Identity as Operating System

The purpose of this autobiographical introduction is to make readers aware of my background, and inform their vigilance for my own biases. I am a young Muslim believer of mixed parentage: my father a Pakistani Muslim, and my mother a German of Catholic background. My life has straddled the three regions most embroiled in the War on Terror – the Arab Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia), Western Europe (Greece, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), and the United States.

My identity is complex, and defies easy categorization. I am comfortable with a multi-layered sense of self. Allow me to indulge in an analogy between identity and computing (this won't hurt one bit, I promise). Just as any computer consists of hardware (think Dell, HP, Lenovo), an operating system (OS, think Windows or Linux), and an array of applications (think Word, Excel, Picasa, etc.), my identity can be viewed as a tiered stack of moral logic and experiential training. My operating system, so to speak, is basically Muslim. My view on right and wrong, evil and righteousness, and understanding of this life and the next, are informed heavily by basic Islamic principles and ideals. This operating system is independent of my race, ethnicity, native language, outward appearance, social status, education, profession, or geographically determined cultural heritage.

My “applications” layer, however, is a diverse set of life experiences and intellectual endeavors that embraces East and West, Muslim and non-Muslim. My intellectual training is largely a product of the American system of critical thinking and inquiry, beginning with a basic education at private American schools, and culminating with degrees at Harvard (political science, MBA) and Cambridge (political economy). Prophet Muhammad once told his early Muslim followers to “seek knowledge, even if you have to go to China.” That advice has developed my appetite for ideas and knowledge, regardless of origin. My operating system can sort out which ideas become instructive and useful to me, and which end up in the recycle bin. I can see beauty and ugliness in every society. I am equally moved and saddened by violence and tragedy, whether it affects New York, Baghdad, or Kigali.

But my reflexive affinity, to be fair, belongs to Islam. This is driven by Isaiah Berlin’s idea of cultural affiliation being defined by “never having to explain yourself” to someone of the same culture. Muslims share a collective understanding of their core beliefs, aspirations, and memories to which I largely ascribe. This is the operating system (OS) of Muslim civilization, a common cultural DNA. There are different versions, or flavors, of the Muslim OS (such as Sunni and Shia), just as there are different versions of Microsoft Windows (such as 95, NT, XP). But the core (what programmers call a “code base”) is essentially the same, and it is at this OS level which Muslims identify with each other, and distinguish themselves from others.

It is difficult and often frustrating to debate world affairs, share profound beliefs, or explain perspectives between people with different operating systems. The gulf is too wide to overcome during water cooler conversations at the office or in the halls of university. People with non-Muslim operating systems largely do not understand the Muslim operating system. Few Muslims have made a sincere effort to really understand or appreciate, let alone internalize alternative operating systems, however one defines them (Christian, Western, secular, atheistic, Confucian, Hindu, etc.). Friedman recently argued that Muslims view other faiths through a lens of superiority. He argues that Muslims view Hinduism as God 0.0, Judaism as God 1.0, Christianity as God 2.0, and Islam as God 3.0. While there is some truth to the Muslim perspective of a religious teleology, a sense of religious or moral superiority is hardly unique to the Islamic worldview. Christians, for example, generally believe that it is impossible to attain salvation without accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior. Judaism is not a universal religion, being particular to a people who have a special covenant with God, and are thus His chosen people. I know of few groups who do not think they are somehow "better" (smarter, richer, more enlightened, more powerful, more righteous, more tolerant, more magnanimous, more "free" etc.) than others.

The Western sense of superiority is most salient in the realm of socio-political organization (which, it is often argued, is a key determinant of its economic progress). Here, the Western view is that the nation-state governed by a liberal, secular democracy based on the sanctity of individual rights represents the end game of human political organization. In this schema, Muslim countries are mainly governed by Politics 1.0 (absolute dictatorships or dynastic rule), Confucian societies by Politics 2.0 (one party states), and Western states by Politics 3.0 (multi-party secular democracies). Of course there are exceptions to this schema, such as Turkey and India. Similarly, adherents of the Washington Consensus economic policies believe in the inherent superiority of free trade (except in agricultural goods and labour, mind you), low government intervention, and laissez-faire liberal capitalism (liberalization, deregulation, privatization etc.). Communism obviously didn't fare so well. Almost every idea, value, or thought system has some aspect of normative judgment and jusxtaposition with other, lesser systems.

I prefer the diverse OS analogy to the teleological perspective offered by Friedman. It’s not a question of 0.0, 1.0, and 2.0, but rather one of Windows, Mac, and Linux. They all operate computer hardware, but they do it in slightly different ways. People can argue which civilization is inherently better, but they are essentially competitive operating systems which aspire to the best job in governing individual human thought and behavior, as well as collective values and institutions.

