Lies of the Western ‘Science of Islam’

Re: Anita Zaidi

Anita, thanks for your kind words. As must have been apparent from my previous posting, I share your misgivings about a pure laissez-faire system. I also agree that the American health care system is, in some ways, an example of the free market`s failure. Perhaps this is too simplistic, but I do think that we should distinguish between that which can be treated as a commodity and that which is priceless. Alleviation of human suffering, to me, falls in the latter category. That opinion is not shared, of course, by true-blue free market enthusiasts.

One thing to keep in mind is that, while the free market may be an (imperfect) example of a self-organized system, it is not the only one. Even in the economic domain, one can imagine other equally self-organizing scenarios. Indeed, the Marxist ideal was much closer to a distributed, self-organized system than the command structure that evolved in its name. Self-organization is an abstract, theoretical idea. Its manifestation in concrete systems can take many forms. Ultimately, it depends on what the system responds to, and how. If greed is the primary driving force, one obtains a heartless system, but it is certainly possible to imagine other, more noble, driving forces. In some sense, that is the goal of all moral philosophies.

Speaking practically, I think that concepts such as complexity and self-organization can benefit human systems mainly in providing a new perspective on a variety of issues, and should not be seen as a new orthodoxy. When I find enthusiastic references to self-organization in an article by Francis Fukuyama (this month`s Atlantic), I fear that a misuse of this approach is at hand. However, as the internet takes over reality, the complex systems approach promises a much more accurate description of the world than the old ideas of centralized control. Such control will increasingly disappear from our lives whether we like it or not --- unless reactionary forces succeed in reversing this change soon and bringing on the Orwellian nightmare. How we can retain control in areas such as health care while everything is becoming increasingly distributed is an interesting challenge. Indeed, making a complex systems controllable is, I think, one of the greatest research issues in the area.

Re: RanaRansher

I`m not sure I am qualified to expand on spatial evolutionary game theory, but here is the gist. Game theory developed initially to model interactions between strategising agents. In the classic models, there was typically a limited, pre-defined set of actions with the consequences of each action against every other (the payoff matrix) determined in advance. The focus was on studying strategies that had interesting consequences (e.g., victory, extinction, stability, etc.). The interest then turned to stuations where better strategies could be learned by some adaptive process --- such as evolution. Some theorists developed models which explicitly used evolutionary mechanisms (survival of the fittest, genetic inheritance, mutation and recombination, etc.) to study evolving agents in a game-theoretic context. However, there was still no explicit notion of physical space in most of these models --- probably because most game-theorists were interested in economic applications, and economists (with the exception of economic geographers such as Paul Krugman) are seldom interested in space. Ecologists studying animal and plant populations introduced a spatial dimension by placing their agents on idealized grids representing areas of land. Initially, however, the results were little more than intriguing fractal-looking pictures, which hinted at exciting structures, but were difficult to analyze rigorously. Recently, however, there has been movement as some researchers try to discover global characteristics in these pictures using tools developed for the study of spatially extended fluids undergoing organized or turbulent behavior. Most of the ecological modeling work has occurred in Europe --- especially in Britain.

This is a very cursory and simplistic description. Perhaps someone with actual game-theory expertise can expand on this.

Re: Godot

I`m not sure my mind can ever be with Friedman entirely, but I can admire the elegance of his ideas without considering them desirable in practice.

Ali Minai

re: aminai
THe way you have articulated your thoughts has been simply briliant. COuld you elaborate a little on spatially-extended evolutionary games a little. You say
``The application of game theory to truly complex systems is still in its infancy. However, the work in spatially-extended evolutionary games over the last few years is beginning to move beyond pretty pictures.``

Now in determining whether a particular system is/or should be a self-organized system or a centralised system, I feel, one should apply the dimension of time. Because you want to go short on a Centralized System and long on a Self-organized system. IN other words, take any system (health care, constitution, soccer team, Islamic state, democracy) and keep the channels of critical analysis, debate and reform open. The tennets for each of those systems is binding on all, at a particular time, and it could be viewed as a centralised system. However, over time if it consistently adapts to changing needs and reforms accordingly, it EVOLVES as a self-oganizing system. So while a system may seem rigid (centralised) today, as long as `individuals` are allowed to question the governing rules, the system, over time, will reform and evolve as a self-organizing system. However, if a system leaves no room for the individual to question it/understand it, and that itself is incorporated into it, then the system is doomed to be a centralised system forever and will not EVOLVE. THe analogies can be made with anything (society, cricket team, constitution, SEC, health care, laws).
THe words spatially-extended evolutionary games really got me curious. Please do elaborate, if you get the time.

