Islam at a Crossroads: splitting along conservative or liberal lines
Queen Rania of Jordan, a very progressive Muslim, is arguably on of the most powerful women in the world.
Photo courtesy of jordangirlslife.com
Editor's note: This is the second in an occasional series.
In this part of the series, we will examine the idea of a possible future split in the religion of Islam through the scope of differences in religious ideology. In a secular society, no one wants to speak of religion and politics in the same breath. Predictably, however, they are mentioned in relation to each other quite often because while they are separate entities, they share many similar traits.
One of these traits is the existence of a conservative/liberal spectrum within them both. The political spectrum in the United States has reached what many would agree are historic levels of polarization. Simply put, most of the time, but not always, when you meet someone that is against gays in the military, you can accurately predict where they stand on the majority of the other issues from gun control to the economy.
The people called “the moderates” almost don’t exist anymore. If you fight fiercely for your second amendment rights, and are also for the legalization of marijuana (and aren’t a drug dealer on the south side of Chicago), then you are part of a dying breed.
While these people disappear on the American political scene, their equivalents may be dying on the global Islamic scene as well. It is much more difficult to determine how a pan-national, pan-cultural worldwide religion is behaving as a whole, but many signs point to a growing wave of polarization.
More Muslims are leaving the “middle” of the spectrum and migrating toward either the conservative of liberal end. It once again must be stressed that this is not indicative of a future of American Muslims vs. the rest of the world extremist Muslims. That is not unlike predicting that the future of United States politics will essentially devolve into the craziest part of the tea party vs. all the fiercely Marxist citizens of our country.
The collective members of religions, like political groups, act like a eukaryotic cell. There are forces within the cell working toward its survival, while other forces work toward cell division, which results in two completely separate living organisms.
While these two new cells share the same DNA, once they are separate they are subject to their own reality and fate. On a long enough timeline, differences in religious ideologies and practices work as the forces within a faith system to successfully cause a split. Historically, we see this occur every couple of centuries if not more often in recent human history.
The Arabic term fitna refers to the idea of secession or religious upheaval. There have been many examples in Islam’s history of this, such as the numerous civil wars fought for control of the caliphate in the 7th century CE soon after the founding of the religion. The cell known as Islam underwent its first mitotic moment during this period as the Sunni and Shia became separate individual cells. So is another period of upheaval coming? And will it be strong enough to cause a universally recognized split?
Some Muslims in the west, like these girls in Illinois, are farther towards the conservative end of the spectrum than even some Muslims in the east, such as Queen Rania pictured above.
Photo courtesy of amnation.com
While it should ideally be looked at as a political revolution, the current ongoing events in Cairo serve as a perfect example of the forces within Islam. Many Americans fear that the power struggle in Egypt will ultimately be won by the “untapped reservoir of Islamist rage” to replace Hosni Mubarak’s so called democracy. It is clear that the Muslim Brotherhood wants and would love control of the country. How attainable that goal is for them, is another issue completely.
Egypt is home to a soon to be deposed leader that is delusional in staying to fight the inevitable instead of fleeing to his enjoy an ex-dictator’s dream retirement known as exile in the south of France. Because he is staying to fight for his power, he is continually using tactics like propaganda and the distortion of the truth by the media to fight the masses who want him dead or gone. Many of the pro-Mubarak mobs are paid to go out onto the streets and grab media attention to exaggerate the level of support for him in the country.
The majority of protesters are the youth of the country. Many of these Muslims are liberals even by American standards. They protest male and female alongside each other. This is essentially a revolution of young Egyptian people who went to college, got an education, graduated and saw no reward or hope for social mobility due to the current system of government. In their anger, they began the upheaval of the Egyptian government through protests organized on Facebook and Twitter.
The extremist ultra-conservative end of the Islamic spectrum isn‘t forward thinking enough to put Facebook or Twitter for such a use. Women play a very important part of these protests, many protest organizers are female, and some estimates predict as much as 50% of certain crowds to be female. If extremists from the Muslim Brotherhood were leading these protests, there would most likely be no women in sight, let alone in positions of power. Also, it would have caused a heavy public or covert intervention by the United States.
If the people of Egypt overthrow the current government and set up a new legitimate democracy, the much more (comparatively) liberal members of the faith will help to establish it — the functioning word being legitimate.
Back to the subject at hand, however, the fact that the liberal ended protesters, as well as the conservative parts of the Muslim Brotherhood, exist within the same country lends more evidence for an increasingly apparent polarization in Islam. This polarization can be characterized on a global scale using sweeping generalizations like the assumption that most Muslims in the western world are, on average, more liberal than Muslims in the east.
While there are many exceptions to this rule, certain countries like Saudi Arabia are home to an ultra-conservative form of Islam, especially in comparison to Muslims in a community like Ann Arbor. The existence of these two communities in the same world, both claiming to prescribe to the very same religion is not something that can stand the test of time. This, as well as the implications of Islamic practice in Pakistan (where I’ll actually be for the next few weeks), will be the topic of discussion in future pieces in this series.
