Say it Ain't So, Zizek

Faruk Rahmanovic SAY IT AIN’T SO, ZIZEK! Zizek Seminar

1

Let us imagine for a moment an article on David Hume, published in a scholarly journal,

claiming Hume‟s staunch Baha‟ism, and its impact on his thought. While reading through, it becomes

readily apparent that the author does not, in fact, know anything about Hume or his works. If we then

imagine the academic response to such an article, what comes to mind is certainly not an uncritical

acceptance of the author and the publication. However, this is precisely what has happened numerous

times, with numerous authors and articles, where Islam and Muslims are the topic. In this analysis, we

look at the works of Zizek and his writings on Islam.

As a globally renowned contemporary philosophy superstar – one of very few – Slavoj Zizek

enjoys not only international fame, but also an enormous following in philosophical circles and

elsewhere. He is an astute philosopher with a knack for cutting through the platitudes to get at the

heart of the problems that face us today. Therefore, it is all the more tragic when he addresses the

“problem” of Islam from a position of ignorance, with views barely deviating from the suppositions

of the right-wing media. He is not alone in holding such a position among Western academics, which

makes the problem that much worse, and the erroneous views more difficult to correct. While his

motives may be benign, the methodology and the results are all too similar to the ignorance-based

paranoiac conclusion that Islam itself is the problem and a threat. Consequently, the best that can be

said of Zizek on this point is that he is complicit in propagating views and arguments that amount to

little more than hate speech.

The following analysis will examine the views of Zizek, as compiled from several of his

works. Alongside the claims thus made, the analysis will offer a concise refutation, using Islamic

primary sources, as well as other literature. Finally, we will briefly consider the implications of the

findings.


2

Of the many premises Zizek holds about Islam, perhaps the most commonly shared among

Western academics is one of Islamic militancy. That is to say, the issue at hand is not the political or

economic situation of particular Muslims or particular nations, but Islam itself – Islam qua Islam.

“Today, as religion emerges as the main source of murderous violence around the world, one

grows tired of the constant assurances that Christian, Muslim, or Hindu fundamentalists are only

abusing and perverting the noble spiritual message of their creed.”1 In fact, since Zizek claims that

religion in general, and Islam in particular, has no external ethical standards, he sees it as the excuse

for committing the worst atrocities, while hiding behind the „word of God.‟2 This is possible, since

religious individuals act with reference to religious claims on the nature of the good. Atheists, on the

other hand, are free from such complications, as their actions spring entirely from their notion of

what is right.3 “Of course there are cases of pathological atheists who are able to commit mass

murder just for pleasure, just for the sake of it, but they are rare exceptions.”4

Therefore, the problem with Islam is precisely that it is a religion.5 Islam is taken to be the

source of the violence, due to the believers‟ desire to please their God, which is further explained by

the apparent absence of external standards. On the other hand, atheism is posited as the civilizing

influence, yet one appropriated solely to “Europe.”6 “What makes modern Europe unique is that it is

1 Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. New York: Picador, 2008. Pg. 133.

2 Ibid. Pg. 137.

3 Ibid. Pg. 138.

4 Ibid. Pg. 136.

5 The term “religion” is rather ambiguous here, and one cannot help but understand it as any system that posits a particular

worldview that “vaguely” defines the limits of legitimate human action. After all, what other definition can one use to group Jains, Amish, Taoists, and the Taliban in a single term? 6 Given that “Europe” is a historically ambiguous term (Greece was considered a part of the East until fairly recently), it is

unclear what exactly Zizek means here. How far back do we go, historically, to provide this view? The Moors held Spain (and even part of France) for over 700 years, the Ottomans have been in Europe since the 14

th century (and controlled a significant

portion thereof until the early 20th

century ), the first officially atheist nation in Europe (lasting longer than 7 months) was post-revolutionary Russia (despite the fact that the majority of that nation is in Asia) – and that experiment ended with some 40-60 million murdered by the atheist regime.


3

the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any

public post”7 8

In a single instance, Zizek does offer a passage where he denies the “clash of civilizations”

premise as the source of violence – instead he points to clashes “within each civilization” as

ultimately relating to global capitalism.9 However, the singular instance serves only to highlight the

fact that, despite this apparent insight, Zizek plods onward with the Islamic militancy argument

throughout that book and numerous others.

