State-Sponsored Sufism, by ali eteraz. shorter: he no like fighting anti-state religion with state sponsored religion. but what’s the alternative? in most of the muslim world it seems the overwhelming majority position that the state should take a role in promoting islam, though there is a lot of disagreement naturally in the exact type of islam 
(i make the assertion above based on the *world values survey*, which i post on later to put it into the public record for google)
rawi 8:22 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
what a historical irony, considering that until recently what-we-now-call “sufism” almost always existed in some kind of tension with the “state.” the people pushing for this are misguided in that they are reading extremist islamism as more religious than political
razib 9:09 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
is this true? i thought sufi orders could be conceived of as non-governmental civil society. sometimes they could be the locus of anti-state/polity agitation, but other times they could serve as instruments of state policy.
bingregory 9:31 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
Yes, this is more correct. The Naqshbandi Order for example has been on both sides throughout its history, based on what the shaykhs saw as most beneficial for the future of Islam in the situation. What is unfortunate about what we’re seeing now is simply that it is too little too late – the US should have been supporting Sufi groups as “civil society” NGOs for the last thirty years. Now that guns are drawn, linking them to the State (pakistant) and/or arming them against wahhabis (somalia) looks very very dangerous for the sufi groups involved. At the same time, I think Eteraz is being unrealistic by advocating for no state involvement in religion. KSA wields too much soft power for states to just sit back and let them exert influence.
razib 9:43 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
thanks bin. i was specifically thinking of the naqshbandi when i made the statement above. also, the safavids originated from a sufi order.
thabet 10:50 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink
Same with the Saljuks and the Ottomans (involvement in sufi orders/patronage of sufis/ulama).
The real question I think is the extent to which these pre-modern ’states’ dictated the content. I’ve read stuff which supports both sides of the argument (heavy involvement/minimal involvement despite patronage).
thabet 10:40 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
I think AE’s view is that having an ‘official religion’ is ok, but active state promotion/regulation of religion is not good in countries where you have such a wide variety of beliefs.
razib 10:51 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink
he sounds british
plimfix 11:45 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
I don’t think governments should be promoting religion at all. Are they theologians or politicians? And as proof in the pudding, the Sufi Muslim Council have got links to Neocon think tanks, plus its leader has been a public support of Karimov – you know, that lunatic tyrant who has people boiled to death?
razib 11:53 pm on June 10, 2009 Permalink |
but wouldn’t you say in most of the muslim world people think that the gov. should promote religion to some extent? different cultures have different norms. after 9/11 i recall a female ambassador from pakistan to the united states on NPR who was talking about islam, moderation, etc. when a caller challenged her on pakistan being an *islamic* republic she defended the centrality of islam to the pakistani state without any apology.
in any case, as i’ve mentioned before i do think that the stance of religious neutrality is actually not real when examined upon further review.
thabet 12:24 am on June 11, 2009 Permalink |
Definitely true.
Look at Turkey.
plimfix 4:57 am on June 11, 2009 Permalink |
It may be the Muslim govs promote Islam – is that a good thing? – I’m not sure, perhaps in some ways. My comment was probably too general and dogmatic. I mean, why wouldn’t the UK govt fund a Karimov fan, considering they kiss his ars anyway? And of course, just like Nu Labour, the SMC tell breathtaking lies, e.g. claiming to be “non-political” while their chief Shaykh gets photographed next to ministers and quotes Blair on the SMC website. I suppose when you get politicians as slitheringly as Bliar and Co, the idea of their promoting religious begs only one question – what’s the con?
bingregory 4:44 am on June 11, 2009 Permalink |
Constructive engagement is the name of the game. That tyranny is preferable to anarchy is a basic tenet of islamic realpolitik and the proof of that is in the pudding in Iraq and in Afghanistan too.
thabet 6:01 am on June 11, 2009 Permalink |
Sadly this realpolitk sometimes appears to stretch to outright complicity…