Malaysia & The Club of Doom: The Collapse of The Islamic Countries
Im sure just from the title you might get a hint of whats in store for readers of the book. Currently, this is the book im reading and im not even half way through the book yet but its very clear that the author has a clear view on the 21st century Islam; not a ‘liberalized’ Islam, surely, but then again he avoids saying too much of what Islam should or can be for Muslims. I’m trying to figure this out: is his view of Islam idealized - and therefore possible - or is it really incongruent with the demands of a capitalist, market-driven, consumerist world?
What particularly struck me was a small passage describing how, in the Quran, Allah exhorts Muslims have a full, lived experience in the ‘real world’ and not just hanker after the hereafter. This sentiment, if encouraged - and dear God, let it be encouraged - might mark the beginning of an Islamic revolution to match Weber’s Protestant Ethic.
The author finds much that is wrong with Malaysian Malays/Muslims, and he shoots from the hip with no apologies.
In Chapter 1: he talks about the failed states and their characteristics;
1. Restrictions on free flow of information
2. The subjugation of women
3. inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure
4. The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization
5. Domination of a restrictive religion
6. A low valuation of education
7. Low prestige assign to work
Even a cursory look at the list tells us that several of these characteristics can already be observed in Malaysia. The possiblity of Malaysia becoming a failed state is all too real, and further explored in Chapter 3, Chapter 8 (thats what the book said; i havent reached them yet) and in numerous other places throughout the rest of the book. The definition of a Failed State predicated upon the conditions of predominantly Muslim nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. or is the definition of a Failed State independent of reference to these Muslim nations? I ask because I believe labels - all labels - are a matter of who controls the discourse; Western nations may find theocratic, or largely theistic nations, abhorrent when conceiving of a modern nation-state, but the same view might not hold for the Ayatollah in Iran. Is such a definition a matter of perspectives, like the word “terrorism” is, or is it not?
In Chapter 2: Pakistan – a failed “Islamic” State? The author contrasts the secular India and Islamic Pakistan and concluded that India has fighting chance of crawling out of its hole...
Unfournately i havent reached the other contradicting chapters, as of i have only just started this book like a few days agoo. But nevertheless, an exciting book to read. i wouldnt recommend reading the book if you are a religious muslims..
My fingers are cramping from typing too much...
