2. social factors that have led to global jihad or even that jihad has
multiple meanings within Islam itself. Sociology teaches us,
among other things, that we need to put ourselves in the place
of the others, to put ourselves in their shoes and to see the
world from their perspective without necessarily embracing that
perspective. This essay attempts to clarify how Islamists and,
especially, Al-Qaeda view the world.
As we have seen from our earlier discussions of systems theory,
one has to begin with a focal system that is rather arbitrarily
bounded in time, space, and content focus. We will be looking
at Islamism, a twentieth century movement that has been
likened to similar political movements of that century such as
communism, socialism, and fascism We will move from this
broad global systems perspective to an understanding of the rise
of Al-Qaeda, its linkage to more nationally based terrorist
movements, and some reflections based in systems theory.
For sociologists, major social institutions such as family,
religion, politics, economics, and education are very much
entwined. This is certainly true of religion and politics in the
traditional Moslem concept of sharia or law. "Like most
religious cultures, Islam classically drew no distinction between
religious and secular life. Hence Sharia covers not only
religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day
life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShariaIslamism as a
movement emphasizes the unity of Islam with legal and political
practice. For the Islamist there is no separation between politics
and religious practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
In the shadowy world of international terrorism and
counterterrorism, it is hard to separate accurate history from
propaganda. The wikiepedia, an online resource that purports to
be a relatively unbiased source of information created and
maintained by a web-based community, has identified several
roots of Islamism, which appears to have arisen almost
simultaneously in different parts of the world, often in reaction
to colonialism and neo-colonialism.
Two important predecessors of the current international
3. movement arose in the sub-continent, India and Pakistan.
The Deobandi Movement
"In India, the Deobandi movement developed as a reaction to
British actions against Muslims and the influence of Saved
Ahmad Khan, who advocated the reform and modernization of
Islam. Named after the town of Deoband , where it originated,
the movement was built around Islamic schools (principally
Darul Uloom ) and taught an interpretation of Islam that
encouraged the subservience of women, discouraged the use of
many forms of technology and entertainment, and believed that
only "revealed" or God-inspired knowledge (rather than human
knowledge) should be followed.
Though the Deobandi philosophy is puritanical and wishes to
remove non-Muslim (i.e., Hindu or Western) influence from
Muslim societies, it was not especially violent or proselytizing,
confining its activity mostly to the establishment of madarassas,
or Muslim religious schools. The Taliban movement in
Afghanistan was a product of the Deobandi philosophy and
the madarassas religious schools. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_Movemen
t
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi
Sayvid Abul Ala Maududi was an important early twentieth-
century figure first in India and then, after independence, in
Pakistan. He was strongly influenced by Deobandi ideology. He
advocated government by sharia or Islamic law as interpreted
by Shura councils (assemblies called for the interpretation of
law). Maududi founded Jamat-e-Islami (an Islamist party in
Pakistan) in 1941 and remained at its head until 1972. His
extremely influential book, Towards Understanding Islam,
placed Islam in modern context, but also advocated leaving
much of Islamic decision making power with the ulema, or
traditional legal
scholars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_
Movement
A second thread of Islamism arose in Egypt as the Muslim
4. Brotherhood and later spread to Palestine.
The Muslim Brotherhood
<"Maududi's ideas were a strong influence on Saved Qutb in
Egypt. Qutb was one of the key philosophers in the Muslim
Brotherhood movement, which began in Egypt in 1928 and was
banned (but still exists) following confrontations with Egyptian
president Gamal Abdul Nassar, who jailed Qutb and many
others. The Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hasan al-Banna)
advocated a return to sharia because of what they perceived as
the inability of Western secular or modern values to secure
harmony and happiness for Muslims. Since only divine guidance
could lead humans to be happy, it followed that Muslims should
eschew democracy and live according to divinely-
inspired sharia. The Brotherhood was one of the first groups to
advocate jihad (holy defensive war) against all those who do not
follow Islam. As al-Banna said:
"[Muslim] lands have been trampled over, and their honor
besmirched. Their adversaries are in charge of their affairs, and
the rites of their religion have fallen into abeyance within their
own domains, to say nothing of their impotence to broadcast the
summons [to embrace Islam]. Hence it has become an individual
obligation, which there is no evading, on every Muslim to
prepare his equipment, to make up his mind to engage in jihad,
and to get ready for it until the opportunity is ripe and God
decrees a matter which is sure to be
accomplished?"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deo
bandi_Movement The Moslem Brotherhood became one of the
principle influences on Osama Bin Laden.
