I'm not entirely convinced on this and am completely willing for someone to tell me off on it, but I tend to think of the modern push to sharia as an extension of Qutbism and post-colonialism (and Qutbism I really put into the context of post-colonialism as well). Much like the role of Communism in East Asia as an independence movement first and as the consignment of actual socialist principles secondary, with its similarly draconian measures, I think a lot can be made out of the metaethnic nature of rule by sharia (that doesn't exist in America) and out of the attempt to build a cultural asabiya in places that have little cultural reason to exist.
Consider how the balance between Pan-Arabs and Islamicists has changed. I think it's telling that countries interested in sharia (Afghanistan pre-2001, Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent, Iran, and Sudan) are surrounded by Pan-Arab or secularist states that do a great deal to squelch religion. A number of them to boot are even situated right along ethnocultural transition zones (Sudan, Afghanistan), which in my mind enhances the theory.
Good points and a welcome discussion; thank you for your thoughts. When I think of ethnocultural transition zones I'm thinking more of broad landmasses: South India and the region of Africa south of the Sahara specifically. Because of that I'm not sure I'd qualify Indonesia as an ethnocultural transition zone even though the cultural change is there. Then again, I think it's more just that I don't have a clue and I'm trying to find a reason why it hasn't, as much as in other places around the world.
I can offer a few ideas: the main one I think, though, is while Pan-Arabism would make no sense in Indonesia, perhaps their government is more in line with a sort of ethnocultural mosaicism seen in pre-breakup Yugoslavia or Iraq with a strong, secular leader. Pan-Arabism without Arabs, maybe.
Both Indonesia and the Philippines have not experienced Sharia, but it seems as thought they were both more strongly affected by the "democratic third wave" movement that hit several Asian countries back in the 1980's (even though those democracies might be very easy to hijack).
Consider how the balance between Pan-Arabs and Islamicists has changed. I think it's telling that countries interested in sharia (Afghanistan pre-2001, Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent, Iran, and Sudan) are surrounded by Pan-Arab or secularist states that do a great deal to squelch religion. A number of them to boot are even situated right along ethnocultural transition zones (Sudan, Afghanistan), which in my mind enhances the theory.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I can offer a few ideas: the main one I think, though, is while Pan-Arabism would make no sense in Indonesia, perhaps their government is more in line with a sort of ethnocultural mosaicism seen in pre-breakup Yugoslavia or Iraq with a strong, secular leader. Pan-Arabism without Arabs, maybe.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment