The twin pillars of "internal contradictions" and "historical inevitability" served heroically to bolster morale in the Soviet Union and attract followers, particularly in the newly independent states which proliferated during the Sixties. There is something quite appealing about the notion that the remote, impersonal force of a deity called "history" is on your side. This appeal is reinforced by being able to convince yourself that you need do nothing to win but could rely upon "internal contradictions" to bring about the defeat of the "capitalist, imperialist camp."
There are similar ideas drifting around today. On the other side of the hill, in the venues of the advocates of armed political Islam, there is a constant refrain to the effect that Islam is destined to win over the "infidels" of the West, the "apostate" regimes which govern in so many Muslim majority states, and, last but certainly not least, "the Zionist entity." There is and has been much spewing of quite overwrought rhetoric to the effect that should there be enough men who desire martyrdom, Allah will crown their expressions of faith with total victory over all of us in the "House of War."
This sort of thinking characterizes "theological inevitability," which is the Islamist's version of the Marxist dictum. If anything, the "theological inevitability" is more comforting, more motivating, more potent than was the Communist invocation of "history." Even leaving aside the proposition of seventy-two soulless virgins awaiting every incoming martyr, the idea of committing an action heartily approved by the deity has a power for True Believers which those of us who are not given to such unqualified zeal can scarcely comprehend.
OK, Geek, enough of these hosannas to fundamentalist Islam, you did write something about "internal contradictions," go somewhere with it.
Sure thing, bucko. Last time around it was the opposition which was convinced that we in the West (and particularly the US) were so riddled by the termites of contradictions that our basic economic, social, and political structures would inevitably collapse, hollowed from within. This time the internal contradictions exist as an Achilles' heel for the adherents of political Islam.
For the best part of five generations now, Islamic society, more particularly the Islamic polity, has been at odds with itself--and with basic features in the divinely given Koran. On more than a few occasions the being at odds has reached, and continues to reach, the level of a very deadly internecine war. At issue has been alternative understandings of the substance of the Koran, the Hadith (what the Prophet said,) the Sunnah (what the Prophet did and how he lived,) as well as both classic and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence. Also in play have been differing interpretations of how best to meld Islam with the realities of the contemporary world.
All of these issues bedeviled Christianity. Wars were fought. Martyrs were made in wholesale lots. It took centuries but most of the issues were settled, at least to the degree necessary to assure a high measure of social and political cohesiveness. Arguably, the only reason Judaism was spared a similar set of bloodletting fissions was the consolidation forced upon the religion by prejudice and persecution.
Islam is a late comer to the "internal contradiction" game. The heavy hand of convention, of tradition, suppressed the emergence of contradictions. The expansionist nature of Islam whether by the sword or by the slow infiltration and persuasion of the tarikas (brotherhoods) did the same. There was always the safety valve of expansion to offset the pressures of contradictions.
In recent generations, and, in particular, the years following World War II which saw the number of independent Muslim majority states go from four to almost sixty, have been the years during which the internal contradictions of Islam have become more deeply divisive and high profile. It is impossible for anyone, Muslim or not, to overlook the passionately held and massively differing views regarding what Islam is all about and how it relates positively to the realities of contemporary life.
Time to consider some of these. The roster intentionally omits the deep differences of belief and practice which pit Sunni against Shia or which relegate to the margins "minor" faith communities within Islam--which group now includes the large and in time past influential Sufis.
The most basic internal contradiction is that of the proclaimed universality of the Muslim umma (the community of believers) and national identity. In principle, loyalty of the Muslim to Muslim sort takes precedence over loyalty to any given nation, tribe, or leader. In practice, the tension has normally been resolved in favor of the latter. Leader, nation, tribe all nudge religion to the side should push come to shove--which is inevitable.
Mohammad came to receive his revelations in the context of a society deeply riven by tribal loyalties. In order to survive, Islam had to deprecate loyalty to the local. The Prophet and his successors had no option other than to exalt the religious identity over all others.
To this end not only was the concept of the Brotherhood of all Muslims central to the belief system but other aspects by which people differentiated themselves were downplayed. An example is the primacy of Arabic over other languages. Another is the insistence down to the present that the concept of the nation-state, like that of borders separating nation-states, is an invention of the Western infidels.
In practice, both national and tribal identities have prevailed. So also have local languages in all usages beyond the sacred, the theological. Even the practice of the haj, which makes the global nature of Islamic congregations most manifest, has not served to erode national, local, or tribal identities for most Muslims. This unpleasant truth has been recognized and deplored repeatedly by leaders of political Islam oriented groups both non-violent and violent.