The exhortation by al-Banna was followed by the creation of the
Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization that was responsible for the
assassination of (Egyptian President) Anwar Sadat. Islamic
Jihad focused its efforts on "apostate" leaders of Islamic states,
those who were secular and introduced Western ideas and
practice to Islamic societies. Islamic Jihad operated not only in
Egypt but Palestine as well, setting themselves up in opposition
5. to the more secular Palestinian Liberation Organization
(PLO). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_M
ovement
A third strand of Islamism came from Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism
is the faith of the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden.
Wahhabism
The Wahhabists, who emerged in the 18th century led by
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, believed that it was necessary
to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they
interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet
Muhammad and his followers had lived in during the seventh
century in Medina. Consequently they were opposed to many
innovations developed since that time, including the minaret,
marked graves, and later television and radios. The Wahhabis
also considered those Muslims who violated their strict
interpretation to be heretics, and thus used violence against
other Muslims. When King Abdul Aziz al-Saud founded Saudi
Arabia, he brought the Wahhabists into power with him. With
Saud's rise to prominence, Wahhabism spread, especially
following the 1973 oil embargo and the glut of oil wealth that
resulted for Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists were proselytizers,
and made use of their wealth to spread their interpretation of
Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#Wahhabism Osam
a bin Laden is a Wahhabist. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)
All of these Islamist movements appear to have been unified by
a desire to return to what they saw as the fundamentals of Islam,
to governments run by religious law and religious leaders, to
societies governed by traditional conservative practices of dress
and behavior, and by a mutual disdain for "westernized"
Moslems. Osama bin Laden was raised in this volatile
atmosphere and at a fairly young age became an important
figure.
Osama bin Laden, the son of a multi-millionaire, was raised and
educated in Jedda in Saudi Arabia where he was influenced by
6. the radial Moslem clerics who had found refuge there.
(Whittaker, 2002, p.42). These clerics, in turn, were influenced
by Islamism and influenced it in return.
A turning point in Islamism seems to have come in 1979 with
the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Islamist
attention turned primarily from opposition to westernized
Muslims to the "infidels." Osama bin Laden was a young man at
the time. He volunteered to help in the Afghan campaign and
was assigned to recruit other young Muslims to the cause. By
all reports he did his job very well, assisted by the United
States, who at that point in the "Cold War" considered anyone
who was opposed to communism, and especially the Soviet
Union, a friend. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)
Osama bin Laden appears to have been very involved in the
international Islamist movement even during the Soviet-Afghan
conflict. He became an ally of a Palestinian, Azzam, who
traveled in Britain, the United States, and throughout the
Middle East raising money and recruits to the Afghan cause.
While Azzam was fulfilling this role, bin Laden provided
financial support, handled military matters, and recruited
experts in guerrilla warfare and covert operations. Bin Laden
was very successful in recruiting and training fighters with the
majority coming from Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Egypt as well
as many other primarily Moslem countries. (Whittaker, 2002,
p.42)
It is not really clear when bin Laden and his allies made the
transition from an Afghan focus to a global jihad. In 1988, a
year before the Soviet withdrawal, bin Laden and his partners
formed Al-Qaeda, the Base. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42). Its name
seems significant as Al-Qaeda was clearly intended to be a base
of operations for jihad or Holy War against apostate Muslim
governments, Israel, the United States, Great Britain and anyone
seen to be in opposition to Al-Qaeda's vision of Islamism.
(p.42) Al-Qaeda was designed to provide resources for Islamist
struggles throughout the world. It was well funded through Bin
Laden's personal fortune, charitable contributions, and the
7. lucrative heroine trade from Afghanistan.(p.42)
Al-Qaeda probably was always an enemy of the United States
and its allies such as Great Britain because of the history of
colonialism in the Middle East, but active aggression against
the US appears to have arisen only after the first Gulf War
brought thousands of US soldiers to the Holy Lands of Saudi
Arabia. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)
Since the first Gulf War, the US appears to have been the major
target of Al-Qaeda backed terrorism. However, there is some
indication that Al-Qaeda operatives also support Islamist
movements throughout the world with terrorist operations
including the slaughter of school children in support of the
Cheznian rebels and the so called 3/11 strike in Spain.
Militant Islamism with Al-Qaeda as an important "base" is
primarily a political organization using terrorism as a tactic of
war toward those it perceives as the enemies of the Islamic way
of life as the militant Islamists define it. It is a jihad, a
defensive war mounted to save the faith, and political structures
based on the faith, from destruction. From a symbolic
interaction point of view, their horrible actions make sense.
