Be anti-West, be Islamic
The word ‘’West’’ is used as a rhetorical tool to silence liberal Muslims. PHOTO: REUTERS
The Iranian intellectual Jalal Al-e Ahmed first coined the term ‘’Westoxification’’. Ahmed used this term in the context of a stinging critique of ‘’Western civilization’’ and ‘’Western technology’’. He vividly describes this malady of economic, cultural and social disenchantment brought about by Iranian trying to imitate Western models:
‘’I say that gharbzadegi (the Persian term used by Ahmed for Westoxification) is like cholera (or) frostbite. But no. It’s at least as bad as sawflies in the wheat fields. Have you ever seen how they infest wheat? From within. There’s a healthy skin in places, but it’s only a skin, just like the shell of a cicada on a tree.’’
Needless to say, this concept was attractive to a lot of people including Ayatollah Khomeini, though even today we can detect this same sort of rhetoric in the works of fundamentalist intellectuals like Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi. Furthermore, fundamentalist activists and proponents have used this use of Westoxification widely as an effort to try and deflect criticism of Muslim societies. I have seen this very same use of ‘’Westoxification’’ used on these blogs on Tribune.
But I am not concerned with the validity of Ahmed’s argument but rather with the contemporary usage of the word ‘’West’’ as a rhetorical tool to silence liberal Muslims, especially in contemporary Pakistan. If anything, it is not liberal Muslims who argue for democratic politics, with a framework of political secularism, human rights, equality and welfare who are obsessed with the West. Nor are those liberal Muslims who bravely carry out intellectual critique of our traditions and thinkers of the past in an effort to broaden our understanding of faith. If anything it is Pakistani extremists and fundamentalists who are obsessed with the West.
The draconian blasphemy law
A case in point is the recent case with the blasphemy laws. Now a lot of articles and arguments were constructed against the need for blasphemy laws, and many of the arguments focused on the religious, ethical and political validity of such a draconian law. Indeed, very few if any articles arguing against the blasphemy laws made a reference to the ‘’West’’. But the intellectually bankrupt fundamentalists could only come back with one argument in support for the blasphemy laws, and that went something like this:
‘’We should not imitate the West, we should be proud of who we are and our religion. Just because the West has ‘’freedom’’ doesn’t mean we should copy this’’.
This sort of nonsense was widespread, and I myself had these comments on my blog entry on the blasphemy case. But this is just abject laziness on the part of fundamentalists who instead of engaging with the very strong religious and moral arguments against the blasphemy laws try and deflect attention by citing the ‘’West’’.
It is this intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary conservative fundamentalism not only in Pakistan but across the Muslim World which is worrying. It seems proponents of such a philosophy have no real ethical, spiritual, moral or intellectual basis for their ideas. It seems their only motto, is ‘’the more anti-West the more Islamic’’. But this is just shocking xenophobia which runs contrary to the universalistic nature of the Islamic creed.
Islam of identity vs Islam of truth
The first philosopher of Islam, Al-Kindi was also faced with this same sort of dogmatism which was so fixated on notions of identity, pride and tradition that most scholars forgot the wider questions of truth, morality and justice:
‘’We must not be ashamed to admire the truth or to acquire it, from wherever it comes. Even if it should come from far-flung nations and foreign peoples, there is for the student of truth nothing more important than the truth, nor is the truth demeaned or diminished by the one who states or conveys it; no one is demeaned by the truth, rather all are ennobled by it.’’
The Prophet (PBUH) also remarked poetically that wisdom is the lost camel of the believer, meaning that we should only concern ourselves with the soundness of arguments and not be bothered by race, culture or identity. Indeed as AbdolKarim Soroush points out in his work, it seems some Muslims are obsessed with the ‘’Islam of Identity’’ instead of the ‘’Islam of Truth’.
Modern Muslim societies have become so obsessed with the West due to extremist propaganda, that they have become intellectually paralysed, and morally stunted in trying to outline new frameworks of politics and religious knowledge. Such is the obsession with the West, that conservative fundamentalists have retreated into a crass religious exclusivity, fostering intolerance and a deep seated hatred for those who disagree with them.
