Moderation in Turkey

In the past few days, and no doubt due to the violent actions of the Turkish police, our ABC has begun dropping the word "moderately" from the phrase, "the moderately Islamist AKP". Certainly, there has been little moderate about Erdogan's rhetoric lately. Even today he was threatening protesters, telling them that if they do not go home, he will really lose patience with them.

But it would be wrong to imagine that there is anything necessarily Islamist about Erdogan's brutality towards his opponents, or that this is a sign that the AKP is about to declare Sharia law across Turkey, suspend democracy and shoot all the secularists. Unfortunately, the AKP is acting all too much like its deeply secular yet authoritarian predecessors. It's especially unfortunate because, earlier, the AKP had at times been a liberalising influence. One might have hoped they would do away with the Kemalist extremism which still sees thousands of journalists and activists thrown into jail for insulting Turkishness or promoting minority, especially Kurdish, rights. Again, regrettably, they have continued and even expanded these illiberal excesses.

All this brings to mind the question: what is "moderate Islamism"? There isn't yet a clear definition of what 'moderate Islamism' means. Terms like 'radical', 'conservative' and 'moderate' seem to become distorted and unclear when we use them in an Islamic context. In my mind, I imagine al Qaeda and similar groups representing a form of radical Islamism. They are radical because they wish to completely overhaul society, do away with nation states altogether and bring Muslims of all backgrounds together under a single ideology. I also consider, in their early period under the influence of Maududi, Jamaat-e Islami to be radical Islamists, though undoubtedly in a different form to that of al Qaeda. It is interesting to note how Jamaat-e Islami have moderated their politics in recent decades. Though they are not particularly significant players in national politics, they have accepted Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi nationhood, and become supporters of democracy. Perhaps this makes today's Jamaat-e Islami 'moderate Islamists'. But perhaps, as I suggested earlier, these terms don't entirely make sense in an Islamic context. It might be that the most important distinction we can make is between those Muslim politicians who wish to push Sharia law upon a population through top-down reforms, and who believe that by doing so they can create a country populated by homo Islamicus and none other, and those who wish to preserve and perpetuate Islamic customs, but will do so without using the power of the state to enforce Sharia law. Those who prefer the top-down approach might be Islamists, while those who prefer the latter might be better thought of as religious conservatives.

Many people have spoken of the AKP as the great model for Islamist parties around the world, inasmuch as they have apparently given up their Utopian desire for an Islamic state, yet have grown in popularity and influence. And though it is perhaps a slightly depressing thought, there is no question the Middle East would be a lot better off if the Muslim Brotherhood and their associated political groups remade themselves in the AKP's image. At the same time, it may not be until the end of his reign that we will know whether Erdogan really is the religious conservative he claims to have become, or if he remains an Islamist. Turkish secularists have certainly never forgotten his talk of democracy being a 'bus' which he plans to take to his final destination. But in his recent actions, and despite some ridiculous and disgusting rhetoric, Erdogan has not done anything which makes me think he's returning to Islamism in any radical form. Instead, he appears to be another yet authoritarian leader of the Turkish Republic.

My review of "On Saudi Arabia"

The Australian Institute of International Affairs has been kind enough to publish, in their Quarterly magazine, my review of Karen Elliott House's recent book "On Saudi Arabia: It's people, past, religion, fault lines - and future".

http://www.aiia.asn.au/qa/976-on-saudi-arabia-its-people-past-religion-fault-lines-and-future-karen-elliott-house-2012

Unfortunately, I chose to open the piece like this: "In 1774, in a little town northwest of Riyadh, two very different men cemented an alliance which, to this day, remains the bedrock upon which Saudi society is built." Do you use cement to create bedrock? I don't think so. I should have used "foundation" instead of bedrock. Too late now...

The Boss in Melbourne

The other night I saw Bruce Springsteen in concert. Unfortunately I had a bad cold at the time, hadn't slept for a couple of nights, and had taken as many antihistamine tablets as I thought my body could take. Needless to say, I don't recall the evening as well as I might have under happier circumstances.

What do I remember? Bruce was loud. Very loud. So loud I couldn't hear the next day. During Born to Run I had a go at losing myself in the music and the crowd, pumping my fist in the air and singing along, but I couldn't really manage it. If I couldn't do it at the Radiohead concert in November there was no chance with the Boss. I'm too self conscious and, perhaps, suspicious of crowds.

