[R-G] Reviewing Tarek Fatah's "Chasing a MIrage"

[Anthony Fenton]

On a quest for secular piety
Reviewing Tarek Fatah's "Chasing a MIrage"
June 22, 2008 By Justin Podur
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17968

Tarek personally asked me to review his book, Chasing a Mirage: the  
tragic illusion of an Islamic State (CM). With a book being favorably  
reviewed in the Canadian (and US and UK) media, including the Globe  
and Mail, the Toronto Star, the Huffington Post, the UK Guardian, and  
the Asper-family owned newspapers (Ottawa Citizen and National Post,  
which also published long excerpts of CM and frequently runs op-eds by  
Tarek), CM hardly needed a review from me to get attention. I  
therefore took the request as a signal of a serious desire to engage  
with people who might disagree about the ideas of the book.

CM's basic thesis is that religion and politics should be separated in  
Islam. Although it has major flaws, it also has many attributes of  
interest and will be thought-provoking on the relationship between  
religion and politics, and between Islam and the West.

A flawed book with some thought-provoking ideas

The experience of reading the book is a jarring one. Tarek frequently  
overreaches, making claims beyond what the evidence provides. "the  
pain we suffer is caused mostly by self-inflicted wounds, and is not  
entirely the result of some Zionist conspiracy hatched by the  
West." (pg. xi) How IMF restructuring or repeated US bombings,  
invasions, and occupations are "self-inflicted" is unexplained.  
Sentences like that also put all Muslims together, though the politics  
and problems in different Muslim societies are different. CM includes  
preposterous statements about "nations such as India and China, with  
few natural resources other than their burgeoning populations" (pg.  
325). India and China in fact have tremendous natural resources  
(especially agricultural resources) that are exploited to the fullest  
because of their large populations.

Tarek also says "being Canadian has had the most profound effect on  
(his) thinking", and lists his Canadian heroes, which include both men  
and women, French and Anglo-Canadians. But his list does not have  
Louis Riel or Joseph Brant or any other indigenous person. Tarek's  
references to "ordinary Canadians" don't include the country's  
indigenous people or the crimes that were done to them. It is striking  
though, given his emphasis on Canadian-ness and his expressed desire  
to hold a mirror up to the Muslim community, that he shows a blind  
spot for Canada's disgraceful colonialism.

The book is also jarring because of bombast and cliche. Phrases like  
"the Palestinian movement cannot be allowed to degenerate into a fad  
for out-of-luck leftists in search of a cause... When these rich  
armchair anti-imperialists spout on Palestine, they seem to do it out  
of an addiction, not a commitment" (pg. 74) occur throughout, and make  
the whole book very demoralizing to read. The use of phrases like "the  
new found love affair between the left and the Islamists" (pg. 318)  
make a case by insinuation, a problem found throughout the book,  
especially when describing Muslim organizations in the West and money  
they receive from Saudi Arabia and other places. His newspaper columns  
are no different, and are part of what makes it an easier choice to  
simply discard what he has to say.

On the other hand, CM also offers interesting information, especially  
about Islamic history and recent debates in the West. His attacks on  
rigid doctrine, internalized racism, and illiberal politics are valid  
and important. He has more than once presented me with obvious things  
I hadn't thought about. When Maher Arar was being tortured in Syria,  
for example, he wondered why people didn't demonstrate at the Syrian  
consulate, but only the US and Canadian consulates. To be sure, to  
send someone somewhere to be tortured was horrific, but shouldn't some  
anger be directed at the torturer? When a Palestinian refugee was  
threatened with deportation for having been a member of the PFLP (the  
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a leftist Palestinian  
formation that Canada has deemed "terrorist"), Tarek wrote an open  
letter to the Canadian Prime Minister saying he, too, had been a  
member of the PFLP and so if al-Yamani was going to be deported, so  
too should he be. For reasons like these, Tarek deserves better than  
casual dismissal. If the flaws can be filtered out, what remain are  
important questions on very serious matters worthy of debate.