Al-Qaeda is an international movement, built on an relatively
new organizational structure, a truly multi-national network.
Whittaker states:
"Al-Qaeda is a well-organized and highly secretive terrorist
network. Bin Laden's executive circle the Shura, includes a
dozen aides and representatives of the network in other lands all
experienced in mounting a jihad. There are a number of
committees, for instance, a military one in charge of training,
arms procurement, and terrorist strategies, a financial one
whose resources are reputedly awash with vast proceeds from
heroin and opium dealing, and a media one, which has
impressive technology and competence. All these functionaries
take an oath of allegiance. It has been said that Al-Qaeda is not
a hierarchical structure, but a loose, rambling one. Whatever its
nature there is no doubt of its effectiveness. Apart from the
military vanguard, Al-Qaeda draws strength from a web of
8. commercial undertakings in the Middle East. There are
companies trading in import-export, chemicals, currency, and
explosives. Roads and housing schemes are constructed by Al-
Qaeda engineers. There are swathes of Al-Qaeda land, again in
several countries, growing sesame, corn, peanuts, and narcotic
crops. This brand of international terrorism has a very
substantial commercial foundation?" (2002, p.44)
Such a "spaghetti" organization is almost impossible to destroy
although it can be wounded. Especially with the reality of
modern communications, it needs neither a permanent
geographic home nor a permanent leader. For instance, while
Al-Qaeda was certainly associated with the Taliban in
Afghanistan and it is clear that it had a secure welcome there
until the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it is also clear that the
elimination of the Taliban cannot be equated with the
elimination of Al-Qaeda. It is also likely that while the death of
bin Laden himself would be a setback for the organization, the
"Base" itself would probably survive as long as the ideology
appeals to a significant number of people
This has been a brief history of Al-Qaeda and its place in the
broader Islamist movement. Now we turn to ways that
sociological theory may be helpful in both an analysis of the
organization and some strategies for combating its influences.
The application of systems theory and chaos theory can help us
gain an understanding of Al-Qaeda.
· Every existing system is a part of more complex systems. Al-
Qaeda can be examined as a part of Islamic religion and culture,
as a part of global religious fundamentalism, and as a part of
global economic and political patterns. Each of these will be
explored briefly later in the module.
· Every existing system is comprised of subsystems. The
relationship of Al-Qaeda to other Islamist movements is
sometimes cloudy, but it is clear that it sees itself as a resource
for Islamist struggles in many parts of the world. Thus, it is
likely that any Islamist struggle anywhere in the world from the
9. Balkans, to Africa, to India, to Palestine, to Indonesia, to the
Moslem Republics of the former Soviet Union will be able to
call on Al-Qaeda as a source of support. In return, is likely that
Al-Qaeda is able to depend on all of these Islamist movements
for support as well.
· Smaller systems influence larger ones. The interests of Al-
Qaeda reflect the interests of the sub-national movements it
supports. Al-Qaeda is not a hierarchy or a bureaucracy in the
traditional sense, but sees itself as a network holding Islamic
interests together.
· Larger systems influence smaller ones. The existence of Al-
Qaeda provides needed support to sub-national Islamist
movements not only in the form of finances, weapons, trained
fighters etc. but as a unifying ideology and a unified mission
that is very powerful. The very existence of Al-Qaeda brings the
Islamist's definition of jihad to a global level.
· As systems increase in complexity there is more room for the
"chaos effect". Small changes can result in unpredictable
results. Since Al-Qaeda is a complex, amorphous system
without a clear hierarchy it is difficult to develop a clear
strategy to combat it. Worse, it is hard to predict what effect
various strategies and tactics such as traditional warfare will
produce.
· All systems are "more than the sum of their parts". Al-Qaeda,
the Base, is qualitatively different from simply being a
compendium of sub-national movements. It is a new entity that
must be treated as such. It uses an international strategy with
local tactics.
· Systems are a product of their environment. Al-Qaeda is able
to gather followers because of the perception of many Moslems
that there is indeed a need for a global jihad to protect the
10. Islamic way of life, and, especially government. As long as
there are significant numbers of Muslims who feel that their
faith is threatened, there will be those who define jihad, (which
simply means "struggle" for the faith) in terms of violence.
· Al-Qaeda has a focused mission Al-Qaeda is much more
unified than its enemies in the capitalist world who tend to be
pursuing their individual ends. This level of focus tends to make
Al-Qaeda a formidable enemy.
· Al-Qaeda as a focal system should be examined within time
boundaries. While it might be argued that Islamism is a product
of Islamic faith and practice, it appears to be primarily a 20th
century phenomenon as it links religious fundamentalism with
revolutionary political objectives, taking its ideology from
Islam but its tactics from
communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
· Al-Qaeda as a focal system should be examined within
geographic boundaries. Al-Qaeda is a truly international
movement, but it sees itself as "the Base" providing resources to
Islamist struggles around the world. Thus, it must be addressed
on two fronts, as an international movement and as a unique
enterprise in each part of the world where it has identified an
Islamist struggle.
· Al-Qaeda as a focal system should be examined within
ideological boundaries. While Al-Qaeda identifies itself as
representing the "true" Islam, its claims are far from accurate.
Islam is a worldwide faith with as rich a heritage and as much
variation as Christianity and probably more variation than
Judaism. While it is important to understand Islamist ideology,
it is probably more important to understand the main teachings
of Islam. Islam has five pillars: (1) belief in Allah as the one
true God and Mohammed as his last and final prophet (2) to
perform obligatory prayers five times per day (3) to pay zakat (a
tithe for the poor to benefit the community) yearly (4) to fast
11. during the Holy Month of Ramadan (5) to
perform hajj and umrah or pilgrimage once in a lifetime if one
is able. Thus, Islam is primarily focused on righteous
subservience to the Will of God and care for other
Moslems.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/ba
siclessons.html#Lesson2 Moderate Islam has five premises: (1)
sincerity and truth with Allah (God) to seek His favor (2) to
practice what one preaches without hypocrisy (3) gentleness in
presenting the message (4) a gradual approach to propagation
(of the faith). (5) address every people with what is suitable for
them. http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=503 The
following quote from a moderate Moslem writer is definitive:
"Islam is much more than a formal religion: it is an integral way
of life. In many ways it is a more determining factor in the
experience of its followers than any other world religion. The
Muslim ("One who submits") lives face to face with Allah at all
times and will introduce no separation between his life and his
religion, his politics and his faith. With its strong emphasis on
the brotherhood of men cooperating to fulfill the will of Allah,
Islam has become one of the most influential religions in the
world today. http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=503
· Ideological boundaries of systems may clash. While Moslems,
in general, see themselves as seeking only to worship God and
live according to their faith, there is a clash of cultures built
into Islam and Christianity. Both faiths believe that their
founders were the last true revelation of God. Both believe that
salvation is only possible through that belief. (John 14: 5-6)
Moderates on both sides believe that it is up to believers to
convince others of the truth through gentleness and persuasion.
Fundamentalists on both sides believe that this approach is
impossible. Each fears the other and from fear flows suspicion
and from suspicion flows violence. Symbolic interaction theory
teaches us that interpretation becomes reality. Thus, in an
atmosphere of suspicion there is a tendency for self-protection
in the form of preemptive strikes, terrorism or warfare. Even
though neither faith sees itself as aggressive, this mutual
12. defensiveness creates a very volatile situation. Millenialists on
both sides see the clash of religions as having truly cosmic
dimensions, literally a battle between God and the Devil that is
a prelude to the end of history. A few on each side probably
seek to hasten this eternal end.
· Systems are comprised of inputs, a conversion process,
outputs, and feedback. The inputs into the current system at the
level of religious ideologies are mutual suspicion and mistrust
based on massive misunderstanding cultivated by individuals
and groups who view these inputs as beneficial to their goals.
This has resulted in a process that has put us all in danger as the
system outputs have been increasing violence in the form of
terrorism and warfare. Terrorism is like a fire that is constantly
being fueled. One way to end a fire is to take away its fuel. It
may seem simplistic, but one way to de-fuel hatred and mistrust
is to build mutual understanding. Consensus based sociology
(also called structure-functionalism) teaches that social
structures exist so that people can live together in peace and
relative prosperity. It is probably safe to assume that this desire
for shalom is at least as strong a force as the conflict based
desire for power.
Al-Qaeda as a movement depends primarily on a constant re-
supply of young men who are willing to be martyred for the
cause. Military responses tend to play into the perception that
Islam is indeed threatened and that there is truly something to
die for. De-fueling Al-Qaeda will mean demonstrating good
faith to the millions of Moslems who do not advocate violence
or terror, but who simply wish to glorify God and live together
in peace. Ironically, the tsunami in December, 2004 may have
given the western "Christian" world a chance to demonstrate
care and kindness. Fair treatment of Moslems in Western
nations will also de-fuel the perception of the need for
defensive warfare. Allowing Moslem nations to choose religious
governments without interference will also build credibility.
