This morning’s paper had an article in it in which Prime Minister Howard denounced Islamic extremists as not speaking or acting in accordance with the Islamic world as a whole. It was entitled “Terrorists don’t speak for Islam: Howard”, and I think that misrepresents what he said.
“We in Australia will never accept that organisations such as al-Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiah speak or act in any way on behalf of the Islamic world,” he was quoted as saying. This isn’t something that’s reflected in the article’s title, for there is a distinction between “Islam” and the “Islamic world” — one being an abstraction, the other a reality.
Islam, the religion, is fundamentally different to the Christian paradigm (if not faith) that has shaped what is considered the Western world. The notion of Jihad is a central part of its philosophy that cannot be ignored whilst remaining true to the faith.* And that, ultimately, is what ‘conservatives’ the world over have been accused of. And rightly so.
I’d dispute Howard’s claim that these terrorists don’t speak for “the Islamic world”, as well, but that’s a little more abstract: I’d agree they don’t speak for westernised Islam, which is invariably watered down to suburban multicultural bliss, and inevitably turns any belief system into a fluffy religion — but I’d doubt (though don’t have numbers to back me up, and this is a blog post, not a published Opinion piece, so I don’t need them either) that this “westernised Islam” would constitute a majority.
Conservatives hold the core of their belief system to be true. Objective, absolute truth. There are always going to be elements of ‘religion’ open to interpretation (outside of bodies in which the human leader of that religion issues a mandated interpretation — looking at Roman Catholicism here), but, generally speaking, the religion will dictate its own ‘truths’ which are either followed as best is possible with potential ill consequences (at least in the eyes of another morality system — see, for example, the justifiable-under-Islamic-law but apparently “evil” acts of London bombings, Bali bombings, WTC bombings, Islamic treatment of women, etc.) or alternatively, met with liberalism and an inevitable watering down of the religion to some affable but ultimately secular form.
And this presents problems. Liberalism because value systems become abstractions rather than absolutes, as there is no greater power being heeded as “creator” of these value systems, and fundamentalism because it rejects anything aside from absolutes. Successful fundamentalism is of greater (rule) utilitarian benefit than attempted co-existence of abstract value systems and absolute ones, because there is no potential for conflict. There is an intrinsic potential for unhappiness, but not for injustice, as that is dictated from another source.
Conversely, liberalism presents potential for happiness (hence its appeal — though debate regarding the semantics of ‘happiness’ is of course possible), but that same ‘happiness’ often comes at the expense of another group (redistribution of wealth, etc.), or doesn’t really exist at all (happiness and affluence being considered synonymous in Western society, but provably realising a decline in actual satisfaction). Liberalism justifies “individual liberty”, and autonomy of morality within this, which of course in turn justifies all manner of things. There is an innate human requirement for an objective, absolute morality, especially as globalisation takes its toll and a convergence — or clash — of societies occurs, as we are seeing at present.
One could even describe our present multicultural reality as an inverted form of colonialism: there is an inevitable clash, if multiple cultures are not assimilated. For the record, I’m as convinced that Macquarie University’s Associate Professor Andrew Fraser’s views are racist, ignorant, and therefore repulsive, but the reality of “multiculturalism” is either that there is an assimilation and dilution of non-dominant values (I say non-dominant, because, generally speaking, “Western” values in western countries remain, and presumably vice-versa in other cultures that have in place institutionalised “multicultural” policies), or — and this is what has happened — clashes of dominant and incoming cultures occur.
And that’s what we call “terrorism”. Because it’s taking something perfectly acceptable and even condoned in other cultures and imposing it upon our different mindset. Here’s a secret: terrorism isn’t irrational or a product of ‘extremism’. It’s based upon a different mindset, certainly, but that doesn’t make it irrational or even wrong. See, if Western (and Hindu, and Buddhist, etc.) society was coerced into assimilation with Islamic values, there’d be no more conflict (unless you happened to be Jewish, in which case there’s no hope at all), because their purpose would have been achieved. Unless you happened to be female, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish — if you were female and accepted their values, you’d be fine.
Terrorists speak for Islam, despite how much as our “liberal” (meaning “accepting only secularism within an assimilated ‘multicultural’ context”) broadsheets would like to claim otherwise. Islam, in its true form (as opposed to some bastardised “liberal” form), rejects other value sets. Just like Christianity, in its true form, does — though Christianity rejects the paradigms established by other faiths (“faiths”, it should be noted, encompassing all other systems of belief including secular humanism) without calls for violence. I think Howard understands this, from what he has been quoted as saying, but somewhere that got lost in media-translation.
