[nukkad] Islamophobia and the intellectual vacuum inside Islam

["Net Geek" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  For daily news and info, join the Mumbai Grapevine mailing list
          http://www.mumbai-central.com/grapevine/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamophobia and the intellectual vacuum inside Islam

There is no avoiding the word - Islamophobia. Evidence now indicates that 
almost all of the 19 hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks on 
September 11 in New York and Washington were Arabs and Muslims. The 
Americans and the rest of the world have to make sense of it. Are these 19 
just criminals, who could be found in any society and in any ethnic and 
religious group? Or, are they peculiar to Arab and Muslim societies?

The Western media, despite its open society credentials and ostensible 
liberalism, are unable to get away from the question. Conservatives among 
them, especially die-hard reactionary British newspaper Daily Telegraph's 
columnists, have been talking of "extirpating" the people who had committed 
the atrocity, and calling for the "extirpation" of the states which 
harboured them.

We thought that even the most degraded criminals - and Timothy McVeigh was 
one of them - had to be given a fair judicial hearing before he is sent to 
death. He was not "extirpated" nor were there calls to "extirpate" him. So 
there is this deeply ingrained cultural prejudice which clouds their 
judgment in moments of crisis.

Though better sense is sure to prevail, the majority of people in the West 
and in the rest of the non-Muslim world will continue to entertain 
misgivings about the Arabs and Muslims. This is partly due to ignorance, and 
partly due to benign bigotry.

It is easy for liberals from the Third World to denounce Western prejudice 
and arrogance. But there is a need to look at the context of that arrogance. 
Let us remember that Muslims are in the news most of the time for wrong 
reasons. It was during the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's "Satanic 
Verses" that the modern Muslim communities, especially in the West were 
exposed to public scrutiny.The Muslims had every right to protest against 
that book. But what shocked the people was the virulence and irrational 
frenzy of the protest. Not one of them had refuted the book for its false 
assumptions. So, many people in Britain at least carry memories of Bradford 
Muslim clerics who raged and ranted against the book without reading it.

The fact is that the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) did not ban the 
book. Most governments of Muslim states had banned it, but none of them 
incited people against the author the way some of the Muslim clerics did. It 
is ironical that the clerics should have swayed the community's sentiments 
because there is no room for clerics in Islam. It is, perhaps, the only 
religion without an anointed priestly class. Yet, the image that went out to 
the whole world during the Rushdie episode was that of a tribal community 
incited by bloodthirsty clerics.

And there were not many sane voices from among the Muslims putting forward a 
rational argument against Rushdie's book. It has shown that the Islamic 
community did not have any intelligent interlocutors, who can refute 
detractors. It was a major failing. It seemed that the Muslims did not how 
to argue against critics.

Though some ultra-liberals from among the Muslims did step out to talk, they 
were the people who did not enjoy the confidence of the community. They did 
try to explain the rational aspects of Islam to the outsiders, but they did 
not have the moral and intellectual authority to explain these things to 
members of their own community. The liberal establishment in the West and 
elsewhere was lulled into believing that there was a bridgehead to the 
community. But there was none.

The loss was not that of the liberal establishment as it was that of the 
Muslims themselves. They needed someone to clarify things to them, to 
mediate between the changing conditions and the verities of their faith.

It is the Rushdie episode which made the cleric the chief spokesman of the 
Muslim community in Britain and in the West. And it is also the episode 
which hardened the attitudes of the clerics. They did not any more feel the 
need to connect the problems of the modern world with the possible ways in 
which religion could help people to cope with them. The Islamic "ministry" 
in the religious sense of the term had failed. It was a calling which was 
not confined to the cleric. It was something which the Muslim intellectual 
had to take up, but did not, and, due to political compulsions, could not.

The last two decades has witnessed a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, which 
has coincided with the Khomeini revolution in Iran and the emergence of the 
mujaideen or the holy warriors in Afghanistan. It seemed, as a result, that 
the two pillars of contemporary Islam are the mujhaideen and the khomeinis.

It is, of course, quite interesting and crucial to note that the two - the 
sunni jehadis and the shia khomeinis do not see eye to eye, and that their 
visions of revolutionary Islam are politically incompatible. The Muslim 
world was apprehensive of both, but it did not do much to debate openly the 
implications of these developments. Ordinary Muslims were left to make 
difficult choices. Though today, an ordinary Muslim does not agree with the 
politics of either the jehadi or the khomeini, he does not have the 
arguments to counter them.

So, what contributes to Islamophobia is the absence of inner dialogue among 
the Muslims, which is vibrant and divergent. There is a feeling in the 
outside world, and it is a feeling which is encouraged by the semi-literate 
Western media, that Muslims do not differ with each other on religious 
issues, and that they are all silent supporters of the mujahideen and the 
khomeinis.

It is not enough to rage against Western imperialism - cultural and 
political. There is a need for the Muslims to set their house in order, so 
that they can face the world with greater poise. It is not enough to tell 
the non-Muslims that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, which it is. 
The need is to tell these things to ordinary Muslim youth, so that they are 
not misled by the fanatic clerics.

It is easier for the Muslim liberal to inveigh against the prejudiced 
outsider. The more challenging task is to get the dialogue going inside the 
community. The unity of the Muslim community will not be weakened by debate 
and dissent.

The debate can happen only if there is democracy in many of the Islamic 
states. Democracy is not an alien concept. The polity that Prophet Mohammed 
had set up in Medina was based on democratic principles. The message of 
getting back to Islamic roots entails greater democracy in Muslim societies. 
There is no place for tyranny, for intolerance and violence in Islam. 
Unfortunately, it is the Muslims who need to be told about this

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/sept/15/ca091501islam.htm




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html