Power comes in many forms, but love in terms of right
14. The following essay is intended to focus some mid-level
sociological theories and the rise of Islamism. Its analysis is by
no means definitive as it reflects my thoughts as a generalist
sociologist, but it is intended to encourage critical thinking on
key issues.
Modernization Theory
Mid-level sociological theories are intended to explain a
particular sociological phenomenon, in this case why some
nations and/or regions of the world are impoverished while
others enjoy high levels of material prosperity.
Ironically, from a sociological point of view, modernization
theory is not really "modern" in the sense of "contemporary" or
"up-to-date". In fact it has its roots in structure-functionalism
and 19th and early 20th century thinkers such as Comte,
Durkheim, and Weber. It also has its political roots much earlier
in the Enlightenment probably owing much of its impetus to the
philosopher Kant. Some of its key components are the idea of
progress, the rule of reason, and the continual movement of
society away from a communal and largely agrarian past rooted
in tradition and mired in ignorance to a bright future of
continual change, material prosperity, and the "enlightenment"
of reason. From the "modern" point of view, humanity has
finally emerged from the darkness of ignorance to the light of a
new day. This concept emerged in western Europe, but quickly
spread to the United States (which, it might be argued, was in
the early 19th century still an economic colony of England, if
not a political one.) Modernists believe that progress to a
secular, industrial society is inevitable, and that each area of the
world is on its own journey toward modernization.
Modernization theory is "a model of economic and social
development that explains global inequality in terms of
technological and cultural differences among societies."
(Macionis, 2002, p.233) Modernization theory has the following
premises. (1) Affluence is a relatively new historical
phenomenon that came about because of the industrial
15. revolution in Europe, before industrialization the whole world
was poor. At first industrialization fired by capitalism only
impacted the rich, but through a "trickle down" process
industrial production soon raised most people above the level of
"absolute poverty". Technology spurred by capitalism is seen as
the source of prosperity (p.233) (2) Modernization has not
impacted all societies equally because some cultural values
reject materialism and technology. Modernization, and thus
material prosperity, cannot be achieved without embracing the
capitalist ideology.(p.233).
Those who embrace modernization theory believe that it is an
inevitable result of historical change. Most believe that all
societies will move through the stages of modernization and
industrialization. Rostow (1960, 1978 cited in Macionis, 2002,
p.234) identified four stages of industrialization which he saw
as inevitable. (1) A traditional phase of economic development
where people live much as they have lived for centuries and
cannot imagine another way of life. (p.234) (2) A "take-off"
phase in which traditional communal ties are replaced by
individualism and materialism. These changes are typically
sparked by outside influences as traditional societies are
influenced by "progressive" influences from rich nations,
"including foreign aid, availability of advanced technology,
investment capital, and opportunities for schooling abroad."
(p.234) (3) Societies then enter a third stage, a drive to
technological maturity and material prosperity. Although
absolute poverty usually ends at this stage, the transition from
traditional life to industrialization may be tension filled, as the
pull from past norms and values clashes with the pull toward
new ways of life. Typical changes include the sense of anomie
and alienation described by early sociologists as well as
urbanization as people leave rural villages and farms for the
cities.(p. 234) (4) Finally, societies enter an era of high mass
consumption where the economy and thus the society is
dependent on continuing production and consumption of
material goods.(p.234) Modernization theorists believe that this
16. process is inevitable and that it is good. Therefore, those
nations that have already achieved a modern status have an
obligation to help poorer nations become economically
developed through helping them control population (p.235),
increasing food production (p.235), introducing industrial
technology (p.236), and providing foreign aid (p.236)
Modernization theory probably reached its peak as a source of
foreign policy in the US and Europe in the 1950's and 1960's
when it was assumed that industrialization held the key to the
future. Now a number of questions have arisen about its basic
assumptions that industrialization and increased consumption
can be sustained, that increased materialism necessarily relates
to a high quality of life. Macionis (2002, p. 236) lists several
telling criticisms of modernization theory. (1) Modernization
theory is a thinly veiled defense of capitalism and its
destruction of other political forms (p. 236). Modernization
makes western-style industrial capitalism the standard by which
all other societies are judged. (p. 236) (2) Modernization theory
posits that all societies should be improving as time goes on,
but the United Nations lists several countries whose standard of
living has either stagnated, or decreased in the last decades.
