If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
The world today, as we know it, is wrecked by ethnic violence and fundamentalist religion has reared its ugly head. Primarily the blame is rested on fundamentalist Islam’s shoulders for being responsible for most of the horrors in the world today. The war in Iraq, the Chechnyan crisis, Kashmir, Bombings in Bali, Madrid, and Nigeria, and the list goes on. But is the world really dominated only by fundamentalist Islam? How about Christianity or Hinduism? Buddhism, fortunately doesn’t invoke images of fundamentalism immediately; at the most slap thy neighbor might be considered sacrilegious. Jokes apart, people have killed in the name of the other two religions too; ironically the clashes have been with Muslims. But why has Islam always been the common enemy?
The conflicts in Sri Lanka (LTTE) or Ireland (IRA) are one of the few that have no Muslim role. But is that reason enough to lay the blame squarely on Islam and deem it as violence-inspiring? Fundamentalist Christianity or Hinduism has existed in US and India respectively but was roundly criticized by the liberals thus tempering its overall effect. Of course, sometimes the negative effects have spilled over to the society but have been reigned in before permanence set in. Fundamentalism primarily springs from intolerance or inability to change; the world is changing at a rapid pace, and boundaries of faith and science often blur leaving a large gap of confusing thoughts.
Religion cannot be separated from your social life but can be adapted to handle change. Constructivist interpretation of scriptures doesn’t bode well for the global well-being and I think Islam primarily lacks in that area. Although scholars often preach that Islam is a religion of peace, its jihadi followers hardly invoke images of peace. All religions experience a period of flux; Christianity went through its period of dark ages but the ensuing religious persecution help found a new nation. Hinduism went through the reform exercise by working on its separatist traditions like the caste system, dowry and the Sati system, and child marriage practices. However, the changes were from within the religion and happened over time. Social reformers like Martin Luther and Raja Rammohan Roy, among others took lead to protest against their religion’s dogmatic practices. They met with stiff resistance but prevailed in the end. It is not perfected yet. Christian evangelicals number almost 100,000 today in America alone and have emerged as a potent force enough to tilt political balance – the recent elections being a testimony to the fact. The recent Kanchi Seer controversy also highlights the extent of influence of religion over politics in India. But at least tempering forces exist which keep the radical movement in check. Narendra Modi is roundly criticized by everyone and has been dealt a political blow as well. The separation of the church and the state still is considered an overarching principle in America where the Ten Commandments can be removed from the grounds of federal government.
Change in Islam similarly should come from within and scholars should dare to take an unpopular stand. Admittedly the change will take time, but if it results in minor reduction of the terrorized climate around us, it will be worth it. The question however is, will it be possible in our time? Maybe not. But a start nevertheless is a start.
by Patrix | on Monday, January 10th, 2005 at 6:00 am | 
Religion . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
January 10th, 2005 at 7:09 am reply
Well said Patrix.
Change in Islam similarly should come from within and scholars
You see in absence of sufficient scholars the fundamentalism in Islam is rising. In the Arab world the general level of education is very poor primarily because wealthy Arabs do not have to face hard life and they do not bother. Bin Laden (e.g.) is an wealthy Arab who infected his crooked ideologies to many. In majority muslim countries (other than Arab) fundamentalist leaders are targeting the madrassa students because it is easier to feed with the ideas like Jihad. The madrassa curriculam does not allow them to be a progressive human being. These fundamentalist leaders are actually opportunists whose goal is something else rather than religious. General people can be often confused or brain washed by their ideas.
You won’t find many scholars or as to say some rational individual doing a suicide bomb act.
The problem is that the western media is stereotyping Islam as the enemy rather than doing anything to raise the standard of education in Muslim nations. That is in a way doing a negative propaganda and peaceful muslims are being irritated. No single religion is dangerous for other religion. Its the carriers of that religion who can misinterpret things and ignore rationalism.
January 10th, 2005 at 8:17 am reply
Rezwan - Appreciate your comment and thanks for elaborating. Islam definitely doesn’t propogate violence but as I said, it is in the hands of its followers to interpret the scriptures in regards to this day and age. I hope sanity prevails and change begins soon.
January 11th, 2005 at 4:43 am reply
I have read innumerable articles from Muslim scholars, abhoring violence. They take quotes from the Qoran, and explain why the prophet did not mean take recourse to violence when he said such and such a thing. And they issue a lot of jingoistic statements proclaiming that their religion is non-violent to the core etcetra etcetra.
However, in the end what matter are not the assorted views of the elite that get published in The Readers’ Digest and Time, but what is taught to millions of young malleable students day and night in thousands of madrassas across the Islamic World.
So who is to blame? What a question! HA!
January 11th, 2005 at 9:20 am reply
Kiran - Exactly the problem and complaint I have against those Muslim scholars. It would be far more effective if they could propogate those values and ideas to their own people (in Madrassas, Al Jazeera, etc.) instead of telling us in Understanding Islam 101. We are easily convinced…not that suicide bomber. But all changes is slow, lets hope it happens in our lifetime.
January 12th, 2005 at 12:02 pm reply
Hey,
We are sitting here discussing violence and world affairs, its too simplistic. The truth is probably far from it.
Eductaion is a decoration, we forget the basic needs that of food and shelter. Most of the suicide fighters and ‘jihadis’ are not fighting with a choice, they have no other way out. True alleviation will result from filling their stomachs, granting them security.
There is so much of a difference in the one letter- sympathy versus empathy.
January 12th, 2005 at 12:50 pm reply
Usha - Not exactly. Many regions suffer from poverty but we do not see blowing themselves up everyday. Saudi Arabia is technically a rich country but the people are still one of the most radical on the planet. Discussing world affairs won’t solve the problem but it is at least one step in the right direction.
January 12th, 2005 at 9:26 pm reply
Perhaps we are not very well educated about what Islam is. I believe that the Koran (Quran) should be required reading for all. Add to that the history of Islam and its impact on the world. Islam’s impact on India has been called the bloodiest chapter in human history and every other atrocity ever commited in the world pales in comparison. Ignorance of Islam is the first mistake that people make. Here are some articles which may be of help.
I recommend http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm
which has a collection of Ali Sina’s articles. I noted a few below.
Try this Anwar Shaikh article on
http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/anwar.htm
See Ali Sina’s articles especially this one which is a
review of a book by Ibn Warraq called “Why I am not a Muslim.”
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_am_not_muslim.htm
Here is Ali Sina’s “Sex in Paradise”
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/sex_in_paradise.htm
There are too many articles in http://www.faithfreedom.org to actually
read them. But I think that Ali Sina’s “Why I left Islam” is
well worth the time.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_left_islam.htm
January 13th, 2005 at 12:22 pm reply
Atanu - Thanks for the great links. Will read them at leisure.
January 14th, 2005 at 5:30 pm reply
The comment that became a post
Thanks Patrix for that post on Islamic fundamentalism - it really appealed to me and I was going to leave a really loooooooooooooooong comment, but decided to just go ahead and write on it myself :) Being Indians, I think
January 15th, 2005 at 6:37 pm reply
Hey..did u catch the Reader’s digest article on the same?I think it is in the cover of the latest issue.