On the notion of Islam and militancy – particularly of the terrorist sort – Zizek goes wide of

the mark in two ways. First, Islam considers warfare to be solely a state-governed activity, predicated

on the existence of a legitimate autonomous rule.10 There is also a historical precedent, where the

early Muslims suffered 13 years of violent, and even murderous, persecution in Mecca (under the

authority of the Quraysh ruling tribe), and were not given the ability to fight – even in self-defense. It

is only once the Muslim community migrated to Medina, and established a self-governed state, that

the right to wage war was granted 11 – and then only to the state as such,12 and only in necessity.

13

Therefore, from the standpoint of Islam, non-state actors cannot legitimately engage in war – as such

actions are considered criminal.

Second, the view of militancy Zizek takes is one of indiscriminate attacks – which include

civilians, women, children, etc. However, the Qur‟an notes in unequivocal terms:

“Whoever intentionally kills a person, except as a punishment for murder or for fitna (severe chaos,

oppression or tyranny, actively and consistently fighting against justice) in the land, it will be written in his

7 Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. Pg. 139.

8 Zizek is also off by some 2200 years on the idea of atheism as a socially accepted worldview, given that Legalism in China

(championed by Han Feizi (d. 233 BCE)) not only advocated for such a position, but was the official creed of the Qui – the state that unified China in 221 BCE. 9 Zizek, Slavoj. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. London: Verso, 2002. Pg. 41.

10 Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955. Pp. 60-61.

11 Ibid.

12 Hamidullah, Muhammad. The World’s First Written Constitution. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1975.

13 El-Munziri, Zekijjudin Abdu-l-Azim Ed-Dimiski., comp. Muslimova Zbirka Hadisa: Izbor. Translated by Sefik Kudric. Zenica: Kuca

Mudrosti, 2004. Hadith # 1126. Pg. 208. (Henceforth noted only as Muslim)


4

book of deeds as if he had killed all human beings – because such a person makes no distinction between

the guilty and the innocent.”14

Against claims such as “all infidels are guilty,” or of guilt by (national) association, Qur‟an

and Hadith, 15 as well as scholars, hold that: 1) only those individuals who commit a crime can ever

be held responsible for it – i.e. no collective punishment is allowed,16 2) children (anyone under 15)

cannot be held responsible for their acts – even on the battlefield,17 3) enemy soldiers are not de facto

guilty of a crime – unless they commit an atrocity – and if captured must be treated humanely,18 4)

indiscriminate attacks are prohibited,19 5) a Muslim who violates these rules is thus guilty of a crime

which is prosecuted with capital punishment – in accordance with the verse cited above.20

Consequently, we can find no justification for Zizek‟s claim that Islam qua Islam is the

source of militancy and violence. Further, the preceding elements, as well as a number of Qur‟anic

verses, Hadith narrations, and scholarly work provides an abundance of external ethical standards by

which actions of an individual can be, and are, judged. As Zizek noted in the singular redeeming

instance, modern violence is not caused by religion, but by socio-economic and political factors – a

fact which has been well-established.21 Yet, his continued insistence on Islam as the culprit, means

that, for example, Palestinians would be just as likely to engage in suicidal attacks on Jewish

civilians had the state of Israel not been established and committed atrocities against them. What‟s

more, Zizek‟s claims of atheist-embracing Europe, where the barbarism of mass murder is the

14

The Qur’an. Translated and Annotated by Ali Ünal. New jersey, The Light, 2007. [Henceforth Referred to as Qur’an] (While this analysis is using this particular translation, any translation by a valid source will yield the same results. Rather than page numbers, chapter and verse numbers are given in the “chapter:verse” order) 5:32. (Includes Commentary by Ibn-Kesir. Tefsir Ibn-Kesir, Skraćena Verzija. Edited by Muhammed Nesir Er-Rifa'i. Translated by Group. 2nd ed. Sarajevo: Visoki Saudijski Komitet Za Pomoc BiH, 2002.) ALSO Muslim. Hadith # 1133, 1134. Pp. 213-14 15

Hadith are the recorded actions, sayings, and practices of the Islamic messenger Muhammad. 16

Qur’an. 53:39, 35:18. 17

Muslim. Hadith # 1114. Pg. 194. 18

Qur’an 47:4, 76:7-9. ALSO Ullah, Hamid. Muslim Conduct of State. Ed. Syed Mahmud-un-Nasir. Lahore: Mansoor Book House, 1973. Pp. 74-5 19

Asad, Muhammad. The Principle of State and Government in Islam. Gibraltar: Dar Al-Andalus, 1987. Pg. 75. ALSO Aboul-Enein, Youssef H., and Sherifa Zuhur. Islamic Rulings on Warfare. Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2004. Pg. 22. 20

ALSO Qur’an. 17:33. ALSO Muslim. Hadith #1023. Pg. 103. 21

Esposito, John L. and Mogahed, Dalia. Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. New York; Gallup Press, 2008.


