On 29/09/2007, Thijs wrote:
> “[…] In contrast to most post-modern nation states, Islamic fundamentalism offers the kind of warm hearth for which many shaken Western souls might yearn.”
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that words like “fundamentalism” and “terrorism” offer the kind of warm hearth for which many shaken Western souls might yearn: the ability to lump together a wide range of social phenomena that they don’t understand under a few convenient labels taken from American and European history, such as American Protestant fundamentalism and the French revolutionary Terror of the 1790s.
Here are some possible alternatives (which I’m sure could be improved):
Al Qaeda: Salafi nationalist guerilla network
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood: Sunni reformist party
Hamas: Sunni Palestinian nationalist party and militia
Hizballah: Shia Lebanese nationalist party and militia
Two things leap out of this sort of classification: the need to know something about Islam in order to know what the Arabic words mean, and the need to take nationalism seriously as a force that motivates opposition movements.
# distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: email@example.com and “info nettime-l” in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
In a recent post at Accursed Share, Joshua poses Levinas’ critique of Heidegger as rooted in the limitations of comprehension, even the extended notion of comprehension to be found in Heidegger’s work. His post is based on a reading of Levinas’ essay “Is ontology fundamental?” (Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings: pp1-32 – henceforth BPW). He is clear and concise is… Read more →