The fight against the double whammy facing Muslims
Saddam's execution was by far one of the most shocking political events of my lifetime. He was a man that had without doubt exceeded the bounds of even the cruellest imagination, and had carried out unspeakable and revolting acts against an entire nation for decades. However, when he was about to meet justice, the moral ground which his victims occupied, for a split-second was shaky. Just a moment of wavering - of heat of the moment chants, and unsavoury mobile phone videos - detracted from the moral authority they held.
This is a people who have suffered immeasurably and what processes and values they upheld were to their credit. Their emotions and reactions were completely understandable. But the global community had hoped for more - had hoped to see a moral choice made by the Iraqi people to carry out justice with the ultimate dignity and etiquette. We wanted to see an exercise in moral intelligence in spite of the emotional pull to behave otherwise. We felt that despite their unimaginable suffering and position, they could have risen above the simplistic emotional and political pull. We willed them to show a higher level of discernment.
All human beings, including Muslims, even at the height of emotion and pressure are required to show courage that underpins moral intelligence in making the right choices. A Muslim is duty bound to uphold the right course of action no matter what voices whisper on either side, no matter who the voices are from or what they say, or of the emotions welling up inside.
Showing this discernment, exercising this moral intelligence is no easy matter. And it becomes ever more difficult with lines being drawn in black and white all around us. Bush's famous "you are either with us or with the terrorists" laid down the gauntlet. His opponents were equally stark. They created a face-off between them with no space in between. It is not a referee that is needed to prise these two playground bullies apart, but the wisdom of moral intelligence to create an alternative, to voice that alternative and to stand up and push it through.
It takes insight and courage to be able to create a voice that asks questions, that challenges and that uses moral judgement to discern what the truth is, what is the right course of action.
The rhetoric of the War or Terror grows ever more insidious. Terrorists and extremists are held up as representatives of the wider Muslim community. Dispatches on Channel 4 ran a programme entitled "Undercover Mosque". The theme was "a reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate…" but which then went onto 'expose' the extreme views of the Saudi backed, trained or inspired speakers. (How do you 'expose' something that has been prevalent for years and years and public domain knowledge?) By creating a context that these people claim to be moderates but in fact hold abhorrent and hate-filled opinions, all Muslims that claim to be moderate, or in fact any Muslims at all, immediately become suspect.
How should Muslims respond? The extreme views of those particular individuals shown on the programme – and most Muslims come across these views every day and disagree vehemently with them – these extreme views are clearly outside the parameters of Islam, contradicting it both in letter and in spirit. These are views that need to be roundly and forcefully rejected. But how to do this without supporting the devious subtext of the programme which tries to paint all Muslims with the same brush?
This is the dilemma that faces Muslims when responding to the constant onslaught from the media and from politics. The Muslim community needs to make changes and be critical of itself. But the extreme Muslim views have painted this into a black and white choice - support Muslims and be with the Muslim cause, or be against it. To criticise, to challenge is to find yourself (or so they have Muslims believe) attacking your own values. And when Muslims turn to look at Bush, Blair and their allies and counterparts, they only re-inforce the same message: you are with us or against us. If Muslims disagree with this view, they are forced into the extremist camp. The face-off is stark, and the trap is hard to navigate out of. Muslims are trapped in a double whammy, into the monochrome of black and white choice, and of a voice that has been usurped by people who leave no room in between for the shades of grey that constitute humanity.
The debate over the veil was the same. The irony of the whole debate was that most Muslims actually disagree with the veil. But by declaring war on the veil, there was an obvious subtext of a war on Muslims. Stuck in this double whammy of the black and white of the debate from both sides, Muslims were challenged to crystallise an alternative choice. They felt their hand was forced.
We needed to have the courage, and space to step back and use our moral intelligence to assess - in both cases - what was inherently right and what was inherently wrong. In the veil debate Jack Straw took away this space. But equally Muslims need to be firmer in resolve and discernment and not be goaded into making judgements and decisions by the parameters in which extremists from all sides have defined the world. Those who draw these lines include the Bush's and Blairs of this world, as well as the media, politicians and those Muslims who hold shocking and abhorrent views.
