Political Scientist Hamed Abdel-Samad 'Islam Is Like a Drug'

AP

Part 3: 'I Overindulged in the Fruits of the West'


SPIEGEL: So it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Abdel-Samad: Basically, it was, except that I wasn't prepared for Western freedoms. It was a curse for me at first, and it made me aggressive. I began studying political science in Augsburg. There were temptations everywhere: young women in the student union and beer at the bars. I felt guilty whenever I overindulged in the fruits of the West, which my faith forbade. I felt humiliated and uprooted. For a short time, I joined a group of Islamist students, trying to escape my loneliness in the warm glow of companionship. Others have fallen into the clutches of terrorists that way. I didn't. I did however have hallucinations and cold sweats, and I felt the fear of death.

SPIEGEL: Did you get professional help?

Abdel-Samad: Yes, I checked myself into a psychiatric clinic. I was on the verge of suicide. They transferred me to a closed ward and treated me for borderline personality disorder. It was hell, and the hell was also inside of me. I did everything I could to convince the therapists that I could manage outside again. The doctors trusted me. After I was released, I embarked on my next escape, this time to Japan, where I learned Japanese and got involved with East Asian spirituality. I met the love of my life in Kyoto, a woman who is half-Danish and half-Japanese -- the woman I'm married to today.

SPIEGEL: Could it be that you assign too great a role to religion in your life, that you expect too much of it?

Abdel-Samad: That's for others to judge. I have approached Islam rationally and have read Kant and Spinoza. I've studied the Enlightenment. And I've studied the Reformation, which has failed to materialize in Islam to this day.

SPIEGEL: You criticize Muslims as a group for taking offence quickly and even savoring it. You have accused European liberal leftists of pursuing a "policy of appeasement" toward Islam. Why do you, as an academic, sometimes enjoy being the provocateur in a similar fashion to Sarrazin? Is it the unforgiving nature of the convert?

Abdel-Samad: You have to state your opinions clearly if you want to be heard. There are plenty of apologists for Islam.

SPIEGEL: But the trend here in Germany seems to be going in the other direction. The Islam alarmists dominate public opinion. Muslims are ridiculed on the Internet as "goat fuckers" and "veiled sluts," while the religion is derided as "barbaric."

Abdel-Samad: Which is so beneath contempt that I don't even want to dignify it with a response.

SPIEGEL: But Islam-bashing has become socially acceptable among many German intellectuals. Do you feel comfortable in the company of Islamophobes?

Abdel-Samad: I don't like that expression. A person who has a phobia is someone who harbors fantasies. But the dangers posed by Islamists are real, and many Muslims' unwillingness to integrate in Germany is a serious problem. It isn't my problem when other critics exaggerate and their rhetoric gets out of hand. I can only speak for myself.

SPIEGEL: The respected historian Wolfgang Benz, who has been the director of the Center for Research on Antisemitism at the Technical University of Berlin for many years, is now drawing parallels between anti-Semitic agitators and extreme critics of Islam. According to Benz, they use similar methods to develop their stereotype of the enemy, for example by using deliberately distorted images and hysteria. Is there anything to what he's saying?

Abdel-Samad: You can compare anything with anything else. I don't see a relationship.

SPIEGEL: You are in the process of becoming the model Muslim for conservative politicians in Germany.

Abdel-Samad: What makes you say that?

SPIEGEL: German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, a member of the conservative CDU, has appointed you to the German Islam Conference.

Abdel-Samad: Is that all? Yes, I have attended three meetings so far, and I think it's an interesting panel, one in which Muslims of many different stripes interact and debate in a civil way. It's a plus for Germany.

SPIEGEL: You accuse your fellow Muslims of continuing to search for scapegoats.