Tarek divides his target audience in five parts. First, Muslims, who  
he hopes to persuade of his central thesis: that being a good, pious  
Muslim, to follow the Qur'an and the five pillars, does not require a  
particular form of state, and that trying to create an Islamic state  
can only lead to calamity. Second, "ordinary, well-meaning, but naive  
non-Muslims of Europe and North America", who he hopes to persuade  
that Islamists are not authentic anti-imperialists. (pg. xiv) Third,  
"conservative Republicans in the United States and their neo- 
conservative allies in the West" who he hopes to persuade that  
"dropping bombs helps the foe, not the friend." Fourth, Arabs, "who  
have suffered at the hands of colonialism", whose "cause is just", but  
who "need to recognize that... the plight of the Palestinians has been  
abused and misused by their leadership for ulterior motives. They also  
need to fight internalized racism that places darker-coloured fellow  
Muslims from Africa and Asia on a lower rung of society." (pg. xvi)  
Last, "Pakistanis who deny their ancient Indian heritage", and who, as  
a consequence, "have become easy pickings for Islamist extremist  
radicals who fill their empty ethnic vessels with false identities  
that deny them their own ethnic heritage." (pg. xvii) Because I  
suspect I have only limited access to only the second part of Tarek's  
target audience, this review will focus on what is of interest to the  
"liberal and left-leaning".

The premises of Chasing a Mirage

CM's explicit thesis, that religion and politics ought to be separated  
in Islam, rests on several implicit theses. The most important of  
these is that Islam, or political Islam, is the major reason for what  
is wrong in places like Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Palestine, and  
immigrant Muslim communities in the West. Tarek sometimes acknowledges  
colonialism and occupation (though he is more dismissive of the idea  
that there might be racism against Muslims in the West), but also  
blames Islamist doctrine and ideology as a cause (as opposed to  
primarily an effect, to which we will return).

 From this flows the second implicit thesis, that there is something  
unique about Islam in this respect. When Europe went through  
Renaissance and Enlightenment, Christianity and Judaism advanced, and  
Islam remained behind. "While most of humanity has come to recognize  
the futility of racial and religious states, the Islamists of today  
present (the) sordid past as their manifesto of the future." (pg. 19)  
Failure to separate religion from politics in culture and theory left  
the way open for Islamists (Syed Qutb, Abul Ala Maudoodi) to create  
doctrines based on the politicized use of religion.

The third implicit thesis is that in politics, Western-style democracy  
is the best form. Tarek is a Canadian by choice, he reminds the  
reader, and cherishes the freedom that he finds in the West, where  
"the only Arabs who today vote without fear of reprisal" live (pg.  
xvii). Islamism is bad for the West and for Muslims in part because it  
causes Muslims to "refuse to integrate or assimilate as part of  
Western society, yet wishes to stay in (its) midst" (pg. xiv). Also,  
there is nothing wrong with Islam itself, nor any other religion. Only  
the combination of religion and politics is undesirable, and CM  
remains constantly respectful of the basic tenets of Muslim religion.

 From these premises, Tarek in Part 1 goes through a series of case  
studies. Pakistan's politics have been distorted by Islamism and were  
distorted from the start. The Saudi regime, with the US guaranteeing  
its safety in power and its unimaginable oil wealth, reaches out and  
sponsors Islamism all over the world. Iran's Islamists destroyed the  
leftist revolutionaries who they came to power with, and then imposed  
their will on a reluctant society in brutal and totalitarian ways. And  
Palestine has been hijacked by Islamists within and without. Next, in  
Part 2, Tarek reads medieval Islamic history from the death of the  
prophet Muhammad through to the Damascus, Baghdad, and al-Andalus  
caliphates. The point of this reading is to show that this past  
provides no useful guidance for political conduct in large, complex,  
industrial societies. In Part 3 he moves on to contemporary case  
studies: He concludes that the recent attempt to apply Sharia law in  
Ontario for personal disputes between Muslims was a very bad idea.  
Democratic laws have to apply to everyone and everyone must receive  
equal protection. He concludes that the doctrine of jihad in Islamism,  
which, he says, is not about inner struggle but about war, should be  
discarded. And while he supports the right to wear the hijab, he  
argues that it is an arbitrary convention without a solid basis in the  
Qur'an or core Muslim religion. Finally, he concludes that Islamists  
and Islamism should be strongly confronted in the West, by democrats  
of all kinds, Muslim and non-Muslim. Since they hold illiberal views,  
Islamists should not be allowed to use liberalism to undermine its  
foundation.

Before assessing CM's conclusions, it may be useful to state my own  
rather different premises, for understanding the problems experienced  
by the societies CM discusses (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran,  
Palestine, and the Muslim diaspora) as well as some of those he does  
not.