Common fallacies explained
Conservative fundamentalists have arrogated the seat of judgment- a seat reserved for God only- for themselves so that they can secure power with no questions asked. But the problem is that if you dig deeper through the works of extremist intellectuals there is nothing of substance. There is only rhetoric, chest-beating and emotional rants about imperialism and the West.
Conservative fundamentalists hence commit some flawed reasoning illustrated in these common fallacies that can be identified throughout their work and rhetoric:
| False dilemma | This is when fundamentalist ideologues try to portray that there are only ever two options to the complex problems that Muslim societies face, and these two option are only ‘’Islam’’ or ‘’disbelief’’. There is no room for complexity in the minds of such ideologues, for that would undermine their claim to absolute truth. |
| Ad nauseam | This is a common fallacy; when faced with difficult questions and contradictions in their ideas, fundamentalist ideologues just keep repeating the same point over and over again or alternatively appeal to an infallible authority. |
| Appeal to ridicule | This is a form of personal attack against an opponent, usually by making crass remarks about the opponents arguments such as, ‘’You are only a stooge of the West, who blindly follows their ideas’’. It is an attempt to mock the opponent to inspire an emotional reaction from the audience. |
| Circular reasoning | Fundamentalist intellectuals try and make an appeal to the authority of certain Muslim jurists of the past, so if fundamentalists think that the blasphemy law is right by making an appeal to a certain Muslim jurist (who they think is right anyway), how does it prove the validity of the blasphemy law? You cannot prove that jurist X was right by simply saying he was a great scholar, because that is circular reasoning. |
| False attribution | Such is the intellectually bankrupt nature of conservative fundamentalists, that they falsely describe and define concepts such as ‘’secularism’’ or ‘’human rights’’ regularly and consistently. So ‘’secularism’’ means not to believe in God, and ‘’human rights’’ are a tool of imperial control. Nice… |
| Moving the goal posts | Fundamentalist intellectuals love to critique Western society, but if you try and point out some glaring moral disasters in Muslim society, they will simply say ‘’Each country has it’s own system’’. So different societies have to be judged differently, in an effort to justify the extremist ideologues’ ranting. |
| Reification | Treating an abstract entity like ‘’ Islam’’ for instance as if it were a living person or actual physical entity, for example, ‘’Islam tells us we must not pass human rights legislation from the UN’’. Actually, ‘’Islam’’ did not tell you do that, it is simply your own interpretation of the religion. ‘’Islam’’ is not a human being who can speak for itself, there is always a complex process of reasoning and interpretation involved. |
| No true Scotsman fallacy | Pakistani Muslims committing acts of terror/murder? Fundamentalists try and explain this away by saying, ‘’no true Muslim would do such a thing, hence it must be the work of foreign agents’’. This is a form of pathetic dogmatism. |
| Ad hominem | Proponents of conservative fundamentalists frequently attack the personal integrity and character of their opponents rather than actually engaging with the substance of the arguments. I frequently read how some ‘’liberal columnists’’ in the Pakistani media are CIA agents, but you will never see these dogmatic writers engage with the actual arguments themselves. |
| Argumentum ad baculum | Instead of having a civil discussion, some fundamentalists will make an appeal to use force: “If you don’t agree with me then we will threaten you” being the most crass and crude form of dogmatism available in the fundamentalist arsenal. |
| Appeal to motive | I’m sick and tired of reading and listening to how we must ‘’judge the intentions of liberal columnists’’ instead of actually reading what they write. This is the fallacy of appeal to motive. This is a great way of distracting attention away from any embarrassing contradictions in fundamentalist thought. |
These are just a few fallacies, but it seems to me that the guiding priority of conservative fundamentalism is simply to oppose the West no matter what.
Unfortunately, this does not foster a genuine sense of moral integrity, intellectual validity or spiritual fulfillment. Instead we are using our religion as a crude shield to try and escape from the challenges of the modern world. It seems that the worst case of Westoxification is affecting our emotional fundamentalist proponents, who cannot make a single point without mentioning the West. How very sad…
The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.
