George W. Bush has taken a stand on the true nature of Islam, calling it, for instance, a "religion of peace." As strange as this is to hear from the president of the United States, Bush's declarations have given rise to a good deal of useful public discussion about Islam. Unfortunately, this discussion has too often accepted the confused terms of the president's rhetoric: Is there, or is there not, something wrong in the nature of Islam? Salman Rushdie ("Yes, This is About Islam," New York Times 11/2/01) and Jonathan Ebel ("Territory is Not Mind," Sightings 11/15/01) both make some useful points in the process of taking up the question, but somehow leave standing the president's fundamental misconception that a religion has an essence.
Surely, it is not fair to say that September 11 is "about" Islam. Violent hatred and intolerance can be adduced in too many corners of the religious world to imagine that it comes, simply, from the doctrines of one holy book or another. At the same time, it is difficult for me to blame Salman Rushdie, especially, for perceiving something within Islam today that is prone to violence. His non-violent, literary attack on Islam was, taken after all, by some Muslims to justify very real threats to his life. In addition, he marshals some reasonable evidence that many Muslims do believe that Islam is on board with the September 11 terrorists.
Still, we ought not to declare that September 11 is "about" Islam, especially if this means that we ignore "foreign policy, humanity, global society, and the just ordering thereof"-- which Ebel says are obviously what September 11 is also "about." Ebel's list implies that a larger, broader causal story needs to be told, rather than simply to say that Islam gave us the horrors of September 11. I agree wholeheartedly. Believing too simplistic a causal story carries both moral and practical flaws. If Islam itself -- or something in its nature -- was the cause of the attacks, we could only prevent further attacks by preventing further Islam. In this way, such a simplistic belief would tend to sanction persecution if not genocide against Muslims. From a practical standpoint, we will have to understand the details of the real, long-term causal story if we wish to minimize the threat of repeated terrorism in America.
However, when we deny that Islam has violence at its core, we must also deny simple dichotomies. The president's words suggest that September 11 is "about" Islam or it is not; either Islam is a religion of violence or Islam is a religion of peace. This is wrong.
Religions do not have unchanging natures. They are (among other things) complex social organisms that exist in history. Thus, while they are molded by that history, they mold it back in turn. When we focus on social forces that affect the development and transformation of peoples, therefore, we always remember that religions are a crucial part of that causal story. While multiple social forces contribute to the development of religious movements, those religious movements often then become forces within society.
The page you were looking for no longer exists
phyxius_has_risen posted on Dec 03, 2006
| views: 313
Comments
-
queenparanoia said on Dec 03, 2006....
i'm sorry if i sound stupid cuz i'm only 20 and have limited knowledge about 9/11 and i'm not american so sorry if i seem that way. so are you saying that its a religion of violence or religion of peace? you know i once read that the people behind the 9/11 attacks are extremist kind of muslims. and i know that islam is not a religion of violence. yes i have to admit that thoughout history there is always war about religion. but as we go into the future we must learn from this and go on with with our life. it saddens me we always have the wrong perception about this religion. i mean there are abu sayaf in the philippines and i know they have done evil things that they think religion has told them to do. but it is the choice of men to do this such things not religion. i hope you could understand my ramblings. -
phyxius_has_risen said on Dec 03, 2006....
When I write, many times I write from different points of view. It is not necessarily, what I believe however, it is a prospective that I have looked at. My true beliefs regarding terrorist, Muslims, and Islam is this, not all Muslims are terrorist, however I feel that MOST terrorist are Muslims. I hope this makes since to you queen.
-
ALIENated said on Dec 03, 2006....
We just need to find a way to stop sending all our money over there to buy oil. We are funding our own destruction. Once we stop sending all that money over there, what? They will attack us with swords while riding camels? We need to put them back where they were before we made them rich. Let them industrialize the hard way and hopefully become socialized at the same time as we have been. Just a thought. -
curmudgeon said on Dec 04, 2006....
Economic disengagement will not likely make us more secure. If we stop sending them oil money, they'll simply sell more to the Europeans and the Chinese. Then the Chinese and other weapons exporters will sell them whatever they want. We'll lose what little influence we have in that region, AND they'll still have the finances to mount jihad. People from every major religion, and even no religion, have used their political-philosophical foundations as a justification for killing each other. But it's not just religious practice - it's also the way in which people identify themselves as individuals and groups and how they differentiate themselves from others. And it's a struggle to control resources of all kinds. It's naive to think that any one approach will somehow resolve all these problems. To my mind, engagement on all levels is necessary, but the things that we need to develop most in our culture is patience and a real understanding of the and mindset of our opponents. It is too easy to put them down as simple religious fanatics, and we do ourselves a disservice by underestimating our enemy in this way. -
missb said on Dec 04, 2006....
marking this. I'll be back, phyxius :) Cheers! -
phyxius_has_risen said on Dec 04, 2006....
hey het missb nice to see you -
NobodySpecial said on Dec 04, 2006....
I think the literal translation to Islam is submit or surrender, something like that. Kind of sums up the religion though. -
Bluesnake said on Dec 04, 2006....
I find it ironic that Islam means peace.
During the Mohamad's era, there were wars and battles...
I find it disturbing that Mohamad himself were involved in the battles.
I think what the Muslims are doing today are just replicating his action.
However, I believe that not all Muslims are aggresive, violent and support terrorism, of course.
But...a local Islamic political party in my country is actually ideologically supporting terrorism. And there are still citizens voting for this party. Sick..
-
missb said on Dec 06, 2006....
Bluesnake,
You've said everything i wanted to say :) Islam means submission, not peace. I also agree that I think the islamic radicals are actually doing what the their prophet did in his days. Islam is more about politics, IMHO.
phyxius,
I differentiate muslims and islam. I don't hate muslims at all but i do find some of islam's teachings to be naturally violent. Also if we look at the life of mohammad, it's been violent all along, IMHO. I agree that not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are :)
Cheers!
Comment on "The True Nature of Islam"
Related Posts: