Cross-regional and Blogosphere
Protesters defending a more humane vision of Islam. Photograph by Flickr user Derek7272 (CC-usage).
Editor’s note: Hizb Ut-Tahrir envisions the establishment of a pan-Islamic super-state, but would it even work? Is it even what Muslims want? neweurasia’s Schwartz doesn’t think so. What’s at stake are two very different understandings of unity and humanity, the one of everyday people versus the one of radicals — and that difference is everything.
In my first post I examined the inner logic of Hizb Ut-Tahrir’s vision of a restored Caliphate and in my second I did the same for their approach to Modernity. To wrap this up, I now turn to the more fundamental questions: would an Islamic super-state actually work, and is this something that Muslims even really want? That second question is the more important of the two, as ultimately it’s really dealing with differing views of what it means to be human.
Here are very interesting photo-stories (my favorite format of blogging) from zyalt (of livejournal.com) on the life of illegal migrant workers in Moscow, Russia. Unfortunately, they are all in Russian, but I am sure you can get the idea from the photos as well. Read the full story »
Screen capture of Hizb Ut-Tahrir's website.
Editor’s note: Hizb Ut-Tahrir believes they can be against Modernity but still make use of modern technology and political concepts, but is that really possible? They also believe that they are the defenders of the global Islamic community, but putting aside whether they can make such a claim, is it even a good idea? neweurasia’s Schwartz weighs in. “This is where Hizb Ut-Tahrir’s vision of the Caliphate is put to test” he writes.
In my last post, I tried to dismantle, or rather, work out the logic of Hizb Ut-Tahrir’s vision of “restoring” the Caliphate, to show how it could actually result in real trouble for the global Islamic community. To put it another way, Hizb Ut-Tahrir wants to repeat history in a sense, that is, to bring back what they perceive as the Golden Age of Islamic civilization. My arguments in the last post can thus be summarized as: be careful what you wish for, because they could indeed be repeating history in ways no one, least of all they themselves, wants.
Here I turn to the organization’s views on Westernization, Modernization, and transnationalism, and as a cherry on top, their vision of themselves as “defenders” of the global Islamic community. Just to remind the reader, I’m systematically responding to the arguments made by the University of Ghent’s Bruno de Cordier in a post written for neweurasia last week. So, my post here corresponds to paragraphs 7-12. And now, without further ado…
Happy Nawrúz everyone! As a member of the Bahá’i Faith, for me this is more than just an ancient cultural holiday, but it’s also a religious celebration commemorating the end of our 19-Day Fast, and under a more metaphysical light, the turn of cycles. If you don’t mind, I thought I might celebrate the event here on neweurasia with some rather captivating photographs by Eline Carmaliet, a dear companion of my girlfriend, a brief haiku by me, and a prayer for Nawrúz by our prophet-founder, Bahá’u'lláh.
The last Caliph, Abdülmecid II.
Editor’s note: Does Hizb Ut-Tahrir really know what they’re talking about? neweurasia’s Schwartz is skeptical. Their ideology is quite captivating at first glance, but upon close philosophical and historical analysis, what may lie underneath could very well be a recipe for disaster. “‘Restoring’ the Caliphate is not only a rather big non sequitor,” he writes, “but even if restoration could actually happen, it would probably fuel more fitna.
Last week, neweurasia ran a post by the University of Ghent’s Bruno de Cordier concerning his views on why the radical Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir has been able to survive as long as it has despite sharp repression of its membership throughout Central Asia and the deep suspicion, even strong dislike for it evinced by the United States and many of its allies.
“I believe that the answer may lie in the extent to which the organization’s platform, if understood in a certain light, may be tapping into very real discontent and aspirations in the general population, and is responding to on-the-ground realities better than secular human rights organizations,” he argues. Fair enough, but let’s evaluate some of his evidence and lines of thought, and while we’re at it, Hizb Ut-Tahrir’s platform itself.