(p.236) (3) Modernization theory fails to recognize that
economic development of poor counties is not in the best
interest of rich countries and, therefore, rich countries may
actively block economic development efforts. (p.236) Moreover,
although modernization theory tends to think in terms of nations
rather than in multinational terms, much of the world's economy
is controlled by multinational corporations, not nation states.
(p.347) (4) Modernization theory tends to treat rich societies
and poor societies as separate worlds, ignoring how each has
affected the other and, especially, how the exploitation of
natural resources through colonialism powered the industrial
revolution. (p. 236) (5) Modernization theory "blames the
victims", by suggesting that lack of prosperity is due to cultural
"backwardness" rather than other factors such as exploitation.
(p.236) (6) Modernization theory denies that it may carry within
17. it the roots of its own destruction as unlimited growth may not
be sustainable in the closed ecological system of the earth.
(p.236)
Modernization theory is a consensus based, primarily structural-
functional approach to international economics. Its strengths
appear to be in the belief that shared technology can lead to
global prosperity. Its major weakness, in addition to the ones
outlined above, appears to be arrogance and an inability to see
how other forms of economic and political life may be best in
particular contexts.
Modernization theory is not intrinsically evil. In fact, one can
see how its adherents probably feel that they have altruistic
motives in bringing all of the world's peoples out of absolute
poverty and into material prosperity. On the other hand, one can
see how others might see modernization as a thinly veiled
support for capitalism and for western domination. (Macionis,
2002, p. 236). Islamists with their emphasis on a return to
traditional Islamic forms of government see modernization as
one manifestation of "the Enemy", perhaps with some reason.
Modernization Theory and the History of the Middle East
It is clear that the so-called modern era, found the Middle
Eastern countries around the Mediterranean ill prepared for
change. Centuries of emphasis on understanding and embracing
the wisdom of the past and respecting the divinely ordained
patterns of governance in the present, left much of
the ummah or Muslim lands ill-prepared to face the onslaught of
well-organized European powers. (Waines, 2001)
At least some well-educated Muslims became aware of both the
threat and the possibilities of modernization in the early 19th
century. One scholar, Muhammad el Saffar, representative of
the Sultan of Morocco a classically trained Muslim scholar and
representative of the Sultan of Morocco to France from was
particularly impressed with French organization and forward
thinking. His journal is quoted here:
"(The French) are not content with knowing things by tradition,
but study the roots of a matter (before) drawing conclusions.
18. Only then do they accept or reject it?If a craftsman does
something new his prestige and power are increased. Then the
state rewards him, praises him, and makes much of him. In that
way, the desire for progress is cultivated among them.
Whatever, they hear, see, invent, or learn from others they
record in registers and keep forever?" (journal of Muhammad el
Saffar translated by S.G. Miller (1992) Travels of a Moroccan
Scholar in France in 1845-1846 Berkeley: University of
California Press cited in Waines, 2001 p.212)
These thoughts led el Saffar to compare the role of learning and
scholarship in the two cultures:
"(A learned man (alim) is someone who is able to invent new
and useful (ideas and things) and demonstrate their fine points
by presenting sound proofs to those who doubt or oppose their
findings. The name alim (roughly "professor") is not limited to
someone who has studied the sources of the religion of the
Christians and its various branches--they are called priests--for
knowing that is rather undistinguished (in their view) as
compared with knowing the other logical and precise sciences."
(p. 212)
El Saffar may have been one of the first, but he was certainly
not the last 19th century Muslim to be fascinated with secular
knowledge and the scientific method. Muslim reformers began
to look carefully at the West and particularly at the concept of
progress. There was a movement from an emphasis on life
hereafter, to the responsibility to improve life in the present.