*From the side column of http://jihadwatch.org/
Jihad (in Arabic, “struggle”) is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.
there is extremism in all (major) religions, but i suppose what the world goes against is “morally” inappropriate things such as murder, the world does not seem to have such a problem when there is a war openly declared by both sides and armed forces fight one another but it is repulsed (maybe too strong a word?) by the killing of innocents… i myself dont agree with the US “collateral damage” belief (or apparent belief)
muslims probably stand up as much as “westerners” and disagree with the murder of civilians… except when its the other sides civilians, we see what seems like a war of attrition, combined with a form of gurillea warfare…
would there be as much outrage if say a christian went and suicide bombed some muslims… well we see some problems not quite the same but similar in Israel and the Gaza Strip…
I suppose what i would like to see is a viable option put forward where everyone is happy… except i dont think one exists, as a christian i believe in God and Jesus and thats it… but if i were a muslim i would believe in Mohammed… they certainly clash… but as im not a theologin or any sort of decent historian i can not give you the pros and cons of each, all you will ever achieve is opinions, and that is not a solution
I’m sorry, but you it is apparent that you lack any real knowledge on Islam and I get the impression that most of your opinions seem to come from news paper articles here and there.
While jihad may (or may not) have been a constant in Islam history, terrorism is absolutely not. You’re jumbling these two together which is just wrong. The acts of terrorism contradict many more attributes of Islam — even those that describe jihad — than they follow.
And if you want to talk about history, then please research a bit and try to find out when terror was started being used by Islamic extremists — or when Islamic extremists that favor the use of terror started showing up on the map. You’ll find that they are mostly an invention of the 20th century — and in most countries in the islamic world they failed miserably to achieve their goals — the one where they had complete succes (Afghanistan) was because of western sponsorship (surprise, surprise).
To think that terror has anything to do with a clush of cultures is, IMHO, nonsense. It is very clear that it is political goals these people are after. Note that I am not denying problems that come along with multi-culturalism, however to claim they (inevitably?) lead to terrorism is just wrong in so many ways.
Cat-man: A big part of my argument above revolves around the idea of competing and incompatible notions of morality. It’s inaccurate to say “the world goes against” anything that’s part of a morality system (though there is generally some sense of justice that may be equally abstract), because morality systems are flexible and not universally held — further, they are not recognised to have come from any greater source.
My argument regarding fundamentalism is built around the “canonical” (for want of a better term… I’m sure there is one) works that comprise the basis of a faith, as opposed to later writings. Christian fundamentalism is peaceful, though incompatible with other faiths — so Christian sects that use violence aren’t “fundamentalist”, but simply violent for other reasons (be they historical, racial, whatever — I’d agree the Gaza Strip is a good example). If a Christian went and blew themself up and killed Jewish and Islamic people, then that is wrong under the core beliefs of Christianity, if religious “traditions” and other influence is left out of the picture. Actually, it’s wrong anyway. But I digress. If there isn’t outrage at such an act, but there was at an equal act by a Muslim person, then there should be (under most systems of morality).
Sencer: You’re right, in a way. I’m no expert on Islam, but I don’t believe anything I’ve written here misrepresents it, based on what I do know. That aside, I’m going to object to what you’ve said as best I can.
The first point is simply with regard to semantics. What is “terrorism”, exactly? And what are its aims? And why is it effective? I think it’s undeclared, subversive war, that aims to instill terror (resulting in a change of national foriegn policy), effective because of the uncertainty and doubt it creates. In Islam, there is no distinction between Church and State — and this is a matter that has recently been of some controversy in Australia (or at least the Australian media), as some Islamic leaders have openly said that Jihad is a part of their religion, and that Muslim people are Muslim before they are Australian — and thus to say that bodies representing Islam (non-secular Islam, that is: I mean true Islam here) are not legitimate government groups, and that their actions do not represent a legitimate war, is offensive to their beliefs. (It is worth noting that I do not claim that being offensive is inherently bad — I wouldn’t have written this if I thought that)
Keeping the lack of distinction between Church and State in the back of our minds, it’s worth looking at the Qur’an for a moment:
I don’t think that’s even exclusive of “terrorism” as we understand it: “prepare for them each ambush” is hardly the language of open warfare. I’d also object to your usage of the term “Islamic extremists” — they’re not extreme in their actions, they’re just following the fundamental tenets of their faith: In the Hadith of Bukhari, 4:44, Muhammad says there is no deed that equals Jihad (in reward), because it’s a constant action: “Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battlefield, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?”.
But I’ll leave that alone for the minute (perfectly happy to come back to it, though).
