Ibrahim Kalin*
It was almost unimaginable before the September 11 terrorist attacks on America to think that there would be so much interest in the faith of 1.2 billion people of the world. As the events before and after the attacks convincingly showed, the new challenge facing all of us in America is to understand Islam and the Muslim world, and to do this with courage, honesty, and knowledge. Our perceptions of Islam and Muslims are mediated through a highly complex set of TV images, Hollywood stories, policy decisions, theological and historical prejudices, and lack of first-hand knowledge of Islamic culture and civilization. The media frenzy about the so-called Islamic terrorism or terrorism coming out of Muslim countries help us understand neither the root-causes of such acts of terrorism against America nor Islam as a religion and as a civilization.
Let us begin with some of the basics of Islam. In contradistinction to the widely held notion in the West, Islam is a member of the Abrahamic family of monotheistic religions. Muslims believe in one and the same God as Jews and Christians do. Tawhid, the most fundamental doctrine of Islamic faith, is nothing more than the unflinching assertion of Divine unity, viz., that there is only one God, one creator of the universe, and one deity worthy of worship to whom we shall all return. The word ‘islam’, derived the from the Arabic root verb s-l-m, has the double meaning of submission and peace: it is the attainment of peace by submitting one’s will to the will of God. Islam, just like the other religions of the world, has been sent to humanity through the Prophet Muhammad as a way of attaining salvation and leading a virtuous life. Classical Islamic civilization was based on the universal principles of justice, tolerance, and quest for knowledge. As the historical records show beyond doubt, the Islamic world was the leading force in sciences, philosophy, arts, social equilibrium, and cultural pluralism for more than a millennium until the end of the 18th century.
One can hardly overemphasize the fact that Islam considers itself to be the last and certainly not the first in the long of history of Divine revelations dispensed from Heaven. As repeated throughout the Qur’an, the sacred scripture of Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad brought the same message that had been revealed to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus before him. This enables Islam to look at previous revelations including Judaism and Christianity as part and parcel and of the great chain of revelation. Accordingly, Islam recognizes Jews and Christians as the “People of the Book” (ahl al-kitab), namely as those religious communities to which a divine book has been sent and that are protected under the Islamic Law (Shari’ah). The names of Moses, Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary are repeated in the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet. Muslims revere all of these holy figures as they do their own Prophet. There is even a chapter in the Qur’an named after Mary who is considered to be the epitome of female spirituality and compassion in Islamic culture. This inclusivist attitude towards other religions explains to a large extent the peaceful co-existence and religious and economic freedoms that Jews and Christians were granted under the Muslim rule in Andalusia, the Ottoman world, and the eastern lands of Islam where there are still considerable Jewish and Orthodox Christian minorities. All of these theological and historical facts to which we can easily add more lead us to the legitimate concept of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.
The Imagined Islam of the West and the Question of Violence
This notion is of critical importance not only for philosophical and historical reasons but also for the urgencies of our current situation. The lack of knowledge on the part of many people in the West and especially in America about Islam, its beliefs and practices, its history, its religious and cultural diversity, and its present situation wind up reinforcing the dehumanization and stereotyping of Islam and Muslims on the one hand, and preempts the possibility of mutual understanding between the two sister civilizations, on the other. The fact is that there is as much stereotyping and monolithic thinking in the Muslim world about the West as there is in the West about the Muslim world, and we need to mobilize our moral and intellectual resources to resist and dispel the barriers of a veritable understanding between the two civilizations. Understanding and appreciating the homogeneity and diversity within the Islamic world will raise our frame of reference vis-à-vis the current situation to a higher level of analysis.
Take the example of the unfolding perceptions of Islam in the wake of the attacks. The September 11 attacks were terrorist acts of violence that cannot be justified within the confines of Islamic, or any, religion and law. All Muslim nations and institutions have condemned the attacks in the strongest terms possible. As the British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it, it was terrorism pure and simple, terrorism having no religion or race. Nevertheless, the fact that it was perpetrated by people with Arabic-Muslim names led many people to suspect a relation between terrorism and the religion of Islam. Some people even claimed that Islam itself begets violence. Given our familiarity, or rather lack thereof, with the Islamic tradition, such simplistic and sweeping generalizations are bound to surface every time we are faced with the challenge of understanding Islam and Muslims.
The fact of the matter is that there is as much diversity within the Islamic tradition as there is within Christianity or Hinduism. It is true that there is a small minority in the Muslim world that condones the use of violence against what it considers to be oppressive powers. This group, however, is as much representative of Islam as KKK or David Koresh is representative of Christianity. By the same token, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a radical Orthodox Jew from New York, who entered the Khalil mosque in 1994 in the holy month of Ramadan and fired at worshippers killing more than 35 people, or the Jewish fundamentalists who assassinated the late Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin are as much representative of Judaism as Osama bin Laden and his likes are of Islam. Or take the example of Slobodan Milosevic and his massacre, rape and dislocation of over two hundred fifty thousand Bosnian Muslims in the name of Orthodox Christianity and Western civilization. Still more, take the example of IRA, the self-professed terrorist organization whose acts of violence are never classified as “Catholic terrorism” or terrorism bred by the Catholic faith. Should these examples, which can easily be multiplied to include Hindu and Sikh militants responsible for the killing of thousands of Muslims and their own people, justify such terms as “Christian terrorism”, “Jewish terrorism”, or “Orthodox terrorism”?
In the West, we know almost intuitively that such cases as mentioned above do not represent mainstream religious ideas and practices because we are infinitely more familiar with the Judeo-Christian tradition and can appreciate its diversity. In the case of Islam, the lack of knowledge forces us to consult the so-called public “experts” to explain to us what exactly the role of Islam is in the creation of such acts of violence. While it is clear that Muslims denounce such acts as terrorism pure and simple having no place in religion itself, it is our perceptions of Islam and Muslims that generate the imaginative link between Islam and violence.
“Why Do They Hate Us?”: Right Question, Wrong Answer
Having said that, we have to understand the root causes of the anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. No matter how hard the American foreign policy makers try to downplay the reality and persistence of this sentiment in the Muslim world, this is something we have to confront if we are to find right answers to right questions. The easy way out is to put the blame on the Muslim world and believe that they hate us because of the values we stand for and the way of life we espouse, or even worse, to explain away the current predicament as fanaticism and fundamentalism entrenched in the backward beliefs and dogmas of Muslims. Such a simplistic explanation amounts to no more than self-gratification and self-complacency – the very attitude that is responsible for the anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world. It is time to realize that American foreign policy determines the meaning of “America” in the Muslim world and that Muslim nations see America through the glass of US policy decisions whose consequences for many have been simply devastating. Said differently, it is not so much America in and of itself but what America signifies in the Islamic world that is the source of a deep resentment towards the US in the Muslim world.
The stunning discrepancy between the rhetoric of democracy and human rights and the de facto real-politik of American foreign policy is one of the root-causes of the anti-American sentiment. All of the allies of the US in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia to Egypt are ruled either by monarchies or police states where there are no elections or political dissent. The unconditional American support for Israel that comes in the form of billions of dollars of annual economic aid and political support despite countless UN resolutions against Israeli aggressions, violations of human rights, and the continuous spread of settlements rejected most recently by the Mitchell report to no avail lead many people to question the genuineness of US attitude towards Arab and Muslim sensitivities on the issues of Palestine and Jerusalem. Thousands of people massacred in Chechenya and Kashmir do not make the evening news in the US but are remembered by millions of ordinary Muslims everyday they see the US President posing with his Russian and Indian counterparts. The death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of the failed policy of “dual containment” and sanctions on the one hand, and the support given to Saddam Husayn for over ten years against Iran on the other, reinforce the sense of suspicion against the sincerity and integrity of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Add to this the never-ending demonization of Muslims in Hollywood movies and we wind up generating a perpetual state of resentment, anger, and suspicion, radicalizing even non-religious people and pushing many to take extreme positions. This will, in turn, create further polarization and provide a golden opportunity for people like Osama bin Laden to propagate their perverted ideology.
