Islamic Statism and Historical Necessity

Shadi Hamid begins his essay on “The Roots of the Islamic State’s Appeal” by noting first the tendency of political scientists, including himself, to see “religion, ideology, and identity” as “products of a given set of material factors.” In the next, second sentence he identifies this same materialism as a belief in “the primacy of politics,” so would seem to be equating “politics” with “material factors.” Those material factors that in the political scientific view produce religion, ideology, and identity and that equate with “politics” would seem to be brute material motivations of human animals, organisms of the genus homo, species sapiens, driven biologically to seek sustenance or profit or power or other “material” benefit or satisfaction. Hamid’s further explication bears out this initial reading: Neglect or derogation of “ideas” (religion, ideology, identity) is in Hamid’s depiction or confession a precondition as well as a result of the political-scientific tendency or of political science. Next to this materialist anthropology, which Hamid links to a typically Western comprehension of historical progress, one whose surface optimism on progress toward “a more reasonable, secular future,” or “liberal determinism,” belies the nihilistic cynicism of its premises, Hamid places the converse shape of Islamism, whose eruption in the Western consciousness is typically in acts of annihilation expressing preferences utterly contrary to any natural law of material self-benefit, but which in this appearance belies an underlying idealism.

According to the title, the interest of the essay will mainly concern the appeal of the latter view, the “Appeal” of “the Islamic State,” but Hamid has in mind a set of Islamic states or state concepts, not just the so-called “Islamic State” or “IS.” In this essay Hamid refers to the particular group exclusively by an acronym that the group itself has sought to deprecate. Hamid uses “ISIS,” referring to the force or supposed state operating in (going by the English usage) “Iraq and Syria.” The words “Islamic State” appear twice in his essay as posted: once in the title, and once in the title of a book that Hamid cites, and that was published in 2012, before the “Islamic State” of 2014 was declared. Hamid’s approach to this naming question is consistent with what turns out be his main argument, one in favor of the same actual synthesis that the counterposed ideologies also both embody, only with, as noted above, inward and outward forms reversed: Both the Western materialist, even the most depraved of political scientists, as well as the Middle Eastern idealist, even the most self-transcendent of political terrorists, insist on the simultaneity and interdependence of both real and ideal ends, and therefore of the practicality of their idealism and of the ideality of their practice. In the West or for a materialism that can function also as an ethos, our successes are products of our virtues and proof of them; in the Middle East or for an idealism that can function in a real or material world, Allah grants us or will grant us victories because we serve Him, and only if we serve Him, but He does or will grant us victories, ones that will be real or real for believers whether fully experienced in this life or in a next, also real or more real, life. (The Islamic State, in this way like any other state, would be or is already a state of things and affairs among the living, whatever its ideas regarding death and eternity.) Still, though Hamid insists on the necessity of an Islamic state, or of an Islamic state concept for different actual nation-states (or state-nations), he refuses to grant that any particular or real existing Islamic state truly exhausts the possibilities of Islam or Islamism.

Hamid’s argument may, as ever, be taken by his legion of critics as apologetic, but, taken on its own terms, it is in the first instance realistic or scientific, and in the second instance, and not incidentally, humane. “ISIS,” says Hamid, “draws on, and draws strength from, ideas that have broad resonance among Muslim-majority populations.” He does not declare it a good thing or a bad thing that these ideas have such resonance. It is for him a material-historical fact that further implies, for complex and deeply “rooted” material-historical reasons, that any durable, realizable state in the Middle East will have to be a credibly Islamic so in some sense Islamist state, and that, by the same token, seeking some other end, in other words seeking a non- or anti-Islamist state or states in the Middle East, will be a hopeless and destructive project – thus his concluding sentence: “To drive even the more pragmatic, participatory variants of Islamism out of the state system would be to doom weak, failing states and strong, brittle ones alike to a long, destructive cycle of civil conflict and political violence.”

As for those who pin their hopes or political programs on a renovated Islam, or on a movement for, as it is sometimes said, “separation of mosque and state,” Hamid explains that dreams of an Islamic Reformation need to take prior real experiences into account: “[T]here is one slight complication,” he writes sardonically. “Islam has already experienced a ‘reformation’ of sorts.” He refers specifically to “the Islamic modernism of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Mohammed Abu,” a phenomenon of the late 19th Century, and he develops his argument in an historically much more sophisticated manner than will be found in familiar clash of civilizations polemics and calls for a Middle Eastern Martin Luther to nail some liberalizing theses at the portals of Mecca or perhaps Al-Azhar. It should perhaps go without saying, however, that few to none of Hamid’s own simplifications and generalizations – “In pre-Enlightenment Europe, clerical despotism was the major problem” and so on – can be taken as settled facts and on face value either. In this connection, before entirely dispensing with the Reformation model, it may be worth noting that the movement from Martin Luther to the “Great Separation” of church and state in the West was hardly a quick and easy process. Ignoring precursors who needed centuries of their own to make Luther possible, and even setting aside all remnant questions as to whether the “separated” or religiously disestablished state is or can be as neutral on matters of faith as we may take on faith, there were still nearly 300 years full of strife of impressive generality and extremity from Luther’s time to the “no religious test clause” and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. We might be inclined to acknowledge further that the ensuing movement over another two-plus centuries to the wonders of de-idealized 21st Century political science was accompanied by no small amount of “civil conflict and political violence.” Put differently, though Islam or various Islamicate countries have in fact extensive experience with reform movements and reform ideas, what specifically they have not undergone or completed is a Reformation of the Western type. Whether and in what ways the various pseudo-Islamic states and Islamic pseudo-states of the Middle East and North Africa may undergo a significantly similar process remains an open and complex question. It is even questionable whether the Reformation has been or can be completed in the West.

What neither Hamid nor anyone else will be able to demonstrate is that “a long, destructive cycle of civil conflict and political violence” can be avoided even under a dedicated acceptance of “even the more pragmatic, participatory variants of Islamism.” From the time of Abduh and and Al-Afghani’s collaboration to now is around the same length of time as from the 95 Theses to the Thirty Years War. No would-be friend of the people or peoples of Iraq and the Levant will want to support this rough parallel, though comparisons of the current situation to the 17th Century European cataclysm have occurred to many, and are reinforced by Hamid’s reference to the Westphalian order of international law that emerged from it. The affected peoples today, who may in one way or another include all of us, can look for evidence that our contemporary very complicated war of sects, empires, states, sub-states, and proxies possesses a fundamentally different character than that other one 400 years ago. They or we can hope that in our technological age even very complex and conflictual historical processes may culminate more quickly, but why should we presume that, even if they do, they will do so in fundamentally different ways than they seem to have done in all ages? To doubt that we should is a neither simply optimistic nor simply pessimistic stance.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Posts in this series

13 comments on “Islamic Statism and Historical Necessity

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. There is a strain of christian conservative in the West that tends to describe the inevitable end result of the reformation as amounting to widespread abandonment of the faith itself. Frankly I’d be fine with them turning out correct, considering the alternative those still fighting it generally have in mind…

    BTW: I get the strong feeling that Hamid’s remark about IS drawing from relatively popular belief in the region is already somewhere being willfully misused.

    • Do you have something specific in mind with your “BTW,” or is it just a reasonable assumption based on past performance?

      As for the prior point, I think the part you don’t like is the part of the “abandonment of the faith” that involves so many substitutions of a different faith or set of faiths under other names.

      • This quote:

        ISIS draws on, and draws strength from, ideas that have broad resonance among Muslim-majority populations. They may not agree with ISIS’s interpretation of the caliphate, but the notion of acaliphate—the historical political entity governed by Islamic law and tradition—is a powerful one, even among more secular-minded Muslims

        Imagine if various Islamophobes read the above, and how they would interpret it.

  2. well a positive fruit of the Arab spring, is the defeat of the Salafi Ennahda ‘Renaissance’

    party in Tunisia, in favor of the more moderate Nida, this is in part  because the former’s less than enthusiastic rebuttal of the Islamic State.

    • Howdy, don miguel. Long time, no see. You happen to have a link to Ennahda on IS? I recall Hassan Hassan mentioning that MB & friends had been reluctant on that score – and Morsi when president of Egypt (I have read and dimly recall) even encouraged young people to join the jihad in Syria. There’s also been much discussion of Tunisia’s disproportionate contributions to the ranks of the IS. I don’t remember anything specific about Ennahda.

