In a recent op-ed from New York Times (“Muslims in the Middle,”August 16th) contributor William Dalrymple writes that “many of our leaders have a tendency to see the Islamic world as a single, terrifying monolith,” unable to discern between the varying “complexities and nuances” rampant within a community of faith that envelops some 1.4 billion of this world’s inhabitants, spanning across each continent. He ties this brief discussion of the collective failure to distinguish between extremist Muslims and moderate Muslims to the recent debates and discourse pertaining to the controversy around Park51 – or, as it was erroneously and grotesquely labeled by opponents: the Ground Zero Mosque. In this ellision, he actually ends up masking as much diversity in the Islamic tradition as he hopes to reveal.
Dalrymple begins on the right note; he is most certainly right that our leaders are “dangerously” unequipped to understand the variations which exist within the global Muslim community, both in belief and practice. And certainly this has dire effects on policy and ways to engagement with the Muslim community, abroad and at home. Yet Dalrymple contributes to a dangerous trope that is increasingly overtaking the larger discussion of Muslims and Islam in the United States.
Dalrymple points to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf role as one of “America’s leading thinkers of Sufism” which he defines as a “mystical form of Islam […that] couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists.” Pointing to instances of violence against them in South and Central Asia, he argues that is the Sufis who are at the “forefront” of the war against violent Islamism, risking “their lives for their tolerant beliefs,” to which he then draws a comparison to U.S soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He continues that Sufism is the “pluralistic incarnation of Islam” and the form which will ultimately mend the relationship between the East and West and is seen as a real threat by the violent jihadists who, especially in recent months, have shown their hatred for the “infidel-loving, grave-worshiping [apostates]” by targeting, for instance, holy shrines. Dalrymple concludes that to fight Islamic extremism, the West must recognize and encourage the pluralist version of Islam.
Like many others, Dalrymple is quick to make the “Good Muslim/Bad Muslim” distinction: there are certain Muslims out there that we cannot trust, who despise us; these are bad Muslims. At the same time, however, there are certain Muslims who we can work with, who will help us fight the bad Muslims.
The Jihadists are the bad Muslims; the Sufis are the good Muslims.
All of a sudden the “complexities and nuances” Dalrymple seemed so keen on stressing early in his piece become completely lost on the writer as he makes a black and white distinction on whom to trust and who not to trust. The complexities and nuances of the global Muslim community are designated two categories and the West has to pick one because the ultimate goal is to not actually build any bridges but to, rather, win the fight against extremism. Dalrymple further commits the subject of his own critique by looking at Sufism as a monolith, completely overlooking its various forms, some of which are not exactly thrilled about all things Western and “modern,” such as the Darul Ifta Deoband who are prominent in South Asia.
forWesterners to get behind, completely watering down the meaning and history of Sufism as an intellectual, spiritual and ascetic movement with roots pre-dating Islam, he also puts Muslims who do not adhere to “Sufism” as part of a camp with which dialogue and the so-called ‘fight against extremism’ is not possible. If one is a Sufi, then one must automatically be tolerant. If one is a Salafi, then one must automatically be intolerant and an extremist. No complexity. No nuance.Sufism, without complexities and nuances, is the Islam, without complexities and nuances, that the West needs to support. Unfortunately for the West, and Dalrymple, such an Islam and such a community of believers fail to exist.
Related posts:
- Sufi Power!
- Guest Post: The Hurt Locker’s (Mis)use of Sacred Muslim Symbols
- Muslim Live8
- American Muslim Organizations Issue Fatwa
- The Right-wing Sensationalists’ handbook to incriminating any Muslim (or a “Modern-day Morisco”)
This "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" business is pure bigotry. It's like saying "not all Jews are crooks" or "not all Blacks are gangsters."
"I want to appeal to honest Jews to speak out against putting synagogues in Christian neighborhoods." Didn't Sarah Palin say something like that? Replace with Muslims, Mosques, and 9/11 victimism (the new religion of America) and see what happens.
Posted by Jamal | August 30, 2010, 3:21 pmThis is a very good piece. However, re: Salafis, many if not all of them are quite intolerant, particularly toward other Muslims with whom they disagree.
Posted by Ibn C. | August 30, 2010, 3:29 pmI don't think you're giving enough credit to 'Salafis' – not all are angry and intolerant. There are many Muslims who adhere to the idea of remaining faithful to the Salaf without the same sort of zeal often associated with Salafism. Like I said – it all is really nuanced and complex – there's no single stripe, even within all the different ways of thinking about and engaging with Islam.
Posted by SanaKF | August 31, 2010, 3:12 pmIn the modern era, Western/Orientalist scholars have always supported Sufi groups or "freethinkers" of Islam — hailing them as the critical minds or true cultural, pluralistic spirit of Islam. Diametrically opposing state-sponsored Sufism against political or nationalist groups (Wahaabism, Salaafism, Deobandi, ect). You know, because we need these scholars to tell us the difference between good and bad Islam.
Lets just conveniently forget that some Sufi orders want to augment state law with their form of Shariah. I wonder what Dalrymple would say to that.
Posted by woodturtle | August 31, 2010, 7:47 pmhttp://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/CompGode.htm
Is one such article which would give some insight.
And my personal favourite source of everything philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-…
Hope that helps.
And a really quick google book search can link you to Neoplatonism and Islamic thought, by Parviz Morewedge which also does a good survey of the relationship and influence (there are a couple of chapters in particular, written by some other scholars, which are good and specific to your question).
