u/Chinoyboii

For those who may not be familiar with the late Sadiq Jalal al-Azm, he was a professor at the University of Damascus and was a visiting professor at Princeton University, where he taught Kantian Philosophy and Near East Studies. Sadiq Jalal al-Azm was a Marxist with a strong focus on secularism, rational criticism, anti-authoritarianism, and the political/intellectual failures of the modern Arab world. One of his articles, "Orientalism in Reverse," shares his analysis of the late Edward Said's critique of Orientalism while also warning against a reverse form of essentialism.

From my understanding, Sadiq did not deny that Orientalism, racism, colonialism, and Western imperialism were real, as he understood that Western scholars, states, and colonial institutions often portrayed Arabs, Muslims, and “the East” through racist and essentialist stereotypes that many of us are aware of, such as irrational, backward, despotic, overly religious, passive, or incapable of self-government. However, he also argued that some Arab, Muslim, or anti-imperialist thinkers responded to Orientalism by simply reversing the binary. Instead of saying “the West is rational and the East is irrational,” they would say something like “the West is inherently materialist, imperialist, soulless, and corrupt, while the East, Islam, or the Arab world is inherently authentic, spiritual, communal, and liberatory.

As someone originally from Southeast Asia and who grew up in both a Chinese and Filipino cultural context, I agree with Edward Said's notion that American conservative academics have long viewed precolonial or non-Western societies through a civilizational hierarchy, in which the natives of the conquered land are deemed incapable of developing modern political institutions without Western intervention. However, due to such academics utilizing an orientalist framework in their scholarship of non-Western societies, some Western leftist academics have responded by over-romanticizing precolonial, non-Western societies as inherently more communal, egalitarian, spiritual, or liberatory.

In the context of Sadiq’s article, I think the danger of what he calls “Orientalism in reverse” becomes clear; if we respond to Orientalism by simply asserting that the West is evil and the East is pure, then we have not actually escaped the Orientalist framework. We have only reversed the moral judgment. Instead of treating non-Western societies as fully human, historically complex, and politically diverse, we end up turning them into symbols for Western guilt, anti-Western authenticity, or revolutionary fantasy. That being said, I want to reiterate that I am neither a Western apologist nor am I a sole believer that the ills of non-Western societies are inherently due to Western hegemony alone. Personally, I think that such framing can be intellectually limiting because it removes agency from non-Western societies and treats them as merely acted upon, rather than as societies with their own internal challenges.

At the same time, I do not want to minimize the ways in which Western powers have actively shaped the political and economic conditions of much of the world. The point is not to deny Western responsibility. The point is to avoid turning the West and the East into fixed moral categories where one side is always corrupt and the other is always innocent. Sadiq’s ideas about Islam within the context of “Orientalism in reverse” were also rooted in this concern. He was critical of the idea that Islam, the East, or the Arab world should be treated as a single timeless essence that explains everything about those societies. He was not denying that Islam matters historically, culturally, or politically. Rather, he was warning against turning Islam into an all-purpose explanation for why Muslim societies are the way they are, whether that explanation comes from Western Orientalists or from anti-Western thinkers who romanticize Islam as inherently authentic and liberatory.

I think his critique is useful for left-wing discussions today. It reminds us that we can criticize Western imperialism while also recognizing that non-Western societies have their own internal problems, hierarchies, and forms of domination. Otherwise, anti-imperialism can turn into campism, where the only thing that matters is whether someone is against the West. Al-Azm was not writing only about Palestine/Israel; however, I do think his warning can apply to parts of that discourse, as it can develop a stronger form of activism that does not rely on essentialist thinking.

What are your thoughts?

I have a question about how Muslims understand the Quran within the context of history, earlier Abrahamic traditions, and the historical-critical method. From my understanding, the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are not purely historical texts. A lot of the material within them is theological, legendary, mythic, symbolic, or shaped by later interpretation. I am not trying to pretend that the Bible is just straightforward history. I personally see the Bible as largely a mix of myth, legend, theology, and some elements of historical accuracy. However, even with that in mind, some elements within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament seem to align with the historical record, such as the existence of Israelite and Judahite kingdoms (they were more like tribal polities), the Babylonian exile, Persian and Hellenistic imperial influence, Second Temple Jewish developments, Roman rule in Judea, the existence of figures like Herod and Pontius Pilate, the practice of crucifixion, and the broader first-century Jewish context in which Jesus and the early Jesus movement emerged.