We have to stop letting people tell us what we are or what we are not, or what we should or should not do. Islam recognises that most of the space that human beings inhabit is to a backdrop of shades of grey. Muslims need to recognise that the limits that Islam lays out are only at the extreme edges, when all other social constructs break down. The basis for interaction amongst human beings is not the letter of the law, but the spirit of humanity - tolerance, respect, interaction, duty of care, exercise of justice, forgiveness and compassion. Interaction and determinations are based on these values rather than by partisan views.
Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammed gives this advice: "Do not look to the person to find the truth, find the truth first and then look to see who follows it." Exercising our judgement based on the spirit of Islam, the true spirit of Islam, not the Islam that the media has caricatured, needs to be done by assessing where truth lies. Locating the truth and then voicing it are the most important things.
We should not immediately recoil and reject the words from one side without careful analysis: we should not run to defend those who claim to hold the truth without exercising discernment. We must reclaim for ourselves the right to discern the truth and then identify who that is.
It may be that no-one is upholding the truth. We must uphold that truth, we must pursue it, we must voice it and champion it, even if it goes against received wisdom or ingrained rhetoric. This is the only way to exit the double whammy and create a long term path to a solution.
Muslims need to get out of the corner they are sadly painted into: where there appears to be a need to defend some untenable and frankly wrong position held by some Muslims, because those attacking have the subtext of denouncing and maligning all Muslims. But this is not a corner: there is a clear way out, but it is by no means easy. By showing dignity, justice, and self criticism alongside humanity, compassion and understanding and fairness, we will free ourselves of this double whammy and allow us to face down these sensationalist, vile and hate-filled attacks which masquerade under the guise of 'revealing' Muslims as 'evil' and 'anti- democracy'.
This does not mean being moderate, weak or watered down. Quite the opposite: it requires courage, voice and moral intelligence. These are the essence of what makes Islam as described in the Qur'an, the 'middle' path or the 'moderate' way. Those who claim that being the voice of the middle path means we are kow-towing are oh-so-wrong, so very wrong.
The middle path is the straight and reasoned path, the choice taken independent of outside pressure and influence. It is the self-made decision based on moral intelligence and self belief. It is not weak, it is strong, brave, courageous - to face up to extreme views on both sides and assert that the intelligent moral choice lies not in the screaming black and white extremes, but in the voice of the human compassion, conscience and reason. In these shades of grey, we can create meaningful voices and dialogue. When we move to the blackened extremes and the light fades, that is where we find ourselves blinded.
This is a people who have suffered immeasurably and what processes and values they upheld were to their credit. Their emotions and reactions were completely understandable. But the global community had hoped for more - had hoped to see a moral choice made by the Iraqi people to carry out justice with the ultimate dignity and etiquette. We wanted to see an exercise in moral intelligence in spite of the emotional pull to behave otherwise. We felt that despite their unimaginable suffering and position, they could have risen above the simplistic emotional and political pull. We willed them to show a higher level of discernment.
All human beings, including Muslims, even at the height of emotion and pressure are required to show courage that underpins moral intelligence in making the right choices. A Muslim is duty bound to uphold the right course of action no matter what voices whisper on either side, no matter who the voices are from or what they say, or of the emotions welling up inside.
Showing this discernment, exercising this moral intelligence is no easy matter. And it becomes ever more difficult with lines being drawn in black and white all around us. Bush's famous "you are either with us or with the terrorists" laid down the gauntlet. His opponents were equally stark. They created a face-off between them with no space in between. It is not a referee that is needed to prise these two playground bullies apart, but the wisdom of moral intelligence to create an alternative, to voice that alternative and to stand up and push it through.
It takes insight and courage to be able to create a voice that asks questions, that challenges and that uses moral judgement to discern what the truth is, what is the right course of action.
The rhetoric of the War or Terror grows ever more insidious. Terrorists and extremists are held up as representatives of the wider Muslim community. Dispatches on Channel 4 ran a programme entitled "Undercover Mosque". The theme was "a reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate…" but which then went onto 'expose' the extreme views of the Saudi backed, trained or inspired speakers. (How do you 'expose' something that has been prevalent for years and years and public domain knowledge?) By creating a context that these people claim to be moderates but in fact hold abhorrent and hate-filled opinions, all Muslims that claim to be moderate, or in fact any Muslims at all, immediately become suspect.
How should Muslims respond? The extreme views of those particular individuals shown on the programme – and most Muslims come across these views every day and disagree vehemently with them – these extreme views are clearly outside the parameters of Islam, contradicting it both in letter and in spirit. These are views that need to be roundly and forcefully rejected. But how to do this without supporting the devious subtext of the programme which tries to paint all Muslims with the same brush?
This is the dilemma that faces Muslims when responding to the constant onslaught from the media and from politics. The Muslim community needs to make changes and be critical of itself. But the extreme Muslim views have painted this into a black and white choice - support Muslims and be with the Muslim cause, or be against it. To criticise, to challenge is to find yourself (or so they have Muslims believe) attacking your own values. And when Muslims turn to look at Bush, Blair and their allies and counterparts, they only re-inforce the same message: you are with us or against us. If Muslims disagree with this view, they are forced into the extremist camp. The face-off is stark, and the trap is hard to navigate out of. Muslims are trapped in a double whammy, into the monochrome of black and white choice, and of a voice that has been usurped by people who leave no room in between for the shades of grey that constitute humanity.
The debate over the veil was the same. The irony of the whole debate was that most Muslims actually disagree with the veil. But by declaring war on the veil, there was an obvious subtext of a war on Muslims. Stuck in this double whammy of the black and white of the debate from both sides, Muslims were challenged to crystallise an alternative choice. They felt their hand was forced.
We needed to have the courage, and space to step back and use our moral intelligence to assess - in both cases - what was inherently right and what was inherently wrong. In the veil debate Jack Straw took away this space. But equally Muslims need to be firmer in resolve and discernment and not be goaded into making judgements and decisions by the parameters in which extremists from all sides have defined the world. Those who draw these lines include the Bush's and Blairs of this world, as well as the media, politicians and those Muslims who hold shocking and abhorrent views.
We have to stop letting people tell us what we are or what we are not, or what we should or should not do. Islam recognises that most of the space that human beings inhabit is to a backdrop of shades of grey. Muslims need to recognise that the limits that Islam lays out are only at the extreme edges, when all other social constructs break down. The basis for interaction amongst human beings is not the letter of the law, but the spirit of humanity - tolerance, respect, interaction, duty of care, exercise of justice, forgiveness and compassion. Interaction and determinations are based on these values rather than by partisan views.
Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammed gives this advice: "Do not look to the person to find the truth, find the truth first and then look to see who follows it." Exercising our judgement based on the spirit of Islam, the true spirit of Islam, not the Islam that the media has caricatured, needs to be done by assessing where truth lies. Locating the truth and then voicing it are the most important things.
We should not immediately recoil and reject the words from one side without careful analysis: we should not run to defend those who claim to hold the truth without exercising discernment. We must reclaim for ourselves the right to discern the truth and then identify who that is.
It may be that no-one is upholding the truth. We must uphold that truth, we must pursue it, we must voice it and champion it, even if it goes against received wisdom or ingrained rhetoric. This is the only way to exit the double whammy and create a long term path to a solution.
Muslims need to get out of the corner they are sadly painted into: where there appears to be a need to defend some untenable and frankly wrong position held by some Muslims, because those attacking have the subtext of denouncing and maligning all Muslims. But this is not a corner: there is a clear way out, but it is by no means easy. By showing dignity, justice, and self criticism alongside humanity, compassion and understanding and fairness, we will free ourselves of this double whammy and allow us to face down these sensationalist, vile and hate-filled attacks which masquerade under the guise of 'revealing' Muslims as 'evil' and 'anti- democracy'.
This does not mean being moderate, weak or watered down. Quite the opposite: it requires courage, voice and moral intelligence. These are the essence of what makes Islam as described in the Qur'an, the 'middle' path or the 'moderate' way. Those who claim that being the voice of the middle path means we are kow-towing are oh-so-wrong, so very wrong.
The middle path is the straight and reasoned path, the choice taken independent of outside pressure and influence. It is the self-made decision based on moral intelligence and self belief. It is not weak, it is strong, brave, courageous - to face up to extreme views on both sides and assert that the intelligent moral choice lies not in the screaming black and white extremes, but in the voice of the human compassion, conscience and reason. In these shades of grey, we can create meaningful voices and dialogue. When we move to the blackened extremes and the light fades, that is where we find ourselves blinded.
Labels: dispatches, Extremism, Islam, Muslim News, Muslims, Saddam Hussein
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 20:15
5 Comments:
I'd like to see Muslims doing more than just verbally condemning the Islamist kooks. Get them out of your Mosques. Get them out of your schools. It's high time the Muslim community took these goofballs behind the proverbial woodshed. Then you won't be caught between a rock and a hard place because non-Muslims were forced to do it for you.
Your religion is stupid, but so are all religions. To think that it's somehow "closed minded" to not be interested in your or other people's religions is to ascribe value to religion, for which there is none. Rather, intolerance and insanity best describes the monomania you call mono-theism. There is more beauty in a human face or a simple bacterium than in all the nonsense that comes out of your mosque or some temple or church. That's just how I see it 400 years after the Enlightment. I too have dreams in my sleep, but I no longer think they're real. You are depressed because you are lost. The only catastrophe is that to call a spade a spade is not tolerated. Comment moderation is fascism. Signed, G. Orwell
Whilst I take on your point that the Dispatches expose made no attempt to dispel the possiblility that people may come to distrust all claims of Muslim moderation I rather think that this a flaw in expository journalism more generally that in thsi case a deliberate and insidious attempt to Tar all Muslims claiming to be moderates with the brush of extremism. When was the last time you saw a critical expose on anything from Government Corruption, Fudged Auto Safety Standards , Environmental Breaches on the part of Corporations, or, to bring the examples a bit closer to the topic, the perversity of the Catholic clergy or the influence and reach of American Evangelical Christians that saw fit to include an extensive caveat, and made rigorous attempts to establish the proportionality and context of it's critique ? I would say almost never, and I think this is due to the fact that far too often expository journalism is driven by a polemical rather than informational purpose, and even when it isn't it seeks to trade on Drama that it is loth to deflate. Proportinality is something we should demand accross the board, not just for that which we feel has been unfairly maligned.
In that respect whilst I think that a) This Dispatches was a much needed expose given the frequency with which Governments get taken in by Faux Muslim moderates whilst busily isolating the Genuine ones, it most certainly could have done with a caveat at the least about the existence of Genuine Muslim moderateness, and preferably an exploration of the battle Moderate Muslims wage against extremism.
The documenatry "Obsession", for all that it's detractors attack it as an Islamophobic film, actually made much more strenuous efforts to ensure that Extremist Islam was not conflated with Islam or Muslism generally. The first or second sentence of the introduction wa a very clear caveat that the Film was not about Muslims generally, throuughout the film we have as our interlocuters Muslim opponents of Islamist extremism, and most of the last 5th or so of the Film is devoted to putting in context the ISlamsit threat and stressing that the fight requires solidarity with brave Muslims themselves enraged in the struggle with extremism.