Until and unless we address some of these truly hard issues in concrete terms, we shall fail to lay the foundations of a veritable dialogue and understanding between America and the Islamic world – the sine qua non of the prevention of such horrific acts as September 11.
*
Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies
College of the Holy Cross
Over mij
- Karacaer
- Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
- Emigrant zijn betekent universeel het verlies van normaliteit en het opgedrongen krijgen van een nieuwe normaliteit, die misschien wel in essentie, maar niet in zijn vorm de jouwe is. Als anderen gaan bepalen wat jouw identiteit is, is het knap lastig integreren. Duizend maal per dag laveer je tussen kapitulatie en gevecht, tussen verstoppertje spelen en toch je eigen ding doen. Tussen twijfel aan jezelf en je omgeving voor gek verklaren.
zaterdag, september 30, 2006
Rabbi Nachman of Bratislav
The essence of peace is to connect two opposites.
If you see somebody whose opinion is the very opposite of yours, don't believe that it is impossible to be at peace with him.
Also, if you see two people (peoples) that are two opposites - don't say that it is impossible to make peace between them.
On the contrary, that is the essence of the completeness of peace - to make peace prevail between two opposites.
If you see somebody whose opinion is the very opposite of yours, don't believe that it is impossible to be at peace with him.
Also, if you see two people (peoples) that are two opposites - don't say that it is impossible to make peace between them.
On the contrary, that is the essence of the completeness of peace - to make peace prevail between two opposites.
Muhammad's Sword
Uri Avnery
Gush Shalom 23-09-2006
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Gush Shalom 23-09-2006
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Papa yanılıyor, Hıristiyan ve Yahudiler İslam’a minnettar
Uri Avnery
Halkın tarihini bilen tüm dürüst Yahudiler, İslam 50 kuşağı korurken, kılıçla dinlerini değiştirmeleri için Yahudileri katleden Hıristiyan dünyası karşısında İslam’a yönelik derin bir minnettarlık hisseder.
Roma imparatorlarının Hıristiyanları aslanlara attığı günlerden bu yana, imparatorlar ve Kilise’nin tepesindekiler arasındaki ilişkiler çok değişti. 1700 yıl önce imparator olan Constantine, Filistin de dahil imparatorluğu içinde Hıristiyanlığın uygulanmasını teşvik etti.
Yüzyıllar sonra, Kilise doğu ve batı olarak ikiye bölündü. Batıda, sonraları Papa’ya intisap eden Roma Piskoposu, imparatordan kendi üstünlüğünü kabul etmesini istedi. İmparatorlar ve papalar arasındaki mücadele Avrupa tarihinde çok önemli bir rol oynadı ve halkları böldü. Bazı imparatorlar, bazı papaları sürgün etti, kovdu ya da bazı papalar imparatorları kovdu. Ancak, imparatorlar ve papaların barış içinde yaşadıkları zamanlar da oldu. Bugün, böylesi bir döneme şahitlik ediyoruz. Mevcut Papa ile halihazırdaki imparator George Bush II, mükemmel bir uyum içinde. Papa’nın geçen haftaki konuşması dünya çapında fırtınalar kopardı ve Medeniyetler Çatışması kapsamında Bush’un “İslamofaşistlere” karşı savaşı ile iyi uyum sağladı. Papa, konuşmasında, Hıristiyanlığın akla dayandığını savunurken, İslam’ın bunu reddettiğini söyledi. Ben, Yahudi bir ateist olarak, bu tartışmaya girmeye niyetli değilim. Çünkü mevzu, Papa’nın mantığını anlamamı zorlaştırıyor. Ancak, “medeniyetler savaşının” kenarında yaşayan bir İsrailli olarak beni kaygılandıran bir hususa değinmeden geçemeyeceğim. Papa, İslam’ın mantıktan yoksun olduğunu kanıtlamak için, Peygamber Muhammed’in takipçilerine dini kılıçla yayma emri verdiğini iddia etti. Papa’ya göre bu durum mantık dışı çünkü inanç vücuttan değil ruhtan doğar. Peki, kılıç ruhu nasıl etkiler? Papa, bu tezini güçlendirmek için eski Bizans imparatorundan alıntılar yaptı. Ancak onun bu sözleri üç soruyu beraberinde getiriyor. a) İmparator bu sözleri neden söyledi? b) Gerçekler mi? c) Şimdiki Papa bu sözleri neden alıntılıyor?
Öncelikle, imparator o dönemde Osmanlı Türklerinin tehdidi altında idi. Osmanlılar Tuna’ya kadar gelip dayanmıştı. Birkaç yıl sonra da zaten imparatorluğun başkenti İstanbul Türklerin eline geçti ve imparatorluğa nokta koydu. O dönemde, Manuel (Bizans imparatoru) Avrupa’nın desteği için propaganda yaptı. Kilise’yi yeniden birleştirme sözü verdi. Hıristiyan ülkeleri Türklere karşı kışkırtmak ve Haçlı seferleri başlatmak için bu sözleri sarf etti. Yani din siyasete alet edildi. Bu açıdan, mevcut imparator George Bush II de, Müslüman dünyasına karşı Kilise’yi birleştirmek istiyor. Dahası, Türkler bu kez barışçıl bir biçimde Avrupa’nın kapısını çalıyor. Çok iyi biliniyor ki, Papa Türklerin üyeliğine karşı çıkıyor.
Müslümanlar hep hoşgörülüydü...
Ciddi ve ünlü bir teolog olarak, Papa yazılı metinleri yalanlayamaz. Bu nedenle, Kur’an’ın inancın zorla yayılmasını özellikle yasakladığını kabul ediyor olmalıdır. Papa’nın Kur’an’dan alıntıladığı “dinde zorlama yoktur” ayeti, o kadar dolambaçsız ki, birisi çıkıp da bunu nasıl görmezden gelebilir? Papa, açık bir biçimde bu emrin onun peygamberlik yıllarının ilk döneminde geldiğini; ancak onun sonraları inanç yolunda kılıcın kullanılması emri verdiğini iddia ediyor. Ancak, Kur’an’da böylesi bir emir vaki değil. Muhammed’in, kendisine karşı çıkan kabilelere (Hıristiyan, Yahudi ve diğer Arap kabileleri) karşı kılıç kullanma emri verdiği doğru; ancak bu dinî değil politik bir hareketti ve inancın yayılması değil toprak elde etme amacına dayanıyordu. İsa şöyle demişti: “Siz onları meyvelerinden tanırsınız.” Eğer Müslümanlar, “inancı kılıçla yayıyor idiyseler”, nasıl oldu da bin yıldan fazla gücü ellerinde tuttular? Çünkü, inancı kılıçla yaymadılar.