Springsteen is corny, but corny in the best American fashion. He's absolutely sincere. His band are tight and professional. He gives his all at every performance. He wants the show to be uplifting. At 63 Springsteen still crowd surfs. He surfed the crowd at the show I attended. I expected him to do this and he didn't disappoint.

Outside of a football match or a betting shop, I have never seen so many excited middle aged men. It was strange to witness thousands of chubby 50 something men trying to get close to Springsteen, and touch his body. They got excited when he played his hits, and they got excited when he played obscure songs. When Springsteen took on the persona of a black preacher and played soul music, they cheered. When he spoke like a Dust Bowl Okie and played Ghost of Tom Joad, they loved that too.

Had I not been so unwell it might have been the best rock concert I'd ever attended. As it is, the experience is already vague in my mind, jumbled up with distant events and belonging to no precise time at all.

"Going Clear" and the business of Scientology

The other day I happened to be walking past a group of Scientologists. They were offering free "Stress Tests" to the public. So it was that I saw, for the first time, an 'e-meter', the instrument allegedly used to measure the state of a person's soul. As I walked by, taking photographs on my phone just to annoy them, I noticed a young woman taking the 'test'. She presumably had no idea what was actually going on, and most probably believed that the machine was somehow measuring her stress levels. I had a good look at the man administering the 'test'. He was an extremely, extremely creepy looking man. The young lady was laughing somewhat nervously, as might be expected, as they attached the strange machine to her. 

It is revealing that the so-called Church of Scientology believes that the only way it can attract new members is by deceiving them. If they had told the young woman that they were measuring, not her stress levels, but the amount of trauma she had suffered in past lives, she might not have been so eager to go along with the 'test'. (Of course, in reality the e-meter measures nothing very much at all.) So it is, I imagine, with almost all new recruits. Scientologist beliefs are so insane and fabulous that only someone entirely brainwashed could be made to accept them. For example, who would be eager to join a church which openly taught that people are inhabited by the souls of dead aliens, who were murdered 75 million years ago by a galactic tyrant called Xenu? Of course, you might counter that the idea is no crazier than the still widespread belief that a person might be inhabited by demons. Maybe so, but Hubbard, ever the science fiction hack, can't help but add absurd and fantastic details to the myth. For example, the New York Times recently reviewed "Going Clear", a new book critical of Scientology, which described part of Scientology's alternate history of Earth as follows:

The planet Earth, formerly called Teegeeack, was part of a confederation of planets under the leadership of a despot ruler named Xenu,” said Hubbard, who was a best-selling science fiction writer before he became the prophet of a new religion. To suppress a rebellion, Xenu tricked the confederations into coming in for fake income tax investigations. Billions of thetans were taken to Teegeeack (you remember: Earth), “where they were dropped into volcanoes and then blown up with hydrogen bombs.” 

I often think that most men start cults in order to have sex with women. That seems to be the prime purpose behind Raelism, for instance, whose leader "Rael" reportedly engages in all sorts of bizarre orgies. Scientology, by contrast, is a business. They want to extract money from their members. That is the prime purpose behind the organisation. And so they hide the craziest parts of their doctrine from new members, who might be scared away, and only later reveal them to those happy to part with huge sums of money to learn the truth about Xenu and his intergalactic conflict. Perhaps this is why Scientology is not regularly lumped in with other UFO religions and cults, or with other kinds of Chariot of the Gods or 'ancient astronaut' style beliefs, and why Scientology is regarded as a legitimate religion by my own country, while Raelism is (rightfully) considered a deranged cult by pretty much everyone other than the Raelians themselves. As a business, it is in their interest to hide the more eccentric aspects of their doctrines from both the public and new members. 

About an hour after I saw the Scientologists in Melbourne, I returned to the spot they had their "Free Stress test" desk set up. This time, I thought, I'd get a better look at what was going on, and maybe ask some questions. But by that time they were gone, and there was no trace of them anywhere.


  

Debate #1

I think Romney's already won this debate, thirty minutes in. In fact I think he won it in the opening ten minutes. How can Obama come back from such an appalling beginning? Romney is quite a fine speaker, and Obama can't even get through a sentence without a whole bunch of 'ums' and 'ahs'. The President looks half asleep. He can't even defend his record let alone articulate what he'll do over the next four years. A debate this one sided has to have an effect on the polls.