From what I understand about the Quran, whenever they talk about the Jews and Christians within the context of earlier revelation, it often presents itself as confirming the original message given to figures like Moses, Jesus, and the earlier prophets, while also correcting what Muslims believe were later misunderstandings, distortions, or theological developments within Jewish and Christian traditions. At the same time, from an external historical perspective, it sometimes seems that the Quran does not always preserve direct historical memory of ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or early Christianity in the same way that the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are rooted in those contexts. Instead, the Quran often appears to engage with late-antique Jewish, Christian, Syriac, and other monotheistic storyworlds circulating in the broader Near Eastern religious environment.

It seems that the Quran retells stories about Abrahamic figures (e.g, Moses, Pharaoh, Mary, Jesus, and others), but sometimes in ways that do not align neatly with earlier Jewish and Christian traditions or modern historical reconstruction. This is not necessarily unique to Islam, since Judaism and Christianity also reinterpret earlier traditions. However, I am curious about how Muslims understand this issue within their own theological framework, and I would also like to know your personal thoughts on the matter.

What are your thoughts?

According to current scholarship on the life of Jesus, we do know that he existed due to references in early Christian sources, as well as non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. However, when it comes to the details of his life, teachings, and the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives, things become opaque. With that in mind, I was wondering about the significance of Jesus choosing 12 disciples/apostles. Since Jesus was a Jewish teacher operating within a Second Temple Jewish context, I assume the number 12 was not random.

From what we understand from the Bible, we know that Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus/Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot are listed as the Twelve, though the lists vary slightly depending on the Gospel or New Testament text. I understand that not every detail about each disciple can be historically verified with the same level of confidence, and that some traditions about them developed later.

I know that Jesus originally intended to make his movement oriented towards his fellow Jews, or at least that his ministry seems to have been primarily directed toward Israel within a Second Temple Jewish context. With that in mind, my question is more about the symbolism of the group itself. Is there a connection between the 12 disciples of Jesus and the 12 tribes of Israel, such as Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph/Ephraim/Manasseh, and Benjamin? Was Jesus symbolically presenting his movement as a renewal, restoration, or reconstitution of Israel? If so, how does that fit with the later development of Christianity into a largely Gentile movement, especially if Jesus’ own ministry was primarily directed toward his fellow Jews?

Thank You

So, despite being an agnostic-atheist, I was raised a Christian (Catholic), and attended Christian schools when I was a child. At least within the context of Filipino Catholicism in conjunction with our Southeast Asian collectivist/communitarian nature, there is a belief that chasing materialistic things is the same thing as idol worship, as it distracts us from the more important things in life, which are family, community, and god. Even though I don't believe in a metaphysical understanding of the universe, nor do I support many of the Bible's religious laws to be commonplace, as many of them I see as anti-ethical to the human condition, my Filipino upbringing has more or less taught me that human beings are not meant to live purely for themselves. We have obligations to our family, community, and the people around us, especially those who are poor, vulnerable, or marginalized.

Therefore, I have always found it strange how many Christians (specifically Catholics & Orthodox Christians) can claim to reject materialism, greed, excessive wealth, and idol worship, but then support politicians, policies, or economic systems that seem to uphold the exact opposite of those values. I understand that not every Christian thinks the same way, but there seems to be a contradiction between the moral teachings I grew up around and the political/economic choices many religious people make.

I recently caught up with a religious Christian friend (She is socially conservative, but anti-capitalist) to share with her my thoughts, and she expressed that it has to do with the Western left's straying away from traditional moral and religious frameworks. From her perspective, some religious Christians may feel politically alienated from the left because, even if they agree with critiques of capitalism, they feel like the left is hostile to religion, tradition, family, or social conservatism. I can understand that to some extent, but I still find the contradiction difficult to ignore, especially when the economic policies they support often seem to harm the very poor, vulnerable, and marginalized people their religious traditions tell them to care about.

I harbor such ill feelings towards the wealthy/rich, as my Chinese side of my family, as a result of our Confucian background, sees things like status, prestige, and wealth as determined by the will of heaven (天), and that the poor, the disabled, and the lay person are seen as lower within the social hierarchy due to being born "spiritually unclean", being born into the "wrong clan", etc. At the same time, my Filipino Catholic side sees excessive wealth and materialism as spiritually dangerous, especially when it distracts people from family, community, humility, and responsibility towards the marginalized. So I feel like I grew up with two conflicting frameworks: one that understands why people chase status, prestige, and success, and another that is deeply suspicious of wealth when it becomes detached from compassion, obligation, and communal care.