I believe that is almost impossible for a person to run two operating systems concurrently. People’s outward behavior, how they dress, what they eat or drink (or don’t), and what they believe at a superficial level I define as part of a person’s application layer. The core beliefs and values, their final thoughts before death, and the type of funeral they wish to have are determined by their operating system. Now computer buffs may argue that it is indeed possible to run multiple operating systems on a single computer, for example Windows application software running on a Mac. Why can’t this be true of individuals? I will remind these skeptics that multiple OS layers can only be simulated on a single computer using virtualization software. Virtualization makes an application think it is running on a Windows platform, even though that software really only translates instructions from the Windows application into Mac speak. Furthermore, virtualization slows down computation considerably, and it is a suboptimal arrangement. In the case of a virtualized Mac, when push comes to shove, the Mac always runs the show. In case of a “virtualized” Western Muslim, I would argue that Islam still governs the OS, whether a person carries a French passport, wears a mini-skirt, or knocks back a pint at the pub.

It is possible, however, for an individual to change operating systems. I have met many European or American converts to Islam who clearly possess the Muslim operating system. In addition to adopting the core beliefs of Islam, they identify with and share the collective civilizational memory of Muslims. Moreover, they grieve over Muslim tragedies (such as Srebernica or Sabra and Shatilla) and celebrate Muslim triumphs (e.g. Al-Andalus or the Taj Mahal). Similarly, some Muslim immigrants in the West have abandoned the Muslim operating system in favor of a Western operating system. Many Persian immigrants to the United States, for example, were adversely affected by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and fled the country. As part of their exodus, some have abandoned the Muslim operating system in favor of a Western orientation. Their migration to a new civilizational OS is often totally complete by the second or third generation after immigration.

As a final thought about identity and the idea of civilizational operating systems that govern individuals, I would argue that most operating systems have many things in common in terms of objectives and ouputs. A Macintosh computer can display, network, print, save, and store data, just like a Windows computer can. All humans generally share a concern for life and liberty, love their children, care for their elderly and infirm, and aspire to improve their material welfare. They want to be governed fairly, and hate oppression and injustice. But the trade-offs they make, and the priorities they set in achieving their aspirations, differ. Even if the “what” is quite similar, the “how” matters. Nevertheless, the common humanity that transcends civilizational operating systems is the best hope for a peaceful, progressive future. If this commonality continues to be obfuscated by events or distorted by small cult-like minority groups like Al-Qaeda, or poor policy decisions by powerful Western governments, we will lose this sense of a larger humanity-centric perspective.

So that's me in a nutshell. Remember, deep down I have a Muslim OS. Read on with this fact in mind.

Why Unclash?

The widening gulf of mistrust between Western and Islamic civilizations, exacerbated by a death cult which both claim as a common enemy, is steadily widening. While Western leaders are careful to discriminate between Al-Qaeda terrorists and adherents of Islam, the War on Terror has caught ordinary people everywhere in the maelstrom of a larger conflict that is difficult to understand at a profound level, and is met with a combination of fear, incomprehension, or apathy.

As someone who straddles both East and West, the so-called Clash of Civilizations / War on Terror / Confrontation of Cultures affects me deeply. At times, it has directly impacted my day-to-day life and the freedoms that I hold dear. It has forced me to reflect on the daily news, the political context for government actions, and the effect of a murky, ill-defined conflict on my own religion, and the societies on both sides of a threatening civilizational divide. In what is essentially a personal effort to process, digest, and make sense of the world around me, I am making this humble contribution to the dialogue between two of the world’s great civilizations. I am not a journalist or author, nor an Islamic scholar, nor a recognized thinker or intellectual. I don’t command an audience of a Bernard Lewis, Michael Scheuer, or Thomas Friedman, nor the following of a Yusuf Qaradawi. I do not represent or speak for anyone other than myself. My observations are largely based on political, social, and cultural ideas and arguments, and limited theological analysis. I hope, nonetheless, that this article stimulates people of both civilizations to look at their own cultures and histories, and toward one another, with more honesty and self-reflection in a sincere effort toward better mutual understanding.

The purpose of this blog is to humbly offer the perspectives of a person who lives and breathes between East and West. My posts will be classified into various (overlapping) categories.

• ISLAM 101 posts will aim to shed light on developments within the Muslim world, and help non-Muslims make sense of the "foreignness" of Muslim culture, religion, and society.
• MEDIA posts will deal with analysis of media coverage of the confrontation between the Western and Islamic worlds.
• CLASH posts will deal with the confrontation between the West and Islam, especially from the perspective of generally held views and assumptions
• POLITICS posts will examine the political aspects of the Clash of Civilizations, both in terms of state-to-state interactions and domestic politics
• TERRORISM posts will deal with a narrower set of issues specifically related to terrorism, al-Qaeda, and anti-terror policies pursued by both Muslim and Western governments

Instead of confronting one another, the West and Islam first need to confront their own failed ideas and policies that have contributed to the escalation of mutual mistrust. Only then can two great civilizations work together to eliminate a common cancer, and create a foundation for a stable coexistence founded on mutual respect and harmony. It's time to Unclash Civilizations.