An alternative set of premises

I agree that religion and politics ought to be separated. But I  
believe that political Islam is primarily an effect of what is wrong  
in Muslim societies, not a cause. Explaining the causes of the  
problems of the third world is beyond the scope of a book review. But  
a "left-leaning" explanation would look for causes related to economic  
and political inequalities within and between societies. While these  
may have pre-existed colonial encounters (Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs  
and Steel" is devoted to explaining why the geography of Europe gave  
it certain advantages for conquering the rest of the world) they were  
intensified by them. Millions of indigenous people of the Americas  
died building wealth for Europe and the American states (see Eduardo  
Galeano, "Open Veins of Latin America"). Millions of Africans died in  
slavery and colonialism (see Basil Davidson, "The African Slave  
Trade"). Throughout Asia, lands and resources were taken over through  
military conquest, or sometimes through finance, without firing a  
shot. These encounters distorted the colonizers: they lost their  
ethical sense, they developed doctrines of racism and exclusive  
notions of religion, and locked the world into constant warfare.

But by far the greatest trauma was suffered by the colonized These  
societies were not perfect before colonialism destroyed them: they too  
were full of caste (see BR Ambedkar's "Annihilation of Caste") and  
class hierarchy, patriarchal traditions and religion, and militarism  
and violence of their own. But colonialism intensified all of these  
and used them to its own ends. The former colonies tried to make sense  
of what had happened to them and how to free themselves from it (one  
one very important aspect of this attempt, see Vijay Prashad's "Darker  
Nations"). Their responses included nationalism and communism, both of  
which were brutally attacked by the Western powers (on these attacks,  
see William Blum's "Killing Hope"). Religiously based nationalism in  
these parts of the world was often seen as less threatening by the West.

This is where political islam enters the picture in Muslim societies.  
Tarek is right that it does not provide the freedom and equality so  
badly needed to address the other urgent problems of our societies.  
But without a comparative perspective (which is adopted for example by  
Eqbal Ahmad, one of Tarek's heroes and one of my own) one is left  
thinking there is something especially bad about Islam or Muslim  
societies. This is a convenient belief for Western readers who want to  
believe the current "war on terror" might be justified. But an equally  
strong case could be made, and has been, about the caste, irrational  
belief, and hierarchy in East Asian cultures, or African cultures, or  
Indian culture, or East Europe, or Latin America, or Europe or America  
itself - and if the West were at war with these societies such cases  
would receive greater attention here.

I do not believe that Islam has a monopoly over the failure to  
separate religion and politics. I believe that all religions are  
systems of authority, based on irrational belief, that mostly cannot  
meet the burden of proof for the demands they make of their believers.  
A distorted, politicized Christianity is a clear and present danger in  
the United States (see Chris Hedges' "American Fascists", Thomas  
Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas? and watch "Jesus Camp").  
Similar problems exist with Israel and Zionism (see Michael  
Warchawski's "Towards an Open Tomb", or Uri Davis's "Apartheid  
Israel"). As a result I disagree with Tarek's statement that " most of  
humanity has come to recognize the futility of racial and religious  
states". If only it were so.

I believe that the rest of the world, including the Muslim world but  
especially indigenous peoples and Africans, have paid a blood price so  
that those in the West could live in comfort and freedom. Democracy in  
the West is worth defending to the degree that it can look in the  
mirror of these atrocities, condemn them, and redress them. Self- 
congratulation about Western achievements, freedoms, or superiority in  
rewarding itself with what it stole from others is harmful to this  
necessary self-examination. Massive inequalities in Western societies  
and between the West and the rest of the world distort democracy,  
ethics, and the possibilities for decent survival on the planet.  
Dealing with these distortions is the most urgent political task at  
hand.

We all grow up and live in a world of traumas, hierarchies, and  
inequalities, and we all rebel against these in different ways (see  
Bruce Levine's "Commonsense Rebellion" for a diagnosis of everything  
alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, sex addiction, and workoholism as  
problematic ways of rebelling against meaninglessness and lack of  
control in daily life). Constructive, collective, political rebellion  
is what many of us strive to do and hope to see. But there are more  
problematic ways of rebelling, some of which can sometimes have  
perverse effects, and these are sometimes better rewarded by the  
institutions that produce the ills we're rebellin against.

Because it is usually the oppressed who have to free themselves (and  
their oppressors), and because many of those powerless and under  
attack and fighting back (sometimes in ways that are themselves  
distorted) are Muslims, an examination of the current role of Islam,  
and religion in general, in politics is important. So, too, is  
thinking about what that role could or should be. CM's value is in  
contributing to that debate.

Assessing the conclusions of "Chasing a Mirage"

Starting from these somewhat different premises, how do the  
conclusions of CM appear? Take the Sharia law debate in Ontario. Some  
Muslim organizations argued that Islamic law be used in binding  
arbitration to settle disputes between parties. Their principal  
argument, which CM does not mention, was that those principles were  
already being used in Jewish and Christian communities: if religious  
arbitration was okay for some religions, why not all? In the event,  
the Ontario government's decision was the best one possible: rather  
than allowing it for all religions, Ontario struck religious  
arbitration down for all.

