Islam and 'extremism'

Mir Adnan Aziz

The Ottomans raised Islam to the height of its power but it's decline and eventual termination badly shook the Muslim world. By the mid-1700s, the Ottoman Empire had acquired a distinct European taint that compromised the religious authority of the Emperors. It was apparent in the late 1700s that there was no longer an Islamic authority that, even in principle, could mobilize the faithful to support a war against any aggressor. In the end it was far removed even from the nominal role as the leader of Islam. This by virtue of it's extensive adoption of European modes against those from the core of Islam.

Today we are paralyzed by our own internal divisions and do not have a vision to move beyond them. These divisions prevent us from mediating between the religious and political extremes of our world. Our social foot-print being so small, we cannot work towards the constructive increase of justice, peace and wisdom through interfaith harmony of communities. We seem to be a register of the world's religious and moral conflicts, rather than a constructive example.

Our crisis is a tragic one. Like a classical tragedy, our once applauded 'strength and virtue', through ironic reversal, has become our 'fatal flaw'. Our tolerance of differences has become diffusive rather than inclusive and prevents us from making the judgments that justice, peace and mercy demand. We are now deemed as 'failures' in our 'given' and contemporary tasks.As a part of our individual journeys in faith, we need to become reacquainted with the history of our traditions and wisdom of our great religion. In doing so, we will train our ears to hear the past, present, and future of life in all its fullness and expressions. We need to find a way to embody them that is not self-undermining. The reason should not simply be self-preservation but societal peace and harmony of our own making.

Author Karen Armstrong defines fundamentalist movements as "embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis" - namely the fear that modernity will erode or even eradicate their faith and morality. That concern is shared by what we call a 'Fundamentalist'. The media to refer to extremists who happen to be Muslim has extensively misused the term 'Fundamentalist'. Like every other religion, Islam has it's own fundamentals. Following the spirit of these tenets makes one a better human being not the percieved vampire of today.

Most modern day 'fundamentalist' Muslims are seen as 'extremists', representing an 'extremely radical' wing of Islam. This is thought to compose of people who believe that an Islamic state must be imposed on the people, using violent action if necessary. This movement, has been compounded by unrepresentative governance in the Muslim world aided and abetted by the West. It also has found impetus by the blatant use of force in the post September 11 years. It is fueled by religious, social and economic stressors in most of the Muslim world: millions of refugees, extreme wealth for a minority, extreme poverty for the vast majority and poor human rights records.

To the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has lasted over five decades, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir has helped create an inferno. It is fueling much of the seething anger, distrust and feelings of victimization. Another is the presence of American troops in Saudi-Arabia who Muslims see as a desecration of the holy land, home to two most sacred places in Islam - Mecca and Medina.

What is the common denominator between the revival of historical grudges, armed conflict, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the alarming increase in the number of racial assaults world-wide? Is there any link between the violence that targets individuals and communities in one country and discrimination against some races, colors and religions in another?

The only immediately available answer is intolerance and the lack of respect for diversity. It causes economic injustice, political double standards and social oppression. It also is on the increase in the world of today and raises many moral, political and economic questions. Lack of mutual respect and intolerance are a major threat to peace and security.

Intolerance ignited most wars, fueled religious persecutions and violent ideological confrontations. We need to ask ourselves if intolerance is inherent in human nature. How can communities and states deal with intolerance without infringing on individual freedoms and foster individual codes of conduct, without harsh laws and without policing people's behavior? Most important is to find a solution to achieve peace and unity in diversity.

The respect for diversity comes when we recognize four important principles: the dignity of human beings; basic equality of all human beings; universal human rights and fundamental freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Islam recognizes all these principles. It also teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression and violation of the rights of other human beings. Islam absolutely forbids genocide.

Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear. The approach taken by many world leaders today is shortsighted. They promulgate policies and strategies as a knee-jerk hackneyed reaction that erode rule of law and human rights. This increases inequalities, racism and xenophobia hence dividing and damaging communities. It also sows the seeds of violence and more conflict.