I don’t think “terror” has anything to do with a clash of cultures. I think conflict comes as a result of the clash of cultures (clashes occuring where assimilation isn’t achieved), and that conflict is manifest in a variety of ways. One of which is terrorism. Legitimacy of this means of conflict aside, it’s a reality. What political goals is it clear these people pursue? I think ultimately their goals are aligned with their faith (though internal politics such as the Sunni/Shi’ite distinction can influence this).
I’m also not arguing multiculturalism (inevitably) leads to terrorism. I’m arguing that it has two divergent outcomes, one of which is ultimately a cultural assimilation, and the other is a failure to assimilate against the expectations of a multicultural society, thus resulting in conflict (because multiculturalism breeds assimilation, rather than tolerance). Terrorism doesn’t really come into the equation in that initial stage — it’s the avenue pursued by a frustrated group determined to achieve their goal (a goal, it is worth noting, that is certainly not radical in the eyes of a large body of the world’s population).
Joshy are you arguing the “frustrated” group are trying to become the ones in power?
That they too are not searching for a multiculturalist solution but want mass assimilation with their own ideals?
Are you therefore arguing that no true multicultrualism exists in our world? Or that no multicultualism can exist accross “traditional” religous beliefs?
Yeah, that’s about the crux of it. I’m cautious to depict them as frustrated or whatever, because that (can be seen to) lend legitimacy to terrorism, etc., but it’s certainly true to some extent.
I think multiculturalism can exist — you can have converging cultural influences, but never the co-existence of cultures in the same sphere, because that, by definition, results in the diffusion of one or more cultures and hence “multiculturalism” is brought about — but it doesn’t mean equal respect for cultures and value systems as people like to claim it does. The thing about multiculturalism is that, whilst Australia claims to be a predominantly “multicultural” society, we don’t accept all cultures: look at our response to fundamental Islam.
That is the defining feature of ‘multiculturalism’, in my mind: that it accepts only those cultures and values that are compatible with the status quo, and rejects all else.
which is exactly why we accept refugees who dont speak english right? because they follow our status quo… or why we stopped the white australia policy because maybe we shouldnt expect everyone to be able to speak french, german or english…
i can see you saying that we have moved on from that and are now only accepting those things which meet our new standards… but are we standing still?
from my limited media knowledge and even more limited cultural knowledge not everyone would say fundamental related exactly to terrorist… if our government does not make that distinction then something is wrong with their definition, like you said a fundamental christian does not always go and blow things up (but they could…) a fundamental muslim does not have too… or do they?
Language is an irrelevant example that doesn’t reflect values at all.
Yes, we have moved on. Maybe “rejects all else” was a bit strong — rejects “anything incompatible with the status quo” would have been a more accurate representation.
Not quite sure how your “fundamental[ist]” point relates, but I’ll address it on its own. No, fundamentalist Muslims don’t have to go and blow things up, just as fundamentalist Christians don’t have to be perfect. For Christians, that’s the whole point of the Jesus thing: we’re not in any way required to act in order to be saved, but we should in response to a God that demonstrably loves us. For Muslims, militancy is a part of their religion (unlike Christianity — a distinction worth drawing), and it seems (from my perspective, happy to be corrected on this point) that Muslim people are called on to engage in Jihad, but not required to. The Hadith of Bukhari 4:44 quote above would support that assumption, but 4:196 of the same has Muhammed saying “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘one has the right to be worshipped but Allah’” — which would of course suggest otherwise.
Allah, however, is repeatedly described throughout the Qur’an as being “forgiving” and “merciful”, so whether these things are required of the Islamic person is open to conjecture… but there is no degree of certainty in this matter, as best I can tell. Again, more than happy to be corrected.
I won’t get into theological discussions on the net anymore, I’ve done my fair share of that in the aftermath of 9/11 and concluded that it’s just a waste of time, people have already made up their minds on fears and images, and then scoure the net for supporting evidence while ignoring anything that conflicts with their opinion.
Why not quote the verses that grant “non-believers” protections and rights? Why not quote the verses that illustrate the high value that _human_ (not just muslim, but _human_) life has in Islam? Is it because it doesn’t fit your pre-conceived opinions maybe?
Nonsense, this is not a constituting part of Islam. Some scholars argue that the two belong together, while others argue against it.
Thank you, illustrates pretty well what I said above. All major muslim organizations in Germany for example have not only denounced and regretted every act of terrorism, but they have stated again and again, that it is out of question that muslims living there are bound to the constitution and laws like any other citizen.
Let me guess — they are not “true” muslims by your definition?You are committing the classical fallacy of “no true scotsman”. You’re bound to discuss some “idealistic”, fabricated form that you call “true” Islam that exists in your head (and that of a few others).
Of course, silly me, you know better than hundreds of millions of muslims what the “true tenets” of Islam are. To ambush non believers. Yeah, right.…
I disagree with the word “assimilation” here, because it implies that one group looses all that is characterstic to it and gets “converted” to a member of the majority group. This also ignores any dynamics in societies, and implies a more or less static society.
I would put forth that a more likely outcome is, that the minority group embraces the constitutional grounds, the fundamental rules on which the society they live in is build, and with time both groups (majority and minority) will probably step closer to the other (within the respecitve proportions of course), and influence each other to recreate or renew the society in which they all live. Or to grossly oversimplify:
aaaaa + bb != aaaaaaa
aaaaa + bb = aaccccb
But if you define assimilation as anything that is not a conflict and whereby the people get along, then of course we are saying the same thing using different concepts.
You are rather selectively quoting sections of the Koran and ideas of Islam. Were I to quote the Bible in much the same prejudiced fashion as you have quoted from the Koran it would not be difficult to illustrate very similar ideas in Christianity as you have portrayed as being fundamentals of Islam.
Thirty seconds of research would tell you that there are many different types of Jihad which seems to be the principal point in your argument about the evils of Islam. Only one of these types of Jihad calls for offensive action, this type of Jihad has not currently been invoked and many sects of Islam are forbidden from partaking in this form of Jihad.
So whatever label the western media or the terrorists themselves attach to their actions they are not acting in the way of Islam, it is merely a convenient label, a pseudo justification if you will.
Just to be open about it, I just edited Sencer’s last post to put your quotations of me into
<blockquote>elements. Nothing else changed, those of you who have RSS readers can probably check this based on what you’ve got cached.It could be said I’ve made up my mind, I suppose, but I still think there’s a degree of misunderstanding here. I’m certainly not saying that all people who call themselves Muslim fit with this ideology. However, I am accusing those who do not of being liberal in their faith, and are more “culturally” Muslim than anything else — I’d suggest that some Muslim people are ‘Muslim’ purely as a part of their sense of identity, rather than because of any belief in what the Qur’an and various ahadith say with regard to how they should live.
Just to be perfectly clear, I don’t just apply this to Islam — ‘Christians’ who say there’s nothing wrong with sex before marriage, or homosexuality, or being wealthy but not generous with that wealth, or any number of other things similarly fall in the same boat. There is, however, a distinction between knowing these things are wrong and doing them, at least in Christianity — we’re not perfect, we do sin, but we can’t be forgiven unless we recognise that we’ve fallen short of God’s standard.
People who don’t recognise they’re doing anything wrong have obviously defined their own religion… but this doesn’t have to be binary like that — where do you draw the line? Just change little bits of a religion and it’s still the same, right? Want Islam without the aspects that condone violence? Sure thing. Want Christianity and be able to sleep around? Okay. Want Buddhism without the need to regularly fast, abstain from things, etc? Done.
Yeah, I think this is incongruous. You can’t take bits away or add other bits without making it a different value system, because invariably that is saying the core belief system is flawed in some way. You’re right, I’m discussing some idealistic, “fabricated” (your words, not mine) version of Islam — and I’m not saying that everything this idealistic form mandates has to be done. Even in the passage I quoted above (Qur’an 9:5 – 6) it’s clear that Allah is merciful (though to what extent it is uncertain) and that jihad is not required but is, undeniably, advocated. And this is witnessed not only in scripture, but also in history — until about 300 years ago, Islamic expansionism was largely successful (and normative in that culture).
Christianity is somewhat different, in that it denotes some aspects of the Old Testament as being fulfilled in Jesus — hence, whilst it is possible to claim that Christianity advocates violent treatment of unbelievers, such a claim is decontextualised and neglects to acknowledge that aspects of Old Testament law no longer apply post-Jesus. As far as I am aware, no similar or parallel concept exists in Islamic scripture.
In regard to my stance on multiculturalism, I think comments five and seven above adequately clarify this.
Nick: I walked away from the computer between when I started and finished writing my previous comment, and thus did not see yours until just now. I think your point is sufficiently addressed by my last response anyway, but I just want to clarify one thing: I’m not saying anything about “the evils of Islam”.
If anything, view this post as an objection against secular liberalism — and, once that is removed, then it’s possible to make judgements on the underlying belief that has been distorted by human imperfection. I do disagree with Islam, but that’s not because of anything to do with war/violence (I’m not saying “terrorism” because the semantics surrounding that are a bit abstract), and more to do with what it says about Jesus and humanity’s need for forgiveness. This (Islamic) comparison resource provides a fairly good comparison of the two faiths.