Müslümanlar, yüzyıllar boyunca Yunanistan’ı yönettiler. Rumlar Müslüman mı oldu? Kimse onları İslamlaştırmaya mı çalıştı? Aksine, Hıristiyan Rumlar Osmanlı yönetiminde en yüksek konumlara getirildiler. Bulgarlar, Sırplar, Romanyalılar, Macarlar ve diğer Avrupalı uluslar Osmanlı yönetimi altında Hıristiyan inancına bağlı yaşadılar. Kimse, onları Müslüman olmaya zorlamadı, aksine onlar samimi Hıristiyan olarak kaldılar. Arnavutlar İslam’a geçti, tıpkı Boşnaklar gibi. Ancak kimse onların zorla Müslümanlaştırıldıklarını iddia edemez. 1099 yılında, Haçlılar, İsa adına Kudüs’ü işgal etti ve Müslümanları, Yahudileri ayrım gözetmeksizin katletti. Ancak, Filistin’in 400 yıl boyunca Müslümanlar tarafından yönetimi sırasında, Hıristiyanlar hâlâ ülkenin çoğunluğunu oluşturuyordu. Bu uzun dönem boyunca kimse onları İslam’a geçmeye zorlamadı. Haçlıların ülkeden ayrılması sonrasında, yerleşimcilerin çoğu Arap dilini ve Müslüman inancını seçti ve bugün onlar mevcut Filistinlilerin ataları. Ek olarak, İslam’ı Yahudilere empoze etme gibi bir çabanın da kanıtı hiç olmadı. Çok iyi biliniyor ki, İspanya’daki Müslüman yönetimi altında Yahudiler, neredeyse günümüze kadar yaşadıkları en güzel ve rahat dönemlerini yaşadı. Arapça yazan Yehuda Halevy gibi şairler harika eserler bıraktı. Müslüman İspanya’da Yahudiler bakan, şair ve bilim adamı oldu. Müslüman Toledo’da Hıristiyan, Yahudi ve Müslüman akademisyenler birlikte çalıştı ve eski Yunan filozoflarının eserlerini çevirdi. Aslında bu ‘Altın Çağ’ idi. Peki bu nasıl mümkün oldu? Peygamber Muhammed’in “dini kılıçla yaymasıyla” mı?
Ancak esas bundan sonra yaşananları söylemek lazım. Katoliklerin İspanya’yı yeniden feth etmesi ile, tam bir dinci terör havası estirdiler. Yahudiler ve Müslümanlar hain bir seçimle baş başa bırakıldılar: Ya Hıristiyan olmak, ya katledilmek ya da terk etmek. Ve, inancını değiştirmeyi reddeden yüz binlerce Yahudi nereye kaçtı dersiniz? Neredeyse tümü Müslüman ülkelerin kollarını açmaları ile kurtuldu. İspanya Yahudileri Müslüman ülkelere yerleşti, Fas’tan, Irak’a ve o dönem Osmanlı’nın bir parçası olan Bulgaristan’a, Sudan’a kabul edildiler. Hiçbir yerde zulüm görmediler. Holokost’a kadar tüm Hıristiyan ülkelerde var olan engizisyon, katliam ve kitle ölümlerini tatmadılar. NEDEN? Çünkü İslam “insanların kitabına” zulmetmeyi yasaklamıştı. İslam toplumunda, Yahudi ve Hıristiyanlar için özel bir yer bulunmaktadır. Tam eşit olmasalar da buna yakındılar. Ekstra vergi ödüyorlardı; ancak askerlik hizmetinden de muaftılar. Halkın tarihini bilen tüm dürüst Yahudiler, İslam 50 kuşağı korurken, kılıçla dinlerini değiştirmeleri için Yahudileri katleden Hıristiyan dünyası karşısında İslam’a yönelik derin bir minnettarlık hisseder.
(25 Eylül 2006, Gush Shalom)
Halkın tarihini bilen tüm dürüst Yahudiler, İslam 50 kuşağı korurken, kılıçla dinlerini değiştirmeleri için Yahudileri katleden Hıristiyan dünyası karşısında İslam’a yönelik derin bir minnettarlık hisseder.
Roma imparatorlarının Hıristiyanları aslanlara attığı günlerden bu yana, imparatorlar ve Kilise’nin tepesindekiler arasındaki ilişkiler çok değişti. 1700 yıl önce imparator olan Constantine, Filistin de dahil imparatorluğu içinde Hıristiyanlığın uygulanmasını teşvik etti.
Yüzyıllar sonra, Kilise doğu ve batı olarak ikiye bölündü. Batıda, sonraları Papa’ya intisap eden Roma Piskoposu, imparatordan kendi üstünlüğünü kabul etmesini istedi. İmparatorlar ve papalar arasındaki mücadele Avrupa tarihinde çok önemli bir rol oynadı ve halkları böldü. Bazı imparatorlar, bazı papaları sürgün etti, kovdu ya da bazı papalar imparatorları kovdu. Ancak, imparatorlar ve papaların barış içinde yaşadıkları zamanlar da oldu. Bugün, böylesi bir döneme şahitlik ediyoruz. Mevcut Papa ile halihazırdaki imparator George Bush II, mükemmel bir uyum içinde. Papa’nın geçen haftaki konuşması dünya çapında fırtınalar kopardı ve Medeniyetler Çatışması kapsamında Bush’un “İslamofaşistlere” karşı savaşı ile iyi uyum sağladı. Papa, konuşmasında, Hıristiyanlığın akla dayandığını savunurken, İslam’ın bunu reddettiğini söyledi. Ben, Yahudi bir ateist olarak, bu tartışmaya girmeye niyetli değilim. Çünkü mevzu, Papa’nın mantığını anlamamı zorlaştırıyor. Ancak, “medeniyetler savaşının” kenarında yaşayan bir İsrailli olarak beni kaygılandıran bir hususa değinmeden geçemeyeceğim. Papa, İslam’ın mantıktan yoksun olduğunu kanıtlamak için, Peygamber Muhammed’in takipçilerine dini kılıçla yayma emri verdiğini iddia etti. Papa’ya göre bu durum mantık dışı çünkü inanç vücuttan değil ruhtan doğar. Peki, kılıç ruhu nasıl etkiler? Papa, bu tezini güçlendirmek için eski Bizans imparatorundan alıntılar yaptı. Ancak onun bu sözleri üç soruyu beraberinde getiriyor. a) İmparator bu sözleri neden söyledi? b) Gerçekler mi? c) Şimdiki Papa bu sözleri neden alıntılıyor?
Öncelikle, imparator o dönemde Osmanlı Türklerinin tehdidi altında idi. Osmanlılar Tuna’ya kadar gelip dayanmıştı. Birkaç yıl sonra da zaten imparatorluğun başkenti İstanbul Türklerin eline geçti ve imparatorluğa nokta koydu. O dönemde, Manuel (Bizans imparatoru) Avrupa’nın desteği için propaganda yaptı. Kilise’yi yeniden birleştirme sözü verdi. Hıristiyan ülkeleri Türklere karşı kışkırtmak ve Haçlı seferleri başlatmak için bu sözleri sarf etti. Yani din siyasete alet edildi. Bu açıdan, mevcut imparator George Bush II de, Müslüman dünyasına karşı Kilise’yi birleştirmek istiyor. Dahası, Türkler bu kez barışçıl bir biçimde Avrupa’nın kapısını çalıyor. Çok iyi biliniyor ki, Papa Türklerin üyeliğine karşı çıkıyor.
Müslümanlar hep hoşgörülüydü...
Ciddi ve ünlü bir teolog olarak, Papa yazılı metinleri yalanlayamaz. Bu nedenle, Kur’an’ın inancın zorla yayılmasını özellikle yasakladığını kabul ediyor olmalıdır. Papa’nın Kur’an’dan alıntıladığı “dinde zorlama yoktur” ayeti, o kadar dolambaçsız ki, birisi çıkıp da bunu nasıl görmezden gelebilir? Papa, açık bir biçimde bu emrin onun peygamberlik yıllarının ilk döneminde geldiğini; ancak onun sonraları inanç yolunda kılıcın kullanılması emri verdiğini iddia ediyor. Ancak, Kur’an’da böylesi bir emir vaki değil. Muhammed’in, kendisine karşı çıkan kabilelere (Hıristiyan, Yahudi ve diğer Arap kabileleri) karşı kılıç kullanma emri verdiği doğru; ancak bu dinî değil politik bir hareketti ve inancın yayılması değil toprak elde etme amacına dayanıyordu. İsa şöyle demişti: “Siz onları meyvelerinden tanırsınız.” Eğer Müslümanlar, “inancı kılıçla yayıyor idiyseler”, nasıl oldu da bin yıldan fazla gücü ellerinde tuttular? Çünkü, inancı kılıçla yaymadılar.
Müslümanlar, yüzyıllar boyunca Yunanistan’ı yönettiler. Rumlar Müslüman mı oldu? Kimse onları İslamlaştırmaya mı çalıştı? Aksine, Hıristiyan Rumlar Osmanlı yönetiminde en yüksek konumlara getirildiler. Bulgarlar, Sırplar, Romanyalılar, Macarlar ve diğer Avrupalı uluslar Osmanlı yönetimi altında Hıristiyan inancına bağlı yaşadılar. Kimse, onları Müslüman olmaya zorlamadı, aksine onlar samimi Hıristiyan olarak kaldılar. Arnavutlar İslam’a geçti, tıpkı Boşnaklar gibi. Ancak kimse onların zorla Müslümanlaştırıldıklarını iddia edemez. 1099 yılında, Haçlılar, İsa adına Kudüs’ü işgal etti ve Müslümanları, Yahudileri ayrım gözetmeksizin katletti. Ancak, Filistin’in 400 yıl boyunca Müslümanlar tarafından yönetimi sırasında, Hıristiyanlar hâlâ ülkenin çoğunluğunu oluşturuyordu. Bu uzun dönem boyunca kimse onları İslam’a geçmeye zorlamadı. Haçlıların ülkeden ayrılması sonrasında, yerleşimcilerin çoğu Arap dilini ve Müslüman inancını seçti ve bugün onlar mevcut Filistinlilerin ataları. Ek olarak, İslam’ı Yahudilere empoze etme gibi bir çabanın da kanıtı hiç olmadı. Çok iyi biliniyor ki, İspanya’daki Müslüman yönetimi altında Yahudiler, neredeyse günümüze kadar yaşadıkları en güzel ve rahat dönemlerini yaşadı. Arapça yazan Yehuda Halevy gibi şairler harika eserler bıraktı. Müslüman İspanya’da Yahudiler bakan, şair ve bilim adamı oldu. Müslüman Toledo’da Hıristiyan, Yahudi ve Müslüman akademisyenler birlikte çalıştı ve eski Yunan filozoflarının eserlerini çevirdi. Aslında bu ‘Altın Çağ’ idi. Peki bu nasıl mümkün oldu? Peygamber Muhammed’in “dini kılıçla yaymasıyla” mı?
Ancak esas bundan sonra yaşananları söylemek lazım. Katoliklerin İspanya’yı yeniden feth etmesi ile, tam bir dinci terör havası estirdiler. Yahudiler ve Müslümanlar hain bir seçimle baş başa bırakıldılar: Ya Hıristiyan olmak, ya katledilmek ya da terk etmek. Ve, inancını değiştirmeyi reddeden yüz binlerce Yahudi nereye kaçtı dersiniz? Neredeyse tümü Müslüman ülkelerin kollarını açmaları ile kurtuldu. İspanya Yahudileri Müslüman ülkelere yerleşti, Fas’tan, Irak’a ve o dönem Osmanlı’nın bir parçası olan Bulgaristan’a, Sudan’a kabul edildiler. Hiçbir yerde zulüm görmediler. Holokost’a kadar tüm Hıristiyan ülkelerde var olan engizisyon, katliam ve kitle ölümlerini tatmadılar. NEDEN? Çünkü İslam “insanların kitabına” zulmetmeyi yasaklamıştı. İslam toplumunda, Yahudi ve Hıristiyanlar için özel bir yer bulunmaktadır. Tam eşit olmasalar da buna yakındılar. Ekstra vergi ödüyorlardı; ancak askerlik hizmetinden de muaftılar. Halkın tarihini bilen tüm dürüst Yahudiler, İslam 50 kuşağı korurken, kılıçla dinlerini değiştirmeleri için Yahudileri katleden Hıristiyan dünyası karşısında İslam’a yönelik derin bir minnettarlık hisseder.
(25 Eylül 2006, Gush Shalom)
İslamlaşmak, İslam Dünyası Neden Geri Kaldı
Said Halim Paşa kitabında bu konu üzerinde çok durmayarak bir Müslüman bakış açısıyla durumu ortaya koymuştur. Genel kanaat dinin bir milletin ilerlemesini kesinlikle engelleyecek konumda olmadığıdır. Din insanı ve davranışlarını elbet belirler ancak ilerlemeden ve o iştiyaktan tam nasibini alamamış insanların geri kalmalarını İslam'da değil kendilerinde aramaları gerekmektedir. Her Müslüman ülkede durumun aynı olmaması aynı milletlerden olmayan insanların dini algılayışlarındaki farklar ilerlemede din faktörünün değil insan faktörünün önde olduğunu göstermektedir.
Peki Paşa'ya göre ülke ve Müslümanların kurtuluşu nedir? Paşa bu soruya "Kurtuluş İslam'dadır" veya "Tüm Yollar Mekke'ye Çıkar!" diyerek cevap vermektedir.
Paşa'nın İslamlaşmak tanımı ise şu şekildedir:
"Bizim için 'İslamlaşmak' demek İslamiyet'in inanç, ahlâk, yaşayış ve siyâsete ait esaslarının tam olarak tatbik edilmesi demektir. Bu uygulama, o esasların, her vakitte, zaman ve muhitin, ihtiyaçlarına en uygun şekilde tefsir edilmesinden sonra yapılacaktır."
"İslamlaşmak""İslam Dünyası Neden Geri Kaldı"
Said Halim Paşa
Peki Paşa'ya göre ülke ve Müslümanların kurtuluşu nedir? Paşa bu soruya "Kurtuluş İslam'dadır" veya "Tüm Yollar Mekke'ye Çıkar!" diyerek cevap vermektedir.
Paşa'nın İslamlaşmak tanımı ise şu şekildedir:
"Bizim için 'İslamlaşmak' demek İslamiyet'in inanç, ahlâk, yaşayış ve siyâsete ait esaslarının tam olarak tatbik edilmesi demektir. Bu uygulama, o esasların, her vakitte, zaman ve muhitin, ihtiyaçlarına en uygun şekilde tefsir edilmesinden sonra yapılacaktır."