You guys know I am not Jewish, but I was wondering if something similar exists within religious Jewish circles. From my limited understanding, Judaism has strong teachings on justice, charity (tzedakah), communal responsibility, helping the poor, and not exploiting others. However, I wanted to know your guys' thoughts on this.

Thank You

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what people mean when they describe themselves as “nuanced” politically. Sometimes it seems like people use "nuance" to mean a more detailed version of their side’s position, rather than being willing to seriously wrestle with tensions, contradictions, or uncomfortable truths within their own framework. In other words, someone can have a lot of complexity within a particular political lane, yet think in binary terms when someone questions the deeper assumptions of that lane.

Recently, I have been going through a friendship cleanse because I can't really be around people who require me to flatten my politics to be considered “safe” or morally acceptable. I don’t mean that I expect everyone to agree with me, and I don’t think nuance means avoiding moral clarity. There are obviously situations where one side has more power, where harm is unequal, and where injustice needs to be named clearly (Like we can clearly agree that Israel has the most systemic/military power backed by the West, which has historically dismantled the rise of leftist movements in the global south). However, when it comes to things like China and Taiwan, Jews and Palestinians, and other hot topics, I find it saddening when I see leftists treat complexity as betrayal. For example, someone may rightly criticize U.S. imperialism, but then treat China as if it is only a victim of Western aggression and not also a state with its own power, ambitions, and capacity to harm others. Similarly, someone may rightly support Palestinian liberation, but then treat Jewish history, Jewish peoplehood, or Jewish attachment to the land as if it is automatically fake, manipulative, or morally irrelevant.

I’ve been called a centrist on a few occasions because I don’t see China as morally better than the West when it comes to human rights violations. Yes, the West has caused tremendous death and destruction, arguably on a larger global scale. But China, the homeland of my ancestors, has also committed serious harms. Yes, I understand that the material conditions of many people in China have improved greatly since the revolution. That matters, and I don’t want to dismiss it. But improvements in material conditions do not erase authoritarianism, repression, or state violence. I don’t think acknowledging that makes someone a centrist or a reactionary. I also struggle with leftist arguments that Taiwan should “reunify” with China under the pretext of anti-imperialism. I understand why people criticize U.S. influence in the region, and I am not trying to romanticize American power. However, I don’t think opposition to U.S. imperialism should mean dismissing the agency of Taiwanese people or treating them as pawns whose future should be decided by a larger state. Anti-imperialism should not become a justification for denying self-determination when the power doing the denying is not Western.

I also don’t share the same view about Jews as some of my former comrades/peers, who believe that any discussion of Jewish peoplehood, Jewish history, or Jewish connection to the land is automatically Zionist propaganda. To be clear, I am not saying this to excuse occupation, apartheid, displacement, or the suffering of Palestinians. I strongly believe Palestinian liberation matters. But I also don’t think Palestinian liberation requires denying that Jews are a people with their own history, memory, trauma, and relationship to the land, which many of you know about me.

Somewhat related, but I recently had a discussion with a fellow Filipino colleague who basically admitted that he was and still is a Duterte supporter because, even though Duterte’s drug war killed thousands of substance users and suspected substance users regardless of age, the fact that Duterte was anti-American during his presidential term supposedly justified the collateral damage. That deeply disturbed me because we both work in mental health.

I understand anti-American sentiment, especially given U.S. imperialism in the Philippines and the Global South more broadly. However, I don’t think being anti-American automatically makes a leader liberatory, progressive, or morally defensible. A leader can oppose the U.S. and still brutalize poor people, substance users, political opponents, journalists, and vulnerable communities. Anti-imperialism should not mean excusing state violence just because the state committing it is not aligned with the West.

TDLR:

I guess what I’m trying to say is that nuance doesn’t mean being neutral. Nuance, IMO, means being able to call out injustice clearly without turning entire groups of people, histories, or political conflicts into simple “good side vs. bad side” narratives. I’ve been struggling with political spaces where being anti-Western sometimes turns into defending non-Western authoritarianism, or where supporting liberation means pretending another people’s history or humanity does not matter. How do you all define nuance without falling into false equivalence or rigid binaries?

Side thing: I have also been rethinking my 2SS stance as of late, and I am still tentative about where I land. I don’t think a 1SS is realistic right now because there is too much trauma, distrust, and fear between both peoples, as I've told many of you in the past. At the same time, I’m struggling with whether a 2SS can actually produce justice if it merely freezes existing inequalities between two separate political entities. I still lean toward some kind of political separation in the short term for safety reasons, but I don’t want that to become a permanent excuse for inequality, segregation, or denying either people’s connection to the land.