5

exception to the rule, are patently false. Unless Zizek wants to limit himself to the Europe of the past

few years, he has to contend with the knowing perpetration of genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo,

through imposition and enforcement of an arms embargo (by the UN and the EU) on the only

unarmed nations (Bosnia and Kosovo), while being fully aware of the concentration camps and other

genocidal campaigns in progress.22 Additionally, many high-profile “atheist” leaders, such as Stalin

and Mussolini in Europe, and Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, and Than Shwe elsewhere, have caused

more deaths in the past century than those caused by “Islamic militancy”. Thus, Zizek‟s claim, if

taken in the most positive light, is a rather severe stretching of the truth – or more likely a convenient

(and conveniently ignorant) fiction in support of his argument.

Yet the critique does not stop at the reading of Islam as militant and thus as justifying any

action, nor at the exultation of atheism as a uniquely European remedy. According to Zizek, Islam is,

as a consequence of its particular views, a barbarous, uneducated, and uncomprehending system.

Thus, “The Muslim reaction [to the Danish cartoons Circ. 2005] displays a blatant lack of

understanding of the Western principle of an independent civic society.”23 Here, Zizek draws a clear

demarcation between “Muslims” and “the West;” one the progenitor of an “independent civic

society,” the other not only ignorant, but made so by the worldview they hold – i.e. Islam. In his

defense, Zizek does note at one point that, “it was through the Arabs that, in the Middle Ages, we in

Western Europe regained access to our Ancient Greek Heritage.”24

In his claims, Zizek might have been served well by actual research, rather than inane

assumptions. Though he does mention the Greek philosophy connection, that miniscule nod barely

scratches the surface. It is not the case that the Arabs merely preserved the Greek texts – Caliph Al

Ma‟mun (d. 833 CE) the ruler of the Abbasid Dynasty “paid translators the weight of each book in

22

Clinton, William. My Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Pp. 509-10. ALSO Branch, Taylor. The Clinton Tapes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009. 9-10, 217. 23

Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. Pg. 106. (Emphasis added) 24

Zizek, Slavoj. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. 41.


6

gold that they translated from Greek to Arabic” 25 – but rather, those texts came back with a copious

commentary.26 This allowed Medieval Europe to reengage with philosophical thought and process,

not start from scratch. Further, the staggering proliferation of philosophical texts and the

accumulation of knowledge in the Islamic world, indicates that the Islamic societies understood well

the concepts of civilization, civility, and progress. The same can be easily noted in the fact that, while

European kings sat in gloomy and drafty castles, Andalusia (as well as all other Islamic states) turned

architecture into religious art, and created such monuments as survive to this day.27 Further, all forms

of science – including biology, chemistry,28 mathematics, astronomy, medicine, surgery, mechanics,

optics, etc., arrived in Europe from the Islamic world via open trade.29 Along with sciences came

culture – universities, paper, glass, banking system,30 waterworks, perfumes, hospitals, music, the

notion of a three-course meal 31 - in other words, all those “civilized” factors Zizek claims as solely a

product of Europe.32 It also bears noting that Islam provided the world‟s first written constitution, a

set of universal human rights, and any number of other elements which are now an integral part of

European identity.33 Therefore, Zizek‟s claims are, once again, fictitious at best.

Zizek‟s critique further extends to Islamic lack of participation in the modern economic

system, which helps to explain his earlier remarks on clashes within a civilization. “I think it is a fact

that of all world great religions Islam clearly has the strongest resistance to the process of global

capitalism. Other religions, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism and so on, have by and large

25

1001 Inventions. Edited by Salim T.S. Al-Hussani. 2nd

Ed. Manchester: Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation, 2007. Pg. 60 (emphasis added) 26

In Aquinas’ works, the term “Philosopher” always refers to Aristotle, while the term “Commentator” always refers to Ibn Sina (Avicenna) 27

E.g. Cordoba, Isfahan, Istanbul, Bursa, Konya, Fez, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, etc. 28

In fact, the Arabic word for chemistry is Chemia (“system of balancing disparate parts”) which, along with the definite article prefix al (thus al Chemia) was Latinized as “alchemy.” 29

1001 inventions. 30

Ibid. pg. 148. “in the 9th

century… a Muslim businessman could cash a cheque in Canton, China drawn on his bank account in Baghdad.” 31

1001 inventions. 32

Trend, J.B. “Spain and Portugal” In The Legacy of Islam. Ed. Sir Thomas Arnold and Alfred Guillaume. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1931. Pp. 5-6. 33

Hamidullah, Muhammad. The World’s First Written Constitution. ALSO Islamic Concept of Human Rights. Edited by Haider, S.M. Lahore: The Book House, 1987. ALSO Murad, Abdal Hakim. “The Muslim Influence On Europe and the West.” (Lecture Series). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc-oWwGUM6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc-oWwGUM6I


7

adapted to global capitalism, but Islam has not.”34 Consequently, we are now presented with a

religious system which advocates for militancy and backwardness, which is not only backward

socially, but also economically.35 Additionally, it is not just a fact that Islam (the religion itself) has

failed to adapt to the fact of global capitalism, it is that it inherently resists such adaptation. Perhaps

the key point is the fact that Zizek puts this issue in terms of Islam qua Islam, rather than of particular

groups and nations, that really brings home the message that Islam itself is the problem.

As far as this claim is concerned, one has only to observe the fact that Islamic banks, the

world over, suffered minimal losses in the 2008 global market collapse,36 followed by the fact that

some of the largest banks in the world – including Citibank – are currently actively diversifying their

investments to include Islamic, Shari„a compliant, finance.37 However, Zizek is partially right in his

assessment. Islam is not only resistant, but outright prohibitive to certain commonplace Western

economic models, such as usury, futures trading, speculative investments, and generally the

exploitative elements of Western capitalism.38 39 Islam is also opposed to conventional interest-based

financing, preferring to share the risk equally between the individual and the bank – thus preventing

problems like the post-2008 housing market collapse. Further, the Islamic economics system has been

developing for as long as Islam itself.40

34

Zizek, Slavoj and Daly, Glyn. Conversations with Zizek. Cambridge: Polity Publishing, 2004. Pg. 159. 35

This is not to say that Zizek here views capitalism as a positive value, but that the presence of a society thus adapted indicates its integration into modernity, and away from the primitive local systems. 36

Dridi, Jemma and Hasan, Maher. “The Effects of the Global Crisis on Islamic and Conventional Banks: A Comparative Study” IMF Publication, 2010. 37

“Citi Wins Awards in Islamic Finance News Deals of the Year 2009.” Global Islamic Finance Magazine. http://www.globalislamicfinancemagazine.com/?com=news_list&nid=1249 38

Naik, Zakir. Interest and Share Market by Dr. Zakir Naik. International Islamic Conference 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhv10LcZTI 39

It should, perhaps, be granted that any form of capitalism carries with it an exploitative effect. However, there exists quite a bit of difference between particular instantiations of capitalism, based on the degree and kind of regulation exerted on the market. 40

The books of Hadith, as well as the works of all four major schools of law, have extensive discussions on economics and trading.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=24183.0

http://www.globalislamicfinancemagazine.com/?com=news_list&nid=1249


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhv10LcZTI


8

But what of Islam‟s ability to adapt, as such? Zizek sees adaptation as already present within

Islam, and from the Saudi-based, ultra-conservative, Wahhabi movement (though he does not identify

it as such). On the question of Islamic need for a „protestant revolution,‟ Zizek notes,

“This Protestant revolution was already accomplished more than two centuries ago, in the guise of the

Wahhabi movement which emerged in (what is today) Saudi Arabia. Its basic tenet, the exercise of ijtihad

(the right to reinterpret Islam on the basis of changing conditions), is the precise counterpart to Luther‟s

reading of the Bible. Ijtihad is a properly dialectical notion: neither a spontaneous immersion in old

traditions nor the need to „adapt to new conditions‟ and compromise, but the urge to reinvent eternity itself

in new historical conditions.”41

What arises from such a reading are two points: 1) Islam was a static system, which only

managed to start adapting some 200 years ago; 2) the adaptation was brought about by the Saudi-

based Wahhabi movement (incidentally the same movement that gave us the basis for Bin Laden).

Consequently, Islam was stuck in the 7th century mindset until the 1800‟s; and the reformation (i.e.

Islam 2.0) is a more violently militant, intolerant, and oppressive system. Thus, if Islam was

problematic to begin with, the adaptation of Islam to the modern environment is all the more so.

With this argument, Zizek continues on his streak of claims without factual backing. The term

ijtihad, as well as its applications, were noted by Muhammad,42 and considerably expanded upon,

beginning in the first two centuries of Islamic scholarship. The founders of the four great legal

schools all agreed on the main premise that any ruling made by jurists and scholars was limited to the

time, place, and circumstances of the ruling. This allowed not only for different (yet equally valid and

binding) rulings in different locations, but for different rulings in the same place, due to changing

circumstances.43 In modern legal terminology, the rulings of legal scholars would be considered as

precedent.44 Consequently, Islam, as well as its history from the earliest scholarly work, embodies the

particular notion of ijtihad, as an adaptive property. As to the reason why such adaptation is generally

41

Zizek, Slavoj. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. Pp. 52-3. 42

Asad, Muhammad. The Principle of State and Government in Islam. Pp. 24-5. ALSO Sunan Abu Dawud. Hadith # 3585. http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=24&translator=3&start=10&number=3579 43

Asad, Muhammad. The Principle of State and Government in Islam. Pp. x, 12, 26. 44

Ibid. Pp. 14-17.

http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=24&translator=3&start=10&number=3579


9

absent in much of the modern Islamic world, the long answer is beyond the scope of this analysis –

but the short answer is that the ability to adequately critique set rulings requires highly trained

scholars – much as one needs a constitutional scholar to provide an adequate critique of the US

constitution – which have been in short supply since the colonization of the Muslim world.

For Zizek, his claims lead to the idea that Islam, and its reformed ideology, both amplify

issues like oppression and militancy, and apparently glorify the extreme (re)actions, such as murder

of civilians etc. With regard to US occupation of Iraq he notes, “It is the first case of direct American

occupation of a large and key Arab country – how could this not generate universal hatred in

reaction? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide

bombers, and how that will force the US government to impose a permanent high alert emergency

state…”45 What Zizek posits at this point is not merely the (apparent) staggering degree of militancy

in Islam, but also an unbridgeable gap between Muslims (or rather Islam) and the Western value

system. The dream is not of freedom from foreign oppression, a dream for a better life, but a dream of

murdering Western civilians and committing suicide at the same time.

With his view of Islam as backwards, Zizek makes a rather stunning prediction of the US

occupation of Iraq. Oddly enough, it seems that Iraqis, and Muslims in general, would rather blow

themselves sky-high (despite suicide being categorically prohibited in Islam)46 than actually expel the

invading forces. Perhaps Zizek here assumes that the only role models for Muslims – in accordance

with his views of Islam itself – are those whose best purpose is as a cheap mobile explosive delivery

unit. Yet, why not assume that thousands of young people are dreaming of becoming the next

Saladin, of forcing the invading armies to retreat in unconditional surrender, shamed by the

difference between their barbarous atrocities committed on civilians by the Western forces and the

magnanimity of Muslims, who have taken the road prescribed by the Qur‟an, Hadith, the life of their

45

Zizek, Slavoj. The Universal Exception. Edited by Rex Butler and Scott Stephens. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006. Pg. 302. 46

Qur’an. 4:29


10

prophet, and all the great generals after him?47 What is it about Islam and Muslims that has Zizek so

certain that they would rather serve as a rather ineffectual suicide-explosive, than as a great leader to

their oppressed nation? While Zizek does not give us a direct insight into his line of thought, it does

smack of Orientalism and – oddly enough – seems to provide the attribution of the most bizarre

notions of the Muslim “Other.”

Zizek‟s analysis so far leaves us with a precious few solutions. The first step to solving a

problem, as the saying goes, is admitting that you have a problem. In this case, Zizek holds Islam to

be the problem and posits the recognition of the problem this way: “The game of redeeming the inner

truth of a religion or ideology and separating this out from its later or secondary political exploitation

is simply false.”48 In other words, Islam cannot be divorced from its representation as the ideology

behind the vastly different and opposing views of Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. As such, it must be

abandoned – not in part but as a whole – for any attempt at modification cannot escape the

accompanying oppressively-homicidal terrorism.

In regard to rational understanding of terrorists (though such an attempt is equally applicable

to Muslims as a whole), Zizek seems to critique his own earlier claims.

“Such an approach exemplifies the racist bias of the theories of “rationality.” Although their aim is to

understand the Other from within, they end up attributing to the Other the most ridiculous beliefs… In their

effort to make the Other “like us,” they end up making him ridiculously weird.”49

Thus far, Zizek has identified the problem (Islam), has noted that no rational understanding is

possible, and that, since there is no way of redeeming Islam from the political exploitation, it must be

abandoned as a whole (apparently by Muslims) – and must be rejected by the liberal Leftists. How to

achieve this grand goal? Zizek argues that the only way to do so is through the “constitutional

47

Qur’an. 2:191-2, 4:90, 5:45, 9:6, etc. ALSO Muslim. Hadith #1126. Pg. 208. 48

Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. Pg. 116. 49

Ibid. Pg. 82.


11

elements of Western liberal Lietkultur,” namely the freedom to attack anything or anyone; 50 to offer

a critique as it should be offered – disrespectfully.

“We should insist on the unconditional right to conduct a public critical analysis of all

religions, Islam included… While many a Leftist would concede this point, he or she would

be quick to add that any such critique must be carried out in a respectful way, in order to

avoid a patronizing cultural imperialism – which de facto means that every real critique is to

be abandoned, since genuine critique of religion will by definition be “disrespectful” of the

latter‟s sacred character and truth claims.”51

As a result of Zizek‟s claims, we can conclude that, in his view, Islam stands as the polar

opposite of the civilized Western values, beyond rationalization and exculpation.

We‟ve already seen that Zizek has fallen prey to his own fanciful imaginings of Islam and

Muslims, and ascribed a long series of incoherent attributes to both. The analysis now turns to the

“disrespectful critique.”

Zizek‟s idea of an appropriate and meaningful critique has two separate aspects. First, is

whether a meaningful critique can even be offered, in light of events such as the violent protests

following events such as the Danish cartoon publication. The Islamic answer is a resounding, “yes.”

There is nothing within Islam that prohibits a dialogue, or criticism – and both are in fact encouraged

textually, as well as historically.52 The second question then turns on the notion of disrespect within a

critique. Here, we must consider Zizek‟s phrasing. He considers the “freedom to publically attack

anyone and anything” as a core European value, while a, “genuine critique of religion will by

definition be “disrespectful” of the latter‟s sacred character and truth claims.”

50

Zizek, Slavoj. In Defense of Lost Causes. London: Verso, 2008. Pg. 21. 51

Zizek, Slavoj. Living in the End Times. London: Verso, 2010. Pg. 137. 52

Qur’an. 16:125. “Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and argue with the in the best way possible. Your Lord surely knows best who has gone astray from His way, and He knows best who are the rightly guided.” (emphasis added). ALSO Muhammad’s message, particularly in the first period (Mecca 610-623), was met with everything from criticism and doubt to torture and assassinations attempts. Further, the notion of informing others of the Islamic message is, de facto, premised on their disbelief in Islam.


12

If the notion of disrespect alluded to in this passage is one of not believing Islam to be true

(i.e. the word of God), then there is no problem to be had, since the aforementioned Qur‟anic and

Hadith references already assume that the interlocutor is someone who does not believe in Islam. If,

on the other hand, the notion of disrespect is understood as belligerence, false claims, and deliberate

insults for their sake alone, then the problem of such a critique is not Islamic, but academic – and is

made such by the very notion of a civil society. Disrespectful approach creates a number of problems,

including logical fallacies in the argument (ad hominem, straw man, scare tactics, etc.),

hatemongering, and sophistry (in relying on the audience‟s ignorance to apparently score a point in a

debate). Furthermore, all civilized nations have libel laws – which are designed specifically to

prevent the belligerent version of the disrespectful critique, by forcing the claimant to provide

evidence of the charge, or keep silent.

Therefore, what emerges in this distinction is that a respectful critique is not equivalent to

pandering to the other side. Rather, what is at issue is the respect for the critique itself, by making

such an endeavor an intelligent and educated one. No discussion is possible where one side is

completely ignorant of the facts, yet refuses to become educated. A critique from a position of

ignorance is no more than a bigoted rant.53 When the rhetoric of an academician echoes that of

sideshow attractions like the right-wing radio hosts, it is not the sideshow that is in grave peril. While

one fervently hopes that Zizek‟s account stems from a more educated place, it‟s hard to hold out hope

in light of his commentary.

Finally, we turn to the notion that, “The game of redeeming the inner truth of a religion or

ideology and separating this out from its later or secondary political exploitation is simply false.”

Perhaps, with the assumptions and erroneous arguments Zizek holds, this argument should be

understood as the issue of a system requiring such a degree of overhaul that the resulting reformation

53

Bigoted, as per the Cambridge Dictionary definition, of holding a strong and unreasonable view – and these opposing it as wrong. The view must be unreasonable, since it arises from fancy and fiction. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot


13

would be divorced from the original in too great a degree to hold any real connection to it.

Alternately, Zizek‟s revolutionary streak might be pushing for another storming of the Versailles,

rather than reaching for a compromise. What is given, regardless of Zizek, is that the majority of the

modern, so-called Muslim states enforce a set of laws rather different than that of Islam.

However, contrary to Zizek‟s oft used “late fiancé” example, what must be considered in an

intelligent assessment of any system are the theoretical dimensions, praxis, and the reasons for the

discrepancy. One cannot simply overthrow systems as soon as their praxis does not match the theory,

or our own preferences. If that were the case, there is not a political, philosophical, economic, or

religious system that should have survived its first century. The French revolution included the

killings of women and children (aristocrats); US engaged in the worst forms of slavery, denied rights

to women, and just about exterminated an entire nation (Native Americans); Communist nations,

whose official motto was atheism, exterminated their own people, as well as minorities, and began

wars of aggression; etc. Thus, one must first be aware of the theory of a system in order to determine

its potential value. Further, it is only against the background of such theory that praxis may be

measured, and a determination may be made as to the relation between the theory and reality. Failing

such an approach, one would be forced to condemn ideas like “peace,” “freedom,” and “revolution,”

as UN “peacekeepers” have allowed genocide to occur, “freedom-fighters” have committed

atrocities, and revolutions tend to involve chaos and murder.

What is readily apparent from his premises and arguments is that Zizek‟s account is

established on the ignorance of the system in question. Consequently, his solutions cannot be

considered seriously – at least until the preceding account is rectified. Such a conclusion must be

made, and is independent of any particular subject matter, and is (or should be) the standard of

academic work.


14

Despite a fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn from Zizek‟s writings, one should not be

uncharitable in such assessments, and should always give the author the benefit of the doubt. In such

an attempt, we ask whether there is any way to read Zizek differently on this account. However,

beyond the two noted exceptions, there is nothing to be had. What‟s worse, Zizek‟s clumsy use of

references (we will refrain from calling them intentionally fraudulent) is a clear indication that he

argues from a position of ignorance. In fact, his occasional use of supposedly anecdotal tidbits seems

to lend him credibility, except that even the most basic research will prove them patently false. For

example, “What underlies the Muslim attitude is the Muslim belief in the sacred status of writing

(which is why, traditionally, Muslims don‟t use paper in their toilets).”54 As quaint as such a

sentiment may be, the reason why Muslims prefer not to use only toilet paper is because washing is

considered to be better than using only solid objects, and is noted as such in several Hadith

narrations.55

Further, the attribution of ijtihad to the Wahhabi sect is, in itself, partially true – they did use

the notion. However, the term was used by Mohammad, as well as scholars from the 7th century

onwards. The misrepresentation is akin to positing that Protestantism arose from the idea of God as a

Holy Trinity. Technically, the statement is true. However, the statement carries a clear implication

that they were the first to do so, which is patently false.

Zizek‟s failure to account for theology, history, social framework, etc. that were passed on to

(Christian) Europe from Muslim nations in both the East and from Spain, indicates ignorance, and

reveals a disturbing trend of Zizek‟s Orientalism. In this assessment, he gives no parallax view of

Islam - it is, apparently, so homogenous and uniformly identical across the board, that all perspectives

are exactly the same. What is disturbing in this account is that the statements made were not an off-

the-cuff remark – presented as a personal feeling towards Islam and Muslims. Such an account would

54

Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. New York: Picador, 2008. 106. 55

Bukhari (Translation of the Bukhari Hadith collection). Hadith # 1.4.152. http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/001.004.152.html

http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/001.004.152.html


15

be bigoted and racist, but would at least be understandable. Instead, Zizek offers his account as an

official critique throughout several books and articles, and offers it with a supposed insight into the

subject. This makes the presentation that much worse, as it conveys the feeling of authority on the

subject, despite its clear ignorance – at least to someone who is educated on the issue.

Zizek aside, what does the uncritical attitude toward, and the acceptance of, such arguments –

even when they are demonstrably ignorant by analysis or admission – say about the state of academic

attitudes on the subject? No professor would allow this argument as an oral one, let alone as a term

paper. Yet we not only turn a blind eye to such work, but continue to endorse both the work and its

author, despite knowing full well that their work is (in this regard) nothing more than a bigoted,

racist, Orientalist, and ultimately ignorant approach to a popular topic56 – where people do look to

academia to provide answers and help place the issue into its appropriate context.

Despite Zizek‟s claims, this is not a matter of providing a respectful or disrespectful critique

of a religion. No, this is about showing the least bit of respect for academia, the very notion of a

critique, and for philosophy. The trouble, in the real sense, is not the claim that some religious system

should be dismantled. It is that such a claim is made on the grounds of absolute and obvious

ignorance of the topic. Would we accept a critique of any other theory or system on the same

ignorant grounds – even as undergraduate work? The answer is a resounding, “no.” Whether this

promulgation of ignorance and bigotry was intentional on Zizek‟s part, one cannot say – and I

personally prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it makes him no less complicit in

that promulgation; and one that has reached a global audience, given his status as one of a rare few

philosophy superstars.

56

A potent example is one of Dr. Dawkins, who recently admitted to never having read the Qur’an, but continuing to affirm that “Islam is the greatest force for evil today.” When challenged on the failure to use anything approaching an academic method for such inflammatory language, he doubled down by indirectly equating Islam to Nazism and the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/


16

Works Cited

1. Aboul-Enein, Youssef H., and Sherifa Zuhur. Islamic Rulings on Warfare. Carlisle Barracks:

Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2004.

2. Asad, Muhammad. The Principle of State and Government in Islam. Gibraltar: Dar Al-Andalus,

1987.

3. Branch, Taylor. The Clinton Tapes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009. 9-10, 217.

4. Clinton, William. My Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

5. Dridi, Jemma and Hasan, Maher. “The Effects of the Global Crisis on Islamic and Conventional

Banks: A Comparative Study” IMF Publication, 2010.

6. El-Munziri, Zekijjudin Abdu-l-Azim Ed-Dimiski., comp. Muslimova Zbirka Hadisa: Izbor.

Translated by Sefik Kudric. Zenica: Kuca Mudrosti, 2004.

7. Esposito, John L. and Mogahed, Dalia. Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really

Think. New York; Gallup Press, 2008.

8. Hamidullah, Muhammad. The World’s First Written Constitution. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad

Ashraf, 1975.

9. Ibn-Kesir. Tefsir Ibn-Kesir, Skraćena Verzija. Edited by Muhammed Nesir Er-Rifa'i. Translated

by Group. 2nd ed. Sarajevo: Visoki Saudijski Komitet Za Pomoc BiH, 2002.

10. Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,

1955.

11. Ullah, Hamid. Muslim Conduct of State. Ed. Syed Mahmud-un-Nasir. Lahore: Mansoor Book

House, 1973.

12. Trend, J.B. “Spain and Portugal” In The Legacy of Islam. Ed. Sir Thomas Arnold and Alfred

Guillaume. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1931.

13. Zizek, Slavoj and Daly, Glyn. Conversations with Zizek. Cambridge: Polity Publishing, 2004.

14. Zizek, Slavoj. In Defense of Lost Causes. London: Verso, 2008.




17

15. Zizek, Slavoj. Living in the End Times. London: Verso, 2010.

16. Zizek, Slavoj. The Universal Exception. Edited by Rex Butler and Scott Stephens. London:

Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006.

17. Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. New York: Picador, 2008.

18. Zizek, Slavoj. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. London: Verso, 2002.

19. 1001 Inventions. Edited by Salim T.S. Al-Hussani. 2nd Ed. Manchester: Foundation for Science

Technology and Civilisation, 2007.

20. Islamic Concept of Human Rights. Edited by Haider, S.M. Lahore: The Book House, 1987.

21. The Qur’an. Translated and Annotated by Ali Ünal. New jersey, The Light, 2007.

22. Bukhari (Translation of the Bukhari Hadith collection).


23. Naik, Zakir. Interest and Share Market by Dr. Zakir Naik. International Islamic Conference

2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhv10LcZTI

24. Sunan Abu Dawud. (Translation of the Abu Dawud Hadith Collection)


25. “Citi Wins Awards in Islamic Finance News Deals of the Year 2009.” In Global Islamic Finance

Magazine. http://www.globalislamicfinancemagazine.com/?com=news_list&nid=1249

26. Lean, Nathan. “Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists Flirt with Islamophobia.” Published

3/30/2013.


27. Cambridge Dictionary Online. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot

28. Murad, Abdal Hakim. “The Muslim Influence On Europe and the West.” (Lecture Series).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhv10LcZTI





http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot


Say it Ain't So, Zizek

Documents