I shall move through Prof. De Cordier’s post and respond to it according to the order he uses therein. This first part shall deal with substance of the arguments for Hizb Ut-Tahrir’s vision of an Islamic super-state, particularly the Caliphate (paragraphs 2-6); the second part with Westernization, Modernization, and transnational integration (7-11), and the question of whether the global Islamic community needs a “defender” (12); and the final part with the bigger yet more fundamental questions of the efficacy and desirability of an Islamic super-state, faith, and “alter-globalism” (13). I’ve got a lot on my plate, but that’s because there’s a lot to dismantle, and much of it very crucial, because as I’ll ultimately argue in the third part, what’s rally at stake are differing visions of what it means to be human.
The Asia Society in New York City hosted a discussion entitled “The Future of Central Asia: A New Great Game?” It was moderated by Anthony Richter of the Open Society Institute in conversation with Philip Shishkin, the Asia Society’s 2011 Bernard Schwartz Fellow, and Stephen Blank of the US Army War College.
Logo from an Hizb Ut-Tahrir conference in Ukraine. The text says: "From the yoke and injustice of capitalism to the light of Islam." (Image provided by Bruno De Cordier.)
Editor’s note: The radical Islamist organization Hizb Ut-Tahrir is perhaps the most officially reviled ideological group in Central Asia and beyond, and yet despite ubiquitous repression, it remains very active. Bruno De Cordier, a scholar at the University of Ghent, believes that the organization’s persistence lies in its ideology. “[They] may be tapping into very real discontent and aspirations in the general population,” he writes, “[that] essentially represents a form or interpretation of alter-globalism.”
Hizb Ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Liberation Party, is a movement often talked about. Much of the coverage vaguely mentions “the restoration of a medieval Caliphate” as the group’s aim. Yet, although it is difficult to determine with precision the full international membership of the organization or the extent to which the general population in Islamic countries, particularly in countries like Uzbekistan and until very recently Libya, may be receptive to its notions, the fact remains that Hizb Ut-Tahrir has survived repeated attempts at repression. The question is how, and I believe that the answer may lie in the extent to which the organization’s platform, if understood in a certain light, may be tapping into very real discontent and aspirations in the general population, and is responding to on-the-ground realities better than secular human rights organizations, for instance.
Moscow-based RosBusinessConsalting Daily online edition reports on Uzbekistan being the first post-Soviet country to react on events in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
Uzbek governement makes sure to seize full control over cellular companies in the country. Companies were instructed to report on any suspicious actions by their customers. From now on they must report on any kind of massive distributions of text messages through their cellular lines.
Moreover, cellular operators must shut the phone lines down at any time upon the request of the Uzbek Agency for Communications and Information.
Recent people’s revolts in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya were labelled Twitter- and Facebook-revolutions since main calls to revolt were sent out via social networks, RBC notes. Read the full story »
Teenagers in Tehran lounging around. Photograph by Flickr user Mahyar (CC-usage).
Editor’s Note: neweurasia’s newest blogger, Rhazes talks wth two Turkmen citizens of Iran to get the “street view” about everyday life in the country and whether the Green Movement’s youth wing really knows what they’re fighting for.
Today I have the honor of sitting in Jamshidieh Park within the city limits of northern Tehran, on the slopes overlooking the beautiful metropolis, in what promises to be one of the most pivotal landscapes of the new millennium in the Middle east. Over a traditional hookah filled with nothing but the strongest moassalam tombacco and a few kettles of tea, I am joined by two Turkmens, Ibraheem and Mehmet, each giving a vivid slice of their own experiences, outlooks, and opinions of life as everyday Turkmen citizens of the Islamic Republic and this country’s dynamic political geography.
Today is the third annual World Day Against Cyber-Censorship held by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). To commemorate the occasion, RSF is releasing therr annual “Enemies of the Internet” list, replete with a map detailing the breadth and depth of internet citizen, as well as their Netizen Prize (the recipients of which are to be announced tonight).
“Our organization, which focuses much of its work on the protection and freedom of international netizens, sees this day as a great opportunity to spread the word about importance of Internet freedoms,” Clothilde Lo Coz, who works with RSF, explains via e-mail.
“As we all could witness since the beginning of 2011, Internet has definitely become a tool for change, but don’t forget it is also the first victim of censorship and propaganda.”
RSS Feeds
Podcasts
Recent Comments