handful of tendencies that have persuaded me that the much-vaunted US media is far from the elite establishment it claims to be --- the embarrassingly one-sided coverage of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe; the blind, uncritical adoration of former South African President Nelson Mandela; the emphasis on a playful on-air, on screen playfulness and giggling by television presenters; and a plain inability to read the international scene, understand the motives of foreign heads of state and governments.

I’ve noticed the same gullibility among Western election observers and diplomats in Africa. It does not take much to create a story at a US or British embassy for them to be convinced that one’s life is in danger and therefore one requires political asylum in their lands.

At polling centres, right under their noses, we regularly rig elections, stuff ballot boxes and vote several times and these Western observers, diplomats, and journalists are totally clueless about what’s going on.

It is not surprising that Americans are so fed up with outgoing President George W. Bush, forgetting who it was that twice elected him; they entered two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whose consequences, even with the aid of the fabled CIA intelligence reports they were unable to foresee.

If the current trend in the public opinion surveys remains as it is, these same Americans are about to elect a man called Barack Obama that, amid their mania and enthusiasm for him, they scarcely know or have sufficiently scrutinised and asked penetrating questions.

As the Houston Business Journal commented on August 22, “[President] John Kennedy had a strikingly beautiful wife adored by the entire county. The press today is charmed by Michelle Obama and the couple’s children in the same way.”
Style, image, unchallenging and empty platitudes is about all you require these days to win the hearts and gullible minds of the American voting public.

These days before airing footage from war zones and the scenes of accidents, the major Western TV networks like CNN and the BBC first warn that some of what we are about to watch “contains scenes that might distress viewers.”

I always wonder what it is about a burning army tank, a terrorist victim covered in blood, a destroyed building is too much for Americans or Europeans to stomach.

The leading newsmagazines like The Economist, Time, and Newsweek have become watered down into informal, first-person, all-things-to-all-people low-brow publications, barely above the level of high school newspapers.

The BBC, once the magisterial, sober voice that set the standard for objective and impartial news broadcasting and analysis, now is a shadow of what it was right up to the early 1990s, its decline having come about so suddenly.

Most amazing of all is the inability to see that, be it John McCain or Barack Obama to win the presidency, America’s final year as a formidable world superpower is 2008.

Read more...

Western lifestyle magazines in East Africa

Last week I bought a copy (on recommendation from a friend locally) of the magazine pictured above, called Bang. I usually find these kind of things a bit like eye candy, promoting products I would never buy, cars I will never drive, houses I will never own, and women I will never, uh, well, you get the picture. Now no disrespect to my friend who works for the magazine as one of its editors, but I found that the absurdity I feel when picking up one of these lifestyle magazines was only heightened in the context of East Africa. For instance, what does it mean to have a whole section in Bang on new cars and accessories when 90% of people cannot afford them? Is this magazine just targeting the young upwardly mobile classes who have the disposable income for such pursuits? Or is it simply, like a host of its Western cousins, offering materialism dressed up with a few pseudo-serious articles (for example an important-looking feature about xenophobia in South Africa)? A Swahili teacher here dismissed it as 'selling unattainable and unrealistic dreams.' Its so strange because increasingly ALL magazines are becoming like these lifestyle magazines, with the same advertisers gearing their approach to a particular niche market. Just take a look at Vibe, XXL, The Source, Rolling Stone, Spin, Ebony, GQ, Glamour, etc, in order to see this in full effect.
The interesting thing about Bang is that is produced and edited in Dar-es-Salaam and shipped throughout East Africa (I've already seen copies in Mombasa). So we've got a magazine with a reach beyond national borders, produced locally, selling mostly Western products and lifestyle to an aspiring class of bourgeious shoppers from Africa.

Read more...

TCDC Conversations

Here at TCDC is like being in another world and I am anxious to move on. This place is a safe place for the many missionaries and development workers who come to try out their latest projects or do research or work to convert more Tanzanian muslims to Christianity. Our group has had lots of interesting discussions about this and where it fits into the 'discourse' on Africa and its 'development'. One of the things that inevitably has to be asked in these sorts of conversations is: development toward what? and for whom? Mwalimu Nyerere expressed this thought very eloquently, and in principle the Center is committed to the same sort of vision. But in reality, students and aid workers come here for their own reasons and with their own prejudices.
An interesting conversation with an American who grew up in Kenya as the son of missionaries and has done a lot of work in Djibouti:
"Well," he told me, "you can't blame all Africa's problems on the West." I thought this was intriguing because I had never stated that I did or that one should. As I began an explanation of US foreign policy in Africa, he listened and agreed, but then began to rail on 'the usual suspects' in the sort of ideologically lazy blame-game played by lightweight racists: "Well, these African leaders are the ones that are corrupt. Who is holding them responsible?" I agreed and explained how many of the corrupt ones were propped up by the United States government for their strategic interest. He claimed to agree, and we continued to discuss about culture. He said, "the reason Somali society doesn't progress is because all the men want to do all day is drink chai and chew chat (a popular lightweight narcotic). He also made various statements claiming that whenever Muslims own the land, the land is never prosperous.
The illuminating thing about these sorts of conversations is that they are usually had by the very people doing long-term work or research in Africa. It is sooo interesting to me how many people want to 'study' Africa but never see the culture and people as contributing something potentially very necessary to an ongoing conversation about culture and sustainability. Like when my friend expressed admiration for the Maasai and the way they have sustained their culture, another student from America felt compelled to chime in, "But you know they have a very high mortality rate!" Since when did that become the ultimate criteria for the good society?
I am truly ashamed at the arrogance of Americans in Africa; almost every day different situations are presented to me that make me question and probe how I interact with people here. One of the things we discussed as a group is the cultural assumptions we bring here and where and how to 'be ourselves' while still honoring our 'guestness' among Tanzanians. The Tanzanian people, I must say, are profoundly impressive. I have found them to be extremely polite, hospitable, welcoming, and very gentle.
Watching A Panther in Africa about Pete O'Neal's work in Tanzania continuing the legacy of the Black Panther Party, I was struck by something he said about 'being caught between two worlds' and not being able to return to one in U.S. (and partly not wanting too) but also not fully part of the life-world he lives in--i.e. not completely adapted to being 'Tanzanian'. I found his struggle to be tremendously inspirational and moving and also applicable in a way to the situation I have often found myself in.
One of the things I reckon with in understanding myself is what I am and how I got this way. And in considering this, I have realized many times that the existence I came from and the people I grew up calling my friends are gone. The path I have chosen to push myself down has alienated me in a way from many of those I grew up with. And the deeper I go down the path, immersing myself in various experiences--in the Delta, Atlanta, at Howard, and here in Tanzania-- the more friends I make and the more I understand a certain, shall we say, point-of-view. And the less I seem to be able to understand the point-of-view of people from my own socio-economic/cultural background. And that scares me, it really does. But seeing what Pete went through confirms for me that these experiences are just a part of life, and an essential part of life for anyone who is struggling from any perspective to make sense of the madness we are living in.
This relates to the many students of my generation also studying in Africa who I find myself unable to relate to. And I can't just go back; I don't want to return to the way they think. But at the same time, I am still a product of my envirornment and no matter how many different places I gain acceptance into, I will never completely 'fit' there. And the place where I could be accepted, I no longer fit.
It feels very strange, very lonely, but in the end it is also tremendously gratifying and I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