Yes! Yes! Yes! and Yes!Recommend
Amazing article!!! we need more writers like this.Recommend
Very good read (though too detailed).
Actually the doors of “Ijtihad” have been deliberately closed and every invention is “Bidaat”, so reasoning will not be entertained.
On another note, would you consider Allama Iqbal a fundamentalist? He was also kind of anti -west. If yes, why didn’t you mention his name.Recommend
@ ali hassan
Iqbal was not necessarily anti-west. I am not against intellectuals speaking out against imperialism, but what I am against is using the ”West” as a stick to beat critical Muslims with.
Iqbal deeply studied Western philosophy, and his philosophical framework lends itself to the likes of Bergson, Nietchze and Comte. Interestingly, Sayyid Qutb an Islamist intellectual was severely critical of Iqbal, because Iqbal drew too heavily from European philosophy.
Qutb writes about Iqbal (in his work the Islamic Concept and Its Characteristics):
‘’ Furthermore, Iqbal’s borrowing of Western terminology led him to this prosaic work, which is difficult, terse as well as dry, while his poetry is alive, dynamic, and vibrant.’’
Iqbal borrowed heavily from philosophy, literature, theology and other discplines and he greatly entertained the idea of reading and learning about the works of different cultures and civilizations. That is why I do not consider Iqbal a fundamentalist, rather I consider Iqbal as a great intellectual in the reformist tradition within contemporary Islam. The likes of AbdolKarim Soroush and other reformist intellectuals greatly credit Iqbal with introducing critical thinking.
In Pakistan Khaled Ahmed’s commentary on Iqbal’s ideas shows quite clearly that Iqbal was a critical thinker who really discussed ideas rather than rant about the ”West”.Recommend
Brilliant Blog!
The proliferation of faith channels here in the UK on satellite TV is a cause of grave concern.I wonder if there is a media watchdog monitoring these channels! The fundamentalist discourseon these channels, forever drawing comparisons between the West and Islam and making every possible attempt to establish moral superiority over the West is nauseating.
The fallacies you have so painstakingly explained, I fear will be totally beyond the fundamentalist activists and proponents’ comprehension.If they had an ounce of gumption they would n’t be fundamentalists.Recommend
Be anti-west and be islamic? Can Pakistan even survive by isolating itself from the western world? Even oil-rich middle eastern countries can’t do that so how can these idiots think Pakistan can?
These mullahs who are anti-western are hypocrites. They don’t protest honour killings, acid attacks, tax evasion, corruption, forced marriages, civil unrest, violent demonstrations, flag burning, terrorism, gun control, supression of women, etc. and they claim to be ‘islamic.’ Huh! They should look at themselves first and sort out their own priorities at home before looking outside the country’s borders.Recommend
PerfectRecommend
Excellent piece. “Proponents of conservative fundamentalists frequently attack the personal integrity and character of their opponents rather than actually engaging with the substance of the arguments. I frequently read how some ‘’liberal columnists’’ in the Pakistani media are CIA agents, but you will never see these dogmatic writers engage with the actual arguments themselves.” thats so trueRecommend
Give some space to islamists on etribune over the issue then… point finger to intellectual bankruptcyRecommend
if only we had more thinkers and writers like this author!Recommend
excellent….nail….on….the…head.Recommend
False dilemma This is when liberal ideologues try to portray that that there are only ever two options to the complex problems and we can’t progress while following Islam. For example ‘Objective Resolution’ is the root of all evils and we should scrap all the laws based on Sharia.
Ad nauseam This is a common fallacy; when given the proof and need for any Islamic jurisdiction. Liberal start jumping and saying “this can’t be enacted it’s inhumane, it’s 1400 years old, don’t be a slave” etc. etc.
Appeal to ridicule Read your note again. The vocabulary is choking with ridicule
and follow the comments the two sides make to each other; here and on FB as well.