Update #1

I can't follow Obama. He's just rambling on and on about seemingly random topics. What on earth is going on?

Update #2

That's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back.

Update #3 9.10.12

The debate did have an effect on the polls. Romney is way, way ahead now, and understandably so. It must be so demoralising for Democrats to see Obama throw everything away in one debate. I still can't understand why Obama performed so badly. It makes no sense.

Napoleon!

The most memorable object I saw at the National Gallery of Victoria's exhibition on Napoleon, now in its final weeks, was a hat the great (or perhaps not so great) Frenchman wore in exile at Saint Helena. Apparently the British permitted him to take four of his famous bicorne hats, part of his military uniform, into exile with him. Many other Napoleonic relics, for lack of a better term, were on display alongside the hat, most significantly two outstanding paintings by Jacques-Louis David, "Napoleon crossing the alps" and "The Death of Marat". It gave me great pleasure to see in person two paintings I had written about when studying neoclassical art at uni. I can tell you, they look a lot better in person than they do in books! But seeing that sad, shabby hat left just as great an impression on me as the David paintings. David, like the great propagandist he was, gives us Napoleon as god-like emperor, but the hat was a link to the real Napoleon. There was a little sketch of Napoleon in exile next to the hat. Looking at it, I almost felt sorry for him, stuck on a volcanic rock and thousands of miles away from Europe, with only a handful of followers and four hats.

Later in the day I attended what turned out to be a poorly attended talk about Napoleon by the NGV's curator and the art critic for The Age. Before the talk we were served French desserts by waiters dressed as Napoleon and waitresses, I think, dressed as his first wife, Josephine. I was tempted to ask one of the waiters if I could wear his hat for a while. But I decided the event was silly enough, and it didn't need me making it even worse.

The Arab Winter

Yesterday, as you will have heard, U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt were attacked by angry mobs. The violence was ostensibly part of a protest against the obscure online film "Innocence of Muslims", supposedly created by an Israeli-American, which is very critical of Islam. While the protesters in Egypt managed to do little more than tear down the embassy's American flag, the Libyan rabble murdered an entirely innocent American at that country's consulate in Benghazi. As usual, the protesters claimed that their violence was a form of self-defense. CNN quotes one organiser, Mohamed al-Zawahiri, as saying "I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?" If the name al-Zawahiri sounds familiar, it's probably because Mohamed al-Zawahiri's brother was the leader of Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a group which undoubtedly played a role in the killing of scores of Iraqi Shi'ites over the weekend. 

It may be that, coming from closed societies in which the government or a single dictator decides what may or may not be published, many Egyptians and Libyans simply don't realize that Western governments are in no way responsible for the material their citizens publish. But this seems unlikely. The internet is filled with anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic material, whether it be in the form of essays, articles, films, cartoons or crazy rants. Most of these are entirely ignored if they are noticed at all, and rarely will anyone suggest that the words of a single author represent the views of their country's government.  So whenever an anti-Islamic film or cartoon suddenly becomes controversial in the Muslim world I immediately become suspicious. Why this film? Why now? You might argue that such things are directed by the zeitgeist. A film which outrages today might be laughable tomorrow. But in the case of this latest insult to Islam and its prophet, it seems that conservative clerics and their associated media have been essentially promoting the film, making sure that every Egyptian and Libyan is aware of its content. In Egypt, in particular, it appears that Islamists are using the film to incite hatred of the Copts, who they claim are behind the film. And let us not forget that the mob violence occurred on September 11. Why, you'd almost think the attacks in Egypt and Libya were aggressively political!

The protests that began the Arab spring were sparked by the downtrodden and led by liberals. But it has been Islamists -- followers of the anti-traditional, modernist and puritanical Saudi variety of Islam -- who have most benefited. These people are creating an Arab world which grows less plural and more closed minded and boring by the day. 

Update:

Obviously, a lot has emerged since I wrote the above. What happened in Benghazi was clearly premeditated, and not necessarily related to the anti-Islamic film. It was more of an act of war than a mob getting out of hand. Meanwhile, nobody seems to have any clear answer as to who even made "Innocence of Muslims".