Merely being unsupportive of jihadism does not prevent the phenomenon from growing.
Merely being unsupportive of jihadism does not prevent the phenomenon from growing
When faced with the appalling and brutal acts of groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda, the most common response the vast majority of my fellow Muslims offer is ‘they don’t represent me’ or ‘they have been condemned by most Muslims’.
These sentiments may seem laudable on the surface, and in some respects they are, but they also conceal a much deeper problem that helps explain why jihadist ideology seems to be growing in spite of such sentiments being widespread.
Two key points need to be made about this.
Firstly, in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter that the vast majority of Muslims oppose jihadism because as long as there is a significant and determined minority of Muslims that are supportive, jihadists will achieve their aims.
The vast majority of Iraqis and Syrians hate ISIS but that did not prevent ISIS from taking over large swathes of those countries and committing large-scale massacres. A majority of Nigerian Muslims oppose Boko Haram but that does not seem to have dented their seemingly unstoppable rise. A majority of Pashtuns oppose the Taliban but they still remain the most potent political and military force in Pashtun regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Hence, merely being unsupportive of jihadism does not prevent the phenomenon from growing and causing widespread chaos and destruction. Nor does it prevent it from becoming a dominant force.
There is a false assumption at work here, namely the notion that as long as the vast majority of Muslims oppose jihadism everything will be fine. Recent history has shown that this assumption is not only false but dangerous.
The second point to be made is that statements such ‘they don’t represent me’ are only useful if they are a precursor to a sustained effort to challenge and undermine jihadism. In my experience, this is rarely the case, in fact, the opposite tends to be true.
Such statements tend to be another way of saying ‘this is none of my business because I don’t agree with them’. By merely declaring jihadists not representative of Muslims at large, many Muslims are in fact refusing to take ownership of the problem and merely performing a PR exercise.
This is the reason why we have not seen any large-scale Muslim led effort to challenge extremist ideology in Europe since 911. Muslims either go into conspiratorial mode or convince themselves that it is not their problem when faced with jihadi excesses.
And yet the very same people will then say they are concerned about Islamophobia and the Palestinian cause because it affects fellow Muslims and that they have concerns about the global Muslim community.
How can one be concerned about the global Muslim community and not want to tackle jihadism which, in the grand scheme of things, has killed far more Muslims that anyone else?
Rather than offering such shallow condemnations, we as Muslims need to stop being solely concerned with the image of Islam and Muslims and recognise that challenging jihadists and associated extremists proactively will do more to rehabilitate the image of Islam than shallow ‘not in my name’ statements.
The greatest threat to Islam and Muslims today is not the US, Israel or India but jihadism and only we can defeat it. The sooner we recognise that the better!
Amjad Khan is a Muslim writer and commentator
41 Responses to “Why Muslim ‘not in my name’ campaigns are part of the problem”
D-Undertaker
Good article.
Dave Roberts
Would you like to elaborate?
Dave Roberts
Clearly you haven’t understood the article.
F.D
Here is a possible solution to this issue……
http://dzuzant.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/islam-and-the-secular-state.pdf
Please please read the above if you are able to find the time.
or least read the preface.
Please also see
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Message-Islam-Mahmoud-Contemporary/dp/081562705X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha
The future of progressive sharia is what it is all about on a sociological level.
These books promotes a form of trickle down ‘reform’ that would engage
the interest of educated Muslims and would act as a counterbalance to
extremist ideology.
The issues they both raise could also be included in the national curriculum and both texts
should be made freely available on the net.
Unfortunately the Saudis and others are spending billions and I do mean billion on a trickle
up version of regressive reform via the distribution of free
Qur’an’s (these contain Wahhabi inserts to the text),books, pamphlets,
conferences and youtube videos.etc
”In considering the ‘reform’ of Islam, it is useful to think in terms of
the combined roles played by Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther in the
adaptation of Christian tradition to the development of the modern
world. This analogy illustrates both the commitment
to tradition and fundamental religious notions, while at the same time
seeking reformation and a challenge to orthodoxy.
In Mecca, for the 13 years before His migration to Medina, the Prophet
received the first part of the Koran-the Mecca part. This Mecca period
established the moral and ethical foundation of the Muslim community.
Because this peaceful and voluntary Mecca message of fundamental social
and economic egalitarianism was violently rejected in Mecca and Arabia
in general, the Mecca message was not suitable for that stage of human
development. Thus, the Prophet’s migration
to Medina not only signified a tactical move to seek a more receptive
environment, but also a shift in the content of the message itself.
The rest of the Koran-the Medina message-which later became codified in
Shari’a as the model for an Islamic state by the majority of Muslims,
was a step backward. For example, there are many verses in the Koran
from the Mecca message which say there is no compulsion
in matters of religion or belief and people should be left to decide
for themselves whether they want to believe or not believe.
In the Medina message, there are verses that say one should go out and
fight infidels wherever one finds them and kill them. There are verses
which say one should fight Christian and Jewish believers, making them
submit to Muslim rule or be subjugated by force.
Now, according to Islamic belief, each message, including Judaism and
Christianity, is valid only to the extent that it is relevant and
applicable to changing people’s lives. So, it was very necessary,
logical and valid in that context for the Prophet to apply
the Medina message. But the Medina message is not the fundamental,
universal, eternal message of Islam. That founding message is from
Mecca.
So, the reformation of Islam must be based on a return to the Mecca
message. In order to reconcile the Mecca and Medina messages into a
single system, Muslim jurists have said that some of the Medina verses
have abrogated the corresponding earlier verses from
Mecca. Although the abrogation did take place, and it was logical and
valid jurisprudence at one time, it was a postponement, not a permanent
abrogation. If we accept the process as a permanent abrogation, we will
have lost the best part of our religion-the
most humane and the most universal, egalitarian aspects.
The Mecca verses should now be made the basis of the law and the Medina
verses should be abrogated. This counter-abrogation will result in the
total conciliation between Islamic law and the modern development of
human rights and civil liberties. In this sense
we reformers are superfundamentalists.
The key to our reformation will be a positive and receptive attitude
toward the totality of the human experience. What we find to be
consistent with our fundamental principles, we accept, whatever the
source.
For example, the democratic component of Western experience is a
positive aspect. We would not accept the humanism of the Western
Enlightenment unqualified. We accept that God is the Creator in the
first place; Man the creator only in the second place-to the
extent that he is a reflection of the original Creator. For this
reason, the Islamic religious orientation would remain even in a neutral
state that retains a functional separation between state and religion.
If universal values are not adapted from within indigenous traditions,
reform only foments the very cultural reaction witnessed in the Islamic
world today.”by Abdullahi An’Naim
Shawn
Wow. Powerful article! Thank you…I stand with you.