Philosopher of Islamic Terror
Paul Berman (
via Virginia Postrel) has been reading the newly-translated books that comprise Sayyid Qutb's massive
In the Shade of the Qur'an. Qutb, an Egyptian philosopher of Islam who spent years in Egyptian jail under Nassar and was eventually hanged in 1966, is the 'Karl Marx' of radical Islam, according to Berman; Qutb believed that Christianity made a critical error at the start by moving away from the prescriptive rules of the Torah, and towards the separation of spirituality from daily life, eventually leading to that concept that we hold in such high regard, the separation of Church and State. This separation leaves people feeling empty and unfulfilled. (My few sentences here do not do any justice to Berman's fascinating and much longer summary of Qutb's complex theological philosophy - I highly recommend reading
the entire article).
Berman concludes that we need to address the underlying philosophical basis for the Islamist movement by responding with ideas of equal complexity and depth:
bq. It would be nice to think that, in the war against terror, our side, too, speaks of deep philosophical ideas -- it would be nice to think that someone is arguing with the terrorists and with the readers of Sayyid Qutb. But here I have my worries. The followers of Qutb speak, in their wild fashion, of enormous human problems, and they urge one another to death and to murder. But the enemies of these people speak of what? The political leaders speak of United Nations resolutions, of unilateralism, of multilateralism, of weapons inspectors, of coercion and noncoercion. This is no answer to the terrorists. The terrorists speak insanely of deep things. The antiterrorists had better speak sanely of equally deep things. Presidents will not do this. Presidents will dispatch armies, or decline to dispatch armies, for better and for worse.
However, our best argument against ideologues of any type is not a reasoned refutation of their arguments; first, because we cannot reason across their leap of faith, and second, because the theoretical advantages and benefits of a decentralized, liberal, democratic, capitalist society are very difficult to grasp intuitively. Our best argument is the contrast between our society and theirs (best represented today by Iran) - the vastly differing levels of personal freedom and economic success. Thousands upon thousands of Iranians leave for the West each year, and those that remain agitate for change. This is the strongest argument against Islamist ideologues.
Ideally we could leave the rest of the Muslim world to its own devices; encourage and aid moves towards liberalism, but when absent, extricate ourselves from the situation, wait for counterrevolution, and let in everyone who wants out. After all, it only took 20 years in Iran. Unfortunately, this option is not (or at least no longer) available. The world's dependence on Middle East oil, and the resulting wealth in what would otherwise be backward desert kingdoms, coupled with our own open societies, has given the Islamists the ability and opportunity to take the war to us. Given this situation, we are left with little choice but to attempt to
integrate the rest of the world into our interconnected society, by force if necessary. At the same time, we may also need to rethink the
traditional concept of sovereignty, if only to rationalize our own foreign and trade policies.
Karl Marx was not defeated by Hayek, even though
The Road to Serfdom was published back in 1944. Marx was defeated by the failure of Marxist society. And so it must be with the Islamists.
Posted by Stephen Bronstein at March 25, 2003 06:53 PM