The Daily Clarity

Islam – faith and politics entwined

Sometimes you need to look deeper than a headline or catch phrase to gain an understanding of a world issue. Such is the case in the West’s supposed war against ‘Radical Islam.’ The Whitehouse and the Washington press corps have an ability to summarize and popularize a concept through the use of a linguistic shortcut, also known as a catchy turn of phrase. There are many examples, but a few will suffice to demonstrate this skill – war on terror, radical Islam, fight them over there, not over here, drill baby drill and so on. These phrases catch on with many readers, who may not be expert in the field, and rapidly become common parlance. Phrases such as these become the language of the water cooler and dinner table debate. The danger in this is that a  ‘communal fallacy’ is developed by repetition of a mantra that was never intended to delineate the nuances of an issue, but rather to neatly encapsulate it for easier consumption. This is particularly true in relation to the concept of the war the West wages, in its opinion, with the forces of ‘Radical Islam.’

What does such a phrase mean? Radical is defined by Miriam-Webster as: “of or relating to the origin: fundamental: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional: extreme: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.” Radical is a concept that is applied commonly to a political philosophy, not a religion. Is it non-contextual in relation to religious interpretation predicated on a textual representation of a belief set. For examples, what would a radical Buddhist, Christian or Jew look like? However a radical Democrat or Republican is much more easily imagined and characterized. It is concept that does not stand up to scrutiny in a religious framework – fundamentalist makes sense, but a radical not quite as easily. We would argue that the concept of ‘radical‘ Islam is non-sensical – a short hand description that does no justice to the issue, nor shed light on any possible path to resolution. If then one moves onto to the definition of Islam from the same source:”the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet: the civilization erected upon Islamic faith: the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion.” If a follower of Islam has the belief set as so defined, how can it be a radical belief set? ‘Radical Islam’ is a short hand way of defining what is in essence a political movement, not a religious one. Islam is being corrupted and used for political intent. This is not, and never was, a religious war, and to frame it in that manner, is erroneous.

The number of militants who are Muslim is a very small percentage. However, using the infrastructure and language of Islam has become a recruiting mechanism. Many moderate Muslims are scared of the extremists in their midst. If they do not agree with the extreme political ideology of an Al Qaeda or neo-Taliban member, as an example, they are accused of ‘not being a good Muslim.’ The instruments of Islam – mosques and maddrassas – have become the vehicles for identifying, indoctrinating and recruiting the disaffected using the auspices of their faith, not the religious tenets of Islam. There is little doubt, by informed observers, that the current actions and policies of the West have accelerated the rate that the disenfranchised and disillusioned are finding their way to the political groups that cloak their agenda with Islam. Christiane Amanpour, of Iranian descent and CNN Chief International Correspondent, in her speech at the inaugural Daniel Pearl address a few year back, said that immediately post 9/11 the sympathy and support for the US in reaction to the attacks was very strong in the region. This political potential was subsequently squandered by the persecution of the Iraq War. It has been further broken by the US unfailing support for Israel, and even to today in refusing to intercede in the Israel-Gaza violence. Why is it important that we are careful to frame the discussion within the tenets of a political rather than religious rationale? An incorrect assumption can often lead to erroneous policy decisions, corrupt the dialog, and inflame the participants.

Why is this so critical to fully comprehend? There is an interview in Israel’s’ Jerusalem Post newspaper that so aptly demonstrates the point. Jerusalem Post columnist, Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, interviews US author, Roberta Green Ahmanson, about her new book Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion. This upcoming work shows, in our view, the common misconceptions about current issues, and could draw many to fallacious conclusions. Some of Ahmanson’s comments are offensive, lack context, and in some instances, are just plain incorrect. Ahmanson is quoted as saying, “…an organization like Hamas latches onto certain things that are deep within the history and teachings of Islam, and it uses them in the modern world – by shelling Israel, for example, – because it believes that this land once was Muslim land, and it’s its duty to take it back. Within the Muslim community, this is going to be part of the issue forever, because its goal, of course, is to have the entire world living under Islam.”At best this is a contentious statement made for publicity purposes, but is at least, inflammatory at a time and in an environment where measured and sound dialog should be a watchword. Ahmanson also makes no reference to the territorial claims of Israeli predicated on religious writings, and doesn’t balance her comment with any reference to Christian agendas in the region either. Ahmanson’s statements often verge on the edge of racism. She says, “…which brings us to the original point that this conflict is religious first. It is about reestablishing Islamic control. It’s pretty much that simple – and that scary. “ In answering a question that relates to the issue that all religions preach respect for others and those of different faiths, she says, “…in Islamic history, I think you can find Muslims who have indeed taught that. You can also find those who have not. That’s the difference between Islam and other religions – that you can find both strands in it.” This, apparently, is the view of this openly Christian writer, who claims there are no such strains or historical evidence of such a mindset in Christianity, and goes a long way to explain the anger and disappointment that many in the Muslim world feel towards the way their religion is misrepresented and discussed in the West.

The publishers advance promotional words on Ahmanson’s book, Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion, is also telling. It positions Ahmanson’s work as “… of particular interest to people of faith, the book offers all readers an interesting and balanced analysis of the news media’s uneasy relationship with religion and religious issues.” One could be lead to ask the question, readers of which particular faith(s)? Ahmanson’s words are crass, insensitive and ill-chosen. Her arrogance towards Islam, and her predilection to defend Judeo-Christian doctrine at the cost of inflaming issues in the region at this time, indicates bad judgment, an absence of sensitivity and an intellectual dishonesty to sell her book, and narrow world view, at any price. What writers of Ahmanson’s ilk fail to realize is that the war that is being fought is within Islam. Many that call for Fatwas or Jihads are not authorized to do so. They are neither cleric or scholar. They are attempting to use elements of the Sharia, religious obedience and devotion to achieve political ends, not religious ones. There is a war being fought, and it is one the West can help win, but it will be by supporting the followers of Islam, not adding fuel to the fire for those that would corrupt it.