President Obama recently spoke against radicalism explaining that the United States is not at war with Islam, but with extremism. He explained, that ISIS is neither not Islamic and certainly not religious. A clear point that was faced with some resistance and criticism by some conservative networks. Why doesn't the president seem to emphasize the alliance or identification of this group as Islamic?, they seemed to ask-- a question that not only lacks a profound understanding of Islam but also an entire erroneous view on religious identity.
Let's start with the claim of who get's to decide what the identity of a group is? Well, certainly it does not only depend to the group itself but to a larger community that either accepts or rejects this identity. Despite the efforts of the KKK to identify themselves as Christian, would the larger community accept and defined them as such for example? It is not enough for a small group to claim ownership of an ideology, it is the mutual acceptance of larger community to establish that.
There is a larger misconception out there that Islam or any other religion carries innately a chance to pervert it's original message to become destructive and evil. Let's look at the fallacy of this thinking. When something becomes something that it is not, why do we still speak of the original identity as being distorted? This is what president Obama speaks of when he calls the Islamic State certainly not religious but a terrorist group. The minute the group promotes violence and terror, it has nothing to do with Islam, the same way that the KKK has nothing to do with Christianity.
There is also a major point that is not part of today's narrative of radicalisation. First of all, radicalisation or extremism is understood only through groups that promote violence. Nothing can be further from the truth when we talk about radicalisation. Ideas that promote good moral values are often radical ideas, extreme ideas, that seem to go against any current set of values or systematic belief. Furthermore, religion is in itself radical. No matter what creed, religion or faith -- if at the core, it promotes a way of living that is difficult but holds itself as very valuable it will definitely be radical.
Religion in fact has to be radical or it will loose it's appeal so to speak. However, it is radical in its message for goodness, for love, for justice, for equality, for solidarity, for peace. If Christians were not radical, how could they ever forgive their offenders? As Christ taught. The Quran surprisingly, teaches the same truth,
Terrorist groups should be identified as such, whether they are falsely trying to seek a religious identity or not. In the same way, the discourse that extremism is dangerous for the world should be understood in its own context. Religion is radical. However, radical acts of kindness certainly do not get the same coverage like the ones of violence. Goodness is radical, there is nothing practical or average about it. In fact, goodness and peace is far more radical than violence and evil. It is far more difficult and it takes a lot more work to do what is right and good.
The association of radicalisation and religion needs to be put to a halt. It detriments religion as factor or motivation for violence. While it is true that religion is radical, it is radical for other purposes. It is men that pervert religion, and not the other way around. Perhaps, the discourse needs to focus on what unites people of faith. These radical people throughout the world that share different systems of beliefs that compelled them to do what is good. Let's drop the radicalisation discourse tied with religion, call these groups for what they are terrorists, and explore the radical essence in religion that promotes good in all creeds and faiths.
No comments:
Post a Comment