Table of Contents Intruduction

Abstract

The idea of faraj (the coming of the Mahdi (the divinely guided one, i.e. the Savior) is a teaching shared by all religions throughout history. Belief in this idea has enabled many a faithful to weather the hardships of life. But when will be the timing of this faraj? Though, the faithful have unwavering belief in the truth of faraj, bolstered by the teachings of their religion, the appearance of certain signs and indications serve to further strengthen their conviction. One such sign having appeared in our own time and one that has contributed to wider attention to the notion of faraj is the phenomenon of globalization. In spite of the various interpretations of globalization and the various of its related processes which are in conflict with the notion of messianism, the broad view of the present article is that, in the aggregate, globalization tends to bolster the grounds for belief in the idea of faraj.

Key Terminology: Mahdawiyyat, faraj, globalization, westernization, global government, the unified ummah.
Introduction

Globalization is a phenomenon that in the past few decades, not withstanding its influence in the areas of economy, politics, and social and cultural affairs, has also come to attract the attention of scientific circles. In addition, it has become the focus of thinkers and researchers in the field of religion. The organization of numerous conferences and gatherings together with the appearance of a slew of research publications in this field is an indication of the increasing significance accorded to the notion of globalization in our country. Apart from the nature of the phenomenon of globalization, one of the related issues that can serve as a focal point of research for scholars of religion is the capacity of new concepts such as globalization for a better understating of religious teachings. In the field of Islamic studies the subject that bears the closest resemblance to the notion of globalization is the ideal of an Islamic world government that is to be established during the reign of the Promised Savior (Mahdi). Thus, the discussions of messianism (mahdawiyyat) are carried out alongside those relating to globalization wherein are examined the similarities and differences among the two concepts. In the same vein, it appears that the idea of faraj (opening up, happy ending, i.e. the coming of the Mahdi), which is the corollary of the ideal of an Islamic world government, is directly related to the phenomenon of globalization. In spite of the existence of a multiplicity of, at times contrary, interpretations of globalization, as regards the position of the present article, a particular take on the phenomenon of globalization, which is presented under the rubric of the “receptacle of historical development”, is capable of shedding further light on the teaching of faraj. Therefore, in the present paper an attempt is made to throw into sharper relief those aspects of globalization that have the potential to contribute to a deeper understanding of the Islamic religious teaching of faraj. Also discussed are those dimensions of globalization that diverge from this religious idea.

Globalization as a receptacle for ideas and ideologies

What is globalization and how can it be elaborated? After three decades of extensive and wide-ranging research the answer to this question continues to elude scholars and there is as yet no consensus with regard to a standard definition of this phenomenon. In the past few decades, the phenomenon of globalization has become the focus of international attention and a wide spectrum of views has been set forth with regard to this phenomenon. Various opinions have been offered in connection to the roots of globalization. The focal point of the present article is the examination of the nature of the phenomenon of globalization. Globalization may be viewed from various angles such as economic, social, political and theoretical. However, globalization is commonly studied from three perspectives: its nature as a process, as a project, and as a phenomenon. Ian Schulte refers to six definitions of globalization prevalent among the scholars of the world: internationalization, liberalization, expansionism, westernization or Americanization, and the removal of borders or extraterritorial expansionism (Schulte, 2003: 7 – 8). From a different point of view, some have focused on the link between globalization and such notions as modernism and postmodernism (Nash, 2001: 71 – 114; Schulte, 2003: 19 – 21). Finally, there are those who have viewed the phenomenon of globalization from a discourse point of view (Tajeek, 2002: 206; Fairclough, 2001). From this latter perspective, globalization serves as a system of discourse. In the course of discussing the globalizing discourse, Norman Fairclough notes:

That which is important from a practical point of view is a particular version of the globalizing discourse as compared with other existing discourses. This discourse is not the only globalizing discourse, which none the less is being portrayed as the inevitable reality of life, but is a neoliberal process of globalization that is propelled by the imposition of the policies of such bodies and organizations as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (Fairclough, 2001: 207).
Based on this, globalization, owing to its internal structure resulting from the mode of interaction of existing and opposing discourses, becomes ramified into several branches. In practice, instead of one type of globalization we are faced with several globalizing ideologies (Berger and Huntington, 2002; Rupert, 2001).

Thus, according to the existing research on globalization, it has not been considered as a unified phenomenon. Different individuals have adopted divergent views of the subject and thus it is impossible to present a single definition for globalization. None the less, it is possible to search for an underlying single characteristic in all of these definitions. This underlying aspect has to do with the fact that advancements in communications technology have created a situation wherein humans feel themselves as having been placed under a new set of circumstances, one that differs tangibly from their erstwhile way of life. Communication technologies have created a situation where men encounter an ever-increasing mass of information about their condition and that of their surrounding environment, including information about the lives of other human beings. The man that throughout centuries has been in a search for a more comprehensive knowledge of the world, with the removal of obstacles, has encountered a massive body of data.