Islamic philosophy was built upon the Hellenistic tradition (like any major intellectual society which built upon the knowledge of its predecessors), and Sufism comes as not only a religious movement but also one which is heavily intellectual, thus the intellectual ideas of pre-Islamic societies, which were also tied to ideas of spirituality, this world and the hereafter, make an unsurprising appearance in Sufism, broadly speaking.
Another interesting perspective is the role of Shi'i theology in Sunni Sufism ..ahl bayt-esque influence, issues of 'nas', invoking 'Ali, Fatima, Hussain and Hassan's names in daily prayers (not salaat) etc. Really interesting stuff.
Posted by SanaKF | September 1, 2010, 4:10 pmNice article!
Fools like Dalrymple will always exist.
And so will genius like Alastair Crooke. { http://conflictsforum.org }
But those who will to spread terror will always find fools like Ahmed Chalabi to push forward their agenda; then feed their people 'works of research' from other fools like Dalrymple.
Tried and tested method to starting and sustaining wars.
Posted by OooKhalid | September 2, 2010, 12:19 pmI know there are good muslims but we don't hear much from the good muslims except for when they want to receive special treatment and if they are unhappy about not getting the special treatment we really here from the muslim population then and all we ask for is fair treatment accross the board not special treatment for muslims.
Where are the good muslims when a muslim fights to have a nativity scene removed from public property?? saying it's offensive and if all muslims don't believe that way then why don't they protest the bad muslim causing the nativity scene to be removed? hmmmm
Posted by double standard | September 5, 2010, 11:38 pm"Like many others, Dalrymple is quick to make the “Good Muslim/Bad Muslim” distinction: there are certain Muslims out there that we cannot trust, who despise us; these are bad Muslims. At the same time, however, there are certain Muslims who we can work with, who will help us fight the bad Muslims."
Which part of this would you deny? That there are good Muslims, or that there are bad Muslims? Like any other group of human beings, there are Muslims who commit injustices, and Muslims who will fight injustice, whether or not it is committed by Muslims. Dalrymple's article talks about a group of people who can largely be counted among the latter, at no point implying that this group and "Good Muslims" are one and the same.
Many of the Jewish defenders of Palestinian human rights and critics of their Israeli abusers can be found among the Reform crowd. Therefore, an article highlighting the humanist, pluralist values of reform Judaism, and the possibility of working with its tolerant, moderate followers, would do a great deal to further Middle East peace. Of course, there would be sensitive Orthodox Jews who would complain that this forms an unfair "Good Jew/Bad Jew" trope, and that it implies that there are no Orthodox Jews who value human rights. And they would be exactly as wrong as you are, Sana.
Posted by Ben | September 13, 2010, 6:24 pmNot my job to tell someone else, esp. outside my own religious group, if they are practicing their religion correctly or not. Dalrymple is talking about Sufis as good Muslims – when you make that categorization, you've stated what you accept in terms of belief of another religion. Hence I don't like the NK all up in Palestinian solidarity, denouncing support of Israel as inherently anti-Judaism – that it has no place in Judaism. My concern in that context is not with what your religion allows or not – as a Muslim it's not my place to tell a Jew, hey you're practicing your faith wrong. I can say that maybe to other Muslims, but who am I, as an outsider, to say that to an observant Jew? There are people who do bad things, yes, and people who do good things – but that doesn't mean you're a good Muslim or a Bad Muslim ..at least in the context of what I'm talking about. This trope is not solely about who's practicing correctly -it's about state/government interest; about who's the sort of Muslim we can trust and who's the sort we shouldn't. Woman in a hijab? Kinda sketch. May not want to trust her. New Ageist Sufi Imam? WORD UP!
For more on this, check out the book from which the line was borrowed – Mahmoud Mamdani's Good Muslim/Bad Muslim.
You also miss my point that Dalrymple lumps Sufis into one category – forgetting the nuance and complexity he so gallantly wishes to parade. Not all Sufis are so peaceful and loving and New Ageist. Not all Sufis value human rights. Not all Sufis are pacifist. Not all Sufis will value 'western way of life.'
i.e. Sufi Chechen rebel groups
That's the danger of Good/Bad. Too black and white.
Posted by SanaKF | September 15, 2010, 3:27 pmThe funniest thing about Muslims, and also judging by the feedback from this article is, we blame America for this and that- that they generalize when it comes to Islam. But most comments from this article are blaming each other or certain groups within Islam after experiencing a few bad apples. People, you can NOT judge anyone in Islam. I do not claim to be a salafi, sufi, wahhabi, or anything- frankly I don't even know what those labels mean. I am a SUNNI MUSLIM, period.
If we continue with these titles, then we will transform into the failed political system that we have in this great country of USA. Where the political system is dominated by back and forth criticisms between Democrats and Republicans, meanwhile the people get screwed. In this case, we are bickering back and forth on who is right, who is wrong, who is intolerable, who is not- while our kids and friends are completely gone: drugs, alcohol, sex..you name it.
There is a hadith somewhere which I can not recall yet where the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said, there will come a time where the believers won't be able to tell justice from injustice, and truth from falsehood. When this time comes, just close your door and concentrate on your own worship and do not take sides!
Seriously, lets stop pointing fingers and concentrate on our own imaan…the truth will come out in the end.
Posted by Sameer | October 23, 2010, 10:37 am"the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said, there will come a time where the believers won't be able to tell justice from injustice, and truth from falsehood. When this time comes, just close your door and concentrate on your own worship and do not take sides!"
THIS is what SUFISM truly IS.
This is what mysticism is…the extremist rejection of the flesh is purification. Regardless of any indoctrination from ANY religion. Sammer's post is the best one here!
Posted by aSufi | April 8, 2011, 10:07 pm