There was also a movement from viewing all things European as
"Christian" and, therefore, forbidden, and toward viewing
technological progress and even constitutional forms of
government and concepts such as separation of religion and
state as separate from faith. (Waines, 2001). The colonial
conquest of much of what had been the ummah or Muslim world
occurred nearly simultaneously with this scholarly speculation
on the possibility of embracing modernization. (Waines, 2001)
The two trends appear to have flowed together through much of
the early and mid 20th centuries. The effects of modernization
19. were felt most directly in those parts of the ummah came
directly under European colonial rule. There the concept of
"nation state" was introduced as the colonial powers carved up
and divided the territory. These newly created states became
independent at different times. As each became independent,
they created new governments. Most of these governments were
built on a European model with separation of religious rule
from state rule. In addition, most of the new rulers were
committed to "modernization" in the sense of embracing science
and technology as the way to material prosperity. (Waines,
2001)
The image held by many Europeans and Americans during the
mid- 20th century was of the Muslim states moving into the
modern, secular world smoothly and peacefully with religion
relegated to only matters of personal conscience. This image
was probably epitomized by the Shah of Iran who was seen in
most Western countries as a symbol of the "modern" Middle
East, using the prosperity of his country to bring his people
health care, education, and modern ideas. (Waines, 2001,
p.247). The western world was utterly shocked when the Shah
fell in 1979 and was replaced by a fundamentalist cleric.
However, the fall of the Shah may have been simply
symptomatic of the weakness in the imposition of modernism on
Islamic culture. The changes imposed by the Shah had merely
been superimposed on the existing culture. They had not been
allowed to grow and take root in a uniquely Islamic way, and
thus the backlash. (Waines, 2001). Similar backlashes have
occurred and are occurring throughout the ummah in the radical
Islamist movement we have been discussing.
The lesson from this history is not so much that modernization
in terms of new technology and the scientific method is wrong,
but that the imposition of ideas on a culture invites backlash.
Time will tell if a post-modern approach can be developed that
will blend the best of both worlds, the strength of tradition with
the creativity of technology.
Dependency Theory
20. While modernization theory is based in the structure-functional
view of sociology, dependency theory is based in the conflict
paradigm. Dependency theory may be defined as "a model of
global economic development that explains global inequality in
terms of the historical exploitation of poor societies by rich
ones." (Macionis, 2002, p.236). While modernization theory
states that poor nations are simply behind rich ones on an
inevitable path of progress (p.236), dependency theory states
that the rich parts of the world are only rich because of the
exploitation of poor parts of the world. (p.236) Both relative
wealth and poverty are the result of global commerce initiated
by Europeans five centuries ago. (p.236) This historical
perspective is especially important for Islamism.
Dependency Theory and the History of the Middle East
The following information is taken from an extensive article
entitled "Islam and Islamic History in Arabia and the Middle
East" retrieved from the web
athttp://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm It is
important to remember that during the time in Europe we call
the "Middle Ages" or even the "Dark Ages" Islamic culture was
at its peak with great universities, highly developed science and
mathematics, and a stable, prosperous way of life. Islam appears
to have ended years of tribal conflict in the Middle East and
parts of Africa. While not everyone in the Islamic world was
rich in the Golden Age of Islam, it is clear that the area enjoyed
unprecedented prosperity during centuries while Europe
languished after the Fall of Rome.
It is unclear exactly when the power of Islam was broken by the
Europeans. There is some indication that the crusades were
simply minor irritants to the Moslems. It seems that the
beginning of trade in the 14th and 15th centuries was far more
important, leading as it did to more contact, to military
aggression, and eventually in the 19th century to colonial
control. Across the years, the Ottoman Empire gradually lost
power to the Europeans, but a major turning point came when
Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and defeated Egypt in 1798. This
21. shattered the myth of the power of the Ottoman Empire and
inaugurated more than 150 years of direct political intervention
by the West. Western intervention grew throughout the 19th
century. "In 1820 Great Britain imposed a pact on Arab tribes
on the coast of the Arabian gulf; in the 1830's France occupied
Algeria; in 1839 Britain occupied Aden, at the strategic
entrance to the Red Sea, in 1869, the Suez Canal was completed
under French
sponsorship. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.ht
m
While modernization brought some improvements to the Arab
world after centuries of slow decline under the Ottomans,
western domination tended to benefit only Europe. "Western
and western stimulated efforts to modernize parts of the Middle
East ? often led Middle Eastern rulers to incur debts which led
to European financial control and then to European political
domination." http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.ht
m
The domination of Arab lands by the Europeans continued.
During World War I the remnants of the Ottoman Empire sided
with Germany. Great Britain, in response, supported the Arab
guerilla revolt against the Ottoman Turks, promising aid and
eventual independence. However, the promise of independence
was never kept. Instead, Great Britain and France secretly
agreed to partition much of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman
Empire between them and eventually obtained mandates from
the League of Nations: Britain over Iraq, Palestine, and
Transjordan; France over Syria and Lebanon. This, in addition
to the control these European powers already had over Egypt,
Algeria, and large parts of Moslem Africa, led to a European
hegemony in the area. The control of the region by the European
Colonial powers led directly to their assumption of the right to
declare an Israeli state in Palestine, which was rejected by the
Arab peoples, and has led to all manner of violence since
then. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm
It is important to note that the European exploitation of Arabian
22. resources and political aspirations is what Macionis (2002,
p.238) warns about as one of the primary criticisms of
modernization theory and a major defense of dependency
theory.
