The Anti-Anti-Islamist

Mark Lilla's cover article for the Sunday New York Times Magazine, "The Politics of God" deserves widespread attention. Lilla is one of a number of prominent authors, such as Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash, who write for the New York Times Sunday Magazine and The New York Review of Books and argue that a Western overreaction to Islamic extremism is far more dangerous than Islamism itself.

Buruma and Ash see the danger coming from "Enlightenment fundamentalism," Lilla from the messianic tendencies in Christianity and Judaism. But what they share is a tendency to see the worst in Western culture while highlighting the best of what might be hoped for from Islamic fundamentalism. The structure of their argument resembles those of the anti-anti-Communists of the Cold War who thought anti-Communism far more threatening than Communism itself.

Lilla's history is dubious. He writes of political theology without mention of French Jacobinism which Tocqueville rightly saw as modern incarnation of Muslim fanaticism. And he seems entirely unaware of the close intellectual ties between German fascism and its Arab/Islamic admirers including Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Moslem Brotherhood, the organization from which Al Qaeda originates.

But more serious are his intellectual sleights of hand. Never mentioning the strong pagan streak in Nazism, he argues that fascism in Germany was a product of liberal Protestantism's inability to supply the spiritual needs of the German population so that they turned to redemptive politics. Then by analogy, he implies that the danger from Islam today is that the liberalizing tendencies which have taken hold will lead to a similar apocalyptic search for redemption. But he never tells where and when these liberal tendencies took hold; it's not clear if he's arguing about real developments or the dangers that might come from trying to liberalize Islam.

Our best option he argues, like Buruma and Ash is to support men like Tariq Ramadan, the grandson and spiritual heir of Hassan al-Banna. Ramadan, as Paul Berman explained in his lengthy New Republic essay on Ramadan is master of the double game. It is often unclear whether Ramadan, who has ties to groups which promote but don't actually carry out Jihad, wants to modernize Islam or Islamize Modernity. Ramadan, Lilla seems unaware, is politically and intellectually close to his great Uncle Sheikh Gamal al-Banna who described the actions of the 9/11 high jackers as "extremely courageous" as well as "dreadful and splendid", in opposition to the "barbaric capitalism" of the United States.

Lilla concludes by defending a more threatening version of the heckler's veto. "We need to recognize," he argues, "that coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle, and that our expectations should remain low. So long as a sizable population believes in the truth of a comprehensive political theology, its full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected." But Lilla never elaborates, which high principle(s)" need to go by the wayside. Is he referring to free speech, woman's rights, or the freedom to marry a partner of one's own choosing?

But in England where until recently "coping" has been the order of the day, home grown terror attacks have produced a shift in attitude. David Goodhart the editor of the liberal journal Prospect, who had defended Tariq Ramadan from Paul Berman's criticism in the New Republic, has now had second thoughts. The shift was prompted by a Ramadan article in the Guardian that pace Lilla called for a moratorium on the need for Muslims to integrate into England. It appears, says Goodhart that "the real Tariq Ramadan is the man who wrote that British Muslims `should refuse .....critical and self-critical understanding' and stay in `their intellectual, religious and social ghettos.'" This is the hope that Lilla lays out for us?

Comments

[TakeSake]

Regarding the relative danger of Islamists vs. Anti-Islamists, what measures are being applied? A number of possible measures pertinent to the actions of those groups could include:
1) Number of people killed
2) Number of people injured or displaced
3) Economic losses
4) Capability of future destructive actions

Can you research these statistics? Based on the results, would it then be possible to make a conclusion about the relative danger of the two groups?

[cseper]

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[realitytrumpsbull]

The born-again bible babies and the new age islamists are two peas in a pod, there's money and politics involved, people claiming to be in the service of God(VISA/MC accepted, operators standing by), and frankly, it's a global franchise. Instead of the burger wars, now it's the religion wars. But, luckily, we've seen this movie before, sort of, it was called the Crusades. Billy Graham was a Crusader, too, listen closely to the rhetoric, and it falls apart in front of your eyes, there. Whatever you do, don't encourage them by giving them your time or money...can I get an 'amen' to that? AY-MEN!

[Fairfloss]

I am never quite sure how some, so-call Intellects prefer we handle a problem such as fundamental Islam, or if they even recognize it as a problem.
They ignore the cries to "wipe Israel off the map," and to rule the decadent west. Do they expect us to crawl into a sack and pull a draw string and hide? How can we as a people, Christian, Jew or other, be so stupid as to allow this to happen.
It seems to me, common sense should replace the Intellectuals in this case, as it is a matter of survival. Should there even be a debate? Sir Winston Churchill warned of "Muhammedism," many years ago. I think that is what we a facing in a large part of the World today.
An amazing article.

[Lon]

I can only speak for one such person. But I would advise looking at the nature and seriousness of the threat and pursuing policies that diminish the likelihood of their occurring.

So for example, I would not have responded to an attack by islamic fundamentalists by invading a secular Arab country thereby increasing the appeal of islamic fundamentalism. It is possible to not crawl into a sack, and also to not act like idiots and strengthen your opponents.

Your reference is obviously to Iran. Our achievements with regard to Iran of the last few years have been to remove a rival government to its NorthEast. To remove the major counterbalance to its strength in the middle east. To take away our own deterrence potential by getting bogged down in Iraq. Helping more radical elements to take the Presidency in Iran by speaking loudly and carrying a little stick. We would have been better off crawling into a sack. But fortunately those aren't the only choices.

[StopThePlanet]

I don't know many Anti-Islamists who strap explosives to themselves and then go into crowded public places to detonate themselves. That being said, over reaction is bad but it is ridiculous to assert that it is worse.

[AOGutierrez]

They don't have to. They have the U.S. Air Force do it for them.

I agree with CriminallySane regarding anti- whatever, we have to continually ask "Whose next?" The most pro-America Love it or Leave It section of the country also abounds in flags glorifying the only internal organization that actively attempted the destruction of the United States by military means. Should we still be anti-South? When and how does it end? Over-reaction is what perpetuates the current situation. Fanaticism is fanaticism regardless of who practices it. If you don't eventually talk to your enemies you will only have the option of fighting them till their all dead. There's a word for that.

[Anirban]

Which part is fanaticism . if you say fanaticism for free speech , woman's right or abject slavery to the state , then lets all well be fanatic a little bit. You think you can talk to them . Well they wont talk back with such moral equivalence.You know what they will do if you don't mind your tongue , 'cause tongue works only when you have a head on your shoulder . Isn't it ? Fundamental islam is anathema to democracy , take it or leave it and we should have no compunction to say that. Kudos to Fred Siegel.

[Lon]

This is silly. Suicide bombing is a particularly striking bit of evil, but it is not a serious danger to western society.

The question of which is "worse" as you seem to mean it here, and which is more dangerous are simply different questions. The overreaction to a threat will generally not have moral underpinings equivalent to the threat, but that does not affect the fact that they can do more harm.

[CriminallySane]

"...the anti-anti-Communists of the Cold War who thought anti-Communism far more threatening than Communism itself."

They have been proven right. Communism died of its own internal contradictions, and would have done so without regard for the West's policies.

The real danger in being "anti-(insert currently demonized ideology here)" is this: When we do that, we define ourselves not by what we are, but by what we are not. As Groucho sang long ago, "Whatever it is, I'm against it!" Not a good basis for muhc of anything, given even a small amount of thought.

And when we do that, once the external enemy is removed, by whatever means, for whatever reason, a new one must be found, and quickly. Once radical Islam disintegrates, as it will, under the weight of its own internal structural deficiencies, who or what will be next?