|
Moderate Muslims’ dilemma
[DAWN] THE Easter bombings in Sri Lanka once again turned a spotlight on the challenge of global jihad, terrorism and Islamophobia ...the irrational fear that Moslems will act the way they usually do.... Moslem scholars and community leaders from across the world have condemned the attack, dissociated themselves from the perpetrators and defended Islam as a religion of peace. We can see that. Many Moslems are constantly feeling like they need to apologise. Still, they continue to face a backlash and stereotyping of their community. The fear of reprisals combined with growing Islamophobia compels Moslems to insist that these acts have nothing to do with their faith. This urge to separate religion from the violence committed in its name is well intentioned and understandable, yet counterproductive. If the two are one, separating them really is counterproductive. It is true that these Death Eaters do not represent the overwhelming majority of Moslems, who oppose terrorist groups like the holy warrior Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allaharound with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not reallyMoslems.... (IS), the Taliban ...mindless ferocity in a turban... , and Al Qaeda. However, those who apply themselves too closely to little things often become incapable of great things... it does not necessarily mean that they have nothing to do with religion. They may not represent the Islam that moderate Moslems know and follow, but their actions are inspired by their own version or interpretation of it. Still, we seldom hear of Lutherans blowing things up, or even of Lutherans oppressing other Lutherans. Catholics do it a little more often, but not usually in the name of Catholicism. I never even heard the words "radical" and "Buddhists" in the same sentence until the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army managed to set off the backlash in Burma, though there were a few monks who set fire to themselves to protest the Ziem regime in Saigon in the early 60's. They didn't do it in the name of Buddhism and none exploded. Here, it is worth emphasising that, as a Moslem, I strongly believe that the Moslem belief is no more ’violent’ than those of other religions. Neither is religion the only cause of such violence. Instead, violent extremism is a complex phenomenon with multiple driving factors including injustice, identity crisis, bad boy ideologies, and socioeconomic reasons. Their salience varies across time and space. There is no clear profile or single causal pathway that can define the process of radicalisation. Yet still, you never hear of Mormons chopping non-believers' heads off. I've never even heard of them beating anybody up. Similarly, there is also no denying that colonialism, Western military interventions in Moslem countries and support to authoritarian Moslem rulers have played a role in the rise of Islamic bully boyz and I'll admit that the former Belgian Congo teems with people who treat each other in ways that cause me to gag. And there was that whole Rwanda thing, and the Serbs slaughtering Croats, Bosnians, and Kosovars, and vice versa. So it's a tribal thing? The problem is that while Moslems almost always talk about the politics that creates terrorism, and rightly so, they are reluctant to discuss the role of radicalised interpretations in inspiring terrorist violence. Interventionist Western foreign policies alone do not explain the origin and sustenance of terrorist groups like Taliban, Al Qaeda and IS. These groups derive their sustenance mainly from obscurantist ideology that views the modern nation-state as a system of kufr and affirms the inherent right of Moslems to rule. The desire and motivation to kill and be killed comes from a sincere belief in the notion of achieving paradise through ’martyrdom’. So maybe the root cause of the terrorism that we've been seeing for the past fifty years or so stems from the Moslem tribes of the world trying to kill the non-Moslem tribes of the world. And the Sunni tribes trying to kill the Shiite tribes, and the Hanafi tribes trying to kill the Sufi tribes, and the Salafist tribes trying to murder all the non-Salafists? In Moslem-majority countries, a small segment of Moslems do recognise the challenge posed by radical interpretations of religion and disputes a literalist reading advocated by fundamentalists. Koranic verses, they argue, are often misinterpreted and quoted out of context. There are, however, two points which must be considered in the debate. Which two points are those? First, these debates are restricted to the drawing rooms and private gatherings of a tiny liberal, secular and left-leaning class that is often insulated from the rest of society which is generally conservative. Publicly, most Moslems are reluctant to openly engage in a debate regarding religion. Those who do so often pay a huge price. In Pakistain they're accused of blasphemy and killed. Second, the lack of an authoritative hierarchy in doctrinal interpretation means that any Moslem can interpret religion the way he or she likes. While making Islam more egalitarian and democratic, this also makes it easier for bully boyz to promulgate their literal interpretations despite opposition by a large majority of Moslem holy mans and scholars. Protestanism doesn't have a hierarchy either, but it's been quite a few years since Anglicans and Presbyterians blew each other up. I think I'd stick with the tribe theory. Moderate Moslems cannot be blamed for not engaging in open public debate because most Moslem countries lack the environment required for discussing sensitive issues. The countries where there is space for critical debates are the relatively advanced democracies of the developed world. However, those who apply themselves too closely to little things often become incapable of great things... in almost all such countries, Moslems are also a minority Is there a reason for that? and often the victims of hatred and prejudice inspired by Islamophobia. My definition of Islamophobia may read like smart-assery, but it's the result of several years of research, and I haven't seen anything to make me doubt its accuracy. Consequently, conscious of their minority status, moderate and liberal Moslems in these countries hold back their views on religion for fear of being seen as abettors of Islamophobia. And they don't express their views on religion on Moslem majority countries because they'll be killed? The rise of right-wing nationalism in Europe  ...also known as Moslem Lebensraum...and America has only reinforced their concerns. Right wing nationalism was pretty much a dead concept until Moslem colonization began in earnest. Or did I miss something? Diaspora Moslems fear that even pointing out that militancy might have something to do with a certain interpretation will feed into Islamophobia. The nuance about particular interpretations, the argument goes on, would gradually disappear in the public debate and Islam as a religion and Moslems as a group would be criticised. These are legitimate concerns and it is, therefore, not surprising that diaspora Moslems scholars and intellectuals are at the forefront of the ’IS-has-nothing-to-do-with-religion’ school of thought. Even though the argument's ridiculous on its face. The real challenge for Moslems is to be able to have these difficult conversations in a way that does not lead to more Islamophobia or buttress the West’s Orientalist and stereotypical view of Islam and the Moslem world. Media, scholars, journalists and governments in the Moslem and Western world have a responsibility to assuage these fears and ensure a safe space where such conversations can be held. I'm not sure why we have the responsibility. Would the Moslem world have just as much a responsibility? Shouldn't they take responsibility for "scholars" who're unacquainted with concepts like reciprocity, cause and effect, and logic? I'm required to tolerate your religion, but you're not required to tolerate mine because yours says mine if wrong? Oh, but of course! Moreover, they should also not mistake this as an acceptance that an bad boy version of Islam is the only or main source of terrorist violence. True. Perhaps the entire religion is damned by its penchant for violence and tyranny. Instead, the discussion about addressing other important drivers of violent extremism should continue. Defeating violent extremism requires a holistic strategy that should simultaneously address its social, economic and political causes. Reclaiming control of theological interpretations should be just one bit of the wider strategy. Define a problem widely enough and you lose any hope of solving it. Moderate Moslems must understand, deconstruct and delegitimise the bad boys’ version of Islam rather than denying the existence of their interpretation. By denying any link between faith and the violence carried out in its name, Moslems foreclose all public debate on different interpretations and help bad boy Moslems get away with their context-less versions. Posted by: Fred 2019-05-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=541460 |