Ahmed Chaudhry was born in Lahore, Pakistan, and moved to the Michigan in 1994. As a recent graduate of Albion College, where he received a degree in biology and religious studies, he plans to pursue a career in public health. Email him at anc1659@gmail.com.
Comments
melinda colquitt
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
Ahmed-Were you in my non-western civilization class, either Middle Eastern Civ or Asian Civ, at Pioneer? I think I remember you. If so, I'm so proud of you for writing these articles which are so helpful for the general public. This is what makes having been a teacher so rewarding. Melinda Colquitt
bedrog
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 : 11:40 p.m.
@ahmed..i think what most of the commenters you refer to ( me included) were saying is that both in lethal virulence and scale what's going on nowadays between the factions Islam is at all not comparable to what goes on in the u.s., at least in the past century and a half. If your point is that rhetoric ( as opposed to actual acting out on that rhetoric) in both the U.s and many Islamic settings has reached a point of mutual black and white demonization with seemingly less and leass areas of moderate compromise, then i sort of agree with you...at least as regards, say FOX vs. MSNBC , (and alot of the babble on sites like this)... But again there's a big distance between cathartic chin wagging ( hopwever fevered and even stupid) and a seemingly limitless supply of those who'd blow themselves up in a crowd of worshippers from a rival sect or some other public setting.
Ahmed Chaudhry
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 : 11:10 p.m.
Just as a clarification for some of the comments: what I meant by the polarization of the American political system having reached historic levels was not that it was at an all time high. I would be ignorant to say that given a civil war in our country's history. I like to think I'm not ignorant though. I was simply saying its comparable to past high points and certainly has spiked in recent years. To say otherwise would be to think that the 2000 election, which came down to a few hanging chads in Florida, was a landslide for the victor. It would also be arguing that the president elected in that election was incredibly popular and helped close any bi-partisan split that existed in the country over the course of eight years. Which I'm not saying is wrong but...come on
REBBAPRAGADA
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 : 6:21 p.m.
I do not think that Islam is at Crossroads. It will be correct to say that Islam moves on a ONE WAY STREET.
bedrog
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 : 12:58 p.m.
@'do not taunt": it wasnt always thus re blasphemy in Pakistan ( which is indeed appalling nowadays). In my own 2 years in Pakistan ( from the late 60's-early 80's) there was alot more toleration of religious pluralism. I never made a secret of my own jewish identity while researching ( among other things) aspects of Islam using a questioning style that was often deliberately probing /provocative in order to assess just how deep certain professed beliefs were ( evidently not very, in many instances!!). This started to change in 1977 with the greater officializing of shari'a law ( which initially was a purely cynical and futile initiative by a secular leader under seige by the religious extremists.) Those who use the word "democracy" as if it were a panacea/ end in itself -- and not what it should be ( a frequent but NOT INEVITABLE means to better government than autocracy usually is) --should keep in mind both the Iranian and Hamas examples where democracy led to more bigoted regimes than prior ones ....( Pakistans recent history is relevant here too, but is complicated by bouts of military dictatorship ocillating with electoral democracy.) T his could happen in Egypt too, And re the original article here ,one of the advantages "extremists' have over moderates is that they are willing to be 'extreme'...and we are seeing this time and again: a presumably moderate ( and non violent) majority having its agenda drawn by an extremist ( and violent unto sui/homicidal)minority. ( Although how big or small that minority is is not known by any 'pundit' of the region, as i once was on a small scale .)
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 : noon
Do US citizens know the penalty in Pakistan for being "convicted of blasphemy?" Search online for some news stories - shocking. In many regions the penalty is life in prison or to be put to death. Does it happen? All the time. Even to foreigners, on occasion.
bedrog
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 : 12:43 a.m.
Demistify...your last point is very apt. In Egypt we are seeing , in the much ballyhooed Elbaradei, the possibility of a theological/social policy "liberal' being willing to make league with the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood ( which Mubarak outlawed) , thereby opening vistas of greater regional, and even global , conflict . Likewise we are both acutely aware locally of self proclaimed "leftists/progressives" who stridently shill for the most retrograde, backwards looking Islamic extremists...something that I , as a leftish /progressive sort , find jaw-droppingly absurd and even "Saturday Night Live " funny ( the latter if there werent so many others like them... happily not here, but mostly in Europe).
demistify
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.
I take issue with Chaudhry on his secondary claim that religious and sociopolitical liberalism (or conservatism) are lined up. Reinhold Niebuhr, who inspired a generation of Protestant ministers to social activism (Christian socialism and integration) was a theological conservative. Most of the Black clergymen at the forefront of the civil-rights movement were fundamentalists; many were and remain homophobic. Richard Nixon was a Quaker. The way people reach their beliefs on different issues is complex and often inconsistent. Members of cults seek totalitarian uniformity within the cult, but the rest of us sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
bedrog
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 9:50 p.m.
good point....
bedrog
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.
