CC BY
8
with Afghanistan in the sphere of higher and secondary special education, has completely abandoned this sphere of public life in that country. The same is true of the mass media sphere of Afghanistan, which is now completely controlled by the United States and its allies, as well as India, Iran and Pakistan.
The regionalization of the Afghan problem opens fresh opportunities for Russia to bolster up its political positions in Afghanistan, the Middle East and in Central Asia. Moscow's prestige and experience accumulated during negotiations aimed at solving the Syrian problem, the ability of Russian diplomats to persuade the conflicting parties to sit at a negotiation table can be a good basis and largely contribute to solution of the intra-Afghan conflict. Moscow, Beijing and New-Delhi could be the "regulators" of the situation in Afghanistan and around it, despite certain contradictions within the triad. Participation of Iran and Pakistan in this process could also be quite valuable.
"Moskva," Moscow, 2015, No 3, March, pp. 138-149.
Kamaludin GAJIYEV,
D. Sc. (Hist.), Professor, chief research associate at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences FUNDAMENTALISM AT THE CROSSROADS OF WESTERN AND ISLAMIC VALUES
One of the notable development tendencies of the modern world is the growing influence of radical movements, organizations and parties whose programmatic documents and activities are based on a wide range of ideological, socio-cultural, confessional and other values, ideas and principles, which can be united under the common
title of "fundamentalism." This term can rightly be applied to the way of thinking, both secular and religious, advocating the "purity" of their ideologies and ideological-political programs by cleansing them from harmful superpositions and deviations, which have emerged in the course of social and historical development and, consequently, return to the initial basic or fundamental sources.
Fundamentalism is characteristic of all societies throughout history, especially in the periods of profound economic, social, socio-cultural and political transformations. Conformably to the modern world it is possible to speak not only of Islamic, Christian, Protestant, or Orthodox fundamentalism, but also liberal, democratic, conservative, communist, market, human-rights fundamentalism, etc.
Fundamentalists are distinguished by their simplified approach to religious dogmas. It is close to orthodoxy, which is based on radicalism, religious or social fanaticism, xenophobia, politicized ethnicity and religious faith, racism, etc. in their extreme manifestations. The ideas of fundamentalism are propagated more frequently by the marginal strata of the population ousted to the periphery of social and political life. However, all and sundry ideas and projects of reorganization of society, which seemed utopian, marginal and unrealizable some time ago, gradually acquire respectability and the status of necessary requisites for the transformation of society, that is, which are really feasible. Such ideas and projects are put forward during the periods of a deep crisis.
During the past two or three decades this phenomenon has been connected in mass consciousness, as a rule, with Islamic fundamentalism, above all. However, the developments connected with the act of terror against the French publication "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris in January 2015 emphasize another, no less important aspect, namely, manifestations of outright radicalism and extremism in the ideological,
information, socio-cultural and political-cultural spheres of the entire modern world. From this point of view it is interesting to analyze the western and eastern variants of fundamentalism on the example of "Charlie Hebdo" and political Islamism.
These phenomena cannot be understood properly in isolation from the major shifts taking place in the deep infrastructural layers of socio-political life and views of the modern world. Conformably to the West, we mean a whole range of tendencies and processes, which have begun to ripen and develop during the past one-and-a-half centuries and reached the peak in our days. Here the process of "detabooism," which gripped the various spheres of public life -socio-cultural, political-cultural, ideological-political, etc., draws much attention.
The significance of tabooism is most closely connected with the basics of human history. Taboos are rooted in the very nature of human persons as social beings. The origin of man and his emergence from the gregarious state are most closely connected with the need to submit the inborn egoistic-individualistic and aggressive disposition and instincts of the separate individual to the imperatives of social life and the interests of community, team, family or tribe. Without taboos it is impossible to imagine transfer of human beings from the state of anarchy and all-permissiveness to the state in which they are prohibited to do some or other things under threat of punishment, including physical coercion. The imperatives of hominization dictated the need to form outward mechanisms of submission of human beings to the norms of communal social life. In this sense, anthropogeny and sociogenesis are most closely connected and form the two sides of the single process of anthroposociogenesis.
In other words, when there are no inner restraining mechanisms there should be taboos imposed from the outside, "external censorship,"
so to say, which cannot be ensured without the subject endowed with the right and means of coercion. As a rule, the state comes out as such subject. The essence of the problem is in that any human community, all the more so, a state claiming fitness and usefulness at present and in the future cannot be viable without certain supra-personal ideals for the sake of which each individual is ready to sacrifice his or her life. Otherwise, humanity would not have had its great heroes. As follows from the entire written history of mankind, almost always when the state and society were faced with the dilemma of choosing between its self-preservation, on the one hand, and the life of a separately taken individual, his rights and freedoms, on the other, priority was always given to the imperative of the self-preservation of the state.
This was why the states have always manifested unconditional readiness to sacrifice the life not only of the citizens of their enemy, but also their own citizens. The weakening of power is connected with the intentional or contravolitional lifting of some or other taboos. The various forms of anarchy, nihilism, all-permissiveness, and other antisocial phenomena are also connected with it.
These processes and tendencies are especially pronounced and clearly manifested in the religious sphere.
The number of new churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. is constantly growing all over the world. However, it would be premature and wrong to assert that the level of the spiritual health of society is growing proportionally. There is hardly any reason to remind the reader of numerous scandals connected with the cases of pedophilia in the Catholic Church. The campaign of a special form of theomachy within the various trends of Christianity is growing, assuming an aggressive character. A cardinal revision of a number of key postulates of the Bible is sometimes suggested.
In other words, one can speak of the beginning of the de-Christianization process of the western world. It seems that Europe is moving far away from its roots, and the aberration process of values and institutions sacred for the peoples during the greater part of their written history is beginning. Manifestations of this process are distribution of promiscuity, Swedish marriages, boy- and girl-friendism, various types of non-traditional sexual orientation, etc, which undermine the basic dominants of Judeo-Christian civilization as bisexual exogamous marriages and the family in its traditional meaning.
The phenomena of this category included feminization of men and masculinization of women, which are not only open and officially recognized, but also propagandized, thus having an influence on the crucial spheres of human life, including state policy and geopolitics. Naturally, these phenomena and trends lead to the deformity of male and female roles in society. This is shown, among other things, by the broad campaign aimed at changing the age-old terms and notions into allegedly "politically correct" analogues. In a number of countries in official documents the words "husband" and "wife" are replaced with neutral terms like "partners," and the words "mother and father" with the words "No 1 parent and No 2 parent." In 2009 Europarliament banned the use of words "Miss" and "Missis," because, in the view of certain 'human rights champions," they may insult the dignity of a woman.
On this ground all and sundry utopian ideas spring up like the well-known concept of the "end of history," which was devised to persuade everyone and their brother that western liberal democracy has ultimately conquered everything and is now established as "the highest form of organization of human society." A phenomenon has come into
being which is called "western complex" and is popular among the more advanced part of the population on the Euro-Atlantic world.
Then key role is played by the fact that the same ideas can be used for both creative and destructive aims. A vivid idea about the substantiation of this thesis can be gained from the transformations of liberalism during the past several decades. The main values and institutions of political democracy are based on liberalism. Of course, the liberalism of the traditions of F.D. Roosevelt, D. Lloyd-George, G Giolitti retains its leading role and significance as the basis of economic and social reforms.
At the same time certain ideas of this trend taken from the context, misinterpreted, distorted and over-emphasized are used for substantiating some or others radical and even extremist ideologies, be they anarchism, libertarianism, or market, democratic or other forms of fundamentalism. Such mutations have ultimately led to emasculation or even loss of the very spirit and essence of liberalism of J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, I. Kant, T. Jefferson, and other founding fathers.
As a result, democracy, and human rights and freedoms have acquired features and outlines of an ideology or a system of religious cult. Something like "perverted" totalitarianism is formed. In is in this vein should we take the attempts to use the idea of democracy as a missionary slogan used in place or out of place for substantiating all and sundry sanctions, conflicts, wars, "color revolutions," and for export of democracy and human rights and freedoms.
In order to understand this reasoning correctly, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the concept of "freedom of choice" and "inner freedom" should not be regarded as synonyms. Freedom of choice is not and cannot necessarily be a reflection of inner freedom. If the former can destroy all taboos, traditions, myths, legends, and illusions tying human communities, the latter restricts freedom
of choice in order to preserve it within the limits of the "golden rule," or what is permitted. Otherwise, culture and tradition as such may become victims of coercion on the part of unbridled freedom.
In modern society characterized by interaction and clashes of many wills, values, arrangements, requirements, interests, etc. there is no, and cannot be, uniform interpretation and understanding of freedom. All the more so, there can be no abstract, absolute freedom. As a rule, when someone wishes to defend freedom of speech, he or she cites the well-known words of Voltaire: "I disagree with your view, but I'd do everything to be able to hear it." These words correlate with the no less well-known words of Lord Acton: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Naturally, one cannot but fully agree with both these thinkers. But recognition of their correctness does not mean permissibility of absolutization of freedom, and its fundamentalist interpretation. As has justly been noted by the American historian G Himmelfarb, "freedom also corrupts, and absolute freedom corrupts absolutely." Such freedom can serve as the foundation for the formation of culture of all-permissiveness.
The correctness of this thesis is confirmed by the "Charlie Hebdo" case, which has clearly demonstrated that excesses of freedom jeopardize the personal freedom of an individual. Consequently, freedom should not be identified with self-will. It should be limited, primarily by the state. Perhaps, under certain conditions the world may find itself in a situation when democracy would have to be protected from too zealous democrats, and human rights and freedoms - from too zealous protectors.
In the name of wrongly interpreted human rights and freedoms the policy of eliminating all and sundry taboos, cultivating boundless tolerance, often expressed by the term "political correctness," which is the key component of democratic messiahship, is being promoted.
Paradoxically, tolerance, which is understood by many people as an integral part of the mythology of human rights and freedoms, undergoes an original inversion.
It is important to have in mind that violence and terror can be not only physical, but also moral and ethical, information-propagandist, ideological, etc. A word, even a gesture can insult, just as physical violence. This is not surprising, for as the Oriental proverb goes, a wound inflicted by sword heals, but a wound caused by word does not.
Islam is not a monolithic stagnant faith. It is represented by dozens of different schools and trends and is characterized by the absence of any central body speaking on behalf of the entire ummah. Islam is a democratic religion and it allows existence of various trends and assessments. Persons who have received religious education have the right to interpret and comment the Koran and Sunnah. They can argue against any view expressed by generally recognized religious authority or body. This can explain, apart from other things, the stepping up of the activity of fundamentalist movements united under the term "Salaphism," "political Islam," or "Islamic fundamentalism." It was these trends that have become factors during the past two - three decades, exerting an ever growing influence at the national and global levels.
Islamic fundamentalists base themselves exclusively on the Koran and Sunnah, regarding them as eternal and absolutely true sources fit for all times and peoples. For them the Koran and Sunnah are the wellspring of all human values, laws, rules of life, etc.
Islamic fundamentalism is based on works of ibn Taimiya (12631328) and M. ibn Abdal-Wahhab (1703-1787), and theologists of the 20th century - Hasan al-Banna, Seyid Kutba, Abu al-Alia Maududi, and others.
The fundamentalists adhere to the idea of the world's dichotomy, and polarity of good and evil. They see the world as an arena of constant struggle between the forces of good headed by Allah and the forces of evil headed by Iblis. There can be no neutrality in this struggle, for in their view, "whoever is not with us is against us," inasmuch as belief in Allah is the criterion of the good.
The period when the outstanding Muslim theologian, lawyer and political writer ibn Taimiya lived Muslim religion ceased to be a monolithic theory and became divided into many sects and trends. This was why he saw the way out from the situation in return to the unified and monolithic religion, which, in his view, had existed in the first ages of the history of Islam. Having scrupulously analyzed the entire Islamic heritage in his numerous political, legal and philosophical works, he found a way out of the situation in returning to the sources close to the Prophet himself and the first caliphs. He was one of the first to declare war on Shi'ism and Sufism, he was against pilgrimage to the Prophet's grave and celebration of His birthday.
Following ibn Taimiya, the founder of Wahhabism Abdal-Wahhab asserted that if a believer did not accept such interpretation of Islam he should be deprived of inviolability of his property and life The key element in the teaching of ibn Taimiya and al-Wahhab was the idea of "taqfir," according to which man could be considered infidel if he did not acknowledge legitimacy of the absolute power of the king. Both ibn Taimiya and al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims for reverence of the dead, saints or angels, pilgrimage to graves and special mosques, observance of religious holidays, and veneration of saints. They prohibited to erect tombs at burials of the dead. They maintained that believers, including Sufis, Shi'ites and representatives of other trends of Islam, who did not recognize these values and tenets, should
be killed, and their wives and daughters should be nailed to the barndoor.
All these values and tenets have been accepted by the present Islamic fundamentalists. They are coming out for the restoration of initial Islam by turning to the experience of as-salaf as salihun, from which Islamic fundamentalism received the name "salafiya" (salafism). It should be noted that the term "political Islam," or Islamism, is neutral by itself. It combines radical and moderate, traditional and modern ideas, principles and rules. The Islamists-Salafites are both modernizers and preservers of Islam.
This is why it is not correct to equal Islamism, extremism and terrorism. An Islamist can be extremist and terrorist, but not all Islamists are such. An analysis of the real state of affairs shows that in modern Islamist fundamentalism there are moderate and radical trends of left and right deviations. In some Islamist organizations we may find sections using peaceful, legal methods, and those working underground and using violent methods and terror. It is true that in one of the most widely known trends of Salafism - Wahhabism - jihad is interpreted as "sacred war" against the infidels, including those Muslims who are branded as apostates from true faith. Besides, Wahhabism should not be interpreted exclusively in a negative vein in terms of its aggressiveness or non-aggressiveness, for it is state religion of Saudi Arabia, which is known as an active fighter against terrorism.
One can single out the following tenets shared by most adherents of Islamic fundamentalism: the idea of the universal character of Islam, presupposing unity of religion, society and power; call for return to initial "true" Islam, its cleansing from various harmful historical elements; pan-Islamism; establishment of the Islamic world order by revival of caliphate, etc. They come out against veneration of sacred
places and more modest and shorter burial ritual. In their view, there should be only one approach to the essence of Islam and the interpretation of the Koran and Sunnah. It should be noted that Caucasian Islam had borrowed many norms and principles of the mountain adats which are ardently defended by most believers and the leaders of Traditional Islam in the region. Naturally, fundamentalists demand that they should be discarded.
Although the fundamental Salafia thesis about return to the sources of Islam has undergone an essential transformation over the centuries, its specific feature in our days lies in the premise that its adherents act in the context of double confrontation - true Islam against bad Islam, and Muslim East against infidel West, which in the view of the Salafists, is striving to destroy the world of Islam. The most radical part of fundamentalists bases the need for armed struggle not only against representatives of other confessions, but also against the Muslims who do not share their views. The radical fundamentalists are quite hostile to the authorities, government bodies and law-enforcement agencies, as well as the official Muslim clergy and traditional Muslims, and call for refusal to serve in the army and work in government offices. They often implement their ideas through committing crimes (embezzlement and robbery), and a considerable part of the money gained goes to waging "jihad against the infidels."
It is not accidental that Islam in the North Caucasus is waging struggle not so much with western influence, as the rapid and forced penetration of unorthodoxy Islam from the East. The word "unorthodox" is not used by chance. The local clergy and a greater part of society regard salafia (Wahhabism) as apostasy. True, such position is shared by the leaders of most Muslim countries adhering to traditional Islam.
Just as any radical ideology, political Islam intends to gain force and supporters on the road of foreign expansion. In this vein, Islamism expresses the ideas and premises of pan-Islamism formulated in the 19th century by Jamal ad-Din al Afghani who advocated the formation of "religious-political alliance of Muslim peoples," "unity of the world of Islam" (Dar al-Islam) in a single powerful grouping on the basis of the Koran.
On this premise certain leaders of fundamentalist groups have evolved and try to implement their version of export of Islamic revolution with a view to realizing the idea of international Islamic state far beyond the boundaries of the Islamic world itself. Here I would like to cite the words of the Saudi sheikh M.A. al-Karig, who said in one of his sermons: "The Prophet said that the Muslims would conquer India, as well as Constantinople and Rome where Vatican was. Muslims have conquered Persia and Byzantium, reached the borders of India and China. Soon Islam will conquer Rome, too."
As to the Islamic state, its leaders have declared their aim to restore caliphate within the bounds of the entire Islamic world, and the most extremist grouping - world caliphate. Of course, these projects are nothing but pipe dream. Nevertheless, the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism in the post-Soviet area can be regarded as a sort of a rehearsal of the export of Islamic revolution.
The leader of the Islamic state Abu Umar al-Bagdadi uses the language and ideas of the founder of Wahhabism Abd al-Wahhab who asserted that belief in the one and only God was not enough to regard man Muslim. In his view, man cannot be devout Muslim if he does not reject and destroy all other objects of worship. After the Saudi regime has declared the Islamic state of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) a terrorist organization, its leaders called for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy and liberation of the sacred places of Islam. They announced their
intention to destroy Kaaba, claiming that veneration of the black stone is nothing but idolatry interfering with true faith in Allah.
If one follows this interpretation of "true Islam," it will turn out that almost all Muslims believing in traditional Islam may be regarded "infidels" and hence enemies.
In other words, supporters of the "Charlie Hebdo" and Islamic radicals are quite close to each other in spirit. Both sides distort the essence of liberalism, on the one hand, and Islam, on the other. There is a war between absolutism of religious character and another absolutism - our absolutism, that is, political culture of extreme millennial nationalism.
The conflict between liberal all-permissiveness and fundamentalism is a false conflict, it is a vicious circle, two poles which give birth to each other and presuppose the existence of each other.
Naturally, in interpretation of these phenomena there should be no assessments or abstract moralizing, each person is the master of his or her destiny and has the right to choose a path he or she thinks fit.
The experience of world civilizations and empires show that such phenomena are companions of definite socio-historical development stages.
As to the present state of affairs, perhaps, twilight of the present order of the world has set in. We are now living through an epoch characterized by tectonic shifts in the foundations of life on a global scale and re-evaluation of basic values.
From time to time under certain conditions, especially during transition periods, these phenomena reveal themselves in the most intricate forms, including in the form of new barbarity within the depth of ruling civilization.
References
1. Al-Kardavi. Proclamation of Caliphate Violates Shariah. July, 2014. - http://www. islamnews.ru/news-14681.html
2. D. Dobrov. The Arabian Peninsula Is Threatened with Destabilization. - http:// inosmi.ru/op_ed/20150206/226090718.html
3. A. Kruk. One Cannot Understand What ISIL Is Without Knowledge of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. September, 2014. - http://oko-planet.su/politik/poiliutiukday/ 254558
4. W. Pfaff. Why the Arab World Fights - The American Conservative, January 1, 2015.
"Vlast,"Moscow, 2015, No 3, pp. 5-13.