Another contradiction which arises from the basics of Islam is that between ijtihad (independent judgement) and ijma (consensus.) This contradiction is complicated and thus worsened by the tension over when independent judgement can be made properly and disagreement over who achieves consensus--the ulema (clergy) or the society of laymen. This set of interlocking and reinforcing contradictions comes into sharpest focus over interpreting the requirements of the Koran as well as past jurisprudence.
This matter of who can interpret and to what degree interpretation is allowable has been the frontline of conflict between reformers and traditionalists, between Muslims who embrace violent political Islam and those who nail their flag to the mast of peaceful coexistence. An important symbol of this internal contradiction exists in the use of the word, jihad--does it mean the internal struggle for self-improvement in the faith or is it a reference to armed combat with the "infidels" and "apostates?"
Yet another very important internal contradiction exists in the matter of inherited monarchies. Historically Islam frowns upon inherited rule. Despite this, inherited monarchies have existed and continue to exist today as in Saudi Arabia. To a pure Muslim (which includes most if not all of today's exponents of violent political Islam), it is apostasy pure and simple that the Keeper of the Two Mosques is a king by inheritance. Kingship per se is of no importance, but kingship by virtue of birth is both important and a reason for violence.
Given the importance of Saudi Arabia and the other oil powered sheikdoms, this internal contradiction looms large in the considerations of Western decision makers. And, given the totality of Islamic jurisprudence, it is a circle which cannot be squared. The House of Saud is non-Islamic and even the bargain made between the House and the Wahhabi clergy of the Peninsula cannot change this reality and assure stability.
Then there is the matter of who has the power in an Islamic polity. Since all sovereignty rests ultimately with Allah, what is at stake here is the matter of who rules as a legitimate interpreter of the perceived will of Allah. Islam has no particular preference for any specific form of government, but it does require that the ruler be "just" as such is understood in the context of the Koran, other sacred writings, and the weight of Islamic jurisprudence. The people have the right to displace an "unjust" ruler, even violently. That, of course, leaves the question of who determines when a ruler is "unjust."
Not surprisingly, the clergy, the ulema, is of the view that only men well versed in theology and jurisprudence can do the job. This is disputed by assorted laymen who argue that determining how the will of the people mesh with the "will of Allah" is a task best suited for leaders who have the confidence of the people. In this conflict between the sacred and the profane, the victory has generally gone to the profane as has been the case repeatedly in Egypt. On the other hand, when the "sacred" win as was the case in Iran, the result can be frightfully discomfiting.
The last internal contradiction to consider (for now) is that between the implied fatalism of Islam, the "if Allah wills" sort of resignation and the demands not only of science but of life generally. Bluntly put, science is incompatible with Islam. As long as one must grant that Allah is personally responsible for the movement of each and every atom, as long as one must grant we live in a universe subject to supernatural caprice, there can be no science. There can be only the cloning, the exploitation of scientific and technological discoveries and innovations made by others.
The implications of the "will of Allah" approach to life go far beyond science. It serves to reduce humans to the status of objects, removing their capacity to be effective actors in their own drama. One result has been the conflict between reformers (and Westernizers) on the one hand and the traditionalists (once again including the majority of armed political Islamists) on the other.
Reformers and "Westernizers" have pointed to the emphasis on the power invested in the individual in both Europe and the US as the root reason these areas have not only bested the Muslim world but have dominated the globe for centuries. Their opponents whether ayatollahs in Iran, terrorists in the caves of the FATA, or the "stealth jihadists" of Muslim Brotherhood offshoots respond with claiming that emulation of any Western norms would insure that Islam ceased to be Islam.
Any of these internal contradictions can prove fatal to the "theological inevitability." Taken together they assure the advocates of violent political Islam can spill a lot of blood, most of it more innocent than not but not have any realistic chance of imposing their agenda on the rest of the world.
Therein rests the ultimate sorrow and tragedy of the war on the modern world the Islamists have started. No matter how many "martyrs" bomb their way into Paradise, no matter how many unfortunates they kill or maim, the result will be the same. They lose. They lose not simply because the rest of the world stands against them but because Islam, unlike capitalism, is termite riddled with contradictions which cannot be resolved without changing Islam beyond recognition.
ADMIN NOTE: The Geek invites, welcomes and will post all on topic comments but has been forced to take frustrating precautions against the spam comment attacks he has received.