"İslamlaşmak""İslam Dünyası Neden Geri Kaldı"
Said Halim Paşa
Dinde İletişim Dili
İletişim mekânı Tâif. Hedef kitle Tâifliler. Bir fert Tâifliler’le iletişim kurmak istiyor. İletişimin en uygar aracı olan “söz”le onlara sesleniyor. Onlar bu sözü dinlemiyorlar, fakat O söz söylemeye devam ediyor. Onlar yine dinlemiyorlar. O, yine söz söylüyor. Bu defa Tâifliler taş alıyorlar ellerine ve “söz”e karşı taş fırlatıyorlar, fakat O yine “söz” söylüyor. Onlar taş attıkça, O, söz söylemeye devam ediyor. Taşa karşı söz söyleyen sesini yükselterek: “Rabbim! Islah et onları! Onlar benim kim olduğumu bilmiyorlar. Bilseler böyle yapmazlar. Bağışla onları!” diyor. İletişimin en sihirli aracı olan “söz”den hiç vazgeçmiyor. Çünkü o, insanlarla iletişim kurmak istiyor, bunun için sabrediyor. Sonunda “sözlü iletişim” taşları eritiyor. “Taşla iletişim” olmayacağını anlayanlar, “söz”e kulak konuğu oluyorlar. Böylece sözlü iletişim onları “insanlığa” yükseltiyor. İletişim sayesinde taşlar tutsaklaşıyor, “insan” ortaya çıkıyor, ve “iletişim ortamı” oluşuyor
Isa Kayaalp, Dinde İletişim Dili, İstanbul 2004
Isa Kayaalp, Dinde İletişim Dili, İstanbul 2004
donderdag, september 14, 2006
What is Progressive Islam?
Par Omid Safi
mis en ligne le Tuesday 29 March 2005
The various understandings of Islam which fall under the rubric of ‘progressive’ are both continuations of, and radical departures from, the hundred and fifty year old tradition of liberal Islam. (1) Liberal advocates of Islam generally display an uncritical, almost devotional identification with modernity, and often (but do not always) by-pass discussions of colonialism and imperialism. Progressive advocates of Islam, on the other hand, are almost uniformly critical of colonialism, both of its nineteenth century manifestation and its current variety. Progressive Muslims espouse a critical and non-apologetic ‘multiple critique’ with respect to both Islam and modernity. They are undoubtedly postmodern in the sense of their critical approach to modernity. That double engagement with the varieties of Islam and modernity, plus an emphasis on concrete social action and transformation, is the defining characteristic of progressive Islam today.
Progressive Islam encompasses a number of themes: striving to realize a just and pluralistic society through a critical engagement with Islam, a relentless pursuit of social justice, an emphasis on gender equality as a foundation of human rights, and a vision of religious and ethnic pluralism.
Muslim libera(c)tion:
Progressive Muslims perceive themselves as the advocates of human beings all over the world who, through no fault of their own, live in situations of perpetual poverty, pollution, oppression, and marginalization. Their task is to give voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless, and confront the ‘powers that be’ who disregard the God-given human dignity of the m u st a d ’ a f u n all over this Earth. Muslim progressives draw on the strong tradition of social justice from within Islam from sources as diverse as the Qur’an and h a d i t h to more recent authorities and spokespersons such as Shari’ati. Their methodological fluidity is apparent in their pluralistic epistemology, which freely and openly draws from sources outside of Islamic tradition which can serve as useful tools in the global pursuit of justice. These external sources include the liberation theology of Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Guti.rrez, and Rebecca S. Chopp, as well as the secular humanism of Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, etc. Progressive Muslims are likely to combine a Qur’anic call for serving as ‘witnesses for God in justice’ (Qur’an 42:15), with an Edward Said-ian call to ‘speak truth to the powers.’
The question, asked by Peter Mandaville,(2) whether progressive Muslims reflect or initiate larger social processes of transformations, is a non-starter as it is premised on an initial dichotomy between intellectual pursuit and activism that progressives do not accept. Whereas many (though not all) of the previous generations of ‘liberal’ Muslims were at times defined by a purely academic approach that reflected their elite status, progressive Muslims fully realize that the social injustices around them are reflected in, connected to, and justified in terms of intellectual discourses. They are, in this respect, fully indebted to the majestic criticism of Edward Said. Progressive Muslims are concerned not simply with laying out a fantastic, beatific vision of social justice andpeace, but also with transforming hearts and societies alike. A progressive commitment implies by necessity the willingness to remain engaged with the issues of social justice as they unfold on the ground level, in the lived realities of Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
Progressive Muslims follow squarely in the footsteps of liberation theologians such as Leonardo Boff, who deemed a purely conceptual criticism of theology, devoid of any real commitment to the oppressed, as ‘radically irrelevant.’(3) Boff recognized that libera.o ( liberation ) links the concepts l i b e r (free) and a . o ( action ) :(4) There is no liberation without action. In drawing on both Boff as well as Rebecca Chopp, I have before stated that: ‘Vision and activism are both necessary. Activism without vision is doomed from the start. Vision without activism quickly becomes irrelevant.’(5) This informed social activism is visible in many progressive Muslim organizations and movements ranging from the work of Chandra Muzaffar with the International Movement for a Just World in Malaysia,(6) t h e efforts of Farid Esack with HIV-positive Muslims in South Africa,(7) to the work of the recent Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Shirin Ebadi (8) with groups such as the Iranian Children’s Rights Society.(9) It is thus not the case that only certain ‘superstars ‘ among progressive Muslims occupy themselves with activist approaches. One only need spend some time talking with the many individuals who are active in the various progressive Muslim organizations to witness the astonishing array of peace and social justice movements, grassroots organizations, human rights efforts, etc., that they are involved in.
Progressive Islam as an Islamic humanism
At the heart of a progressive Muslim interpretation is a simple yet radical idea: every human individual, female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, rich or poor, northerner or southerner, has exactly the same intrinsic worth. The essential value of human life is God-given, and is in no way connected to culture, geography, or privilege. A progressive Muslim is one who is committed to the strangely controversial idea that the true measure of a human being’s worth is a person’s character, and not the oil under their soil or their particular flag. A progressive Muslim agenda is concerned with the ramifications of the premise that all members of the human race have this same intrinsic worth because each of us has the breath of God breathed into our being: wa nafakhtu fihi minruhi . (Qur’an 15:29 and 38:72). This identification with the full humanity of all human beings amounts to nothing short of an Islamic Humanism.
An increasing number of those who advocate such a humanistic framework within the context of Islam have self-labelled themselves progressive Muslims. ‘Progressive’ refers to a relentless striving towards a universal notion of justice in which no single community’s prosperity, righteousness, and dignity come at the expense of another ‘s. Adherents of progressive Islam conceive of a way of being Muslim that engages and affirms the humanity of all human beings, that actively holds all of us responsible for a fair and just distribution of our God-given natural resources, and that seeks to live in harmony with the natural world.
Engaging tradition
Progressive Muslims insist on a serious engagement with the full spectrum of Islamic thought and practices. There can be no progressive Muslim movement that does not engage the very ‘stuff’ (textual and material sources) of the Islamic tradition, even if some wish to debate what ‘stuff’ this should be and how it ought to be interpreted. Progressives generally maintain that it is imperative to work through the inherited traditions of thought and practice. In particular cases, they might conclude that certain pre-existing interpretations fail to offer us sufficient guidance today. However, they can only faithfully claim that position after -and not before- serious engagement with the tradition. To move beyond problematic past and present interpretations of Islam, progressive Muslims have to pass critically through them and experience them first-hand.
Justice lies at the heart of Islamic social ethics. Time and again the Qur’an talks about providing for the marginalized members of society: the poor, the orphaned, the downtrodden, the wayfaring, the hungry, etc. Progressive Muslims believe that it is time to ‘translate’ the social ideals in the Qur’an and Islamic teachings into a way of action that those committed to social justice today can relate to and understand. For all Muslims, there is the vibrant memory of the Prophet repeatedly talking about a real believer as one whose neighbour does not go to bed hungry. Progressives hold that in today’s global village it is time to consider all of humanity as our neighbor. The time has come for Muslims who wish to be true believers to be responsible for the well-being and dignity of all human beings.