This brief history of the Middle East, supports some of the main
premises of dependency theory as expressed by Wallerstein
(1974, 1979, 1983, and 1984 in Macionis, 2002) First, that poor
nations are poor because of the legacy of colonialism. (p. 236)
Second, that the capitalist economies (i.e. the "core" economies)
of the world make the poorer economies (i.e. the peripheral
economies) dependent on them through the following more or
less intentional strategies. (1) Multinational companies who are
based in "core nations" exploit peripheral nations by purchasing
only a few cash crops from them, making it impossible for poor
nations to diversify their agricultural output. In addition, the
core nations also have historically used peripheral nations as a
source of raw materials (such as oil in the Middle East) while
retaining the manufacturing resources within their own borders
(p.236)?(Author's note: It is interesting to speculate whether
this is still the case since the 1980's and continuing to the
present both manufacturing and now information-based jobs
have been exported off-shore by multinational companies). (2)
Lack of an industrial capacity in peripheral countries means that
citizens must purchase manufactured goods and from the richer
countries. (p. 236) (3) Unequal trade patterns have plunged poor
countries into massive debt. Staggering debt results in high
unemployment and rapid inflation. (p.236) Modernization
theory holds that the industrialization pulls the rest of the world
along toward prosperity. (p.238) Dependency theory states that
the industrialized nations became overdeveloped by the
exploitation of the rest of the world. (p.238) Poverty is a result
of unfair distribution of wealth in a world of "haves" and "have
nots". (p.239)
Macionis (2002) points out some of the flaws in dependency
theory. (1) Wealth is not a zero-sum commodity in which only a
few can be well-off at the expense of the many. Wealth can be
23. created and distributed. (p.239). (2) A direct relationship cannot
be proven between contact with the West and poverty. Some
countries, like Ethiopia, have had little contract with the West
and are very poor while other countries like Sri Lanka,
Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea have become quite
prosperous through their western connections. (p.239). (3)
Dependency theory is too simplistic in placing the blame on
global capitalism. Cultural factors within particular societies
including corrupt leadership. (p.240) (4) Critics of dependency
theory fault theorists for downplaying the harm done to poor
countries by the former Soviet Union. The Soviets are seen as a
colonial power just as the Western powers. (Author's note: It
seems that Al-Qaeda would agree with this assessment, as
Russia is certainly on their list of enemies of Islam). Fifth,
dependency theory encourages poor countries to reject Western
style capitalism and forge their own identities. Critics of
dependency theory say that this is only thinly disguised
socialism. (p. 240) (Author's Note: Islamists probably adopt
many of the premises of dependency theory, but do not embrace
socialism. Instead, they claim to prefer a return to traditional
Islamic government forms.)
Both modernization theorists and dependency theorists have
their adherents as you probably noticed earlier in the course in
the debate between the philosophers Habermas and Derrida.
Certainly elements of each can be seen throughout the world
today. Both are useful in discerning what has happened in the
world during the last two or three centuries and may be useful
in discerning what is likely to happen in the future.
Written Works Cited
Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
Miller, S.J. (1992) Travels of a Moroccan Scholar in France in
1845-1846 Berkeley: University of California Press cited in
Waines, 2001 An Introduction to Islam.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Rostow, W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A non-
24. Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.cited in Macionis, 2002, Society: the Basics 6th
ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Rostow, W. (1978) The World Economy: History and
Prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press cited in Macionis,
2002, Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Waines, D. (2001) An Introduction to Islam. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Wallerstein, I (1974) The Modern World System: Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European Economy in the
Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press cited in
Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
Wallerstein, I (1979) The Capitalist World
Economy. Cambridge: University Press cited in Macionis, J.
(2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Wallerstein, I (1983) "Crises, the World Economy, the
Movements, and the Ideologies" in Albert Bergesen ed, Crisis in
the World System. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage p.21-36 cited in
Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
Wallerstein, I. (1984) The Politics of the World Economy: the
States, the Movements, and the Civilizations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press cited in Macionis, J.
(2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Web Source Cited--Retrieved 3/18/05
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm
