(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Erna Solberg's proposal this week that Islam must be modernized has aroused indignation. The criticism has come from, among others, journalism college lecturer and Muslim Nazneen Khan Østrem, Oslo bishop Gunnar Stålsett and Islam expert Kari Vogt. Those who have actually been least critical of Solberg's proposal have been representatives from the Muslim congregations themselves. This is because they simply do not understand what Solberg means. The World Islamic Mission has therefore invited the Conservative minister to a meeting. Or "dialogue", as it is also called. Also known as the opposite of what Solberg does. Even after the massive and broad criticism, Solberg stands his ground: Norwegian Muslims must look to Europe and acknowledge that they are a minority who cannot behave as if they were a majority outside Europe.
Had Erna Solberg said that some Muslims must step up and accept that women also have an independent brain, it is not certain that anyone would react. The reason why Solberg's proposal is provocative is that she is unclear at the same time as she generalizes, both when it comes to Islam and when it comes to Europe. But perhaps most important of all: "Modernization" is anything but a good term. If you are writing a master's thesis at a university on, for example, the modernization of the public sector, it is expected that you use at least half of the thesis to theorize the word “modernization”. The concept is no less controversially applied to the present and history. Religious fundamentalism is, whether one likes it or not, a modern phenomenon. Modernity, and opposition to it, go hand in hand, from Christian fundamentalism in the United States at the beginning of the 1900th century to Osama bin Laden fundamentalism towards the end of the 1900th century. The Taliban dreamed of golden age back in the Arab heyday 700 years ago when rock music and poker games were banned. The only problem is that this fictitious golden age is a new invention, similar to Nazism's instrumental golden age dreams – also the an explicit modern phenomenon.
Erna Solberg is not the first to demand "modernization" of Islam. The British-American Islam expert Bernard Lewis has demanded it for 25 years, despite the fact that Palestinian-American Edward Said has tried to discredit him with the label "orientalist" for just as long. It was also Lewis who introduced the world to the concept of "conflict of civilization" over the relationship between Western modernization and Eastern anti-modernization – a categorization to the delight of bin Laden and his Western counterparts.
In this summer's AKP debate, many current and former AKP members reacted to Bernt Hagtvet's demanding an unconditional knee-jerk reaction to Western democracy – they suspected that Hagtvet was actually asking for applause for Western capitalism. This is roughly how many Muslims perceive it when Western social actors demand "modernization". Isn't it just a covert name for a western decadent, materialistic lifestyle consisting of everyday infidelity, weekend drunkenness and Monday depressions? By the way, you do not need to travel to Tøyen or Kabul to find people who struggle with modernity. For the lucky ones, it is enough to go to the bookshelf and pick out the politically incorrect national poet Knut Hamsun's "Festina Lente" from 1929. There, Hamsun Vesten's hurried turbo life contrasts with the peace and quiet of the Arab / Eastern / Muslim world:
"Americans do not seem to be satisfied with little. You will be completely upstairs. You want abundance. The Oriental stands in contrast to this with its frugality, its innate ability to do without ”.
Hamsun's anti – modernism was unfortunate because the theories were transformed into practical politics and the massacre of six million Jews. This does not mean that all anti-modernism needs to do so. In that case, many in Norway are at risk, as good as contemplation literature has sold in recent years, from Thomas Hylland Eriksen's "Moment tyranny – fast and slow time in the information society" to Owe Wikström's "Living the slowness: Or the danger of driving a moped through the Louvre ”. Although the language has changed and the starting point is different, there are probably many who can recognize themselves in Hamsun's settlement in 1929:
“Progress – what is it? That we can drive faster on the roads? No, no, people make up accounts according to the way they post they want to be underbalanced. Progress is the necessary rest of the body and the necessary calm of the soul. Progress is human well-being ”.
This is the fundamental problem with Erna Solberg's proposal: Not only is "modernization" a difficult concept to define, but it is also burdened with too many unfortunate connotations, both for Muslims and non-Muslims. When Solberg at the same time tries to clarify by both asking Muslims to look to Europe for inspiration and to emphasize that Norway is a "feminist country", it must go wrong. Norway has a long way to go on the path to equality, but compared to a southern European country like Italy, Norway is a pure science fiction utopia. When Solberg also considers introducing requirements for Norwegian and social education, the confusion is total. Then it sounds as if "modernization" is the same as Norwegianization. In that case, the rhetoric begins to become recognizable. For over 30 years, the state has wanted assimilation of immigrants. Or good old-fashioned modernization, as you might call it. In that case, it is not 100 percent certain that Solberg is on the side of the future.