History shows that it is not through fear but through hope and optimism that progress is achieved. Freedom of expression is fundamental to the right to dissent. Where there is no dissent, the right to free speech is endangered. Where there is no dissent, democracy is stifled. Where there is no dissent, tyranny raises its head. It is in the sphere of terrorism and counter-terrorism that fear's most harmful manifestations flourish. Whether in Islamabad, Mumbai or Manhattan, people have the right to be secure and governments have the duty to provide that security.

However extremely heavy handed, ill-conceived strategies have done little to reduce the threat of violence. It has also failed miserably to ensure justice for the victims and done much to damage human rights and the rule of law and foster even greater insecurity. When global values of human rights are swept aside with impunity, parochial interests raise their head. These are often driven by sectarian, ethnic and religious groups using violence to attain those interests. Their practices are often contrary to human rights but are gaining support with ordinary people in a number of countries. This is because they are seen to address the injustice that governments and the international community tend to ignore.

Meanwhile governments are failing to provide the leadership to bring these groups to account. They instead appear to be feeding the very factors that foster them.In Afghanistan, the international community have squandered the opportunity to build an effective, functioning state. Rampant insecurity, corrupt and ineffective government institutions, combined with high unemployment and poverty have sapped public confidence.

Thousands of civilian deaths resulting from US-led military operations have fuelled hatred, vengeance and resentment. The Taliban have capitalized on the political, economic and security vacuum to gain control over large parts of the south and east of the country.

A misguided military adventure in Iraq has taken a heavy toll on human rights and humanitarian law, leaving the population embittered, armed groups empowered and the world a much less secure place. The insurgency has morphed into, what may be termed, a genocide. The government has shown little commitment to protect the human rights of all Iraqis. The Iraqi police forces, heavily infiltrated by sectarian militia, are feeding violations rather than restraining them.

A properly functioning government and system of rule of law at the national level is the ultimate safeguard for peace. Such a system of law, if it is to be truly just, must be all embracing. The majority of poor people today live outside the protection of the law. Including them in a meaningful way requires giving effect to economic and social rights in public policy and programmes.

What is misleading about the 'terrorist' is a fallacious assumption that he is either born born or made that way. The vast majority exist somewhere in the middle range. They are not born to extremism, but the right combination of events can lead them into that spiral of violence. Some are more susceptible, others less but for most people, the environment matters. So the appropriate question is not if we are or not creating terrorists, but rather, how are our actions enabling 'terrorism' and extremism. Understanding and resolving root causes is the solution we should strive for.

By stifling authentically popular mainstream parties and their leaders, military or autocratic regimes often magnify the political influence of religious 'extremists'. All wars are fought over resources. Such greed is undeniable. Whole nations covet what they do not have. The driving force which thrust Japan and Germany into war against their neighbors in the 1930s was this very covetousness.

When religion or ideology turns 'extremist', the people's sinful nature is magnified not suppressed. Populations, not just individuals become prone to delusions of grandeur at the cost of total abdication of self-reform. Whatever made the Romans set off toward empire, the time came when empire was its own justification. Conquest 'for the glory of Rome' was reason enough.

Ideologies are always self-justifying. No religion is immune to the dangers of ideological absolutism. An Islamic Caliphate today may be an anathema for the West but by the time the Roman Empire ended, the Church was a heavy political player in its own right. It claimed that kings and emperors ruled by it's sanction, which they did.

Religious and ideological conflicts exist not on the earth, but in the mind. What is at stake may not be material but the 'warring' parties fundamental understanding of reality and their place in it. Although mundane concerns are never entirely absent, they really form and cause the opportunity for conflict. The cause of absolutism allows neither competitors nor compromise.

Nevertheless Islam, in the true spirit, is unequivocal in providing and assuring, a peaceful society. It also teaches that consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accept that others adhere to theirs.

It also means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It translates into one's views not to be imposed on others. While Islam does not consider all viewpoints correct or of equal value, it absolutely prohibits coercion in religion.

Unity is the need of human beings not the total negation of diversity. Unity in diversity means to explore and to enhance common values that emphasize inter-dependence, equality, justice, human rights, and the sanctity of each individual's dignity.

The goal should be to further a unified vision and recognition of the principle of unity and diversity and of the fact that we all are fellow citizens of an emerging global village.

(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)