The consequences of asymmetrical exercise of power have been shaping the key issues in the Middle East, such as Palestinian and Kurdish struggles, for years.
The reduction of the motives of violent tactics to religion alone—the so-called Islamist terrorism—is bound to fail to explain the complex causes of terrorist acts. Such reductionist views refrain from analyzing the asymmetry in existing power structures and, hence, the wrongdoings of Western—in particular US and UK—foreign policies towards not only the Muslim world, but also the Global South as a whole.
In contemporary politics, much of the Western media and right-wing populist narratives continue adopting rather simplistic views of Islam as a violent and backward religion, and stereotypical images of Muslims as irrational and warmongering beings.
These narratives contribute towards the self-fulfilling prophecy of Islamist terrorism on two grounds. On the one hand, they create a false perception of non-Muslims as rational, non-violent, and peaceful beings. Such binary oppositions contribute towards right-wing populist narratives and exclusionary politics of ordinary Muslims. On the other hand, these views prevent much needed efforts to open space for the inclusion of marginalized and dissident voices, voices that are explicitly critical of ahistorical, apolitical and reductionist understandings of violence and Islamist terrorism.
Essentializing Islam will not help the West to find a solution to the use of violence by Muslims. On the contrary, it will only impede the understanding of the complexity of anti-Western terrorism, as increasingly coming out of the post-Soviet world, and also alienate ordinary and diverse Muslims across the world.
Abdel-Malek, Social dialectics: Nation and revolution. New York: Alfred A. London: Vintage, Abdel-Malek, A. Social Dialectics: Nation and Revolution. Amin, S. Imperialism and Unequal Development. Bayat, A. All parties have been too long accustomed to blaming others for the problems they face.
Their attention should be directed to his criticism of the West:. We ought to take these exhortations seriously on at least two accounts. All the same, he manages to use his Islam cleverly to exploit the long-festering anger of Muslims, especially in the Middle East, toward the West.
We would be foolish to acquiesce in this perverse strategy. The Arabic word for catastrophe is nakba , and this was to be only the first such nakba experienced by the Arabs during the twentieth century.
The rage of Arabs and other Muslims continued to grow throughout the rest of the twentieth century, not because of any teachings of Islam as such but as a result of the forced domination of Muslims by Western nations, which increased with one nakba after another.
The first was the onset of the Cold War, which ended the period of European ascendancy and polarized the whole world, including Muslims, between the United States and the Soviet Union. Then another major nakba occurred in —the greatest nakba of all in most Arab eyes—when all the Western nations collectively imposed the formation of Israel with no apparent concern for the fate of half a million non-Jewish Palestinians not only Muslims but also Christians and secularists.
Arab humiliation grew as the United States both strengthened Israel militarily against the Palestinians and other Arabs and armed Middle Eastern dictators during the Cold War in return for their often cruel support in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
To many Arab intellectuals this seemed to be the final, intolerable blow. But the collapse of the Soviet Union would prove to be yet another catastrophe from the point of view of Muslims who had looked to it for salvation from the United States. This hope in itself was particularly remarkable because the official atheism of the Soviet Union had long been thought to exclude the possibility of Muslim cooperation. According to Abou el Fadl:. Many of them speak of another Islam, their personal, private faith.
No argument here. A far more elaborate and relentlessly negative treatment of Islam is that of ibn Warraq. His strong resentment toward the religion of his childhood resonates with many humanist readers, myself included, whose path out of traditional bondage was mainly intellectual in nature.
This book and The Origins of the Koran , which followed in , are entry points into the slowly expanding literature highly critical of Islam, past and present, in general and in specific detail, with particular focus on contradictions in the Quran and the traditions surrounding the Prophet, violence in the history of Islamic interactions with other groups, and issues of the status of women and the relation of religion to the state.
This is required reading for all who may doubt that Islam even has a darker side. Twice during the past decade I have published in Humanism Today an organ of the North American Committee for Humanism and the Humanist Institute , my own optimistic assessments of chances for the future evolution of Islam in the direction of humanism.
These favorable estimates, while clearly contingent on events yet to unfold, are based on some sixty years of comparative study of the history of civilizations. I then went on to list a few of the hundreds of sources from which my optimism was derived.