Demistify..re your comment about the author's alleged 'sunniness' in the face of all this: In fact , some 'reaching across the ( sunni-shia) aisle', has occurred .. but not in a good way. i.e. the current fanatic Iranian Shia regime's funding of the Sunni Hamas fanatics in Gaza, and--- in the current Egyptian chaos-- preeningly holding itself and its 1979 revolution ( hijacked by the Ayatollah's extremists) up as the role model for Egypt and all the world's Muslims...against the U.s and it's one reliable middle east ally. This kind of " bipartisanship" is the sort of thing Nostradamus ( and the writer of the Book of Revelation!) had nightmares about. I think both of those guys ( and those who take them literally) were nuts in many respects, but I'm not sleeping any too well either on this score and neither should anyone else.
demistify
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.
I find myself in the unaccustomed position of agreeing with all the previous Comments. I just want to add one point: Chaudhry has a naively sunny view of religious splits. All those centuries after the Sunni-Shia division, mosques and the worshipers inside keep being blown up in Pakistan and Iraq. The blasphemy law of Pakistan and similar legislation elsewhere prescribe death for religious deviation. Chaudhry and other liberal Muslims may be able to disentangle themselves peacefully from the fundamentalists in the US, but their counterparts in other countries may face a bloodbath.
bedrog
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.
It's also worth pointing out that ultra conservative Islam has historically been influential in rallying otherwise diverse and divided believers into unified military ventures ---both defensive and offensive...against perceived outsiders, especially when the outsiders are regarded as 'infidels'. Sometimes these things are quite short-lived ( as in several of what the British called 'mad mullah' movements in 19th century somalia and what's now the Pak/afghan border). In other cases they lasted a long time i.e. Islam itself, and a decades long "Mahdi" ( messianic) movement in the Sudan. What's scary and creepy about today's versions of this 'jihadism' is its international reach, esp via internet recruiting, and the military technologies at play ( e.g nukes or germ warfare agents in the hands of al Qaeda or Ahmadineajad types .) and yes, per the other posters: to compare the internal and external volatility and divisions of contemporary versions of Islam to U.S. polarization ( at least since the Civil War) is a big stretch ( although no thanks to glenn beck and his counterparts on the far far fringe left, such as a local bullhorn -aided hijab wearing screecher and her pals.). In the U.s ,riots in the streets are the exception, not the rule...except after some sporting events when alcohol---not God--is the engine that drives.
Top Cat
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
"The political spectrum in the United States has reached what many would agree are historic levels of polarization." Obviously the author is extremely ignorant of American political history in the 19th Century. His statement is flat out wrong. I would specifically direct him to the Jefferson-Adams race of 1800, Lincoln's races of 1860 and 1864 and the Blaine-Cleveland race of 1884. And these Presidential races are just a snapshot of the times.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.
This is far too simplistic a look at some very complex issues. I also disagree with the the concept that "moderates" are a dying breed in America. They are only a dying breed in an extremist Congress, where members are forced to go along with party leaders, at the risk of never getting a decent committee assignment or getting a good piece of pork for their constituencies.
FredMax
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 6:27 p.m.
"The political spectrum in the United States has reached what many would agree are historic levels of polarization." Probably today's media coverage would mislead many to believe that there are historic levels of polarization in the United States. As for world outside of the TV screen, this does not seem to be the case.
bedrog
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
I agree as to the increasing theological rift between ultra conservative and more liberal in Islam... But theology alone begs more fundamental cultural questions, widespread in both arab and south/central asian islamic worlds: i.e. the fundamental ties to family/clan/tribe trumping ties to the "nation" and a sense of morality that is tied to kin rather than to wider polities, not unlike the ethical codes within mafia families that dont apply to rival such groups. And a related 'might makes right' view of the world... as the Baluch of sw pakistan put it: "strong water can flow uphill"...i.e with power you can violate the law of gravity. In your own Pakistan i was personally witness to how that "did in" a totally secular/nationalist leader...z.a. bhutto. Despite being hailed as a conciliator (after a thuggish and inept military dictator who blundered the country into the bangladesh war of secession) , he became more and more draconian in leading the country as he was faced with ongoing violent tribalism ( panjabis against sindhis against pathans against baluch against muhajirs), religious sectarianism...and his own association with graft and corruption to the benefit of his family and close cronies. This stuff transcends religion in the Islamic world ...and Egypt, no matter how heady and exhuberant the protests now seem, may be heading into an anarchy or worse that'll make Mubarak look great in the rearview mirror. This is because the protestors are only united in the short term goal of what they're against ( Mubarak). Not what they are for,..which may wind up leading to hellish conflicts in the country, the region and the world.