Read more...

How Do We Think About Religion?

In the spirit of the discussion going on below about religious truth, I offer the following reflections from Talal Asad's Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines of Reason and Power in Christianity and Islam I offer these because Mr. Skeptic, you still have not addressed yourself to my (and rehenuma's) critique of the central conceit of western rationalism--that is its claim to be speaking from a place of 'objective' truth. You also did not address my critique of the free market along the same lines you criticize religion. You claim to be speaking from a postmodernist perspective. However, you also wrote:
"You can always tell which religions and belief systems actually do not have the real truths, because they are the ones that demand that you subject yourself to endless quotidian rituals and constantly recite passages from books, as though ostensibly the only way to convince one of a truth is to have them repeat it over and over and over again until one doesn't even think to challenge the habitual thought."

"Now, if truth and meaning are inherently subjective, then how is one 'always able to tell which religions and belief systems actually do not have the real truths'? I agree that truth is often constructed through discipline and instrumental power, but you are making a very interesting leap between postmodernism and rationalism. I don't think you have decided which side you are on, yet, maybe.
Anyway, lets marinate on these quotes from Asad, who draws his critique of anthropological study of religion from Geertz's definition of religion as "affirming something" ("it must if is not to consist of the mere collection of received practices and conventional sentiments we usually refer to as moralism, affirm something.") Geertz also says that religion helps man to cope with his intellectual, physical, and moral limits.

"This modest view of religion (which would have horrified the early Christian fathers or medieval churchmen) is a product of the only legitimate space allowed to Christianity by post-Enlightenment society, the right to individual belief: the human condition is full of ignorance, pain, and injustice, and religious symbols are a means of coming positively to terms with that condition. One consequence of this view would in principle render any philosophy that performs such a function into religion (to the annoyance of the nineteenth century rationalist), or alternatively, make it possible to think of religion as a more primitive , a less adult mode of coming to terms with the human condition (to the annoyance of the modern Christian). In either case, the suggestion that religion has a universal function in belief is one indication of how marginal religion has become in modern industrial societyas the site for producing disciplined knowledge and personal discipline. As such it comes to resemble the conception Marx had of religion as ideology--that is, as a mode of consciousness which is other than consciousness of reality, external to the relations of production, producing no knowledge, but expressing at once the anguish of the oppressed and a spurious consolation."
"Geertz'z treatment of religious belief, which lies at the core of his conception of religion, is a modern privatized Christian one because and to the extent that it emphasizes the priority of belief as a state of mind rather than a constituting activity in the world.

To me, religion is a way of engaging with the world, a method of practice that involves the body and is embodied in physical movement. Consider the following, also from Asad, quoting Mauss approvingly:
"According to Mauss, the human body was not be viewed simply as the passive recipient of 'cultural imprints' still less as the active source of 'natural expressions' that are 'clothed in local history and culture' as though it were a matter of an inner character expressed in a readable sign, so that the latter could be used as a means of deciphering the former. It was to be viewed as the developable means for achieving a range of human objectives, from styles of physical movement, through modes of emotional being, to kinds of spiritual experiences. This way of talking seems to avoid the Cartesian dualism of the mind and objects of the mind's perception.

So to sum up:
1) Religion as a universal concept for describing those practices which attribute divine agency to the world is a culturally conditioned definition, conditioned by our experience of religion as 'one choice among many'. This too is linked with our modern conception of the autonomous self.
2) This view of religion supported (and supports) a particular accretion of power in the modern secular states that constitute 'the West'.
3) Religion is a way of teaching bodies, it is a physical as well as a cognitive knowledge. As such, consciousness is interdependent with bodily practice. It follows then, that one 'knows' something, particularly religious truth, by DOING IT. Critiquing it as an irrational leftover of our primitive brain was and is made possible by the construction of religion as a dangerous historical object that must be confined to the private sphere as a belief, and constitutionally subordinated to the state.
So what do you think?

Read more...