Re: Wasiq, #18

Yes, Wasiq, I knew that I was saying the same thing you did, and that we shared the same views. I expanded on your thoughts and tried to invalidate the view that in a non-homogeneous human community de-centralized system is not an optimal system (keeping in mind that we`re talking about political and not economic system).

``It seems many ``good`` people are forced to be ``evil`` just to survive.`` Very unfortunate but true. This is precisely why I want a political system where opportunities for ``evil`` to inflict damage to ``good`` is minimized and punished, and where ``good`` is rewarded. A closed and fanatical system will eventually default into ``evil``, no matter how noble intentions it was implemented with. We`ve one great example of it in former Soviet Union (I don`t know enough about Iran to pass a judgment). I don`t think we`ve much of a choice but to be an open society and somehow prevent the fanatical segment from overwhelming it

I wish I were, but I`m not a mathematician, Wasiq. Your question of the N player games where N is very large can probably be answered in terms of economics, not politics. I tend to agree with you that division of N into different subsets seems to be the more logical modeling method, again, in terms of economics.

Re: aminai, #19

Thank you so much for the reply. It was a pleasure reading it.

My heart is also with Soros, and my mind is with Friedman. Victory of American Capitalism over Soviet Union`s Communism was victory of greed over nobility. Centralized system, no matter how noble, is tyrannical in the end. Invisible hand (read greed) works for the betterment of the whole. I`m totally sold on the idea that more complex a system better it is to leave it de-centralized and self-organized, although with minimal regulation and supervision.

That said, however, I was expressing my views in my earlier posts on political, not economic, systems.

Re: Ali Minai

This has been a fascinating discussion and truly thought-provoking for me. Ali, really hope you can continue to edify the two of us.

Regarding highly complex self-organized systems, one only has to look at the mess that the American health care is in (the only industrialized country with an unregulated system), to know it isn`t a panacea for all ills.
Which makes me ask, why the assumption that self-organized systems would be the most efficient? Self-organized health care turns out to be highly inefficient, despite the unleashing of market forces by creating the managed care environment - a movement which (thankfully) is turning out to be a spectacular failure.

To paraphrase you Ali, complex self-organized systems are inherently unjust to society`s weak, because they operate under the principle of maximizing utility for the system, not caring for those left by the wayside. By extrapolation, we should kill all the disabled and the infirm for the benefit of the system.

To my way of thinking, the optimum system would borrow from both structures - akin to the way the human body is organized. A central command and control center in the cortex - yet each cell is functionally self-contained, with its own genetic material, many of which cooperate to form organs.

Anita

Re: Godot, #17

Thanks for your kind words about my postings.

In response to the specific issue you raise, first, you only quoted part of what I wrote. Here is the entire quote:

``I find it tempting to see the difference between the Sufi/Bhakti tradition and standard orthodoxy as one between self-organization of society versus the imposition of top-down order. From the study of natural systems, we know that self-organized systems are more flexible, more robust, more efficient,and generally healthier than systems with centralized control. Of course, the application of such ideas to society may or may not be justified.``

Clearly, I share some of your misgivings about applying self-organization to human systems. That having been said, I think there is some benefit to using the self-organized vs. explicitly controlled system dichotomy in these matters. One example that is almost a cliche is the comparison between the command economies of communist countries and the laissez-faire market system of the West. As you appreciate, I`m sure, this is a very complicated issue. My heart agrees with George Soros` argument that regulation is necessary for ensuring compassion in a free market, but my mind can imagine --- only imagine --- a truly self-organized free market where order emerges from local interactions without global control or regulation. Of course, such an economy would be very cruel, since it would literally apply the ``law of the jungle`` to human affairs. The same concerns would apply to a society that functions purely through self-organization. I think that, as long as people have the propensity for empathy, emotional attachment, lust, greed, love, hate, etc. there is no danger of society becoming purely self-organized. However, we can ask the question whether a limited application of self-organization can improve the way our corporations, our communities, our economies, and our societies function. Some --- like my friend Yaneer Bar-Yam, evangelist par excellence of complex systems --- has argued that, once a human system becomes sufficiently complex, command-based organizing principles --- even hierarchical ones --- are unable to carry the information load needed to keep the system functioning, and the only option is to allow a self-organized approach. I`m not totally sold on this, but it is an appealing idea.