Circular reasoning Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises – Wikipedia
Eg: “All mullahs are stupid so the Islamic law they propose can’t be followed”
Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — “mullahs are stupid” — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
False attribution What about “Sharia” and “Hudood” ?
Moving the goal posts So called liberals first question the Islamic value of the present law and when given examples from Quran and Hadith they say “That’s why, that’s why!! religion should have nothing to do with affairs of the state, it’s barbaric, it’s draconian”
Reification Agree! But Liberal fascists also do that, in saying that “ Islam asks its followers to blow themselves up and terrorize the civilians”
and many more similar reifications
No true Scotsman fallacy I can give hundreds of similar examples from communist ideologue, but we will stick with the (not so different) liberals, for e.g. when the so called democratic societies carpet bomb the entire cities, NO! What? Ok Pakistani example…. When Bhutto pummeled the political opponents…beep beep;
when Salman Taseer opens his mouth.. beep beep
Ad hominem Here you are!
Argumentum ad baculum Count the number of friends who actually supported the attack on Jamia Hafsa and Lal Masjid
Appeal to motive Talk about background checks and probing for any association when you want to write for any ‘Liberal Publication’Recommend
Excellent…..Very well writtenRecommend
Brilliant. On a separate but not unrelated note, I think critical thought,logic and the art of rhetoric is something that has been lost in our educational system and needs to be incoporated if we are to actually have some form of intellectual debate.Recommend
@Amyn:
and more readers tooRecommend
@ AA Khalid
What a brilliant analysis and presented in a hugely compelling way! Excellent.Recommend
@Ahmad: Thanks Ahmad for the reply.
I was a little confused, because in some places, Iqbal criticizes western civilization and goes on to predict that it would die very soon.
But I am clear now, thanks.Recommend
@ Ali M
AA Khalid seems to have touched a nerve. What you have provided is an example of a non-sequitur.
AA Khalid: Mullahs makes tenuous arguments
You: Liberal Muslims make tenuous arguments
Implication: Liberal Muslims and Mullahs are the same!Recommend
@Ali M:
Wasted the time on reading the blog, gained it by reading your reply…………
:)Recommend
Ahmad Ali Saheb, why don’t you oppose those laws of the European nations which even stop questioning Holocaust! You can support desecrating the Prophet of Islam but can’t demand repealing the laws making the Holocaust the holiest cow on the earth!! If the west repealed the Holocaust specific laws, Muslims should be flexible with blasphemy laws.Recommend
Comment on
Be anti-West, be Islamic
I think the gentleman, Mr. Ahmad Ali, has tried to build an argument based on half knowledge: Jalal Al-e-Ahmad was not against the West in a way the extremists of Pakistan are. Al-e-Ahmad was essentially a socialist then leftist and ultimately a Shia leftist, that’s how he grew. He never stopped wearing western trousers or shirts! His anti-westernism basically was a resistant against the imperialism, capitalism and its corollary, i.e. consumerism, which he described as “gharbzadegi”.
The following statement of Mr. Ali is astoundingly an interesting news for me: “Needless to say, this concept was attractive to a lot of people including Ayatollah Khomeini, though even today we can detect this same sort of rhetoric in the works of fundamentalist intellectuals like Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi.” The gentleman perhaps for convenience sake has overlooked the Raza Shah’s forced westernisation, cultural westernisation in Iran when poor women’s ‘chadors’ was forcibly snatched away from their heads by the police of the king; CIA-executed coup against a “westernised” Dr Musaddaq! He should not interpret Jalal Al-e-Ahmad’s anti-westernism out of context and stretch his imagination by linking his presumed influence over Khomaini, Maudoodi or Syed Qutab, all different persons of different milieus and contexts! That’s one of the most common fallacious ways of analysing different movements by the occidental analysts beause the apparently look alike! (Another such common fallacy is clubbing Al-Qaeda with Hizbullah, for instance!)
The gentleman has analysed different stages of the fallacies: Yes they are fallacies, but equally the gentleman has also constructed them on the basis of his fallacious perception of the anti-west views in the societies of the third world, a political expression, which is becoming obsolete in the contemporary political parlance while the “third world” phenomenon is still a reality! By the way, the term “third world” was widely used by the German Chancellor Willy Brandt in the 70s.
I think the blogger would have done a better service if he had analysed the bias of the western commercial media where construction or narrative of Muslim societies or Islam is such that in reaction to it several reasonable liberal persons of the third world had to defend Islam as an identity in addition to their belief in Islam as truth.
We must not forget these fundamental facts of our recent history. That war against “Socialism” distorted the narrative of Islam! We also should not forget that Jamaluddin Afghani, a 19th century Muslim reformer, wanted to build a bridge between Islam and the West, but it were the western imperialism that thwarted his efforts! Allama Iqbal also tried to work in the same direction, but failed not because of the obscurantism but due to the colonial face of the West in his times. It might also be interesting to inform Mr. Ahmad Ali that Dr Ali Shariati, a completely western-educated, western in his rational thinking and manners, adopted the idea of “Gharbzadegi” from Jalal Al-e Ahmad and given it “its most vibrant and influential second life,” according to Roy Mottahedeh, a renowned Harvard graduate Iranian author.
As far as the current discussion on controversy of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws are concerned, they must be discussed in the context of General Zia’s Islamisation agenda which had nothing to do with Islam. He merely wanted to consolidate his political power in a time when even the western powers were pushing him to promote the so-called anti-Soviet Jihad. He not only used Islam for his power game, but also used some other things and people who were known to be liberal in their prime days. In support of his regime, he also encouraged, and to a large extent enforced, the obscurantist interpretation of Islam! This is not a place to go into those details.
Gen. Zia amended the Blasphemy Laws by making capital punishment for the offenders, otherwise the Section 295 in a reasonable was already on the statutory book since the Lord Macaulay days! Just as a reminder, I am taking liberty to quote the same section which is still retained in Indian Penal Code in its original form: “Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as a insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
The present narrative of the debate on Blasphemy Laws seems to have descended to a brawl between two groups of ignorants! Blasphemy Laws in different forms do exist on the statutory books of some Western states. So why demanding their repeal altogether! Yes, the amendments introduced by Gen Zia and his followers should be annulled, but if that seems difficult in the over-heated environment then the adverse effects of the Zia’s amendments could be circumvented by introducing a process of judicial inquiry before a criminal case is registered against the accused. If we achieve that much it would be a great victory for the supporters of a pluralistic society.
After all, we are living in an environment where a war is being fought against extremists who are using religion for their obscurantist views. And if the Blasphemy Laws are tempered with on the behest of those who believe that Western values are perfectly fine, then we would be empowering extremists in Islamic societies! It’s a war, a military war, not a war on the planes of philosophy! We know it that the Pakistan’s rightist intelligentsia, media and the so-called “fundamentalist intellectuals” (an oxymoron) is basically serving the strategic interests of the Establishment, not Islam. We should never forget that the rise and fall of different interpretations of Islam is the result of the power struggle.Recommend
I don’t know when these illiterates in Pakistan will understand that burning flags only shows our stupidity and weakness. in western society people respect flags by making bikini and bra out of it. :)Recommend
@ Muhammad Abid
You have confirmed Ahmad Ali’s argument. Thank you.Recommend
@Muhammad Abid:
Your comparison of anti-Semitic laws in western society with Blasphemy law in Pakistan is ridiculous. In Australia I think the maximum punishment for anti-Semitic comments is $10,000 fine and/or 3 years jail and certainly NOT the death penalty same is for other European countries and US. even having comparatively low punishment anti-Semitic laws are harshly debated.
But in Blasphemy law the accused gets death penalty. and this is happening in a society where so called lovers of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are doing every thing that has NOT been advised by him or prohibited by him.
