Lest we forget ...

Regular readers will recall that I advocate, overall, a nuanced approach to Islam. On the one hand I see in it a lot of similarities to Christianity, not so much at the level of belief as in terms of the way people in it react and behave religiously in the face of the other. In fact I think that this similarities are observed among most groups of people who have strong convictions and feel themselves to be under pressure from other groups in society. On the other hand I see differences too; it does seem to me that Islam as it has so far developed does seem to have fundamental aspects of belief that are easier to co-opt into the service of violent rhetoric than Christian beliefs or, say, Buddhism. I balance that with the knowledge that many Muslims find such co-option abhorrant. And yet many of them are also not aware of the resources for xenocidal and alteroppressive* rhetoric that their traditions contain; mainly because they are not encouraged to engage with them, as far as I can tell.

In Islam there is a potent mix of factors which seems to make harsh responses more likely than with other faith groups. The mix is of the frailty of Muslim's (understandable) aggregated insecurity, a view of the sacredness of certain documents and ideas in whatever form they are reproduced and foundational documents that can relatively easily be invoked to justify violence especially when you are dealing with populations who are systemically excluded, in effect, from learning how to handle those documents in a more sophisticated way**.

The article referenced in the header to this post is very interesting in bringing some of this to notice in response to the Newsweek report. What it is saying is that it is all very well to hindsightedly pour scorn on Newsweek for their bad reporting and the eefects it has had ... "Over and over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative pundits in particular piled on. 'Newsweek lied, people died' was the headline on Michelle Malkin's popular Web site. At NationalReview.com, Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: 'What planet do these Newsweek people live on? Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article.'". And of course we should be aware of the sensitivities of others. And I understand why "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ... announced at a Senate hearing that she had a message for "Muslims in America and throughout the world." And what was that message? "disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States." But I do have to ask along with the article writer, why there was not some element of reminding us "that decent people do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's dysfunctional political culture?"

It is right not to intentially disrespect what others hold sacred, however, it is right also to challenge extreme reactions, especially when not to do so may signal that such behaviour will be tolerated. Many muslims would say that such reactions while understandable are not to be encouraged. How like Sinn Fein in relation to IRA 'actions' over the last 30 years that sounds. If it is true that such violence is not the real Islam, please let Muslim leaders and opinion formers say so, and if they are saying so, please someone, let us hear.

To be fair recently we have had a further declaration in addition to the Spanish Muslim leaders fatwa against terrorism: "More than 50 senior Pakistani Muslim clerics have publicly declared that suicide bombings and attacks on ordinary citizens and places of worship are un-Islamic," now if we can have similarly robust declarations about rioting in the name of Islam and upholding the right of freedom of conscience in religious matters, we have a very firm basis for seeing the roots of Islamist approaches being denied the oxygen of unfatwa'd space in which they can claim that their actions and ideas are truly Islamic because it's in the Qur'an and the Sunna. I know that this is what many Muslims actually think; it just needs to go public and be official. Until then the jihadists can claim a plausibility for their ideology and actions.

Notes
*'other oppresive'; ie oppressive of people who are different. Pr. 'al tair oh press iv'. Mainly I'm referring to the laws about Dhimmis, that is how tolerated non-muslims are to be treated in an Islamic society. Of course those who don't qualify for the status of dhimmi are even worse of under shariya. While there can be 'enlightened' approaches to dhimmitude, there can be and historically often has been a lot of oppressive use of them. I by no means say this to assert moral superiority in historical terms since I think that Islamic social law has been profoundly influenced by Christendom and the treatment of Jews and Muslims in Christendom was no less harsh than Islamic treatment of dhimmis and others.
** Because their foundational documents are to be read in classical Arabic which is beyond most people's time or ability to learn sufficiently well, and in any case the cultural background in many cases militates against it. Scholarship is restricted and certain kinds of questions cannot be asked or issues raised except outside of an Islamic community for fear of the consequences for life, limb and property. Again, I'm aware of times and places where that has been true in Christian circles, so I'm not unaware of pointing a finger while three point back at us.
Islam :: Muslims bring disrespect upon themselves:
[:Islam:]