The ‘mainstream’ Muslim and violence
15 Jan, 2007
Since September 11, 2001 it has often been argued that the
Islamist militants are a deviant lot and that mainstream Islam has
nothing to do with the violence that its critics have so unfairly
attributed to it. The argument is sometimes taken a step further to
suggest that Islam in fact condemns violence. Condemnation of
terrorism by ‘moderate’ Muslims so far has not by any means been
universal and has often carried important caveats. For the present I
shall skirt around the latter issue, important though it is, and
take a brief look into the question whether ‘mainstream’ Islam is in
some major sense to blame for the increased violence Islamist
militants commit in the name of Islam. It will be seen that the
despite the presence of many decent individuals among Islamic
communities who abhor violence, the culpability of the practitioners
of mainstream Islam in the spread of violence is real enough.
It is necessary first to define a ‘mainstream’ Muslim. No definition
here can be scientific with a capital s and I stand ready to
re-examine mine in the light of criticism. By a ‘mainstream’ Muslim
I mean someone who believes in one God, even if he, or she, does not
always abide by all that He has ordained. He prays daily, even if
not five times a day, prescribed by the holy books. He normally goes
to the mosque for the Friday congregation. He is expected to fast
during the month of Ramadan. He spends for charity, even if what he
spends may not add up to the proportion of his wealth that he is
supposed to spend under the rules of zakat. He considers a once in a
lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca an obligation, even though he finds
arguments to avoid it as long as he can. He sacrifices an animal on
the occasion of the Eid-ul-Azha; he may not slaughter it himself but
is normally present at the gory event, sometimes with his children
too watching. He hopes for the mercy of God for his indiscretions.
He has a great deal of respect for religious leaders and listens to
their sermons as a matter of piety. He accepts the Koran as the word
of God, and neither questions its edicts nor sees any contradiction
in it. He knows at least the rudiments of the Koran by heart,
sometimes recites them or hears them recited. If he is a non-Arab,
he recites the Koran, or hears the recitation, without understanding
it but he has little difficulty in accepting any translation offered
to him by traditional interpreters of the Book.
There is little in him to suggest that he is prone to violence and
would probably shudder at the thought of himself as an Islamist
suicide bomber. He does not participate in terrorist acts. If he
did, Islamist terrorists the world over would be counted in their
hundreds of millions, which is obviously not the case. I take issue
with those who claim that the terrorists are a ‘tiny minority’ among
Muslims, if by this it is meant that there are only a handful of
individuals who are engaged in acts of terrorism. The number of
terrorists is not longer small. Look at Iraq today and the supply of
extremists who would kill themselves in order to kill others seems
inexhaustible. But terrorism is not confined to acts of violence by
individual or small groups of Islamists. A political regime can use
a large number of people who would go to great lengths to kill or
maim to propagate their religious ideals. The Taliban in Afghanistan
marshaled hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of fanatics
around their cause. The number of active members of the Taliban as a
political organization was itself large. Add to them their bed
fellow and you come up with a very large number. In Iran, since in
1979, a political regime has forced its will on the people. This it
has been able to achieve through the use of a machinery of
government manned by a very large number of fanatics who terrorize,
brutalize and kill, aided by many who are only too glad to help. The
number of people in the Islamic world who would use terror to
achieve ‘Islamic’ objectives can no longer be counted on the fingers
of a human hand.
Nevertheless, in the Islamic world as a whole, mainstream Muslims,
defined above, would vastly outnumber those whom we can call
Islamist terrorists. They would certainly far outnumber terrorists
in countries like Bangladesh where, till recently, Islamist
terrorism has been at bay. Even in Pakistan, which has been a major
source of supply of terrorists to Afghanistan and elsewhere,
mainstream Muslims far outnumber terrorists. This is true of all
Muslim majority countries, even though the definition of mainstream
will vary from country to country. Ordinary Muslims do not go around
killing people. Yet mainstream Muslims bear a large share of
responsibility for the surge of Islamist terrorism in these
countries. Terrorism and violence, like just about anything else, do
not grow out of thin air. They need an environment to thrive.
Mainstream Muslims themselves supply that environment. In many cases
this may be unwitting; the consequences, nevertheless, are the same.
It is in the nature of the religious ideas and ideologies of the
mainstream Muslim that he rarely questions the orthodoxy. His lack
of will or power to ask searching questions in matters of religion
is perhaps the most important factor that creates an environment
where Islamist extremism thrives. Take, for instance, the sermons he
hears in the local mosque, at the Friday congregations, and
elsewhere. In many cases, along with calls for piety, the sermons
call for solidarity of the Muslim ummah, as if it has been under
attack all over the world. It is strange that over fourteen hundred
years after it was born, after it long established itself as one of
the major organized faiths, now with a billion adherents to it,
Islam is still presented as a religion under threat from the
infidels. Imams in mosques still often end their solicitation to God
with Fa-ansurna ala al quaomil kaafereen -- “Help us against the
community of non-believers” Equally strange it is that such sermons
can be heard among expatriate Muslims in western countries, where
freedom of worship is fully guaranteed.