In the harsh, eerie glare of September 11, what I am saying here may be considered an update of my earlier remarks. Moreover, for all the talk of "foreign fighters," even the high estimates in the media represent a negligible portion of the total number of young men who might join in such movements.
Arab youth do not support extremist violence. Moreover, the small portion that does in given countries in given polls is often reacting to a crisis in Israeli-Palestinian relations or some other major incident, and that limited support tends to drop sharply when it no longer is driven by the heat of the moment. At the same time, it warns that the rejection of extremism and terrorism does not there was popular support for many U.
Casualties in the U. No one can condone or ignore the numbers killed in the U. For example, there were deaths in Europe and all of the Americas between January 1, and July 16, There were 28,—or 43 times more deaths—in other regions—most of them consisting of largely Islamic countries.
Almost all of the human impact of extremist attacks is Muslims killing or injuring fellow Muslims. Seven of the ten countries with the most terrorist attacks in had vast Muslim majorities, and the death and injuries in the other three involve large numbers of Muslim deaths. The vast majority of suicide and vehicle attacks came from "Islamist" extremist groups that killed Muslims in largely Muslim countries.
The fifth section makes it clear that most governments in largely Muslim states are actively moving to suppress religious extremism in their country. State Department Country Reports on Terrorism and Treasury Department lists of designated groups and individuals funding terrorism show both major progress in largely Muslim states in fighting extremism and limiting the funding and support of extremist groups and that much more needs to be done.
At the same time, work by the Pew Trust highlights the fact that many largely Muslim states have placed growing limits on extremist preaching and religious activity. This necessarily interferes with freedom of religion and speech, and given states often exert excessive limits and control, but vague charges that such governments are failing to act do not reflect the real-world actions of many—if not most—governments in largely Muslim states.
The sixth section provides a short case state in the dangers of Islamophobia. Polling data illustrate the degree to which American Muslims show consistent loyalty and support for the U.
It also shows that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the U. The data also show that American Muslims have seen some slight rises in the violent impact of Islamophobia. The risks of becoming a U. Islamist violence still produces more deaths, but FBI reporting shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes produce higher levels of overall violence, rape, and serious injury.
The data and trend charts in the seventh section provide a wide range of metrics showing the other pressures that divide largely Muslim states, and that can drive their populations towards extremism. No one ever mentions the religions of the terrorists of Northern Ireland, of Sri Lanka, of Japan, of Germany and of many other countries or people. But if they are Muslims, they are always called Muslim terrorists. When Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina were being slaughtered by the Serbs, there was no mention of Christian Orthodox terrorists.
These Christian Orthodox terrorists killed far more people than were killed on September The world did not mobilise to fight Christian Orthodox terrorists even when they terrorised the Kosovars. Secondly, many Muslims are involved in acts of terror simply because presently Muslims and the Islamic countries are being oppressed most. In fact their terrorism is their reaction to what is to them acts of terror against them.
But we are given the impression that Muslims are natural terrorists, that Islam advocates irrational acts of terror. But Islam is against the killing of innocent people, which is, in the final analysis, what terrorism is about. If Muslims commit acts of terror, it is because their countries are weak and incapable of fighting back, of waging formal wars on their enemies.
And so terrorism by Muslims is more common than by others. If there are Muslim countries as powerful as their enemies, they would be bombing and rocketing regardless of what is now referred to as collateral damage. Clearly Islam the religion is not the cause of terrorism.
Islam, as I said, is a religion of peace. However through the centuries, deviations from the true teachings of Islam take place.
And so Muslims kill despite the injunction of their religion against killing especially of innocent people. If you look at Christianity you must admit that being thrown to the lions by the Romans did not prevent Christians when they achieved power from being totally intolerant of those who did not accept Christianity.
During the Spanish Inquisition suspected apostates were burnt at the stake after mock trials. In fact many who are in America today are descended from Christians who had fled from terror perpetrated by other Christians.
And the Jews in America are the descendants of the Jews who fled the regular pogroms in European countries, especially Russia, and of course the persecution by the Germans under Hitler. Islam had in fact been more tolerant. The Jews chose to migrate to North Africa together with the defeated Muslims after Ferdinand and Isabella completed the reconquest of Spain. To stay back meant forced conversion to Christianity or pain of death. Even after conversion they remained suspects and were persecuted.
0コメント