Progressive Muslims begin with a simple yet radical stance: that the Muslim community as a whole cannot achieve justice unless justice is guaranteed for Muslim women. In short, there can be no progressive interpretation of Islam without gender justice. Gender justice is crucial, indispensable, and essential. In the long run, any progressive Muslim interpretation will be judged based on the amount of change in gender equality it is able to produce in small and large communities. Gender equality is a measuring stick for the broader concerns of social justice and pluralism. As Shirin Ebadi has stated, it is imperative to conceive of women’s rights as human rights. Progressive Muslims strive for pluralism both inside and outside of the umma. They seek to open up a wider spectrum of interpretations and practices considered Muslim, and epistemologically follow a pluralistic approach to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In their interactions with other religious and ethnic communities, they seek to transcend the arcane notions of ‘tolerance’, and instead strive for a profound engagement through both existing commonalities and differences.
Is this an ‘Islamic Reformation’?
Progressive Muslims are often asked whether their project constitutes an ‘Islamic reformation.’ The answer is both yes and no. It is undeniably true that there are serious economic, social, and political issues in the Muslim world that need urgent remedying. Much of the Muslim world is bound to a deeply disturbing economic structure in which it provides natural resources for the global market, while at the same time remaining dependent on Western labour, technological know-how, and staple goods. This deplorable economic situation is exacerbated in many parts of the modern Muslim world by atrocious human rights situations, crumbling educational systems, and worn-out economies. Most progressive Muslims would readily support the reform of all those institutions. However, the term ‘reformation’ carries considerably more baggage than that. In speaking of the ‘Islamic reformation ‘, many people have in mind the Protestant Reformation. It is this understanding that leaves many progressive Muslims feeling uneasy, for theirs is not a project of developing a ‘Protestant’ Islam distinct from a ‘Catholic’ Islam. Most insist that they are not looking to create a further split within the Muslim community so much as to heal this split and to urge it along.
A global phenomenon or an American Islam?
It would be a clear mistake to somehow reduce the emergence of progressive Islam to being a new ‘American Islam.’ Progressive Muslims are found everywhere in the global Muslim umma. When it comes to actually implementing a progressive understanding of Islam in Muslim communities, particular communities in Iran, Malaysia, and South Africa are leading, not following, the United States. Many American Muslim communities-and much of the leadership represented by groups such as the Islamic Circle of North America,1 0the Islamic Society of North America,(11) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations1 2- are far too uncritical of Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies that progressives oppose. Lastly, almost all progressive Muslims are profoundly skeptical of nationalism, whether American, Arab, Iranian, or otherwise. As such, they instinctively and deliberately reject the appropriation of this fluid global movement by those who espouse it in order to transform it into an ‘American Islam’ commodity to be exported all over the world. The progressives’ firm critique of neo-colonialism is also a way to avoid their appropriation by the United States’ administration, which has used the language of reforming Islam to justify its invasion of Muslim countries such as Iraq.
Progressive Muslim Networks
Perhaps the most exciting part of the new emerging global Muslim progressive identity is that progressives everywhere are seeking one another out, reading each other’s work, collaborating with one another ‘s organizations. This is a fruitful process of cross-pollination. One can point to the impact that Shari’ati has had on South African Muslims, or the impact the Palestinian struggle has had on South East Asian progressives. Much of this contact is taking place via e-mail. We are clearly in the initial stages of this formulation, and it is an exciting process which has the promise of ushering in a real paradigm shift in the relationship of Muslims to both Islam and modernity.
N o t e s
1 . See Charles Kurzman, Liberal Islam: A Source book, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
2 . See ISIM Newsletter 12 (June 2003), p .2 4 - 2 5
3 . Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, (1987; reprint, Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001),
p .9.
4 . Boff, p.1 0 .
5 . Omid Safi, ‘The Times They are a-Changin’: A Muslim Quest for Justice, Gender Equality, and Pluralism’, in Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, edited by Omid Safi (Oxford: O n e w o r l d Publications, 2003), p. 6-7.
6 . http://www.just-international.org
7 . http://www.positivemuslims.org.za, see also ISIM Newsletter 12 (June 2003), p.40-41
8 . http://www.muslimwakeup.com mainarchive/000242.php
9 . http://www.iranianchildren.org/index.html
10 . http://www.icna.com
11 . http://www.isna.net
12 . http://www.cair-net.org
Omid Safi is an assistant professor of Islamic Studies at Colgate University, in Hamilton, NY. He is the co-chair for the Study of Islam Section at the American Academy of Religion and the editor of the volume Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003). This essay is humbly dedicated to Edward Said’s challenge t o all of us.
E-mail:omidsafi@hotmail.com
Source: ISIM NEWS LETTER 13 / DECEMBER 2003
mis en ligne le Tuesday 29 March 2005
The various understandings of Islam which fall under the rubric of ‘progressive’ are both continuations of, and radical departures from, the hundred and fifty year old tradition of liberal Islam. (1) Liberal advocates of Islam generally display an uncritical, almost devotional identification with modernity, and often (but do not always) by-pass discussions of colonialism and imperialism. Progressive advocates of Islam, on the other hand, are almost uniformly critical of colonialism, both of its nineteenth century manifestation and its current variety. Progressive Muslims espouse a critical and non-apologetic ‘multiple critique’ with respect to both Islam and modernity. They are undoubtedly postmodern in the sense of their critical approach to modernity. That double engagement with the varieties of Islam and modernity, plus an emphasis on concrete social action and transformation, is the defining characteristic of progressive Islam today.
Progressive Islam encompasses a number of themes: striving to realize a just and pluralistic society through a critical engagement with Islam, a relentless pursuit of social justice, an emphasis on gender equality as a foundation of human rights, and a vision of religious and ethnic pluralism.
Muslim libera(c)tion:
Progressive Muslims perceive themselves as the advocates of human beings all over the world who, through no fault of their own, live in situations of perpetual poverty, pollution, oppression, and marginalization. Their task is to give voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless, and confront the ‘powers that be’ who disregard the God-given human dignity of the m u st a d ’ a f u n all over this Earth. Muslim progressives draw on the strong tradition of social justice from within Islam from sources as diverse as the Qur’an and h a d i t h to more recent authorities and spokespersons such as Shari’ati. Their methodological fluidity is apparent in their pluralistic epistemology, which freely and openly draws from sources outside of Islamic tradition which can serve as useful tools in the global pursuit of justice. These external sources include the liberation theology of Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Guti.rrez, and Rebecca S. Chopp, as well as the secular humanism of Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, etc. Progressive Muslims are likely to combine a Qur’anic call for serving as ‘witnesses for God in justice’ (Qur’an 42:15), with an Edward Said-ian call to ‘speak truth to the powers.’
The question, asked by Peter Mandaville,(2) whether progressive Muslims reflect or initiate larger social processes of transformations, is a non-starter as it is premised on an initial dichotomy between intellectual pursuit and activism that progressives do not accept. Whereas many (though not all) of the previous generations of ‘liberal’ Muslims were at times defined by a purely academic approach that reflected their elite status, progressive Muslims fully realize that the social injustices around them are reflected in, connected to, and justified in terms of intellectual discourses. They are, in this respect, fully indebted to the majestic criticism of Edward Said. Progressive Muslims are concerned not simply with laying out a fantastic, beatific vision of social justice andpeace, but also with transforming hearts and societies alike. A progressive commitment implies by necessity the willingness to remain engaged with the issues of social justice as they unfold on the ground level, in the lived realities of Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
Progressive Muslims follow squarely in the footsteps of liberation theologians such as Leonardo Boff, who deemed a purely conceptual criticism of theology, devoid of any real commitment to the oppressed, as ‘radically irrelevant.’(3) Boff recognized that libera.o ( liberation ) links the concepts l i b e r (free) and a . o ( action ) :(4) There is no liberation without action. In drawing on both Boff as well as Rebecca Chopp, I have before stated that: ‘Vision and activism are both necessary. Activism without vision is doomed from the start. Vision without activism quickly becomes irrelevant.’(5) This informed social activism is visible in many progressive Muslim organizations and movements ranging from the work of Chandra Muzaffar with the International Movement for a Just World in Malaysia,(6) t h e efforts of Farid Esack with HIV-positive Muslims in South Africa,(7) to the work of the recent Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Shirin Ebadi (8) with groups such as the Iranian Children’s Rights Society.(9) It is thus not the case that only certain ‘superstars ‘ among progressive Muslims occupy themselves with activist approaches. One only need spend some time talking with the many individuals who are active in the various progressive Muslim organizations to witness the astonishing array of peace and social justice movements, grassroots organizations, human rights efforts, etc., that they are involved in.
Progressive Islam as an Islamic humanism
At the heart of a progressive Muslim interpretation is a simple yet radical idea: every human individual, female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, rich or poor, northerner or southerner, has exactly the same intrinsic worth. The essential value of human life is God-given, and is in no way connected to culture, geography, or privilege. A progressive Muslim is one who is committed to the strangely controversial idea that the true measure of a human being’s worth is a person’s character, and not the oil under their soil or their particular flag. A progressive Muslim agenda is concerned with the ramifications of the premise that all members of the human race have this same intrinsic worth because each of us has the breath of God breathed into our being: wa nafakhtu fihi minruhi . (Qur’an 15:29 and 38:72). This identification with the full humanity of all human beings amounts to nothing short of an Islamic Humanism.
An increasing number of those who advocate such a humanistic framework within the context of Islam have self-labelled themselves progressive Muslims. ‘Progressive’ refers to a relentless striving towards a universal notion of justice in which no single community’s prosperity, righteousness, and dignity come at the expense of another ‘s. Adherents of progressive Islam conceive of a way of being Muslim that engages and affirms the humanity of all human beings, that actively holds all of us responsible for a fair and just distribution of our God-given natural resources, and that seeks to live in harmony with the natural world.
Engaging tradition
Progressive Muslims insist on a serious engagement with the full spectrum of Islamic thought and practices. There can be no progressive Muslim movement that does not engage the very ‘stuff’ (textual and material sources) of the Islamic tradition, even if some wish to debate what ‘stuff’ this should be and how it ought to be interpreted. Progressives generally maintain that it is imperative to work through the inherited traditions of thought and practice. In particular cases, they might conclude that certain pre-existing interpretations fail to offer us sufficient guidance today. However, they can only faithfully claim that position after -and not before- serious engagement with the tradition. To move beyond problematic past and present interpretations of Islam, progressive Muslims have to pass critically through them and experience them first-hand.
Justice lies at the heart of Islamic social ethics. Time and again the Qur’an talks about providing for the marginalized members of society: the poor, the orphaned, the downtrodden, the wayfaring, the hungry, etc. Progressive Muslims believe that it is time to ‘translate’ the social ideals in the Qur’an and Islamic teachings into a way of action that those committed to social justice today can relate to and understand. For all Muslims, there is the vibrant memory of the Prophet repeatedly talking about a real believer as one whose neighbour does not go to bed hungry. Progressives hold that in today’s global village it is time to consider all of humanity as our neighbor. The time has come for Muslims who wish to be true believers to be responsible for the well-being and dignity of all human beings.
Progressive Muslims begin with a simple yet radical stance: that the Muslim community as a whole cannot achieve justice unless justice is guaranteed for Muslim women. In short, there can be no progressive interpretation of Islam without gender justice. Gender justice is crucial, indispensable, and essential. In the long run, any progressive Muslim interpretation will be judged based on the amount of change in gender equality it is able to produce in small and large communities. Gender equality is a measuring stick for the broader concerns of social justice and pluralism. As Shirin Ebadi has stated, it is imperative to conceive of women’s rights as human rights. Progressive Muslims strive for pluralism both inside and outside of the umma. They seek to open up a wider spectrum of interpretations and practices considered Muslim, and epistemologically follow a pluralistic approach to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In their interactions with other religious and ethnic communities, they seek to transcend the arcane notions of ‘tolerance’, and instead strive for a profound engagement through both existing commonalities and differences.
Is this an ‘Islamic Reformation’?
Progressive Muslims are often asked whether their project constitutes an ‘Islamic reformation.’ The answer is both yes and no. It is undeniably true that there are serious economic, social, and political issues in the Muslim world that need urgent remedying. Much of the Muslim world is bound to a deeply disturbing economic structure in which it provides natural resources for the global market, while at the same time remaining dependent on Western labour, technological know-how, and staple goods. This deplorable economic situation is exacerbated in many parts of the modern Muslim world by atrocious human rights situations, crumbling educational systems, and worn-out economies. Most progressive Muslims would readily support the reform of all those institutions. However, the term ‘reformation’ carries considerably more baggage than that. In speaking of the ‘Islamic reformation ‘, many people have in mind the Protestant Reformation. It is this understanding that leaves many progressive Muslims feeling uneasy, for theirs is not a project of developing a ‘Protestant’ Islam distinct from a ‘Catholic’ Islam. Most insist that they are not looking to create a further split within the Muslim community so much as to heal this split and to urge it along.
A global phenomenon or an American Islam?
It would be a clear mistake to somehow reduce the emergence of progressive Islam to being a new ‘American Islam.’ Progressive Muslims are found everywhere in the global Muslim umma. When it comes to actually implementing a progressive understanding of Islam in Muslim communities, particular communities in Iran, Malaysia, and South Africa are leading, not following, the United States. Many American Muslim communities-and much of the leadership represented by groups such as the Islamic Circle of North America,1 0the Islamic Society of North America,(11) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations1 2- are far too uncritical of Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies that progressives oppose. Lastly, almost all progressive Muslims are profoundly skeptical of nationalism, whether American, Arab, Iranian, or otherwise. As such, they instinctively and deliberately reject the appropriation of this fluid global movement by those who espouse it in order to transform it into an ‘American Islam’ commodity to be exported all over the world. The progressives’ firm critique of neo-colonialism is also a way to avoid their appropriation by the United States’ administration, which has used the language of reforming Islam to justify its invasion of Muslim countries such as Iraq.
Progressive Muslim Networks
Perhaps the most exciting part of the new emerging global Muslim progressive identity is that progressives everywhere are seeking one another out, reading each other’s work, collaborating with one another ‘s organizations. This is a fruitful process of cross-pollination. One can point to the impact that Shari’ati has had on South African Muslims, or the impact the Palestinian struggle has had on South East Asian progressives. Much of this contact is taking place via e-mail. We are clearly in the initial stages of this formulation, and it is an exciting process which has the promise of ushering in a real paradigm shift in the relationship of Muslims to both Islam and modernity.
N o t e s
1 . See Charles Kurzman, Liberal Islam: A Source book, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
2 . See ISIM Newsletter 12 (June 2003), p .2 4 - 2 5
3 . Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, (1987; reprint, Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001),
p .9.
4 . Boff, p.1 0 .
5 . Omid Safi, ‘The Times They are a-Changin’: A Muslim Quest for Justice, Gender Equality, and Pluralism’, in Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, edited by Omid Safi (Oxford: O n e w o r l d Publications, 2003), p. 6-7.