And the mainstream Muslim never thinks it proper to ask why is it
necessary to call for divine protection for Islam. He probably does
not even ask himself what the impact of the relentless anti-infidel
rhetoric may be on young and excitable Muslim minds. The example of
Islam –in- danger sermons is an important one in the present
context, because here is an issue where mainstream Muslims could ask
pertinent questions. But there are many other examples of mainstream
reticence. Critical inquiry is in general not something that an
average Muslim would go for in matters of his religion.
It is important to examine some of the ways the critical spirit is
thwarted and fanaticism spread. It has of late been recognized that
madrasas, or religious schools, have been a potent breeding ground
for religious hatred and intolerance. That the Taliban in
Afghanistan were actually the eponymous madrasa students, mostly
raised in Pakistan, were too obvious an example, and an extreme one
too. But tens of thousands of these schools are spread across the
Islamic world and they certainly do not spread a message of
tolerance to dissent and unbelief. Yet Muslims would in general do
not speak against the spread of madrasa education, though there has
been some criticism from them in recent times. It looks as if it is
a matter of impiety to disparage madrasas. On the other hand, the
role of the mosque in the spread of Islamic extremism has still to
be adequately recognized by mainstream Muslims. It is only after the
London suicide bombings of July 2005 that their role came to public
attention. An often repeated argument of Islamic apologists eager to
dismiss any Islamic connection of some of the acts of terror in
recent times has been that the terrorists were ‘modern educated’ and
were not products of madrasas. But many of them were regular mosque
goers and in all probability avid listeners of fiery sermons from
their imams.
And the very same mosques attended by the extremists are also the
ones that mainstream Muslims attend. Extremists do not have mosques
of their own. They share the house of God with other Muslims. These
Muslims do not protest fiery speeches and the prospective young
fanatic does not hear the protest. The passivity of mainstream
Muslims is not born simply of fear of retribution, though such fear
is all too real. An important reason why they do not protest against
extremist sermons in mosques is that it is not in their tradition
and training to ask critical questions about the major precepts of
Islam. They can discuss matters of religion as much as they like so
long as the discussion strengthens their Faith itself, and are in
the nature of piety or devotion, but they may not ask probing
questions that sounds like criticism of Islam. There are, moreover,
areas where the world of the extremist and that of the mainstream
Muslim come dangerously close to each other. Many mainstream Muslims
are often sympathetic to causes that extremists also promote and are
eager to die for. There are regions of the world where Muslims have
suffered gross injustices at the hands of foreign powers. The Middle
East is an obvious example. Many extremists have taken up the cause
of the oppressed here and elsewhere. Mainstream Muslims have also
voiced protest and frustration at such injustices. It is not,
however, usual for them to make it abundantly clear that their
support of the cause of the oppressed has nothing to do with
religion, or that they would protest with equal vigour injustices to
other communities around the world. If the extremist thinks in the
circumstance that he has the support of the mainstream Muslim, the
latter is not entirely without blame. Unthinking acts of shame, such
as jubilation among Muslims at large in many countries following
September 11, 2001, only strengthen the extremists’ impression of
support from their community that they may not have in reality.
For the mainstream Muslim, to be Muslim is still an overriding
consideration that guides his conduct, far more so in fact than
being a Christian is in a Christian’s life. In the zeal to be
Muslim, he often ignores the danger signs which should have told him
to stop, think and talk. Extremists exploded some 500 bombs in
Bangladesh in a single day in August this year. The bombs killed and
maimed and spread terror throughout the country. It is hardly
conceivable that the scores or so of the extremists who planted the
bombs did not pray in the same local mosque where other Muslims
prayed hours or days before the attacks. They may even have rubbed
shoulders against each other as they stood in serried ranks before
God the Merciful. But they never talked to each other. Mainstream
Muslims never asked what the extremists were up to and why. They
never drew the extremists into a debate about their ideas,
ideologies, and the reasons for their rage.
Or could it be that many mainstream Muslims did actually notice the
militants, even talked to them, and merely gave them a wink and a
nod? Is there a fringe of mainstream Islam that meets the extremist
in clandestine alliance for Islam?
Mahfuzur Rahman, a former United Nations economist, is currently
researching in religious fundamentalism.