Abdel-Samad: Yes, instead of seeking faults within themselves. Perhaps the process I experienced is the process Islam needs as a whole, namely that everyone looks at themselves critically and stops constantly blaming others for their own misery and feeling like a victim. They should also liberate themselves from constraints. Bitterness and finger-pointing only lead to violence, and we have enough of that in the world.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Abdel-Samad, thank you for this interview.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Article...
Comments
Discuss this issue with other readers!
3 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
drhamdyyoussef 09/18/2010
1. Who Is Hamed Abdel-Samad .....
I am surprised that a respectibal Der Spiegel interview a nonsense person...He does not worth talking to... He does not have anything to do with Islam. Dr. Youssef Canada Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Norberto_Tyr 09/22/2010
2. With all respect, I do believe that Samad has a weird sense of progress
With all respect, I do believe that Samad has a weird sense of progress. On the other hand, I doubt there is any political science at all (and this could be the source of the problem since politics is 'the art of the possible') apart from an Aristotelian taxonomy or description, but even assuming that political science exists, I do not believe that have any jurisdiction within the realm of religion or culture. To be sure, what Samad and many people dislike from Islam is the fact that Islam rules the life of Muslims; if there is no Sharia law, there is no Islam; this is indisputable. There might be some discrepancies interpreting Sharia law and juridical processes, I agree, but a true Muslim (surrendered to God) would not argue that his life must be consistent with God's law; otherwise he is not a Muslim. Lets analyze this aspect objectively (scientifically, using a pedantic qualifier about which not many people are aware of its fantastic inherent limitations), Islam demands its believers to behave according to Islam, this might sound a petitio principii, a circular argument, but it is not, think about it; it seems a tautology because Samad and we, Christians, are analyzing this aspect subjectively, I mean in relation to our experience which is quite different from Islam's perspective. Now, the question is if OUR perspective is more logical than theirs, lets see. Muslims apply an objective approach while we, Christians and Samad as well, held a subjective approach towards our lives, a dysfunctional psychological state scientifically called 'dissociative identity disorder'. For example, we Christians believe that killing a baby is a crime but Christians usually vote for decriminalizing abortion with no qualms, or euthanasia. Christians believe, with good reason, that usury is a sin (except Calvinists) but we have a tough and probably futile fight to ban a range of associated 'products' such as toxic assets, derivatives, laxatives, hedge funds, share market speculation and so forth form within our mist. On the other hand, Muslims have their own financial laws compatible with Islam. To Muslims there is no difference between religious and secular law, and that is perfectly logical. We, Christians, are illogical, bear no doubt about, and this is reflected in the dysfunctional behavior of most Christian churches. The problem, viewed from a logical perspective, is that we Christians duplicate our laws (similar critique from Aristotle to Plato, namely duplicating world's things), we have an 'ought to' and a 'practical to' that are inherently incompatible, for this reason we need legions of Psychoanalysts helping US reconciling two incompatible worlds, the world of the "ought' and the world of 'is'. Lets put my theory to the test scientifically, lets find the density of Psychoanalysts per capita in the Muslim world and compare it to their number in the 'west'. We will find, if my theory is correct, that in the 'west', particularly within major urban dwellings, people is better serviced by far by Dr. Freud's followers, namely psychoanalysts. We, Christians, believe, or they make US believe, that this is normal; no, it is not normal, it is illogical, and even more illogical is to attempt imposing that illogical dysfunctional view unto others. With all respect, I have turned Samad's argument upside down (as Dr. Karl Marx did with Professor Hegel: 'I put Hegel on his head' meaning that he 'materialized' Professor Hegel's ideal world, but I did it in reverse); it is clear that there is not an issue at all regarding Muslims deciding between Islam OR 'progress' as presently framed by Samad (if this assertion were true Iran would have never been able to master nuclear technology), it is rather about US, Christians, living according to Christian laws without unfaithfully duplicating them into two: some given by God but rather hypothetical, and the others by our fantastic politicians, as they are comically called in North America: "law givers". Indeed. Norberto
BTraven 09/23/2010
3.
Why he was not asked whether he had helped Sarrazin to write his book?
Show all comments
Page 1

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission


TOP
Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.