Should jihad be discarded, and hijab recognized as an arbitrary  
cultural convention and not a religious requirement? Yes, in the same  
way that all doctrines should be subjected to tests of ethics and  
reason and discarded if they fail those tests. The same is true for  
using the distant past, described in Part 2 of CM, as a political  
guide for the future. If some political idea, from history or  
elsewhere, will have good effects from a perspective of universal  
human values, then it should be used. If not, it should be rejected.  
These conclusions are similar to Tarek's, though they come from  
different premises.

And what of the importance of challenging the illiberalism of the  
Islamists in the West? Here we have a more serious disagreement, not  
on the question of whether illiberalism should be challenged, but on  
where the illiberalism comes from and what should be done about it.  
Tarek, like Ed Husain in the UK (author of "The Islamist") attributes  
the strength of Islamists in the West to the tolerance of "bleeding  
heart liberals" and "the left". In doing so, he attributes more power  
to this social force than it actually has. Liberals are on the  
defensive everywhere in the West, and leftists are so marginal that  
one can only read about us as rhetorical foils in books on political  
topics. Decency and internationalism have plenty of followers in the  
West, to be sure. But it is not tolerance, but intolerance and the  
exploitation of legitimate grievances that others have failed to  
answer, that has strengthened religious politics.

How can we assess CM's analysis of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and  
Palestine? Pakistan was indeed founded on a religious basis, and the  
partition and confrontation between India and Pakistan did incredible  
damage to both societies over many decades. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a  
monarchy held up by the US military, that in exchange controls the  
population and uses its wealth to divert politics in religious  
directions. CM presents Iran from the perspective of some of its  
defeated leftists, who helped overthrow the Shah only to be destroyed  
politically (and, ultimately, physically, in mass murders of political  
prisoners in the 1980s).

CM's chapter on Palestine, by contrast, is wholly without merit. Tarek  
offers the chapter as if it is strategic advice to the Palestinians,  
but like reading much of the North American media, one can come away  
thinking Israel's occupation is a minor issue and that the central  
conflict is between lslamists and others. This is one of the  
confusions of Tarek's politics in general. At times he adopts the tone  
of a self-critical leftist, who leftists ought to take seriously, at  
other times the self-congratulation of Western pundits, who leftists  
would normally dismiss because of lack of time. From both postures, he  
blasts leftists and anti-imperialists with, at times, ugly rhetoric.  
What's more, since the cause of Palestine should be based on universal  
human rights and self-determination and Islamists (indeed Muslims, or  
Jews) have no special right to comment on it, Tarek's dissident Muslim  
position adds nothing of interest to the debate.

Those concerned about the Palestinian cause could, no doubt, benefit  
from serious examination of how Hamas came to power and the  
Palestinian left became so marginal. It is important to think about  
how best to resist the agendas of Israel and the US (and Canada) for  
the Palestinians - an agenda of starvation and murder, it bears  
repeating - and how to relate to the significant social force that  
Hamas now represents in Palestine, for better or worse. But for that  
examination, one will have to look elsewhere - perhaps to Azzam  
Tamimi's "Hamas: A history from within", to some of Amira Hass's  
reporting since the 2006 election, or Adel Samara's critiques of "NGO- 
ization".

Leftists I've spoken to were dismissive. They disliked Tarek's  
frequent and sweeping attacks on what he calls "the left" (I prefer to  
use the term "leftists", since "the left" does not really exist in any  
organized form in North America in any case). Another anti-Muslim  
book, they guessed, part of a cottage industry designed to demonize  
the selected victims of Western foreign policy. Iraq is occupied, a  
million people killed. Palestine is occupied, starved, choked to  
death. Afghanistan is occupied. Iran is threatened. Deportations of  
Muslims are rampant in Western countries. Secret trials are occurring.  
The Egyptian regime receives billions in weaponry and subsidies in  
exchange for support of Israel's occupation of Palestine and  
suppression of the population. Other dictatorships in Muslim countries  
receive similar largesse. Of course, to do all this to a group of  
people requires an industry to produce convenient stories about them.  
Anyone who can produce such stories will be rewarded handsomely, with  
sympathetic reviews, prominent placement in bookstores, and high sales  
for telling convenient things to people about what they are doing.  
Irshad Manji's "Trouble With Islam" was part of this industry, and  
many might assume CM is as well. While Tarek refused Manji's  
acknowledgement of him in her book, he called her "courageous" and  
expressed sympathy that she was being called opportunist and her  
message ignored in his own, a fate his book will share, in some  
quarters.