In my view the worst blasphemy is that you claim to love someone and practically not willing to follow his teaching.Recommend
Great article and the comments like those by ‘Ali M’ and ‘Muhammad Abid’ just go to illustrate what the writer is talking about.Recommend
Perfection!~Recommend
@ Imam S
As I have said before speaking out against imperialism is a noble occurence. However, some fundamentalist intellectuals take this critique of imperialism to far to the extent of using it as a club to beat down any dissent or critical thinking in Muslim societies.
As I said in the post:
”But I am not concerned with the validity of Ahmed’s argument but rather with the contemporary usage of the word ‘’West’’ as a rhetorical tool to silence liberal Muslims, especially in contemporary Pakistan.”
Be that as it may, it is clear that Jalal Al-e Ahmed was not only advancing a critique against the domestic tyranny of the Shah, but he was also advocating a form of intellectual xenophobia by constructing a mythic and monlithic ”West”. It is quiet clear that other thinkers such as Qutb, Maududi did come up with similar schemes and ideas reminiscent of Westoxification. And as for Khomeini, well the leaders of the Islamic Revolution were all aware of Jalal Al-e Ahmed’s thought and duly noted it.
So what if Dr Shariati was ”western educated”? Sayyid Qutb also had a secular education as a literary critic and literary theorist. These are irrelevant details, because if we look at the actual substance of their work we find an unfair characterization of critical thinking within Muslim societies. Qutb severely abused Iqbal when he said that:
” Deviations introduced into the Islamic concept by works written to correct a particular situation, may be illustrated in the writings of Imam Sheikh Muhammad `Abduh and in the lectures of Muhammad Iqbal published as The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.”
Qutb characterized Iqbal as a ”deviant thinker”. Why? Because Iqbal had the intellectual courage to engage witih European thought rather than to dimiss it outright amidst the ranting of fundamentalists. Shariati’s work is fundamentally weak on the crucial issues of moral philosophy, hermeneutics and legal methodology. Shariati was an inspiring master of rhetoric and fused literature with politics. However, Shariati does not talk about how to think about Islamic law in modern times, or how to think about issues of interpretation or legal methodology. He simply speaks of ”revolution”, but unfortunately his ”revolution” lacked a theory.
It is interesting, that the only real force which really sustains fundamentalism is anti-Westernism.
Again I am pointing out that speaking out against imperialism is good, but some take it too far to the extent that for everything they propose they have to justify it by being ”anti-Western”.
For example one can of course criticise American foreign policy, but those who say that Muslims advocating reform of social norms such as blatant gender inequality in Muslim societies (due to tradition and cultural forces) are ”American agents” or ”Westernized” are quite clearly intellectually lazy.
One can speak out against the actions of Western governments, but to characterise a Muslim who speaks out against the blasphemy law as ”an American agent” or ”Americanized” is pathetic.
To a certain extent whether Jalal Al-e Ahmed intended this to happen or not, people abuse anyone who disagrees with the clerical orthodoxy in Muslim societies in the most harshest and crudest forms, associating all critical voices in Muslim societies with some sort of insiduous ”Westernization”. This is false.
My point is that it seems Muslim societies have lost the ability to engage in moral reasoning anymore. This is because we have become so obsessed with the ”West”, we don’t care what is right or wrong, indeed the only criteria it seems for something to be ethical acceptable is whether the West does it or not. ”If the West adopts human rights then human rights must be evil”, is the sort of fallacious arguments bandied around today.
We will be wise to heed the words of Al Kindi:
’We must not be ashamed to admire the truth or to acquire it, from wherever it comes. Even if it should come from far-flung nations and foreign peoples, there is for the student of truth nothing more important than the truth, nor is the truth demeaned or diminished by the one who states or conveys it; no one is demeaned by the truth, rather all are ennobled by itRecommend
Mullah = Sweeping Generalization.
Good work of Mullah? Never gets the coverage.Recommend
Just want to say that: the writer is completely biased……
Can western democracy exclude Riba (sood)…..
Islamic social system`s unit is a family..but in west its persons!
islam cant be compared with west………Recommend
@ Tilsim dead right you are..
So why blame mullah only when you can be as parochial and obtuse.Recommend
loved it…. :DRecommend