6 . http://www.just-international.org
7 . http://www.positivemuslims.org.za, see also ISIM Newsletter 12 (June 2003), p.40-41
8 . http://www.muslimwakeup.com mainarchive/000242.php
9 . http://www.iranianchildren.org/index.html
10 . http://www.icna.com
11 . http://www.isna.net
12 . http://www.cair-net.org
Omid Safi is an assistant professor of Islamic Studies at Colgate University, in Hamilton, NY. He is the co-chair for the Study of Islam Section at the American Academy of Religion and the editor of the volume Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003). This essay is humbly dedicated to Edward Said’s challenge t o all of us.
E-mail:omidsafi@hotmail.com
Source: ISIM NEWS LETTER 13 / DECEMBER 2003
Jihad is a global fad
Jessica Stern The Boston Globe TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2006
The images coming out of Qana, Lebanon - where dozens of women and children were crushed in an Israeli raid during the weekend - are heart-shattering. Exposed to those images, many of us have difficulty getting back to our workaday lives. We look at our own children with new awe and realize how lucky they - and we - are.
Nonetheless, we are plagued by new fears. This summer we are learning, yet again, a lesson that human beings seem doomed perpetually to forget: Violence, once unleashed, seems to create its own evil momentum. Those who attack others, even in self-defense, must be prepared for the collateral damage that inevitably ensues. That damage is measured, not just in childrens' lives, but also in damaged souls, on all sides of the conflict. But today, we must calculate a new form of collateral damage, which is the way that cynical terrorists capitalize on military mistakes. And whatever we learn about what really happened at Qana or at Haditha or at Abu Ghraib, there is little doubt that the terrorists will benefit.
Terrorists often start out as "true believers" who are seduced and sometimes victimized by a bad idea. The images coming out of Qana are a gift to the terrorists who aim to spread the false idea that the West is deliberately aiming to destroy the Islamic world, deliberately striving to harm and humiliate Muslims.
The only way to understand how this phenomenon works is to hang out with Muslim youths and talk to them. I have done quite a bit of that in various parts of the world in Western cities, in Palestinian slums, and in Pakistani madrasas. And what I've learned is this: Jihad has become a global fad, rather like gangsta rap. It is a fad that feeds on images of dead children.
Most of the youth attracted to the jihadi idea would never become terrorists, just as few of the youths who listen to gangsta rap would commit the kinds of lurid crimes the lyrics would seem to promote. But among many Muslim youths, especially in Europe, jihad is a cool way of expressing dissatisfaction with a power elite whether that elite is real or imagined; whether power is held by totalitarian monarchs or by liberal parliamentarians. And we should not assume jihad is a Middle Eastern or European problem. The idea is spreading here in America as well.
Jihad has become a millenarian movement with mass appeal, similar, in many ways, to earlier global movements such as the anarchists of the 19th century or even the peace movement of the 1960s and '70s. But today's radical youth are expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo by making war, not love. They are seduced by Thanatos rather than Eros. Newly-wed pro-jihadi youths spend their wedding nights watching today's ghoulish pornography: the beheadings of foreigners held hostage in Iraq. Children film themselves reenacting these beheadings, seduced by a familiar drama of the good guys killing the bad guys in order to save the world.
There is an appeal to an identity of victimhood: If I am a victim of someone else's bad actions, I have an excuse for not meeting expectations - my own or others'. There is an appeal to righteous indignation. There is an appeal to avenging wrongs visited on the weak by the strong. The narrative will be more seductive if moral questions seem to have easy answers, if good and evil can be easily distinguished, if perpetrators and victims stand out in stark relief, and if they never trade places, as they often do in the real world.
And the West sometimes plays right into the hands of terrorist ideologues, whose success depends not only on the appeal of the narrative they weave, but also their ability to illustrate it with facts, or at least pictures that appear to be facts. Iraq, alas, is producing many of the pictures the terrorists need. Qana is an added boon.
To win this war, Americans need to understand that we are fighting an idea, not a state. Military action minimally visible and carefully planned and implemented may be necessary to win today's battles. But the tools required in the long run to win the war are neither bombs nor torture chambers. They are ideas and stories that counter the terrorist narrative - and draw potential recruits away from the lure of jihad.
Jessica Stern, a lecturer on terrorism at Harvard University, is author of "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill." This article first appeared in The Boston Globe
The images coming out of Qana, Lebanon - where dozens of women and children were crushed in an Israeli raid during the weekend - are heart-shattering. Exposed to those images, many of us have difficulty getting back to our workaday lives. We look at our own children with new awe and realize how lucky they - and we - are.
Nonetheless, we are plagued by new fears. This summer we are learning, yet again, a lesson that human beings seem doomed perpetually to forget: Violence, once unleashed, seems to create its own evil momentum. Those who attack others, even in self-defense, must be prepared for the collateral damage that inevitably ensues. That damage is measured, not just in childrens' lives, but also in damaged souls, on all sides of the conflict. But today, we must calculate a new form of collateral damage, which is the way that cynical terrorists capitalize on military mistakes. And whatever we learn about what really happened at Qana or at Haditha or at Abu Ghraib, there is little doubt that the terrorists will benefit.
Terrorists often start out as "true believers" who are seduced and sometimes victimized by a bad idea. The images coming out of Qana are a gift to the terrorists who aim to spread the false idea that the West is deliberately aiming to destroy the Islamic world, deliberately striving to harm and humiliate Muslims.
The only way to understand how this phenomenon works is to hang out with Muslim youths and talk to them. I have done quite a bit of that in various parts of the world in Western cities, in Palestinian slums, and in Pakistani madrasas. And what I've learned is this: Jihad has become a global fad, rather like gangsta rap. It is a fad that feeds on images of dead children.
Most of the youth attracted to the jihadi idea would never become terrorists, just as few of the youths who listen to gangsta rap would commit the kinds of lurid crimes the lyrics would seem to promote. But among many Muslim youths, especially in Europe, jihad is a cool way of expressing dissatisfaction with a power elite whether that elite is real or imagined; whether power is held by totalitarian monarchs or by liberal parliamentarians. And we should not assume jihad is a Middle Eastern or European problem. The idea is spreading here in America as well.
Jihad has become a millenarian movement with mass appeal, similar, in many ways, to earlier global movements such as the anarchists of the 19th century or even the peace movement of the 1960s and '70s. But today's radical youth are expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo by making war, not love. They are seduced by Thanatos rather than Eros. Newly-wed pro-jihadi youths spend their wedding nights watching today's ghoulish pornography: the beheadings of foreigners held hostage in Iraq. Children film themselves reenacting these beheadings, seduced by a familiar drama of the good guys killing the bad guys in order to save the world.
There is an appeal to an identity of victimhood: If I am a victim of someone else's bad actions, I have an excuse for not meeting expectations - my own or others'. There is an appeal to righteous indignation. There is an appeal to avenging wrongs visited on the weak by the strong. The narrative will be more seductive if moral questions seem to have easy answers, if good and evil can be easily distinguished, if perpetrators and victims stand out in stark relief, and if they never trade places, as they often do in the real world.
And the West sometimes plays right into the hands of terrorist ideologues, whose success depends not only on the appeal of the narrative they weave, but also their ability to illustrate it with facts, or at least pictures that appear to be facts. Iraq, alas, is producing many of the pictures the terrorists need. Qana is an added boon.
To win this war, Americans need to understand that we are fighting an idea, not a state. Military action minimally visible and carefully planned and implemented may be necessary to win today's battles. But the tools required in the long run to win the war are neither bombs nor torture chambers. They are ideas and stories that counter the terrorist narrative - and draw potential recruits away from the lure of jihad.
Jessica Stern, a lecturer on terrorism at Harvard University, is author of "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill." This article first appeared in The Boston Globe
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)