Temptation is seductive, and nothing is as tempting as postulating simplifications in a complicated and confusing world. In the midst of two major wars that are becoming increasingly difficult to justify, it is enticing to define just two known enemies: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Thankfully, as intellectuals, politicians and journalists, our understanding of war and global politics has become a bit more nuanced than an us versus them strategy.That is why the U.S. is not just fighting with missiles, but also trying to “win heart and minds” of those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why the White House is working with moderate Taliban to fight radicals in the region.
The world is complicated.So why, when it comes to religion, is our discussion so simple? The argument that the Muslim fanatics who carried out the 9/11 attacks and who make up Al Qaeda and Taliban members do not represent Islam has been beaten to the ground. It is a dead horse. And yet I wonder if it has to be reiterated because the solutions our intellectuals pose do not recognize the basic core of this argument: Islam is not a single, solid entity. In his New York Times column last week, Thomas Friedman argued that what Islam needs is a civil war, similar to what the U.S. underwent and one that eventually led to the emancipation of slaves. He was concerned with jihadists marketing their message and recruiting new members via online mediums (Facebook and Youtube). In order to combat these “bad forces,” Friedman argued, moderate Muslims need to “look inward,” verbally and ideologically rise against these jihadists and once again reclaim a peaceful Islam.Bravo. Except that Friedman has forgotten that Islam has been undergoing a literal and ideological civil war since Prophet Muhammad’s time. In the beginning, the main source of conflict was leadership after the Prophet’s death, from which the Sunni and Shia sects were created, each forming their own practices, belief systems and ways to fuse religion and politics. Later, sects formed under these main ones, and as the world’s understanding of citizen, state, and religion transformed, tensions arose among moderates, liberals, conservatives and orthodox, as they did in every religion.
The reason I need to provide a history lesson here is to iterate the repercussions of all these differences. They have evolved according to cultural, geographical and political settings. That is why, although Muslims may feel spiritually tied to fellow Muslims around the world, their political activism is defined by the socio-political context in which they live. That is why countless leaders have failed to unite Muslim states – or even Arab ones – and why the argument of “the Shia crescent” in the greater Middle East is filled with holes. That is also why, although they are loud, Muslim extremists will not “win” and define what Islam is. This religion, like Christianity and Judaism, is personal and forever transforming.
Friedman is correct, however, in asserting that Muslims need to become more active, but they need to be so within their countries and societies. For our sake, our society would do well to acknowledge those moderate voices that have been fighting against an extremist reading of their religion.
A clinical professor of psychiatry has been circulating an e-mail claiming that the Muslim fanatics are ruling and the supposed “peace-loving Muslims are irrelevant” in society’s discussion of war. It is comical, in one sense, but frightening to realize our dialogue has been ignoring these moderate Muslim fighters, as if by default, Muslims are remaining silent.
But they are not. They have been speaking out, from mosques to Muslim Student Associations, from newspapers to blogs. I have seen journalists in Egypt question the political conservatism in their country. I have read articles by young writers lamenting the loss of their nation to extremist forces, but believing that there is still a chance to fight back. I know of friends – women - who are pursuing studies in Islamic law to transform what they believe to be an oppressive system.
As peaceful as Islam claims to be, it is not without a constant struggle. Perhaps what our intellectuals should really be arguing is how to improve journalism, allow Internet access and increase literacy levels in countries in order for this debate to grow louder.
I had thought the biggest backlash against Muslims would last during those first few months after 9/11 took place. But eight years later, it is Islam itself that is getting the brunt of this backlash. Let us not fall into the temptation of simplification. Eight years and two wars later, let us say our society has grown wiser.