Shelina wrote: To criticise, to challenge is to find yourself (or so they have Muslims believe) attacking your own values. And when Muslims turn to look at Bush, Blair and their allies and counterparts, they only re-enforce the same message: you are with us or against us. If Muslims disagree with this view, they are forced into the extremist camp.
Shelina, This is very much a false dichotomy; nobody is ‘forced into the extremist camp’. By way of example – take Northern Ireland. It was and is, perfectly possible to be a Republican – that is to say one who supports the transferring of sovereignty of Northern Ireland from the UK, to the Irish Republic or a Loyalist – that is to say being an advocate for Northern Ireland Remaining part of the UK, without supporting either Republican or Loyalist terrorism and extremists. Indeed there are political parties that take precisely that stance – the SDLP and Official Unionists respectively.
Why can’t this be so with Islam? The organisation that purports to represent Muslims in the UK is, most certainly led by Isalmic extremists, this rather begs the question as to why the Muslim community lets this happen.
My personal view, is that the problem comes back to Koranic literalism, that is to say Muslims holding the Koran to be the literal word of Allah, transmitted without flaw via the angel Gabriel to the ‘prophet’ Mohammed. If one holds to this view – an extremist outlook follow as night follows day. For Islam to be de-fanged, for genuine moderates to gain traction and not be forced onto the back-foot on matters of Islamic jurisprudence, this de-coupling must take place. This probably means some form of Islamic reformation, this is really needed because without it, we will continue on the current path where many, if not most Muslims at least those that are not apostates, simply lapsed, or indifferent - have a World view that is, at least according to the zeitgeist of the rest of the World - misogynistic, homophobic, rabidly Jew hating, supremacist, violent, authoritarian and one that despises non-Muslims the ‘kuffar’ – all of these attitudes and values are punted quite clearly in the Koran. Koranic literalism – which is Mainstream - tees up Muslims to be in conflict with non-Muslims. Indeed this is what we see now, with the myriad conflicts across the World where it’s better than a 90% shot that Muslims, driven by their religion, make up the protagonists on one side. Where Islamic inspired terrorism is rife.
Anyway, good luck with you quest to modernise and de-fang Islam, I wish you every success.
Nick
Two points:
1. I have great difficulty in understanding your assertion that Dispatches has a devious subtext ... which tries to paint all Muslims with the same brush. One of the researchers was Martin Bright with solid anti-racist credentials and none, as far as I am aware, has any connection with known racists.
So therefore let me reverse the question. Please name non-Muslims who have made criticism of extremists within the mainstream media that you find acceptable.
2. Your argument is that such criticism causes you to choose between loyalty to Islam and hence the extremists or opposition to Islam and hence against yourself is a false dilemma. It is perfectly possible to be against both Blair/Bush and against the extremists. The problem you have is to establish clear blue water between both extremes. The general population see clear evidence that you distance yourself from Bush/Blair but little that you distance yourself from the extremists.
Let me draw a parallel. The Catholic church has been accused of harbouring peudophile prients. This problem is by no means finally solved but where it has it is in no small part to insiders being prepared to speak out, against the prevailing view that such matters should be resolved internally. Outside criticism has also been accused of being motivated by anti-catholic motives. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people have never made the assumption that most Catholics approve of peudophilia.
Islam stands at the same place - you have to rid yourself of the extremist Imans. Not at Finsbury Park mosque and other tiny establishments but certainly at the main mosques. Yet too often we hear that extremist Imams not only preach hatred but they are allowed to remain when exposed.
Egyptian-born Australian Mufti, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, shot to fame with his infamous sermon last September, in which he called the unveiled Australian women "uncovered meat". He blamed those women for being raped, suggesting that they attracted the rapists by using their uncovered meats as bait. Was he met by protests from Muslims Or did an "unprecedented 5000 worshippers rush(ed) to his mosque in Sydney to attend the next Friday’s congregational prayer, where they greeted him "like a rock star"".
Where are the moderates in that story? Are you ashamed of those 5000 people or are you one of them? Where's the clear blue water?
Post a Comment
<< Home