A better comparison than Irshad Manji might be to black conservatives  
in the US, such as Shelby Steele or John McWhorter, who draw on a  
worthy tradition of black self-help but emphasize it out of context to  
the degree that the central problem of institutional racism is lost.

In any case Tarek and CM should not be quickly dismissed. For all the  
book's flaws, it does at times deal with serious issues seriously. It  
raises important questions about politics in immigrant communities and  
in poor countries. And although Tarek sometimes lacks compassion,  
makes cases by insinuation, ignores or blows off key parts of the  
story, misses crucial context, and makes claims well beyond his  
evidence, he also presents interesting arguments about history,  
discusses some neglected crimes whose main victims, after all, are  
Muslims, and is worth reading on contemporary debates even when you  
disagree. Unfortunately, to disagree with Tarek is to invite bombastic  
and overblown replies, but he also at times seriously attempts to  
engage in a way that might actually advance the debate on how best to  
advance decent values in both Western and Muslim societies. To advance  
that debate, it is worth assuming Tarek's good faith and giving  
"Chasing a Mirage" a careful reading to separate the parts that are  
without merit from the parts that have some.

Justin Podur is a toronto-based writer. He can be reached at justin at killingtrain.com

Comment On This Article | See All Comments (3) | View sustainers that  
like this article


Title: 	

	
For this feature, you must be logged in as a sustainer, please. To  
become a sustainer go here!

E-mail: Password:
Comments

Re: Re: Thank you Justin
By fatah, tarek
Justin, It sounds silly, but poor Louis Riel was a casualty of the  
edit scramble, where the poor soul died in a badly executed  
rearranging of paragraphs, This had to be done because the original  
manuscript had exploded to 550 pages and had to be cut down. I know  
it's a poor excuse, but he is back in the second edition. With regard  
to the chapter on Palestine, it was written as Hamas gunmen were  
shooting dead injured Fatah POWS in their hospital beds and throwing  
some of the captured Fatah soldiers off multi-storeyed buildings in a  
display of barbarity that was inexcusable. I am as committed to a two- 
state soltuion based on 242 as I was when I stood up for Isaam Yamani  
or when I protested the banning of Hamas in my letter, "Hey CSIS, Come  
Get Me". What has changed today is the fact that leading leftwing  
Palestianin celebrties in North America have started labelling  
everyone who supports a two-state solution as the enemy. They have not  
even spared Mahmoud Dervaish, labelling him as a "Zionist". This  
reflects their bankruptcy, not mine. Just as the Israeli occupation of  
Palestinains territories is illegal, immoral and unethical, asking for  
the annihilation of Israel under the disguise of demanding a "One  
Secular State" is disengenous, dishonest and deceiving. My love for  
Palestine since the 1960s was never based on a hatred for Jews or  
Israel. My Muslimness does not negate Judaism; in fact it is rooted in  
the Jewish faith. On my way back from Malaysia (I leave in a few  
hours) I will be stopping over in Jerusalem for a short stay and try  
to visit Ramallah and Bethlehem. What I say to Palestianins is what I  
say to my Isareli friends. This makes me fewer friends, but its worth  
the agony. And BTW, to the 'leftists' who claim that my book has found  
promiment place in bookstores, I suggest they visit their nearest  
Indigo/Chapters store and try locating "Chasing a Mirage". They will  
find themselves out of luck. So much for their conspiracy theories.

Reply to this Comment

Re: Thank you Justin
By Podur, Justin
Hey Tarek, you're welcome. I'm actually pleasantly surprised by your  
reaction - I was fearing being called a "sharia bolshevik" or  
something :P But seriously though, my purpose with the review was to  
try to review it fairly so that people would not dismiss it out of  
hand and miss what is valid and good in it. So I'm glad that you saw  
it the way I intended it. I think it is a really positive thing for us  
to be able to disagree and still dialogue, something that's too rare  
in political discussion...

Reply to this Comment

Thank you Justin
By fatah, tarek

Obviously Justin Podur and I see the challenges facing the Muslim  
communities from different perspectives, but I wanted to thank him for  
a very sincere attempt to critique my book.

He makes some very valid arguments, which I don't necessarily agree  
with, but they reflect his sincerety and seriousness.  However, I do  
believe that his critque is clouded by anti-Americanism, which he  
shares with the Islamists. who, unlike him, are not anti-imperialist,  
but merely averse to modernity itself.

Overall, his review of my book and his criticism is based on good  
faith, and that is a quality sorely lacking among many who have  
labelled me as a neo-con without having read the book.

Thank you Justin.

Tarek