Walter
Tersch
Multiculturalism
June
14, 2001
My groupÕs class presentation focused on
the Muslim extremist group Taliban,
and their seizure of the governmental, religious, and economic power of
Afghanistan since 1994. The Taliban, whose name means Òreligious studentsÓ
(Maroofi, 1) quickly took control of the somewhat troubled and dangerous
country with promises of lower crime, a purer, more secure lifestyle, improved
government, and overall better conditions for the Islamic citizens of
Afghanistan. However, since taking control, the Taliban have forced dozens of
major rules and Òa string of Draconian lawsÓ (CNN 1) upon Afghans, especially
females. Taliban-imposed regulations include Òforbidding girls from going to
school and women from working,Ó (Afghan-Info) forbidding women from journeying
outside of their home unaccompanied by a male relative, banning television and
radio, making crimes such as adultery or theft punishable by public beating or
mutilation, and many other human rights-limiting rules. In addition,
non-Islamic residents are treated as second-class citizens, often being forced
to adopt Muslim names and traditional Muslim clothing and hairstyles, and even
wear stitches of thread to identify them as religious minorities (RAWA.) ÒThe
Taliban are enforcing harsh, dangerous rules, which may or may not be rooted in
their religionÓ (Sexton, 1.) They have rationalized their many new rules by
claiming that they are based on the sacred text of the QurÕan, despite the fact
that many devout Muslims say the TalibanÕs harsh and often violent style of
rule is not in accordance with genuine Islamic teachings. ÒTheir rigid form of
Islam has antagonized most of their neighbors and Islamic states who believe
they are giving Islam a bad nameÓ (Afghan-Info.)
Many
of the issues raised by the current situation in Afghanistan have great
relevance in discussions of religious tolerance, nationalism, ethnocentrism,
and the relationship between church and state.
Specifically,
one question raised that is relevant to our class is Òwhat happens when nations
adopt official ÔstateÕ religions?Ó This matter came up a few times during the
semester, particularly in our various discussions about the roles of
nationalism, national pride, and unity of government and religion in countries.
The general philosophy of many governments today, based loosely on democratic
principles, is to strive for the greatest good for the greatest percentage of
the population. So, a government might decide that a certain religious group or
sect is the clear majority among the population, and make plans to adopt their
faith as the official state religion. This might seem at first to be a unifying
and peace-enhancing process that would encourage preservation of traditional
values, and foster a more spiritual and harmonious life for most people in a
country.
However, situations like the Taliban
extremist groupÕs oppression of much of the Afghan population (in the name of
Islam) and the continuing battles between Israelis and Palestenians in the
middle east show that official state religions often cause more harm than good,
and frequently promote discontent among citizens who do not specifically share
the beliefs of the governing majority sect. ÒRegulations forbidding [female
education or employment,] along with restrictions on womensÕ access to health
careÉ have caused resentment among ordinary AfghansÓ (Afghan-Info.)
Furthermore, the notion of a single correct religion opens up a whole new set of
ways to rationalize conflict or war with other nations. For example, ÒWe need
to take over that city and convert the people living there, so they donÕt go to
hell!Ó State religions encourage an un-cosmopolitan, closed-minded, and
generally intolerant view of other religions and cultures which can easily
(even if inadvertently) lead to citizens perceiving followers of other cultures
or religions as wrong, inherently inferior, foolish, or even inhuman. Remember
that during World War II the Nazis rationalized their nightmarish treatment of
Jews and other minorities on the basis that the persecuted followed different
religions, and were therefore much different, to the extent that the Jews were
perceived as not human. Ò[Hitler] said that the Jews were the most vicious of
the slave racesÓ (Nazi, 8.) Although the Nazi regime obviously aimed to
completely eradicate Judaism and other minority faiths from Germany, it
initially attempted to assimilate Christianity into Nazi beliefs instead of
prohibiting it outright (Nazi, 13.) With time, however, most Christians were
absorbed into the NazisÕ program of extreme nationalistic pride through massive
emotional rallies and simple, repetitive, universal through force slogans that in some ways constituted a
national state-worship form of religion; God was overshadowed by the state. So
in some ways, the atrocities of World War II in Germany can be interpreted as
being caused in part by Germany having an official state religion. (My
interpretation, anyway:) Nazis did not worship a specific god, but they in some
ways believed that their race
had been chosen by god as the best one on Earth, superior to all others, and
that they had the right
to take possession of all of EuropeÉ. For 2,000 years no less. This force of a
national ideology that centrally embodied racism essentially fueled the flames
of preeminent ethnocentrism and anti-SemitismÉ Which is exactly what eventually
happens in most cases where official religions are adopted. Official national
religions tend to create conflict between nations, due in part to many
religionsÕ requirements to Òspread the wordÓ or Òconvert heathens,Ó etc.