I think some of my misgivings arise from my instinctive aversion to laissez-faire in human affairs. For those --- like myself --- who have always deplored the excesses of uncontrolled capitalist greed, it is hard to swallow the possibility that the success of self-organization in natural systems might be extended to human systems too. That puts us too close to Reaganite hucksters and other faune of the Republican persuasion. I remember that, at a conference a couple of years ago, some of us were chatting with Murray Gell-Mann, who had just finished giving a nice talk on complex systems. He kep saying that his greatest fear was that all this emergence and self-organization stuff might give strength to those who push the laissez-faire agenda. I think that is a real concern for those of us who work in this area, and requires particularly subtle handling of the intellectual issues.

Re: SR, #15

Thank you for your appreciative words. I`m not sure I deserve your compliments, but I`ll take what comes:-).

Re: Anita Zaidi, #13

Anita, good to hear from you! Yes, I think that the Constitution has taken on religious connotations in the US, but I would point out two things:

1. The consitution can be amemded if enough people vote to do so. Religious canons typically cannot. Even when there is a mechanism for reinterpretation --- e.g., in Catholocism or Shi`i Islam --- it is totally controlled by a select group with little or no human accountability, i.e., the clergy, who are accountable only to higher clergy or to God. This is a huge difference which makes a constitution an infinitely more viable document than holy writ.

2. You will notice that the same people who love their second amemdment so much are willing to gut the first amendment by prohibiting flag burning. Most political positions in this country are fundamentally hypocritical, and are simply the product of either the legalized graft system known as campaign finance, or residual bigotry that must find alternative expression now that lynching, witch-burning and inquisition are no longer fashionable.

On your point about conflict between humanism and Islamic teachings, I agree with you. Islamic orthodoxy of all varieties is certainly antagonistic to humanism. Sufism is somewhat less in conflict, but even that is more a reflection of its own heterogeniety than anything else. I completely agree with you that reconciliation between humanism and Islam will get nowhere until the issues related to women are resolved. Unfortunately, I do not see any signs that this is happening. If anything, we are moving backwards in some ways.

Re: Wasiq, #16

Your monkey wrench was noted, and appreciated:-). I think your point is valid. It is not a coincidence that all military forces work through a command structure rather than by a democratic process. The kind of concerted, purposive force needed to achieve specific goals requires strict regimentation. When a system buys flexibility, robustness, and efficiency through self-organization, it does pay a price. Like all generally well-adapted systems, it is sub-optimal for most particular purposes. Also, the order seen in such systems is typically less focused or directed, less explicitly goal-oriented, and is more along the lines of a complex, ramified, hyperlinked structure. Since there is no central controller, there is no explicit agenda and no explicit goal. The system is stronger than the command system, but only in the long term. A determined command system can disrupt or even kill it.

The application of game theory to truly complex systems is still in its infancy. However, the work in spatially-extended evolutionary games over the last few years is beginning to move beyond pretty pictures.

Ali Minai

Re: aminai, #12

``From the study of natural systems, we know that self-organized systems are more flexible, more robust,more efficient, and generally healthier than systems with centralized control.``

Very true. But I don`t see how a self-organized system which is more efficient in natural settings can be applied to human beings belonging to a society. I can`t see a society of self-organized sufis complaining about an electric bill. Don`t we must have a set of (centralized) rules if we are to form a `functioning` society?

I agree with everything else you say, and you say it very well.

Re: Wasiq, #16

With a reference to your team analogy, you say ``it is not clearly obvious a priori which strategy should one choose.``

I believe it is, Wasiq. Now, in the team without centralized rules, each player must keep in mind that it is his team that must win, not him and him alone (that is, how many points he will get, forget about the team). This de-centralized team requires selflessness and self-sacrifice, as opposed to the team in which each player must follow the rules that are best for the team. In the de-centralized team, once the ball is taken over by an unenlightened player, guess what happens?

Further, you say ``Eventually they will settle on a strategy that is optimal for the team.`` If it were true, Wasiq, we will not be having a discussion about Pakistan’s miseries.

I`m not a soccer fan, so I can`t tell a difference between Brazil and Germany. However, doesn`t a soccer team consist of only 11 players, while a country (and the society it contains) consists of millions of people? It is easy to be selfless in an 11-player team. But in a society of millions of people?

You also say that ``societies with well-defined, even fanatical ideologies have shown a persistent ability to overwhelm societies without strong collective ideologies``. I agree with you to an extent that it is true in homogenous societies only: Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Iceland, etc (I added South Korea, Japan and Iceland for homogeneity`s sake).

Re: aminai

The lucidity and succinct brilliance of your various posts is most refreshing to read. However, your following words compel me to express admiration and appreciation. It is an absolute pleasure to read your eminently clear-headed views.

You wrote:

[``…it is significant to consider how the mystical tradition differed from the orthodoxy. The crucial point, in my opinion, was that the mystical experience focused on the individual, whereas the orthodox approach addressed itself to collective spirituality. One could be flexible while the other was forced to be rigid. In one, the `Truth` was sought voluntarily, while in the other it was often imposed. One operated through meditation and the other through decree. One exalted the individual while the other promoted the group.

…From the study of natural systems, we know that self-organized systems are more flexible, more robust, more efficient, and generally healthier than systems with centralized control…``]

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!

…SR

Re: Anita Zaidi

You wrote: ``Can the separation between Church and State endure, or will a `churchless` state eventually produce its own orthodoxy?``

You really like to stir the hornet`s nest, don`t you? :)

I will bet on the latter. The churchless state will create its own orthodoxy to legitimize its existence.

That is the one of the bigger problems in Pakistani political indentity. Pakistan has no national identity outside of Islam and the inability to reconcile its Islamic identity with its secular governmental traditions is the reason why Pakistani polity is so confused as to the aims it wants to achieve! The tragedy of Pakistani political experience is that Islam is the only common thread which binds Pakistan as a political concept, but it is in conflict with the intent of Pakistan, as postulated by Jinnah, as a secular state. Take away Islam from Pakistani political life and there is absolutely no reason to justify Pakistan`s existence!

The irony of the situation is that Pakistan as a Islamic nation will not survive, because Islam, under Pakistani contexts, is a highly repressive and regressive system of governance. On other hand, secularism in Pakistan will remove this repressive and regressive system of government and is the only chance to create a true Pakistani national consensus without it being filtered through the prisms of a religious legitimacy. However, as said before, that would remove the one aspect of Pakistani identity which all Pakistanis agree upon.

Re: Ali Minai

``also think, a converse question: Can the separation between Church and State endure, or will a `churchless` state eventually produce its own orthodoxy? I will leave that topic for another time.``

Do we not have that already Ali? Isn`t what the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution to be taken as Gospel? Hence the right to bear arms.

Also, IMHO it is much easier for Muslim men to talk about vague concepts of humanism as not in direct conflict with Islamic teachings. For women, the two are somewhat irreconcilable! Begin to resolve that, then we`ll get somewhere.

Anita

Re. Wasiq:

Yes, it has been a while. It is good to see all the great stuff on Chowk. Forums like this can make a very positive contribution.

About your question on the possibility that a Divine Being exists, and has communicated with humans, I think that we cannot --- and should not --- discount that possibility. As you point out, however, the epistemological tools of humanist thought are not capable of addressing this issue adequately.

To me, the key point is whether human actions are guided primarily by a concern for human consequences or by some perceived Divine code. It is not that the two are inherently incompatible, but 5000 years of history has clearly demonstrated that those who claim to act under Divine sanction eventually come to tyranny. No religion claims to prescribe anything other than that which is good and righteous. It is the practice of these religions which creates the problem. Now, after our experiences throughout history, I think we can safely say that --- whatever its theoretical virtues --- the practice of religious fervour has been a source of great evil in the world.

God may well `speak` to individuals in some way. I think we have all, at one time or the other, felt the touch of a grace that does not seem to be of this world. Whether that is God or some unknown neurochemical phenomenon does not really matter.

The important thing is its effect on our psyche, our attitudes, and our actions. I have certanly encountered men and women who were very virtuous because they were very devout, so I cannot deny the immense possibility for good which lies in faith. However, it seems to me that when this faith is institutionalized, it invariably becomes an instrument of oppression. The most central --- and, in my opinion, important --- aspect of modern liberal democracy is the separation of Church and State. That is a cornerstone of democracy`s guarantee against long-term tyranny. There is, I

also think, a converse question: Can the separation between Church and State endure, or will a `churchless` state eventually produce its own orthodoxy? I will leave that topic for another time.

As others have pointed out in this thread, we have concrete examples in our own tradition of how piety and humanism can coexist. RanaRansher points to the Sufi and Bhakti traditions, which are excellent examples (though it is somewhat dangerous to think that humanism characterised all Sufi thought.) From my own experience, I can say categorically that one of the greatest, most sophisticated, and most sustained expressions of a spiritually informed humanism is to be found in the classical poetic tradition of Farsi and Urdu (I am not familiar enough with Arabic poetry, so I will make no claim about that.) Protest against tyranny, the assertion of human dignity before religious oppression, the execration of all outward manifestations of religious authority --- these themes are pervasive in the whole canon of Indo-Persian verse. Rumi, Khayyam, and Hafez were, in a very concrete sense, the precursors of today`s free-thinkers. Of course, the Islamicate world also had free-thinking philosophers such as Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, who were explicitly rationalist in the Greek tradition, but the achievement of the poets went beyond that of the philosophers. Even at its most rigid, Muslim society allowed its poets to say things in verse that would have warranted execution if stated in prose. In a sense, these poets were the safety valve --- albeit unwitting --- for society. Though not all of them were Sufis, it can be argued that their spiritual humanism had its roots in the mystical tradition. In this regard, it is significant to consider how the mystical tradition differed from the orthodoxy. The crucial point, in my opinion, was that the mystical experience focused on the individual, whereas the orthodox approach addressed itself to collective spirituality. One could be flexible while the other was forced to be rigid. In one, the `Truth` was sought voluntarily, while in the other it was often imposed. One operated through meditation and the other through decree. One exalted the individual while the other promoted the group.

In India, the Bhakti tradition had similar inclinations, though its context was very different. Its protest was directed less against a state-supported orthodoxy than against excessively rigid socio-religious norms such as the caste system. Again --- as with Sufism --- it assigned value to individual enlightenment, as opposed to following rules out of some canon or book. And --- like Sufism --- it espoused devotion --- not obedience (yes, there is a difference) --- as the highest virtue. As one who works with complex systems, I find it tempting to see the difference between the Sufi/Bhakti tradition and standard orthodoxy as one between self-organization of society versus the imposition of top-down order. From the study of natural systems, we know that self-organized systems are more flexible, more robust, more efficient, and generally healthier than systems with centralized control. Of course, the application of such ideas to society may or may not be justified.

Anyway, to summarize, I think that we should ask ourselves if we judge our actions by their effect on other humans or by their perceived acceptibility in the eyes of God. The latter attitude usually characterizes those who promote inquisitions, organize witch-hunts, and espouse intolerance. One way to escape this --- and the route taken successfully by many --- is to consider the service of Mankind the best way to please God. I think here of Iqbal`s couplet, which captures part of what I have in mind:

KHudA ke `ASHiq to haEN hazArON, banON meN phirtE haEN mAre-mArE

meN us ka bandA banUN ga jis kO KHudA ke bandON se pyAr hO gA

(There are many who love God and wander aimlessly in the wilderness; I will respect that person who loves those that God made).

I say we measure our virtue by our impact on other humans. God --- if He exists --- is capable of taking care of His rights; it is Man that needs the protection of our conscience.

Ali Minai

I agree with Rana Ransher that human thought did and does thrive in South Asia and is not a western concept. Teachings of Buddha are based on Humanist, peace and love. Similary Sufi message is all about love and secular humanism.

Here`s what Sachal says:

I believe not in manifest religion,
I live ever in love.
Say Amen! when love comes to you.
Love is neither with the infidel
nor with the believer.
Love obliterates all religions..
Thy first duty is to
give up faith, unfaith, Islam and all religions.
The lover ought never to
entangle himself in religions.
As long as these towers, temples and mosques
are not deserted --
So long the path of the Beloved
can never be attained.

--Sachal Sarmast, revered Sindhi mystic
(translation by Jethmal Parsram Gulrajani)

Indeed that battle is a battle for `the repossession of truth`. But Muslim self-image can never be restored until such a time that responsible Muslim opinion leaders categorically denounce terrorism, inequality of the sexes, and discrimination based on religion. That NAzis or Serbians are guilty of the same or that American pioneers massacared Native Americans does in no way take away from the responsibility the Muslim leadership faces. The chief difference between the West and an ``Islamic`` society is that in the former you can generally criticise the public policy and majority opinion without having your head whacked off.

Before Islamist scholars get into the battle to reclaim the truth are they willing to assure the world that Islam is indeed consistent with liberal democracy, individual rights, and peaceful coexistence?

re: Aminai
Brilliant ! I particularly liked this line:

``For all their superficial differences, the Christian, Jewish and Hindu fundamentalists of today are much closer to their Islamic counterparts than to Western (and Eastern!) liberals. The latter sometimes ape the attitudes of the former --- usually for political reasons --- but scratch the surface and the difference is clear: One turns to Man for answers, the other to God.``

On a side note, I do not claim to know a whole lot about Islam. However, for some time now, I have been into Sufism as practised in South Asia. THere is/was a very humanist world view in a lot of it. Somehow even some Muslims do not see that as a humanist view. Humanism, is always seen as a western view. Although there is a lot of reason to believe that human thought did and does thrive in South Asia (Sufism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Bhakti all have very humanist world views).
Particularly, the call for introspection and the internalizing of the GOOD and EVIL. As opposed to fighting external evils as the root cause for all problems. Humanists, inherently, do this as they look to humans for answers as opposed to divine (which could be nothing but interpretations of other humans !!)

re:SCOURGE
Yaar you have extended your world view beyond the Ummah and now include other Himalyans of Himalayastan. Great !!
How about extending it to the firangi ? We keep blaming the firangi for dividing and ruling us. But the fact is even 50 years after the firangi has left we are even more divided and are in constant conflict. Someone said, that the Indian army keeps conquering different parts of its own territory every 5 - 10 years !!
Also you should see how the firangi him/her self has evolved their own systems of governance since.

A parochial view from the Muslim perspective which

mirrors the parochialism of Samuel Huntington. The

trouble with such views is that they ignore the

social, political and cultural diversity of the

``other`` that they seek to caricature.

tariq

Re: aminai, #4

It is refreshing to read such intelligent, rational and level-headed response after a completely jahil response from Scourge (#2).

Well said, and thank you.

Ah! Truth rears its head again!

It is a pity that such a well-written article should fall prey to the same excesses that it purports to expose in other analyses. Just as Western scholarship on Islam has tended to denigrate the Islamic ethos and to ignore its sophistication, so has the Islamicate perception of the West been simplistic, parochial, and paranoid. While the Western vision may not always be ``academic, objective and scientific`` enough, the Islamic vision too aften *has * been ``mythical and self-aggrandizing``. To a degree, we are all doomed to look at things through our accumulated prejudices, which means that most attempts at objectivity carry the risk of alienation --- and the certainty of failure. We ask too much when we ask any scholar to produce a truly objective view of anything. No one really knows what that means. Any argument about the merits of one system or the other is really about subjective acceptability. To Western Humanists, death sentences for apostasy are unacceptable, so it should not be suprising that they find the underlying system somewhat distasteful even when they are trying to be fair to it. Conversely, a devout Muslim may never understand the ``godless`` ways of the Humanist.

If one accepts the impossibility of objective analysis, the question is: What is the most that can be achieved? In my opinion, the most we can aspire to is to acknowledge the possibility of alternative world-views, and to respect them --- without necessarily accepting them. However, this itself is a Western Humanist idea (though `lakum dInukum wa liya dIn` is a good statement of the position). The problem is this: Unlike liberal Western thought, most systems claim a basis in Truth, which is an exclusivist principle. Humanism and all its ancillary products such as materialism, reductionism, rationalism, etc. do indeed seek to exclude certain ideas, but it is an almost unique intellectual system in that it has come to admit its own limitations --- embodied in such ideas as Godel incompleteness, deconstructionism, and, indeed, the scientific method itself. Since it recognizes only human agency, it is reconciled to the possibility of constant revision. Such a system meets a Truth-based system --- such as Islam or Christianity --- on a necessarily uneven footing. One system thrives on doubt and skepticism, while the other eschews these for certainty. The real intellectual divide of our times is that between Believers and Skeptics. For all their superficial differences, the Christian, Jewish and Hindu fundamentalists of today are much closer to their Islamic counterparts than to Western (and Eastern!) liberals. The latter sometimes ape the attitudes of the former --- usually for political reasons --- but scratch the surface and the difference is clear: One turns to Man for answers, the other to God. The clash between such systems can be a dangerous thing --- for bodies and minds. The best course, in my opinion, is to pursue reconciliation through interaction rather than through the promotion of paranoia. For Muslims, in particular, it is important to stop blaming every problem on the West, Christians, Jews, CIA, KGB, foreign hands,infidels, and, yes, God. As the world shrinks, it is critical that our horizons not shrink proportionately in an attempt to preserve some mythical ethos. Many of us today straddle the great divide between the Islamicate world and the secular world. The question is whether we can find a way to maintain respectable citizenship in both.

Ali Minai