Ever since The Islamic State Of Iraq and Levant (ISIS)have taken the most violent ideology of our time onto a whole new level, I’ve been closely watching how the debate on Islamic radicalism is shaping up, both in liberal western societies and in Muslim countries.
The phenomenon of Islamists seeking and recently grabbing power is forcing policy makers to radically rethink their approach. The heightened threat from the extremists has already prompted further airport security measures in Europe and the USA. Politicians have finally started talking in earnest about the dangers of radicalisation among their young Muslim populations. As the boundaries in the Middle East began to unravel, so, too, did old camps. Decades -long enmities were pushed aside in order to deal with the growing ambitions of the militant jihadists.
Yet, the media and civil society in general are still finding it difficult to discuss the issue of radical Islamism openly and honestly.
With few exceptions that call a spade a spade, the majority of analysis and comment centre around the “harmful past actions of the west” being the root cause of the violence we are experiencing right now.
Of course, the commentators are right to remind us of the errors of the past policies of their governments. Almost every radical Islamist group has had one or more states funding and supporting it. The Taleban, Al-Qaida , al-Shabab , Boko Haram and ISIS all had help from countries that are finding themselves at the receiving end of their terror now. Tactical support provided by various governments to Islamists forces in order to undermine their foes definitely needs to be questioned.
However, putting the responsibility at the door of the Americans or the British, looking for conspiracies that do not exist and making up excuses for the spiraling violence are not only naïve but seriously misguided.
The examples of savagery and viciousness, rape and torment, vitriolic hatred of other believers and disbelievers can still be explained by some as the “inevitable result of the victimization of Muslims, Islamophobia- and the criminalization of Muslim opinion” .
The apologists argue that ISIS represents no more of the fundamental fault lines that exist in the Muslim world than the Lords Army might represent that of Christianity.
Equally deplorable their record may be, but comparing the nature and impact of militant Islamism on a global stage with that of a Ugandan-based rebel movement is ludicrous. In his recent column, for the Times, David Aaronovitch argues:
Radical Islamists have a well-thought out and meticulously executed project. They use modern technology and media cleverly. They can get hold of deadly weaponry and huge amounts of money. More importantly, they can recruit fighters and sympathizers from every corner of the world.
Their actions have long-lasting security implications for everyone but serious theological implications concerning mainly ordinary, pious Muslims, too. It is Muslims that need to speak out more vocally on those issues. Dismissing gratuitous violence and declarations of power and authority by the militants as “delusional” acts of an unrepresentative few” can no longer be presented as an argument to the rest of the world.
There is more to radical and political Islamism debate than condemning murder and pillage. Violence against women during conflicts, repression of women at all other times; denying education to girls, justification of child abuse through early and forced marriages, cultural vandalism and mistreatment of minorities, tolerance of human rights abuses and corruption also need to be addressed by the peaceful majority of Muslims worldwide.
This post is also available in: Turkish
ilya topper says
Although it is completely right to underline the need of Muslims to raise up against the hatred spread under the name of islam, I think your analysis makes a serious mistake – by omission. Surely that was not your intention, but you fail to stress that this all-Muslim embracing violence is not more than a phenomenon of the last decades, i.e. of a certain geopolitical evolution which, for a array of reasons, has turned “islam” into a political weapon. I think underlining this is extremely important, and David Aaronovitch does. But without this disclaimer, it would be easy to conclude that in fact, “islam is the problem” – as thousands of op-ed writers argue all over Europe – and it is “inherently more violent” a religion than christianity or judaism which is, of course, crap. I don’t think there is any cruelty committed by “islamists” in the last 20 years that has not been committed by non-islamists in the previous 50 years.
That does not invalidate the fact that nowadays, all this cruelties are concentrated around “islamic” movements and that Muslims are doing far too little to denounce it. Still, I think it is a mistake to focus on the fact that they are “Muslims”. We should focus more on the fact who has paid and is still paying for widespread “Muslim” propaganda that is spreading a worldview which only 20 years ago was next to unknown in the Muslim world. In 1994, the year I started working as a journalist, there were no caliph, no Boko Haram, no Taliban, no executions for blasphemy were known, suicide bombers were buddhists and the only group who was said to be chopping off fingers was Sendero Luminoso in Peru.
World has changed a lot in 20 years, and instead of catching up and taking a position, too many Muslims just keep silent. That is very important to denounce. But we should take care not to give grounds to the view “Islam is the problem”, which is as much nonsens as “Islam is the solution”.