If at one time the east and the west stood as symbols of distant horizons, today, distance has come to loose its meaning and man, together with the aid of technologies based on his own thought and skill, has managed to conquer the limits imposed by such phenomena. Along with this newly acquired self-knowledge has come a deeper knowledge of the entire universe. If at one time man was incapable of gaining awareness of the events taking place all around him and thus resorted to metaphysical means, today, in the age of communication and information, he has become capable of fathoming the causes of the phenomena and shedding light on the hitherto dark areas of his knowledge. Under such circumstances, men have come to boast of dominion over nature and set their sights beyond the earth, which today seems like but a small village, and harbor dreams of conquering other planets.
a) Globalization, a reflection of modernity

The view of an overwhelming number of western thinkers and theorists with regard to the notion of globalization is one that is underpinned by modernist principles. From this particular point of view, globalization is considered as the apogee of modernity. Globalization has managed to bring about a fuller realization of the ideals of modernity. As in our above discussion of the meaning of globalization where we referred to the element of an increasing awareness implied by this phenomenon, this view sets forth an interpretation of this new awareness based on its own principles. The increasing knowledge and awareness inherent in globalization is the same quest for knowledge that the modern man has sought ever since the age of enlightenment. The most prominent thinker of the modern era, Immanuel Kant, in a seminal classic essay defines enlightenment as:

…Man’s emergence from immaturity and negligence of his self. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s intelligence, unless assisted by another. [In another place he notes] For this type of enlightenment one is in need of nothing else except freedom, and the least baneful kind of freedom at that, i.e. freedom to use one’s intelligence, in full, with regard to common affairs… [And Kant’s final word]… In the discussion of enlightenment, I have placed the greatest emphasis on the emergence of man from immaturity and negligence of his self in the field of religious affairs (Kant, 1997: 15 – 26; Cassirer, 1993).
The result of such a process is that man must judge the affairs based on his own intelligence and to discover their secret. It goes without saying that the idea of progress was a continuation of the movement of enlightenment. By basing human affairs on the teachings of humanism, segregating the public from the private sphere, and giving pride of place to secular affairs in this worldly life, the modern man of the enlightenment era set up his self-sustained intellect as the criteria, as a consequence of which the outlook for progress seemed quite within his grasp. Therefore, he came to entertain the idea of conquering the quixotic. The end state of this idea of progress was the attainment of that which at one time had appeared as unattainable. However, with the assistance of modern manmade technologies the quixotic has lost its meaning and the ideal has transformed into a reality.

Based on the above, another take on the situation that is being created by globalization is a demystification of the universe. If the world is heading toward a point where a vast body of knowledge is supplanting the unknowns, then the only option remaining is a demystification of the universe. The idea of demystification was embedded at the heart of humanistic thinking of the modern era. Modern thinkers such as Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were the first to broach this idea. By a step-by-step elimination of God from various dimensions of this-worldly life of man western humanism put man in place of God. Durkheim openly admits:

… Little by little, politics, economy and science drew a line between their domains and that of religion… In the past, God was present in all human relations, but over time He retrenched and gradually left the world to man and his struggles. Even if He wants to be dominant, His domination is remote and from up above… (Durkheim, 1964).
In the 19^th century, Simondes gives the following description of humanism:
The quintessence of humanism is a fresh and important understanding of the dignity of man as an intelligent being independent of divine providence as well as a deeper realization of the fact that only the classical literature represents the human nature within the framework of complete intellectual and ethical freedom. Humanism was, on the one hand, a reaction to ecclesiastical despotism and, on the other hand, an attempt at finding a common ground for all human thoughts and actions within an intellectual framework based on his awareness of his power of discernment (Davis, 1999: 31).
The quintessential expression of humanism’s break with the church and with religious teachings may be found in the famous and audacious words of Nietzsche, who announces the outcome of western anthropocentrism as being the death of God. In his view, with man’s assumption of the position of God there remains no room for the God of the church.

According to this particular outlook, the modern man has gone beyond fictitious ideas and stands at the pinnacle of demystification. The arena of globalization is also regarded as the culmination of the process of demystification. According to this point of view, based on the modern interpretation of the world, demystification is a process that has been embedded within modernism and that has been given a boost by new technologies which have provided the means for its culmination. It is rather natural for such an interpretation of the world, and by extension of globalization, to become a de facto reproduction of modernism. Such an outlook would prompt a Japanese-American thinker like Fukuyama to speak of the end of history in the era of globalization. Such an end will be but a culmination of modernism in its liberal democratic reading.