Official religions, through emphasizing the differences of different people, give nations the
rational to conquer or compete with others. Even the present nuclear hostility
between India and Pakistan is based on their conflicting majority religions,
Hinduism and Islam, respectively (Brittanica.)
The
issue of state religions and the ethnocentrism and notions of superiority that
often come with them tie into another main topic that came up in our class a
few times, nationalism. In essence, state religions are interrelated with
nationalistic ideas; citizens come to associate the official religion with what
it means to be a member of the nation. Nationalism works in the same way:
people are instilled with a sense of greatness, of being the strongest,
brightest, most courageous people on earth, or of being GodÕs chosen people.
Like religion, different interpretations of history are possible to support
nationalistic pride. For example, the Taliban interpreted the QurÕan to mean
that they should force their way of life on every one in their country and
violently punish all people found guilty of crimes. In the same way, historical
events can be interpreted in a variety of ways, to support the plans, claims,
or nationalism of leaders. In other words, histories of nations can be either
based on actual fact, exaggerated from real facts and people to make them more
compelling or just plain made up. As shown by 18th and 19th
century European Nationalism, histories and national origins are often
formulated as governments see fit (Gellner, 101.)
So, there are parallels between the
Taliban claiming they are following ancient holy laws from the QuoÕran, and
political leaders claiming that they are upholding the tradition of a grand and
powerful ancient nation. (I.e. Hitler claimed his Nazi political group was the
continuation of an ancient racial group known as the Aryans, who he considered
the Òmaster-raceÓ (Nazi, 8.) It didnÕt matter that Hitler and his political
party didnÕt really have an ancient connection and the Aryans were an unrelated
group not associated with Germany. It has just been shown throughout history
that political groups can rationalize their decisions or their power based on
historical backing. And historical backing can take the form of a grand
national history, as in 19th century European nationalism, or as an
interpretation of religion that supports your decisions, as the Talaban have
done.
Issues of nationalism and whether it is
really necessary in modern cosmopolitan societies were brought up by the final
class presentation on June 7th, which covered national anthems and
asked Òare they really necessary?Ó The class questioned whether national
anthems lead to ethnocentrism through their proud proclamations of having the
greatest land in the world, being the home of the brave, having a rich history,
etc. The consensus we eventually reached is that although national anthems in
some ways do indeed Òput other countries downÓ by proclaiming one countryÕs
singular superiority, they are a necessary element of any country and help
unite the diverse people on the basis of common nationalistic ground. (But
unlike official religions, they are just simple songs and do not significantly
affect government or military operations the way that a religion that demanded
Òholy warÓ would.)
National
unity is in some ways a recurring theme associated with multiculturalism. On
one hand, a nation having its own religion is in some ways united on a higher
and more secure level than would be possible through primarily secular
nationalistic things such as a national anthems, celebration of independence
day, etc. Contrastingly, the other side of the doubled-edged sword of state
religions (or official state cultures, or languages, for that matter) is that
they also serve to divide countries. Minority groups, such as Muslims who
disagree with the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, native French-speakers in
Canada, Native American Plains Indians in the U.S., or any other minority
factions in conflict with the majority, sometimes unite together, even with
other different minority groups, to effect action and instill change in the
country as a whole. For example, many Native American tribes teamed up with
their former rivals to gain political leverage dealing with the U.S.
government. Craving more freedom, the minority groups often attempt to change
the system through political or (unfortunately) militant means, or they make
efforts to literally separate from the majority, as was almost the case with
French Canadians in Quebec. The actions of minority groups dissatisfied with
the status quo can, if well organized, overthrow a government, or even separate
from the country. That is what happened in 1947 when Pakistan separated from
India due to the differences of religion between the countries (Brittanica.)
Similarly, ShiÕite Islamic minority groups in Afghanistan have made attempts in
the past to stop the TalibanÕs expansion of power, albeit without much success
thus far. However, this brings up the old idea that official state religions
cause problems, since they obviously upset people who disagree with the
majority; that is one of the many factors which contributes to the problems
being caused by the Talaban. ÒThey consider themselves a group of Islamic
scholars, and enforce their idea of Islam upon the nationÓ (Sexton 1.) Their
country has what amounts to an extremely official state religion, which they
believe is the worldÕs most pure Islamic state. It is just too bad that few
non-Taliban people in the world agree with that. ÒOnly three countries Ð
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates Ð have formally recognized
the [Taliban] regimeÓ (CNN, 1.)
Although
the majority of Afghans, specifically in the larger cities like Kabul, are
compliant followers of the Taliban interpretation of the QurÕan, there exist
significant minorities of other Muslim sects, (especially ShiÕite muslim) and
people of other religions, who no doubt resent being subjected to alter their
ways of life based on a few other peoplesÕ ideas of the proper religion. I
would imagine that non-Muslims are especially offended and angered by the
actions of the Taliban. I know I would be pretty angry if someone told me I had
to cut my hair in a certain Islamic style, change my name to a Muslim name,
wear traditional Muslim clothes, attend prayers five times daily for a religion
I donÕt even follow, and wear a piece of yellow cloth to differentiate myself
from Muslims! (RAWA 2.)
Overall,
I learned a hell of a lot about nationalism, ethnocentrism, the need for
tolerance of other religions and cultures, and the importance of separation of
church and state by studying the Taliban group in Afghanistan. One of my
personal conclusions IÕve reached through this class is that church and state
should always remain separate, since no one religion, or, as the Taliban have
shown, no one interpretation
of a religion, applies to everyone. A government with the ability to
rationalize all of its laws and actions with holy reasons (or divine right) is
a scary thing to deal with. Historically, oppression of the population and
conflict with outsider nations have been shown to often follow collaborations
or consolidations of church and state. Similarly, I conclude that nationalism
has more than a few parallels to religion, especially with what effects they
can have on a nation. Both religion and nationalism, if unchecked, can be used
to rationalize war, economic actions, new laws, and limitations of freedomÉ
Virtually anything can be rationalized with Òbecause the holy book says soÓ or
Òbecause our ancient forefathers lived and died for it.Ó This is especially
true in nations where the church influences the state and governmental
decisions. Through our various readings throughout the semester, I gained
valuable insight into the significance of nationalism, which is obviously a
central part of the study of multiculturalism, as well as my interpretation of
the Taliban and other national conflicts. I am aware that my paper lacks
specific citations to Levinas, Kant, Fichte, Anderson, etc. However, instead of
loading down the paper with dozens of small quotes from to those thinkers, I
decided that a piece influenced by their thoughts and ideas would be slightly
more readable than one strictly about what they said. (Much of their knowledge
is critical to interpretation of the Talaban situation, such as FichteÕs ideas about
the Internal Border and how it relates to modern concepts of nationalism, and
KantÕs concept of universal reason (and how our class discussions showed that
reason can definitely go awry;) they both relate well to nationalism and how it
affects world politics.) So the focus is more on my interpretation of the
Taliban, Nazi Germany, and other political situations and how they relate to
nationalism, ethnocentrism, and the separation of church and state, instead of
repetition of the texts from this semester.
Bibliography
ÒAfghanistan: the regime and their
U.N. battle.Ó CNN.com/WORLD. June 7,
2001.
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/24/taleban.profile/index.html>
Gellner, Ernest. Nationalism.
Washington
Square, NY: New York University Press.
ÒIndia: The People.Ó Britannica.com. June 14, 2001.
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=121163&tocid=46403>
Maroofi, Musa M. ÒThe Afghan
Taliban.Ó Washington Report. June 5,
2001.
<http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0498/9804047.html>
ÒNazi Germany.Ó June 14, 2001.
<
http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/n-german.htm#persecute-christians>
Sexton, Jake. ÒAfghanistan and the
Taliban.Ó June 5, 2001.
<http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/jsexton/GSB/taliban.htm>
ÒSome of the restrictions imposed
by Taliban on women in Afghanistan.Ó RAWA
(The
Revolutionary Association of the Women of
Afghanistan.) June 4, 2001.
<http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm>
ÒWho are the Taliban?Ó Afghan-Info. June 4,
2001.
<http://afghan-info.com/Research_Articles/Taliban_BBC.htm>