  3. Colin, you write:

    They or we can hope that in our technological age even very complex and conflictual historical processes may sometimes reach their end points more quickly, but why should we presume that they will develop by any other means than they seem to have done in all ages?

    As you suggest with your rhetorical ?, we shouldn’t, or at least we should hope they don’t at least as much as we hope they do.  The idea that tech will create the conditions for what amounts to an end of history (at least on Earth a la Star Trek)  is implicit I think in a lot of what drives a range of thought/action ranging from technophilia to transhumanism.  This may be stated as an expectation that the sheer accumulation of tech progress will create a kind of Moores’s Law for politics.  As  result, another kind of “self-evident” truths are biding constructed.

    Another way to put it is that the only end points are deaths.

    • Originally wrote “conclusions” instead of “end points,” meant something more like “resting point” or “plateau” or “culmination,” and if the right expression is one of those or occurs to me, will likely change it.

      I don’t think you have to fall all the way into Star Trekkian techno-abundance and technological solution of all or almost all Earthly ills in order to appreciate that communications in the broad sense (including transportation and range/power of weaponry) might make things happen faster in 2014 than they tended to happen in 1614. That would go for bad ideas as well as good ideas, or for sources of conflict as well as solutions, of course, but, if human beings generally move in the direction of pleasure rather than pain, there’s at least a chance that an idea capable of relieving the agonies of a war-torn region will not require generations or centuries to spread beyond its source or be made available for imitation, or, failing that, that the bad ideas will do their harm and be done with it sooner.

      Just meant to be a reason to hope even if the historical view produces the temptation to despair. On the other hand, even the Star Trek future history turns, I believe, on an apocalyptic cataclysm of some type between our time and their time. There’s at least one major war involving bio-engineered transhumanism involved, which also explains the non-augmented nature of of our 24th Century heroes. So there’s a significantly moderating technophobia underlying Star Trek technophilia, as generally only more so in most science fiction.

      • I guess part of my point was that there may be a difference between events happening more quickly, and history happening more quickly.  The persistence of history’s average pace (containing large variability) I suspect might hold, would result from the average pace of human emotional processing.  So far tech really hasn’t affected that.

        I wasn’t aware of all the ST backstory -I guess that illustrates the dangers of making a reference without knowing the source material well (this probably  won’t prevent me from doing it again in the future. oh well)

        • Changed the suspect phrasing, not absolutely sure it comprehends your point.

          I think by many material measures – population growth, consumption and output, life expectancy – we can reasonably speak of a recent general acceleration in the rate of change. Whether it amounts to “historical” change” and whether it’s sustainable are other questions to ponder both in their own right as well as in relation to what really is driving the turmoil in the Middle East. One mode of analysis describes much of the latter, going back to the Age of Discovery, as something akin to an introduction of pathogens into populations without developed immunities, but in the form of interrelated ideas, products, regime forms, and economic systems. Isolationism in this scheme amounts to attempting a quarantine long past the point it might conceivably have been effective.

  4. Yes, the Eugenics wars, then the nuclear war, which seems to be somewhere in the 2060s, then Colonel Green’s reign, it’s left unspoken, maybe Roddenberry, imagined a counterpart to the Black Death, that preceded the Renaissance,

  5. I think the scenario will go down more like that in Terry Hayes,’s ‘ I am Pilgrim’ (he was involved in the original Mad Max film) it’s a murder mystery/spy thriller, involving the former title character. an Ivy League educated doctor turned intelligence agent, on a search for the Saracen ,a Saudi doctor trained in Lebanon, with a one man biological cataclysm, it covers from New York to Paris to Turkey and everywhere inbetween,

  6. Hamid, doesn’t really answer the question, why so many foreign fighter, 15,ooo in the last count, from all over the world, are drawn to an extreme chiliastic Salafism, more particular to his sponsors in Dohan and the Kingdom as any other place, outside the Taliban emirate, how respectable schoolmasters in London, central bank employees in one instant in the former place, have become fundraisers,

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins