Enemy Mine: A Middle Path Between Decadence and Repression?

From The Gathering Storm

On April 3, 2005 Mr. Soliman al-Buthe (aka AlBut’hi), a Saudi Wahabi, wrote James Arlandson at the American Thinker a letter in order to open a dialogue about Islam. It evolved into, as of now, a four part series. In part four, one of the issues Mr. Arlandson focused on was the way Saudi women are treate din that country. The answer fits very nice into a post I wrote few days ago entitled ‘Enemy Mine: Give Me That Ol’ Time Religion’. Mr. Arlandson asked:

“One of the hallmarks of modernity and progress is women’s freedom. Why are not Saudi women allowed to drive cars and to vote?”

Mr. Soliman al-Buthe responded with a very revealing understanding of Islam which I talk about in my post mentioned above.

“What is modernity? And what is freedom? Take “modernity,” a very vague term. Your references suggest that it merely is the state of being modern. But what does it mean to be modern? Apparently “modernity” means whatever happens to be currently popular in the West. The West is modern in many disparate ways. To be “modern” in this sense would require every non-Western society to abandon its culture and live in a constant state of imitation of changing Western norms. We are emphatically against this wholesale adoption of Western modernity as it relates to a promiscuous freedom.”

He goes on.

“…. we think that there is a significant difference between “modernity” in general and religious/moral modernity….Thus we reject the notion that we must do something simply because it happens to be Westerners’ current prevailing cultural prejudice. We are simply not impressed by being told that something is one of the hallmarks of modernity as the West does in the following examples. We evaluate things by being true or false, useful or harmful, suitable or not suitable, and not just because the West counts them among the hallmarks of your modernity.”

Mr. Arlandson replied.

“I am confused about something. You say in your Open Letter, which you initiated to the American Congress, that Saudi Arabia is compatible with modernity (your word). Then, when I bring up the word “modernity,” you talk about “cultural prejudice” and the “wholesale adoption of Western modernity as it relates to a promiscuous freedom.” No one said anything about adopting the extremes or the vices in the West. I agree that the West has gone too far in that regard. But Saudi Arabia has let the pendulum swing too far to the other extreme—to the far side of repression, such as executing or flogging or imprisoning sexual sinners”

Mr. Soliman al-Buthe replied.

“One of the primary aims of Islam is the welfare of the family. To protect the family Islam prohibits all kinds of extra-marital sexual relations and has severe punishment for those who commit adultery and fornication. As a consequence, free mixing between men and women is not encouraged. Today some of our learned men thought that it would be advisable for women not to drive cars as this would tempt women to mix easily with men and vice versa. Thus the prohibition on women driving was seen as a precautionary matter."

There you have the gist of why women are treated so poorly and forced to cover up their personal identity and their bodies and remain asexual in public. The reason – Muslim me can not control themselves. It’s the seam with any fundamental religious belief. As is aid in my previous post, the path to God for Muslims is the path of ‘right action’- the one of discipline, duty, injunctions and restraint which results in denial. It is the direct opposite of the path of self-expression, self-trust, and unconstraint. In the latter case, freedom itself can lead to the goal of self-improvement of the spirit by providing the greatest opportunity for experience and choice.

But with freedom comes responsibility. With total restraint comes a dead culture. We’ve seen that with Islam. Nothing created new, no new ideas, with no contribution to the human race and modern civilization for hundreds of years.

Our modern day culture believes that self-improvement can only be achieved by the greatest opportunity for experience and personal choice, unrestricted by any discipline, duty, injunction or restraint. Taken to extremes, one approach leads to the restriction of everything, the other, the permissiveness of everything. Neither one leads to a healthy evolving society. As I said in my recent post, the outlook is not good for any kind of integration of the two ‘paths’.

Take the way of action that demands discipline, duty, injunctions and restraint – that is, the removal of any and all physical world distractions (the female body, music, movies) and entities (nationalism, personal freedom, freedom of the press) that would hinder the true believer’s goal of reaching paradise - and we have the Taliban. Allow freedom to disintegrate into license and we are left with the nihilism of Nietzsche.

Mr. Arlandson adds.

“…. Bahrain, an island and independent state that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a bridge, provides a “breathing lung” for Saudis because the Islamic island allows people to do as they want. The words “breathing lung” mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge. Surely there is a middle path between decadence and repression."

Mr. Arlandson is correct. And we have to find it if we are ever to integrate the two opposite paths of right action that would help both our civilizations advance.