Paris attacks: Jihadism is an Islamic issue and twenty-first century Orientalists need to stop suggesting otherwise

Those who are genuinely interested in countering Islamist terrorism need to encourage dissenting voices in the Muslim world

 

As Friday night’s terror attacks in Paris were unfolding, the reactions of many individuals and groups often betrayed preconceived, nay rehearsed, reactions.

Different Quranic verses were cited by both overly defensive Muslims and anti-Muslim bigots to prove how Islam is the religion of peace, and violence – respectively.

While many Muslims condemned the attacks in numbers, many well-meaning westerners seemed guilt-ridden about the fact that we Muslims were ‘forced’ to issue these condemnations.

All this was on display before the final death toll was announced and before anyone had claimed responsibility for the attack.

Clearly apprehensions over – and loyalty towards – one’s favourite narrative superseded any interest in focusing on the victims of terror and engaging in discussions to forestall similar attacks in the future.

As the hours went on, French President François Hollande issued a strong statement against the culprits. The French border was sealed and a curfew implemented in Paris, before ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.

And then came the second wave of premeditated and repeated-to-death assertions.

They started off with ‘West is to blame’, discussed apprehensions about rise in ‘Islamophobia’, claimed that Islamist extremism isn’t a ‘Muslim problem’ and were exclamation-marked by the assertion that France was asking for it and should expect more of the same.

There was time for a reverse ‘all lives matter’ campaign as well, calling out ‘silence’ over recent blasts in Beirut in Baghdad, completely ignoring the role precedence plays in reactions and conveniently forgetting the global reaction to Peshawar attack and Boko Haram’s violence last year.

Evidently, those waiting for the overwhelming reaction to the Paris attack to generate noise for the Beirut or Baghdad bombings didn’t see the irony in their own delayed outrage.

This is not to suggest that amidst this tangential pool of self-serving narratives, no argument valid or relevant to the bigger picture was presented. Indeed, anti-Muslim bigotry is an ugly reality, as depicted by the Chapel Hill Shooting, PEGIDA, the anti-Islam rallies in Australia or by the many mosques becoming targets of hatred.

The same is true for Western states’ foreign policy blunders and the lack of Muslim/Arab communities’ integration.

But something somewhere is seriously wrong when prejudice against a community is one’s primary concern on the day a nation suffers the biggest acts of violence in decades. It’s almost as if racism is a bigger evil than terrorism, and that by correlation calling out anti-Muslim xenophobia a more pressing concern than Islamist violence.

The obsession some have with earmarking Western imperialism as the root of all global evil is paradoxically soft-racist. By putting the blame for the volatility of the Muslim world at large on the neocolonialist manoeuvres of the West, and not on the corrupt leaderships or religious fault-lines conspicuously manifested by the locals, these opinion-makers exhibit twenty-first century Orientalism, implicitly asserting that Muslims would readily act against their self-interest should a Western power sufficiently wish so.

This soft racism is also flagrantly displayed by anyone who claims Islamist terrorism is ‘not a Muslim issue’, which demonstrates complete denial of the simple reality that global imperialist jihadism (the kind of imperialism that isn’t quite factored by the self-pointing ‘critics’) is nourished in Muslim communities around the world, including the West. It also happens to affect the Muslims the most, both in terms of suffering from Islamist attacks, and the ensuing backlash.

But because the West trains, funds and arms jihadists for its self-interests, those militants that self-implode to kill Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and their domestic backers, get a pass as mere ‘tools’ or ‘creations’ of the West.

This is downright dehumanizing of Muslims, sold by sections of the left and bought by the right-wing resellers of the Muslim world to sketch the simplistic and convenient narrative that paints West as being historically responsible for the Muslim world’s predicaments.

ISIS’ statement claiming responsibility for the Paris attacks said they targeted “the capital of prostitution and obscenity, the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe”. There is no mention of ‘Western colonialism’, ‘economic disparity’ or ‘social alienation’, which some commentators keep asserting as the main motivation behind jihadists’ actions.

The statement is Exhibit A of jihadism, an expansionist terror drive carried forward by radical Islamists that seeks to destroy pluralism by holding a literal version of Islam as the sole rulebook for not just Muslims, but the entire world. Jihadism nourishes itself by painting Muslims as perpetual victims of the West’s actions – an idea perpetuated by regressive sections of the left and Islamists alike.

Those who are genuinely interested in countering Islamist terrorism need to encourage the dissenting voices in the Muslim world, the voices that critique the wrongs within their communities, leaderships and religio-political policymaking. If you keep vending the soft-bigoted idea that jihadism isn’t particularly a Muslim issue, Islamist extremism will continue to spread in the Muslim communities.

Why, after all, would we Muslims work on solving a problem that isn’t ours to being with?

As appreciable as the left’s self-critique regarding Western imperialism and anti-Muslim bigotry is, it shrouds the more pressing need for Muslim world’s self-reflection. Muslims taking ownership of jihadism won’t rid the West of its historic – and present – wrongs; but it would allow the Muslim world to finally catch up and reconcile with the modern ideals.

It’s a no-brainer that once Islamist extremism is curtailed, anti-Muslim bigotry will be gradually snuffed out in synchrony.

Kunwar Khuldune Shahid is a Friday Times journalist. Follow him on Twitter

74 Responses to “Paris attacks: Jihadism is an Islamic issue and twenty-first century Orientalists need to stop suggesting otherwise”

  1. JAMES MCGIBBON

    Eddie, that is over 600000 that have sympathy with jihad, more than five times the size of the British Army.

  2. Charlatans

    Such a shame and great danger for our future, plus a red flag warning sign for us nationally to do something about it.

    There does not appear to be massive ‘Not in Our Name’ Muslim street Demonstrations by the thousands practicing the religion for example.

    Also hardly hearing anything from senior Imams in any National, or Religion coordinated preaching condemnations against the Jihad and barbarous medieval murders of ISIS, around the world from any of their leaders.

    I never ever hear a senior Iman apology for any of these horrendous deathly events nor from any senior organisations of those practicing the religion that causes them either.

    Just lately we have seen the Russian airliner blown out of the sky, Paris, Lebanon to name just a few of the holocaust type death incidents which should have sparked such widespread ‘Not in our Name’ and apologetic action by the so-called Muslim majority who say it is a religion of peace. This must tell us there is a quiet consensus being practised at least.

    All I keep seeing on the likes of the BBC for example, is many voices wheeled out stating it is not your average Muslim doing this, but more often than not some Muslim organisation spokesperson is put in front of us to tell us it was a’beautiful man’ that perpetrated the atrocity and the religion is generally renowned for peace.

    Fair enough we need to hear that the majority is not involved but the lack of authorative condemnations, like mass Muslim community demonstrations need to be heard from the hosts of the nations Muslims are now settled in.

    Mentioning the BBC prompts me also to wonder what on earth does a National Tax funded Government broadcasting corporation, with a two millennial Christian Heritage, appoint a Muslim Head of Religious programme and affairs?

    Could one imagine the Pope appointing the same for Vatican Radio?

    Could one have imagined Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill or John Major not intervening to stop this within the BBC?

    Well Blair and Labour appears to have tacitly agreed, because the fact of the matter is it happened under their watch! Just like Rotherham and other Labour strongholds enormous rise in immigration and peedo abuse by the thousands, massive increase in Shairia courts, FGM, Muslims proportionately taking up prison places, Trojan horses, Madrases and massive Muslim benefit abuse.

  3. Gino

    I’d love an answer to this question – I want to like the guy, but he seems to suffer from the typical apologism of the left 🙁

  4. bootsyjam

    I quite like Corbyn but he displays the naivety of a 15 year old. To explain:
    “I think war is bad so I’m not interested in armies and fighting and stuff.” Which totally ignores the fact that there are others who really do like fighting and that if you don’t stand up to them? Well….

  5. bootsyjam

    Yeah people need to start looking at what their glib comments really mean in real terms.

Comments are closed.