Reference to such notions as humanism, rationality, progress and demystification which are inherent in the nature of modernism accords a special meaning to globalization. Thus, a body of research based on modernist ideas has presented an interpretation of globalization whose thrust is a de facto padded-out version of modernism. The modernism that had previously failed to realize its ideal of progress has today, in a world brimming with information and communication technologies, found the means to give full reality to its objectives. Some consider globalization as the natural evolution of human knowledge and envisage men in a new condition where they behave rationally and make up for their previous shortcomings. Such an outlook is in evidence in Fukuyama, Huntington and finally in Giddens. These thinkers of the liberal democratic school have come to believe that with the decline of socialist communist Eastern Bloc liberal democracy will become the basis for human life. The most extremist position among this lot is no doubt that of Fukuyama who sets forth the idea of the end of history and considers the penultimate example of democratic culture that which flourished in the America of the 1950s and 60s and who calls for its cultivation throughout the world. The same idea has been advocated, in a less proselytizing manner, by Huntington. Anthony Giddens also sees a strong link between modernity and globalization. In his view, globalization is an outgrowth of modernity, or, put differently, it is its development and continuation (Giddens, 1990: 284). Giddens establishes a connection between the four pillars of modernity, i.e. the capitalist system, industrialism, supervision and control (the political control of nation-state, in particular), and military power, and the four congruent elements that make up the dimensions of globalization, i.e. the global capitalist economy, the international division of labor, the nation-state system, and the world order. This construct exemplifies Giddens’ view with regard to the “expanded modernism” or the globalization of modernism (Giddens, 2001: 245; quoted by `Ameli, 2003: vol. 2, p. 285). Robertson is also of the opinion that globalization is an expanded modernism that has reached beyond the narrow confines of the society and assumed global dimensions. This is the same modernism on a global scale (Robertson, 1992: 142). The common denominator in the above views may be said to be the link they establish between globalization and modernism. Therefore, globalization is but a reproduction of modernity on a global scale and with certain revisions.

There are other thinkers who, with certain reservations with regard to the underlying theoretical assumptions, have treaded the same path as those of the above thinkers. Their contention is that the domination of capitalism has distracted globalization from its modernist objectives and that the current version of globalization is thus incapable of fulfilling its modernist ideals. The proponents of this view, who have come to be known as the neo-Marxists, hold that the present version of globalization is a de facto continuation of the class domination aided by the means of modern technologies. From this particular point of view, globalization is an extension of colonialism in a new guise. However, it should be borne in mind that this school of thought shares the same views as those of the former group as regards the modernist foundations of their thoughts. In other words, the advocates of the latter school have founded their ideas upon anthropocentrism, the modern notions of progress, and a self-sustained rationality. What distinguishes this group with their like-minded colleagues is their methodology for the realization of modernist ideals. In their view, freedom, progress, and rational life are to be realized by placing constraints on private ownership and giving prominence to the society. Wallerstein, an eminent advocate of this perspective, is of the view that the rise of globalization is concomitant with that of capitalism. In his opinion, what is novel in this development is the inception of a period of transition from a modern critical condition to a new condition whose nature is yet to be determined (Wallerstein, 2000). Other neo-Marxist theorists also view globalization as a western capitalist program for the domination of the entire world (Souisie et al, 2001). This implies that there has not been a stable situation and that the fate of humanity is to be something different. Naturally, in the opinion of these thinkers, globalization is a new circumstance differing from its capitalist version, where men are to live in a better society based on the principles of socialism.

b) Globalization and postmodern readings

Apart from the modernist views of globalization, there are others that see globalization as connected with postmodernism. According to Keith Nash:

Globalization is tied up with postmodernism and has been theorized in the field of sociology within the framework of the turning of postmodernism (Nash, 2001: 96).
In Nash’s view, postmodern takes on globalization are founded upon two distinct outlooks: Marxist-economic and intellectual-cultural. The former outlook is shared by the likes of David Harvey, Scott Lash and John Yuri. In his Postmodern Condition (1989), Harvey establishes a link between globalization, postmodernism and the post-Fordist economy. In Harvey’s opinion, such a condition is a natural development and the byproduct of a new phase of capitalist production method which is based not on the produced goods but on the rapid consumption of trademarks and services. In the post-Fordist capitalism, financial capital finds its significance and priority in opposition to the government and organized labor (ibid., 85). Lash and Yuri also, in addition to postmodern capitalism and post-Fordist economy, focus on the unorganized capitalism of this period and place emphasis on the issue of consumption and the current service industries (ibid.).

The postmodern neo-Marxist views of the economic arena place inordinate emphasis on the economic dimension of globalization at the expense of the intellectual, cultural and political aspects of this phenomenon. It goes without saying that modernism is more than mere economy and it cannot be reduced to this sole category.

According to Lyotard, the most striking feature of the postmodern era is the tendency to deny universal narratives, in general, and opposition to the hegemonic and universal modern readings of man and the world, in particular. From this angle, attention must be focused on the deconstructionist and decentralizing tendencies inherent in postmodernism. This aspect of postmodernism poses a challenge to the principles of modernism. Though, at times, negative and ambiguous definitions have been suggested for modernism, it may be considered as being founded upon four major principles: anthropocentrism (humanism), secularism, discursive rationality, and the idea of progress, which itself is characterized by a universal prescription for adherence to the western model of development and progress. In other words, postmodernism, with its deconstructionist outlook, negates the pivotal role of the subject. This negation of the subject, or anthropocentrism, results in the collapse of all other modernist principles (Solomon, 1999).

The most prominent intellectual and cultural symbol of the globalizing discourse, as a postmodern condition, is the decentralization of the western modernist hegemony. Based on this outlook, the most striking manifestation of postmodern globalization is the rise of a politics of identity and the possibility of the appearance on the global scene of alternative readings. This development is the result of the negation of the universal narrative. In Lyotard’s view, today we live in an age marked by a lack of belief in the modernist metanarrative of the progress of reason toward a better society (Lyotard, 1984). With the decentralization of the modernist metanarrative the ground is prepared for the assertion of other cultures and narratives. By its negation of the western modernist universal narrative as well as its consideration of the western discourse as relative, postmodernism creates the possibility for other discourses to assert themselves on the global scene. This points to the significance of paying heed to the poststructuralist characteristic of postmodernism. Post-structuralism considers every social phenomenon as being under the fluid influence of societal structures. Unlike the deterministic structural and foundationalist outlooks of the modernist theory, there exists neither any basis for knowledge nor for the social and political life of man. Therefore, men’s identities are shaped not by predetermined criteria, but based on the special social conditions of the day which in turn are the product of the relations of power (Dreyfus, 1997: 130).

Therefore, there are no essential bases for the ascendance of a particular discourse over another; the sole determinant of the dominant current is the power and hegemonic relations between discourses. From this perspective, globalization, in a particular situation, was tasked with the reproduction of modernism. However, since there exists no essential logic for the continuation of a particular discourse and discourses are considered as fluid, contingent and ephemeral (Laclau, 2001), in this new situation, globalization is imparted with a different characteristic than that of modernism and lays the groundwork for other identities and discourses. Thus, globalization is attended by the rise of a multiplicity of divergent identities, a development that has come to be construed as the rise of a politics of identity in the age of globalization (Scott, 1995: 4 – 12). The activation of the marginalized identities in the past two decades, such as the colored, feminist movements (i.e. identity based on gender) and religious fundamentalism (i.e. identity based on religion), is a striking example of this development (Castles, 2003).
c) Globalization and the universal dimensions of religions

From the third perspective, globalization is related to religious outlooks. The appearance on the scene of the notion of globalization prompted the followers of various religions to interpret the universality of religious teachings as synonymous with this new idea. From their point of view, the true globalization is the globalization of religion. The same idea has found followers in our country in the past few years. There have even been those who have adduced the Islamic idea of the universal government of Imam al-Mahdi and considered it as identical with the present-day notion of globalization. Notwithstanding this fallacious interpretation, there are still more misguided views in connection with religious globalization. An example of this latter case may be found in Emad Afrough. His approaches the issue from a philosophico-cultural point of view and based on the dichotomy of globalization as “real and possible” and globalization as “commonplace and prevalent”. The latter has its roots in the western capitalist developments and its theoretical foundation of modernism. By peddling an overly optimistic view of the world, the capitalist system is intent on enhancing its profits. In other words, it seeks to free itself from the theoretical and epistemological as well as social and economic deadlocks and contradictions it has given rise to. According to Afrough, the root of these contradictions is in the essence of modernism itself:

Humanism, and the self-sustained and empirical rationality it establishes upon the foundation of capitalism, owing to its denial of God, has resulted in the denial of an essence and ultimate destiny for man. And throughout various historical eras it has given rise to nihilism and the overt negation of man and his intellect (Afrough, 2003: 32).
Afrough finally arrives at the conclusion that, taking into account the failures of modernism admitted to by western theorists, globalization has been attended by a return of religions and therefore “if the requirement of an authentic globalization be the faith in an ultimate reality and a necessary being, a unitarian (tawhidi) view of the universe as a coherent whole, addressing man as interlocutor regardless of his geographical and cultural origin, and belief in the existence of an essence for man and an ultimate destiny for him and for the entire universe, then the Holy Quran is replete with verses that underline this idea (ibid., p. 45). There are other thinkers and theoreticians who share this perspective (e.g. see Marqati, 2003).