Summary
Title: Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam
Author: Anthony Shadid
Publisher: Perseus
ISBN: 0813340187
Pro:
• Different perspective on political Islam
Con:
• Written before 9/11, so seems naive now
• Doesn’t explain how his hopes can be made reality
• Author admits to not understanding Islam very well
Description:
• Analyzes the progress of political Islam, arguing that it will trend towards non-violence
• Interviews Muslim leaders and lay people all over the Middle East
• Explores what political Islam means for the average Muslim and why
Book Review
Anthony Shadid, a Pulitzer-prize winning American reporter of Lebanese descent, believes that there is a peaceful and positive future for Islamism. In his book Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam, he describes how many of the more violent activists of the past have been turning more and more towards peaceful political and humanitarian activities.
Hamas is not just a terrorist group, but also an organization that provides social welfare programs to Palestinians — a stark contrast to the corrupt practices of the official Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah, a terrorist group, helps poor Shia Muslims in Beirut.
In theory, it makes sense that violence will recede into the background as these groups become more established, more responsible, and more involved in politics. Although people all sorts of sociological and economic explanations for why terrorism exists, in the end there is probably just one explanation and it is political in nature: people turn to guns and bombs in order to promote their ideology when, in their minds, the regular political process offers them no peaceful means for doing so.
It’s a question of ballots or bullets, if we want to simplify it. Give people a chance to impose their ideas via the force of majoritarian voting and they won’t likely try to impose them through the force of arms. It’s not always that simple, of course, because perception is such a big factor. Even if democratic voting exists, people may turn to violence if they don’t perceive themselves as having a legitimate chance to change things. Quite often, perception trumps reality.
Nevertheless, groups advocating terrorism won’t need to do so if they can instead advocate for candidates in a democratic election and try to turn their ideas into official policy by having a voice in governmental decisions. Add in the fact that peaceful actions like providing food, housing, and job training are good ways to win support from the people, and it sounds quite reasonable that Islamist groups could renounce violence in the long run if conditions are right.
This doesn’t mean that they will, though — sometimes, it’s also the case that a culture of violence becomes so much a part of life that it’s difficult to give up, no matter how strong the inducements. Sometimes, people end up pursuing violence for its own sake and because they simply don’t know anything else. Religious extremism can make things worse because religious violence is often couched in terms of cosmic battles between Good and Evil. If you are fighting on the side of God, it may not be easy to lay down your gun in favor of a ballot.
Shadid doesn’t really address these sorts of problems, unfortunately. He’s critical of Islamic states like Sudan and Iran, but doesn’t explain how nations like Egypt would be able to adopt Islamism while avoiding the same fates. He doesn’t explain how the radical religious beliefs of Islamist leaders will ultimately prove compatible with democracy, tolerance, and pluralism. His book was also researched and written just prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that makes some of his positions sound a little naive at best. Curiously, his reporting from Iraq has adopted a pessimistic tone about the future of democracy there.
Some might think he is an apologist for militant Islam, but he is a Christian rather than a Muslim and even admits in the book that for him, Islam is “foreign and all too often confusing and troubling.” Perhaps that’s the problem: he doesn’t understand Islam well enough to accurately gauge the future direction of Islamism. This is not to say that his book isn’t worth reading. Even if one disagrees with his conclusions, it’s undeniable that he provides a wealth of information about what regular people all over the Middle East are thinking and feeling.
