Muslim Occidentalism: McDonald's, binge drinking and Goldman Sachs

Western Orientalism and its science of Islamology is a very well-studied and understood phenomenon. Edward Said, above all others, did much to highlight the distorting filters through which some of the most widely read Western scholars of Islam. It continues to rear its head in 21st-century neo-imperialist projects, under the guise of liberal interventionism and the resurrection of Modernist rhetoric from the 19th-century.

One would have thought that Muslims, and mostly Western Muslims, would have understood what it means to distort and crudely reduce entire human traditions and cultures into vulgar stereotypes or dismissal of other ideas as pointless and meaningless. Yet Muslims are far too happy to engage in their own form of Occidentalism when engaging with Western traditions.

I would consider my recent sojourn to Istanbul with three of my closest friends, all of whom I would say would essentially describe themselves as 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' (one is a student of Shaykh Haytham Tamim, who is the founder of the Utrujj Foundation), to have been an experiment in challenging Muslim Occidentalist views. What better place than where 'East meets West', where 'old and new', 'traditional and modern' sit side by side (insert your own well-worn cliche); a majority Muslim country, home to the most powerful and long standing Muslim empires and the capital of caliphal administration, now a staunchly secular state.

In one conservation, whilst sitting in our hotel after Maghrib, the discussion moved to 'liberty' and Muslim states. I pointed out that they fail miserabley on that aspect; that they do not leave people alone who is not directly harming anyone or causing any great offence. This, I said, was an ideal from Western traditions and Muslims who lived in Western states should appreciate this liberty (give or take the recent fascination with arresting and harassing people). They weren't about to be arrested everytime they left their front door (or even if they were asleep). The response from one friend was to suggest that my approval of 'liberty' was tantamount to advocating 'binge drinking'. The logic being that because people were free to drink, then they would want to binge drink, and so binge drinking would this become an 'ideal value', as it has in Britain. Whatever the flaws of the argument -- and the point here isn't even about binge drinking, which is a massive problem in Britain -- this isn't critical engagement with another tradition or culture, but is the reduction of these traditions into vulgar forms, where the worst aspects are held as the ideals. It is no different to suggesting that the subjegation of women is an ideal of Islam, because far too many Muslims engage in opressive practices against women in the name of Islam (and that do this shouldn't be denied).

In another conservation, two of my friends peppered their sentences with 'the West' and 'Westerners' in an act distancnig themselves from 'Western' policies, ideas and cultures, as though they resided totally apart from it. I pointed out that both of them were Westerners, who had only ever lived in the West; were only fluent in a Western language (they could speak Urdu/Punjabi/Bengali, but could not read or write it); were educated in Western systems; dressed in Western fashions; had quite Western (and middle class) tastes and would probably never want to live in the Muslim countries of their parents. One friend, who lauds his Pakistani identity and credentials, was unable even to name a single poem written by Iqbal! In any case a lot of Westerners rejected the Iraq War and speak out against Western policies. My Utrujji friend agreed with me (his training under a scholar has made him more circumspect in his pronouncements, although he has always been a thoughtful individual not prone to outbursts like the rest of us). Again, this almost subconscious distinction between themselves and 'the West' was annoying, even depressing. I had to point out to them that their Western lifestyles (including, perhaps, this holiday), their purchasing of expensive cars and houses, their jobs in large corporations, was simply helping to turn the cogs of the very society they were trying to distance themselves from in their rhetoric. Though they may complain about the West, it was their Western lifestyles and consumption which was fuelling imperialist resource wars and foreign policies and putting their brothers in sub-Saharan and East Africa in danger due to global warming, depletion of resources and uneven economic practices. In fact, what was most funny was the demand by all of them, the following day, to visit a McDonald's for lunch and a Burger King for dinner in the evening: two companies, seen as signs of 'Western cultural imperialism', who engage in less than ethical practices and are the epitome of 'Western' capitalism. (Note that all British Pakistani Muslims I know visit the nearest KFC, Burger King and McDonanld's as soon as they enter a Muslim country, because they want to 'know how it tastes'. They're engaging in a taboo that's been denied them for so long; that's what years of marketing does.)

But Islam was 'very simple', one one of them claimed. We eat when we need to; buy what we need to buy; and sleep where we need to sleep as long as they've been made halal. No need for difficult questions or moral problems. These were machinations of 'the West' or those Muslims infatuated by it! Only such simplicity was ignored by its very advocates when the need to subscribe to a mortgage for a house, or the chance to earn big money in an investment bank came about. In the desrie to engage in these transactions he invoked complex technical Islamic concepts in economics. Simple Islam should never stand in the way of that 4 bed semi in Essex and a £70k wage packet. It should only mean, it seems, legitimising ones prejudices.

And what bigger prejudice do they have then against women (which is a male flaw). Especially those women who might not be dressed to hide themselves from their lustful gazes. 'You see this is what Western liberalism does! It makes women remove their clothes!' Let's not forget that they could lower their gaze (a Qur'anic verse) or walk away. But these women make their faith weak and stop them from doing that. They stopped them from lowering their gazes. How very bibilical! Perhaps they're more Western than they like to think? (I exclude my Utrujji friend from this point.) It was liberty that had allowed women to remove too much clothing and so denied them the right of earning rewards for not engaging in the oppressive gaze (never mind that all laws can only have general principles and lots of exceptions and clarifications to these due to application of these principles, and that all such applications require interpretations by people; therefore culture and law are linked).

What was perhaps most disappointing was that all three are university graduates (all three studied mechanical engineering with me); one is a PhD candidate in a scientific discipline and the other are two highly paid IT professionals. So the arguments from 'social exclusion' or 'alienation' are not acceptable. All three have benefited greatly from their being Westerners and continue to benefit from this economically privileged status. I only asked them to think why this was so, and not to become secularist, alcoholic womanisers, who abandoned prayers and forgot to pay their zakaat or forgot God (in fact, quite the opposite; I'm more conservative and apprehensive about those matters than two of them and I do not believe there is anything necessarily wrong with being conservative). I should add that despite what you've read, they're all extremely nice and warm people; one sacrifices most of his personal time in the service of his parents, whilst another helps out in the local community. And they're all potential experts in their respective fields. Yet all three were shocked when I suggested Dr. Zakir Naik and Harun Yayha might not be authoritative voices in science, since neither are actually scientists. But it was enough for them that Naik and Yahya were using Western science, an extension of Western traditions, to prove their faith in the Qur'an, and at the same time engaging in a bit of lowbrow anti-Westernism which soothed their existence as Western Muslims. It was enough that Yahya had refuted Darwinism and evolution, even though Darwin himself rejected application of his ideas outside the context in which he developed them; and even though Yahya is not a biologist; and even though no biologist accepts such claims of refutation (there goes the 'only consult specialists' rule out of the window). All three of my friends studied and work in technical professions; and that may be part of the problem.

At the end of the trip, my Utrujji friend sat in the hotel one night and pondered that it was the secular democracy of Turkey which had opened up the beauty of Islam's call to God, through the azan, the salat, the Qur'anic recitation by the imam at the end of the salat, and the inspirational architecture of the Ottomans, to those outside Islam (whilst also helping to invigorate a Muslim's din), and not necessarily the 'Islamic states' of the Gulf and elsewhere.

Comments

[Yakoub/Julaybib]

I think Arkoun is correct in saying that Muslims crucially define themselves against what they perceive as the Western protagonist. He also asserts that Muslim victimology and/or subservience to 'the West' is in part down to our failure to invite the best of European intellectual reasoning to interact and interrogate the Muslim tradition (minus the orientalism). I agree.

Wasalaam

TMA

[Baraka]

Fantastic.

[abd]

as salaam alaykum

thank you for the post. while i've also been frustrated by muslim attitudes toward western societies, i wonder whether either of the two things you mentioned (growing up in the west and patronizing western capitalist franchises) are fair criticisms or your friends (and, by extension, of western muslims).

must they be loyal to the society in which they are raised (although a certain degree of gratitude may be in order, that is not the same thing)?

how does eating at mcdonalds make them more western (this may be on the mark for "home country" muslims who then seek out western goods, but i don't see how in the case of those who have been raised with mcdonalds around them)?

perhaps you mean that your friends (and western muslims in general) benefit from the very things they criticize. i would suggest that they benefit from and criticize different things.

or perhaps you mean that they fail to appreciate the real ideals of western socieities (personal liberty, for example). this makes sense in my view, but could be equally said of non-western muslims as of western muslims. nor is it necessary for them to identify with a western society simply because they recognize (some of) its virtues.

overall, it seems legitimate to me that one can grow up in a western society, recognize its claims on oneself as well as its virtues, and still wish to dissociate from its fundamental beliefs and practices. (perhaps THAT's a uniquely western attitude, but i hope not...)

[thabet]

abd: waalaykum assalam

My main point was that the lines they drew between themselves and their society were arbitary, contradictory to their own practices, or based, as Yakoub says in the first comment, on the idea that the more "anti-Western" you are, the more Islamic you must become.

The McDonald's incident was funny for other reasons too, but has details I am not allowed to divulge :-)

Yakoub and Baraka: assalamu alaykum

Many thanks!

[arafat]

While I agree with almost all of the points in the post, I would like to make a few remarks about your use of the term Occidentalism. I bring this up because you started your post with a reference to Edward Said and his critique of Orientalism. But Said's theory springs largely from Foucault's analysis of power (and discourse) -- Orientalism is what it is because of the structures of power and hegemony that exist (and have existed) in the world, a structure that was epitomized in the European colonial project. Orientalism is not just stereotypes: it is a full-fledged discourse. And so for example, it is not just negatively essentializing the Other, it is also fetishizing and exoticizing the 'Oriental' subject. Part of the reason that McWorld continues to dominate today is because "Westerners" are happy with a shallow understanding of Orientalism and they think they are rid of the problems of their 19th century predecessors. Because people don't stereotype anymore. And so it's all good.

But that is a false sense of security -- or rather, a false sense of satisfaction. A good way to understand the Orientalist phenomenon would be through parallel examples in the field of Race and Ethnicity studies. Eveyrone has stereotypes about everyone else. But white stereotypes about other races are so much more problematic than Black or Asian stereotypes about whites because whites occupy the dominant order. And power makes all the difference. It just doesn't work the other way. I am not saying that one set of stereotypes are worse or more immoral than others. I am just pointing out their different practical implications. These stereotypes do not occur in a vacuum: there are existing structures of hierarchy.

Theories of Occidentalism aren't new (there's Ian Buruma, for one). Attempts have been made again and again since Said's groundbreaking work on Orientalism. But the significance of these theories haven't even come anywhere near the impact of Said. While I don't disregard the validity of some of their claims, I think their works show that they've simply failed to understand Orientalism properly. I am not negating Muslim stereotypes about the West. In fact, as my friends are well aware, I have always been a staunch critic of such stereotypes. In fact, I was even foremost in pushing for and eventually chairing last year's CIR conference on the topic of "Muslim Discourses on America", if only because the previous year we had a conference on "American Discourses on Islam." All I'm saying is that a so-called Occidentalism, while it may be as true as its theorists make it out to be, is just not the equal counterpart of Orienatalism.

Since this issue is inevitably connected to the question of "clash of civilizations", I would make a brief comment here. I do not believe in the Clash theory (the most notorious exponent of which was Samuel Huntington). There would be a real clash of civilizations if the 'civilizations' of the world (mainly so-called "Islam" and so-called "West") were on an equal playing field. But reality is quite far from that. Of course I don't think that everything is just great, and warm and fuzzy. I actually sympathize with Arkoun's theory of a 'clash' of imaginaries (Yakoub has already mentioned Arkoun above; he also had a number of recent posts on him at Anarcho Akbar). Some of the problems of the Muslim imaginary are precisely what you have outlined above: the tendency to essentialize the West.

But anyways. All of this aside, thanks for a great post. I particularly sympathize with your remarks on Harun Yahya. The pseudo-scientific apologia of such folks is one of the problems that Muslims need to cure themselves of.

[thabet]

arafat: salam

Yes, you're right. Power is a key component in Said's work.

My use of 'Occidentalism' was, partly, tongue-in-cheek, to prod Muslims into thinking about their own views of others, as well as questioning other people's view of them (I've only read Buruma's articles, so can't comment on his Occidentalism). But you're point stands and is worth remembering.

[arafat]

jazak allah khayr! to prod muslims into thinking is something we all need to do more of :-)

[Mark]

*please share with all

>>>I haven't seen anyone else write or talk of this subject about the Muslim extremists like al Qaeda and the like, but I have to ask all the Muslims, where in the world is your common sense? Why are you letting a few bad guys dictate to you what you should be thinking and believing as though you cannot think for yourself.
>>>You people need to reassess your belief system. These extremist psycos are using your own people against each other, and stirring up discontent by telling everyone that their god wants them to bring an end to this world by killing everyone that doesn't think like them, even if some of their own get taken out at the same time. These people are just psycotic murderers. They act like they know better than God. Don't you think that if God wanted only murdering Muslims in the world, he would have made only murdering Muslims right from the start? ---Somebody is making this stuff up for their own personal gain--- and way too many of you are buying into it. All the holy war and jihad stuff these idiots are spreading around is their own personal ego. They aren't thinking about anyone else but --themselves--. The trouble makers are playing your news sources like 'a musician playing a musical instrument', fabricating and twisting words to get people hating each other. If everyone fights and kills until there is no one left, these psycos think they will be there to step in as king.
>>>What kind of god loves war and fighting? That is the stuff that comes from the minds of men. What kind of nice god, who supposedly created this world and is loving, kind, and all powerful, would want to see his creations kill and destroy each other? Do you really think that your God would ask a couple of nut jobs to get other people to kill anyone who doesn't follow them? And what kind of ignorant people would actually be happy to go blow themselves up and kill any and all people, animals, and plants around them just because some egotistic psyco asked them to? Are these people --totally brainwashed-- or --are they really that stupid--? One thing is for sure, "There has never been a shortage of those who would be god or king". People, be very skeptical about anyone who wants to talk you into anything extreme. Use your heads.
>>>There is a severe lack of common sense and vital knowledge about the origin of religion, how new religions get started, and the history of ancient rituals and believing. This is a wonderful planet we call home and most people know very little about it, even though there is information everywhere. We deal with other people all day long and yet most understand very little about the way the human brain works. We cannot let a few egotistical psycos cause the destruction of our world.
>>>I know that whatever your beliefs and disagreements with others, that "most" of the population of this planet are basically the same. We have the same basic wants and needs in that, we all wish to be able to move about freely and safely. We all want to be able to have a nice home and raise a family and to be able to provide for them. Many of us do not agree with the way others run things, but killing them just because some idiot says to is not the answer and you know it. We need much more communication and sharing of information between people to deal with these problems, and "always" get information from as many different sources as possible on the important subjects in order to get the whole story. At the same time we need some of us to be 'not so sensitive'. We need to be more flexable, giving, and understanding, with more emphasis on sharing. You know, common sense things that promote harmony and happiness.
>>>I am asking all the good Muslims in this world to speak up against the extremists like al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, and all the radicals that preach such extremism. Let them know that your god is a god of love and would never want to see his creations kill each other, and there is definitly no nice, loving god telling them to go kill. Somebody is not telling the truth, and it looks like some are so power hungry that they will stop at nothing to gain more control. Use your common sense and "remember to be very skeptical of anyone talking extremism and killing". After all, don't you think that if there is a god that is all powerful and wants the world to be destroyed, that he is very capable of doing it himself at any time just by merely thinking about it? Come on people, lets get a grip and act like the family we are supposed to be.

[john]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOXKhRvAHM0