There is a problem with how we have been talking about Islam in popular discourse. It’s not a problem of being offensive, politically incorrect or being uninformed about Islam and its tenets. And it is not even a problem of viewing Islam through a certain political position.
The problem is with the framework of how we conduct discussions on this subject, which is basically composed of two very simplistic sides:
The first one is where we draw a straight line between Islam and tyranny. This position is commonly seen among people who are not afraid to voice their dislike of Islam and the more vocal ones in this group who take their criticism to the next level are often referred to as “Islamophobes”. This is the point of view that cites evidence of ideas like jihad, political Islam, “Shariah law” as an indication of there being something innate to Islamic thought that gives rise to violence. At the very edges of this view, we see Islam as the biggest threat to modern civilization itself.
The second side is where we take less of a hard line and we tend to isolate problematic aspects to the fringes and appeal to the richness of Islamic cultural and historical contributions. From this perspective, Islam is a complex, multi-faceted ideology that isn’t much different from other Abrahamic faiths and that has its share of bad apples. From this point of view, the fact that an overwhelming majority of Muslims do not practice the troublesome ideas criticized by the previous group is evidence that whatever problematic elements lay dormant in Islamic thought, they are not a cause for concern. The line between practiced Islam and tyranny is not so clear from this perspective. While this group doesn’t exactly shy away from talking about the problematic elements of Islam, it doesn’t uniquely single out Islam as a major ideological threat to modernity.
This rhetoric in its present form arguably started in the early 2000s when there was an increase in terrorism by self-proclaimed Islamic groups. There’s been much written, discussed and debated to find the link between religious ideology and terror. After much of this public discussion we seemingly did get some answers, but for all the wrong questions. Or at least for questions that illuminate a very low resolution view of the issue at hand and that do not entirely get to the bottom of this riddle.
State of Dialogue
Here’s what we’ve been traditionally asking:
Does Islam promote terrorism?
Why do a disproportionately large minority Muslim groups engage in terrorism?
What is the link between Islam and tyranny?
Why is there little freedom in Muslim-majority countries?
Why do Muslims want to impose Shariah law?
To a lot of Muslims, these question will sound highly illogical and in some cases downright offensive. From their point of view, the answer to each question will inevitably reveal political instability, poverty, and historical grievances as the root cause. And arguably there is a solid case to be made for this. Any cursory glance to the history of colonial oppression on Muslim states will leave little doubt in the reader’s mind as to why certain segments may Muslim societies harbor hostile sentiments against the west, or may have harbored such feelings in the past.
To the rest who have paid attention to the popular discourse on Islam in the past decade or so, these are the questions that need to be answered because it seems like there is violence arising out of the Islamic communities even in absence of political instability, poverty and historical grievances.
This is not a commentary or discussion on the nature of the problem itself; there is already plenty of literature, discussion and YouTube videos that can answer some of these. The purpose here is to address the way we talk radical Islam/militant Islam (or whatever iteration of words that you want to use for groups causing violence in the name of Allah). The reason for fixing the framework of dialogue is that at this point in history, there seems to be an unspoken agreement in the public consciousness in the west that there definitely is something wrong with either Muslims or Islam. Depending on which of the first two groups you belong to, there definitely is something there that requires fixing. It may be the case you don’t think there is something uniquely wrong with Islam, but there definitely is something there that is keeping Muslim civilizations from being at the frontiers of social development, freedom and political stability.
If there ever is hope for progress on the front of reforming Islam or how it is practiced in a way that beneficial for the global community at large, we need to formulate better questions when discussing Islam. And that is the crux of the problem that we’ve been asking all the wrong questions about this subject which has given us either, at best, we have a very low resolution diagnosis of the “real problem with Islam” and, at worst, an agreement that it’s a faith steeped in antiquity and outdated ideas.
Imprecise Questions
What are the right questions? Let us begin with what aren’t the right questions.
It is not precise enough to ask whether Islam promotes terrorism. Islam is a source of meaning, knowledge and traditions that, at its core, is a reminder of the existence of a transcendent being who gives life and provides guidance on conducting yourself in the world, the transience of life and the reality of an afterlife based on the said conduct. The way the questions about Islam’s link to terror are phrased or are addressed doesn’t tie together the specifics that gives rise to tyranny and violence from the core tenets. There have been discussions where certain doctrines of Islam have been brought to light as evidence for creating this link. And those claims have been promptly been dismissed as the followings of a fringe, selectively-interpreting minority of extremists.
The situation as of today is that we’re still talking past each other and we have not found any common ground, let alone a common premise to construct framework of dialogue around. My biggest worry is that present and future policy decisions will be based on this deeply flawed framework of dialogue and we’ll repeat the same mistakes over and over again. We need to fix this broken system of discourse so we can at least have a chance of making a bridge.
Potential Solution
Looking at the bigger picture of where we are, perhaps the main contentions can be distilled into these key questions: What is the relationship between Islam and the idea of a state? What are the political ambitions of Islam, if any, according to classical Islamic thought? It seems like the biggest reservation in the west about Islam is the propensity of violence across time and places.
This subject deserves its own write-up, but in summary: the early twentieth century was a particularly turbulent era for most of the Muslim world. From the Ottoman Empire to the Mughals, the decline of Muslim powers and rise of European imperialism was self-evident. In this historical context emerged certain ideologies through the work Islamic scholars, leaders and intellectuals who realized that Muslims were facing their political and social decline across the global stage and therefore needed to protect their identity. In responding to the disintegration of their political power and becoming subjects to foreign rule, the Muslim intelligentsia underwent a period of intense internal debate and introspection spanning decades. This era produced famous reformist figures like Jamaluddin Al-Alghani, Muhammed Abduh, Rashid Rida, Syed Ahmed Khan, Syed Abul A’la Maududi, Muhammad Iqbal and Syed Qutb.
What emerged from this dialogue was the realization of an Islamic political ideology — which came to be recognized by Muslims as something equivalent to ideological systems like capitalism, socialism, nationalism etc. — as a defense against foreign occupation and colonial rule. This ideology was the work of multiple towering intellectuals among Muslims in that era who extracted a fully articulated view of what Islam says about the development, purpose and structure of a state. The biggest contributor to the development of a political narrative in Islam was Maududi, whose work became a hallmark of Islamic scholarship on politics, governance, and social affairs.
Perhaps this is the point of convergence for any future dialogue and discussion. A deeper study into the premises used by Islamic scholars and jurists and how they arrive at the conclusions they do by their reading of the Quran and Hadith is perhaps the first step to building a bridge between Muslims and the west. Admittedly there are deeper and more complicated issues that generate violence and political instability with Muslims communities whose scope lies beyond any religious political narrative. But as a first step I think it is vital to address the intellectual roots of the political ideology within Islamic texts so we can at start going down the path of some sort of reconciliation.
