The book Islam Dot Com: Contemporary Islamic Discourses in Cyberspace presents a textual analysis of the threads in the discussion forums of three of the most popular, mainstream Islamic websites, namely: www.Islamonline.net, www.Islamway.com, and www.amrkahled.net. In analyzing the three Islamic forums under study, the book examined the multiple identities which were displayed online in these discussion forums and the complex factors behind their construction. It paid special attention to how the discussions and deliberations in some of these forums increased the degree of uniformity, solidarity, and cohesion between those who shared a “collective identity,” on the one hand, as in the case of some online discourses involving Muslims who belonged to the same umma (Muslim community). It also carefully explored how some of these online deliberations, on the other hand, widened the gap and demarcated the boundaries between “divergent identities,” as in the case of some online discourses between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as between different categories of Muslims, such as Sunnis and Shi’ites.
In examining these online identities special attention was paid to how the participation in such discussion boards helped to promote a sense of religious communalism and collectivism that allowed members of the Muslim umma to (re)construct their identities as members of the same community of faith, on one hand, as well as discovering the differences among themselves and demarcating themselves from non-Islamic practices and lifestyles, on the other hand. The book explored how the emergence of the new online public sphere and the reconfiguration of the virtual umma have led to the creation of multiple identities and multiple resistances, which clearly manifested themselves through various Islamic websites, producing varying degrees of consensus, divergence, and negotiation.
Therefore, one of the main objectives of this book was to investigate the degree to which these competing and contesting identities overlapped, diverged, or created an in-between position of negotiation and compromise, as well as the reasons behind these multiple positions. In doing so, the book tested the extent to which the participants in these forums adopted the concepts of “rational-critical debate,” “communicative action,” and “collective consensus” in the context of a Habermasian public sphere, as well as their somewhat equivalent concepts of shura (consultation), ijtihad (independent interpretation), and ijma’ (consensus) in the Islamic context.
In conducting this investigation, abundant evidence was found showing the existence of two diametrically opposed poles as exhibited through the analyzed online threads, namely: the poles of consensus and divergence. However, the middle ground of negotiation, which captures the essence of both rational-critical debates and shura, seemed largely missing in most of these threads. It was safely concluded, based on a textual analysis of numerous threads from the discussion forums of these three mainstream websites, that neither the Habermasian public sphere nor the Islamic concepts of shura, ijtihad, and ijma’ were fully reflected through these forums.
What the book revealed, instead, was that in the threads where participants were in total agreement, the consensus was not reached through rational-critical debates among the participants. Rather, it was the result of gender, political, or religious homogeneity and the participants’ emotional involvement in the issues at hand. In other words, it was the nature of the issues under discussion and the participants’ backgrounds, ideologies, and interest in these issues, rather than their willingness to engage in a Habermasian-style debate, that determined their consensual approach and their level of collective identity. This was particularly the case in the Arabic threads that dealt with “pan-Arab” and “pan-Islamic” issues, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Danish cartoons about the Muslim Prophet. Consensus on these issues emanated mostly from the participants’ emotional uniformity and common subjectivity, rather than their objective, rational thinking.
Such issues tended to lend themselves to the theme of a “unified umma.” They helped create a sense of "Islamic consciousness" or “umma consciousness”, which unites Muslims under the banner of common faith and shared belief, stressing the moral unity of the umma, in the face of its external enemies and opposing forces, and suppressing its political conflicts and sectarian fragmentation. All these factors led to an emotional consensus among participants in the threads that discussed such “pan-Islamic” issues.
The threads that reflected divergent identities were more complex. Divergence in these threads was the result mostly of different ethnic, racial, religious, and political ideologies. This is clearly a stark contrast with Habermas’ vision of a homogeneous public sphere, where participants forget their differences and try to focus on the issues at hand with the objective of reaching a consensus, resulting from rational-critical deliberations. Habermas’ perception of an elitist, “bourgeois public sphere,” which works best when limited to educated, middle class, white males, did not fit the gender, ethnic, ideological, and religious diversity that was manifested in these discussion forums, the contrasting views and positions among these forums’ participants, and the polemic discourses that were exchanged between them.
Interestingly, instead of finding participants who leave their differences behind before engaging in deliberations, as envisioned by Habermas as a requirement for the creation of an ideal public sphere, the book actually documents how participants often times bring their differences and disagreements with them to the discussion forums. Unfortunately, most participants in these forums did not utilize their diversity and differences to enrich the discussions or to reach a middle ground based on enlightened debates. Rather, they engaged in sharp disagreements and emotional confrontations, allowing their differences to stand in the way of creating a Habermasian rational-critical debate.
The assertiveness, dogmatism, and defensiveness expressed by many participants, who seemed unable to even engage in a civilized debate with other participants with whom they disagreed, and their inability to express their disagreement or to settle their differences in a rational manner seemed to be a pattern in many of these analyzed threads. This led to the emergence of clearly demarcated, and even antagonistic identities along the lines of Sunnis versus Shi’ites, Muslims versus non-Muslims, and males versus females.
In that sense, the virtual Islamic discourses which were shared and exchanged on these Islamic discussion forums provided both platforms for consensus and sites of contention simultaneously.
The topics discussed in these discussion forums varied widely depending on the nature and scope of each of the three websites, the profile of the posters who post in it, and the language(s) used. For example, www.Islamway.com had a discussion forum in English, and another one in Arabic, under the name: “Islamway Sisters Discussion Forum”. Access to these discussion forums was only restricted to Muslim women. Therefore, this exclusively female online forum allowed the creation of a type of “Islamic feminism” or “Islamic sisterhood”, which enabled the discussion of women’s issues, family issues, and domestic issues within a gated online community. The discussion forum on www.amrkahled.net was mainly targeted at youth and was exclusively in Arabic. This, in turn, limited the participation to only Arab posters, who were mostly young people, and the topics discussed dealt mainly with youth concerns, social reform, and the political and economic challenges confronting Arabs and Muslims everywhere. The most diverse website, in terms of the nature of posters, the languages used, and the discussed topics, was www.Islamonline.net, since it had discussion forums in several languages, which were accessible to both Arabs and non-Arabs and Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This resulted in heated political discussions and religious debates, which were characterized by sharp divisions and highly polemic discourses, as previously mentioned.
Another important finding which the book revealed is the shifting of religious authority away from the traditional ulama’ (Islamic scholars) to the hands of lay Muslims, many of whom are not officially trained to provide religious advice (fatwa). This, of course, raises a number of important questions, such as “who speaks for Islam” in the realm of contemporary deliberations and debates in cyberspace. This new phenomenon was found to be a “double-edged sword”. On the one hand, it broadened the realm of popular engagement and provided a new manifestation of a Muslim umma that is not based on authority, but on public participation, through independence from traditional religious authority and institutional hegemony. This is supported by the fact that it is the participants, not the moderators, who set the agenda for the issues to be discussed in most of the analyzed forums.
However, on the other hand, this communal authority of the average people, which seems to have replaced the religious authority of the traditional ‘ulama, is close to anarchy. And mainstream religions, including Islam, are opposed to an anarchic environment, where assertive, and even irrational, personal whims are the norm, rather than the exception. The fact that the role of the religious ‘ulama, and even the moderators, is totally absent in some of these forums opens the door for spreading false and inaccurate religious information about Islam. The absence of the ‘ulama’s voice in these forums also opens the door for strengthening, rather than eradicating, conspiracy theories against Islam, as well as dogmatic perspectives, which are not validated by credible and qualified religious authorities. Moreover, the absence of the ‘ulama’s voice in these forums creates a knowledge void that cannot be filled by lay Muslims
In conclusion, although there is a new configuration of the public sphere through these discussion forums in a way that allows average people to engage in, what they perceive as, “free debates” on religious issues, outside the realm of the traditional religious authorities, this newly configured public sphere does not seem to embody many of the criteria required for productive deliberation. Therefore, the book contends that much more needs to be done to utilize the online discussion forums made available through Islamic websites in a manner that would help enhance the values of democratization, pluralism, and dialogue of civilizations.