The Error of Radicalism

[gbayrak]

As also acknowledged by many Western authorities, the power behind the tragic September 11 attacks is not the Islamic faith, but political radicalism that is trying to use a superficially Islamic rhetoric. The true Koranic teaching in fact condemns violence against innocent people. As a moderate Muslim, I strongly believe in this fact and try to tell it to people as much as I can. (I am from the Istanbul University, Sociology Department)
Down below, there is an article from a moderate Muslim intellectual from Turkey. He explains why the radical rhetoric is incompatible with the “True Islam”, that is based on the verses of the Koran. I think this short article will help a lot for refuting “Bin Ladenism” from an Islamic perspective.


The Error of Radicalism

Why Should a Muslim Refrain From Being a "Radical" and Prefer Tolerance

HARUN YAHYA

There is another idea that we must examine together with that of terror; that is, the phenomenon of radicalism.

Radicalism means supporting sudden revolutionary destructive changes in any sphere and applying a strict uncompromising policy to achieve them. Radicals are characterized by their desire for revolutionary changes and the stern, sometimes aggressive attitude they adopt.

As in every realm, in this too the guide for the Muslim is the Koran. When we look at radicalism as it is defined in the Koran, we see that it has nothing to do with the way in which God commands His believers to behave. When God describes a believer in the Koran, He depicts him as a loving, soft spoken person, shunning conflicts and arguments, approaching even the most hostile people with warmth and friendship.

An example to guide us in this matter is the command given by God to Moses and Harun to go to Pharaoh and speak gently to him.

Go to Pharaoh; he has overstepped the bounds. But speak to him with gentle words so that hopefully he will pay heed or show some fear.' (Surah Ta ha: 43-44 )

Pharaoh was one of the most cruel and rebellious unbelievers of his time. He was a despot who denied God and worshiped idols; moreover, he subjected Muslims ( the Israelites of the time )to terrible cruelties and murder. But God commanded his prophets to go to such a hostile man and speak to him gently.

Notice that the way shown by God was the way of friendly dialogue, not the way of conflict with sharp words, angry slogans and agitated protests.

There are a few other examples to show Muslims how to behave in the dialogue between the Prophet Shu'aib and the deniers. This dialogue is related in the Koran in this way:

And to Madyan their brother Shu'ayb. He said, 'My people, worship God! You have no god apart from Him. Do not give short measure and short weight. I see you prospering and I fear for you the punishment of an all-encompassing Day.

My people! Give full measure and full weight with justice; do not diminish people's goods; and do not go about the earth, corrupting it.

What endures with God is better for you if you are believers. I am not set over you as your keeper.'

They said, 'Shu'ayb, do your prayers instruct you that we should abandon what our fathers worshipped or stop doing whatever we want to with our wealth? You are clearly the forbearing, the rightly-guided!'

He said, 'My people! What do you think? If I do possess a Clear Sign from my Lord and He has given me His good provision, I would clearly not want to go behind your backs and do something I have forbidden you to do. I only want to put things right as far as I can. My success is with God alone. I have put my trust in Him and I turn to Him. (Surah Hud: 84-88)

When we examine what he says, we see that Prophet Shu'aib invited the people to believe in God and to adopt high moral principals and he did this with friendliness and modesty. We can explain some of the reasons behind of the things said in these verses:

 When Shu'aib says " I am not set over you as your keeper" to the people, he does not want to dominate them; his only intention is to inform them of the truth that God has revealed.

 " You are clearly the forbearing, the rightly-guided": These words of the deniers to Shu'aib show his warm, gentle and courteous character and that this was particularly appreciated by the deniers.

 " My people! What do you think?" This expression used by Shu'aib shows that he calls on the deniers to use their intelligence and conscience. In other words, he does not use insistent pressure, but questions their ideas from an opposing stance and invites them to consider and come to a conclusion based on their own free conscience.

 I would clearly not want to go behind your backs and do something I have forbidden you to do". Shu'aib's prohibition here is not actually a prohibition. He explains that some acts are sinful and invites the people to abandon them. Moreover, when Shu'aib says " I would clearly not want to go behind your backs ", it is not his purpose to dispute with the people; he does not want to make them uncomfortable and incite a quarrel; he wants only to invite them to faith and the practice of high moral principals.

If you examine the Koran you will see that a warm, gentle and tolerant disposition characterized all the prophets. God describes Abraham as "Ibrahim was tender-hearted and forbearing. ( Surat at-Tawba: 114) and there is a verse in which our prophet Mohammed's moral principals are described:

It is a mercy from God that you were gentle with them. If you had been rough or hard of heart, they would have scattered from around you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them, and consult with them about the matter. Then when you have reached a firm decision, put your trust in God. God loves those who put their trust in Him. (Surat al-Imran: 159 )

An evident quality of radicalism is its anger. This disposition can be clearly seen in the speeches, writings and demonstrations of radical people. However, anger is not an attribute of Muslims. When God describes believers in the Koran, he commands, " those who give in times of both ease and hardship, those who control their rage and pardon other people - God loves the good-doers -" ( Surat al-Imran: 134 )

There is no situation in which a Muslim displays anger. The only thing a Muslim wants from other people is that they believe in God and live according to moral principles, but this is possible only by the grace of God. No matter what we do, no matter how much we try to explain the truth to people, human hearts are in God's hands. God reminds Muslims of this very important fact in this verse,

"Even if there was a Koran which moved mountains, or split the earth open or spoke to the dead . . .! On the contrary! The affair is God's altogether. Do those who have faith not know that if God had wanted to He could have guided all mankind? Those who are disbelievers will not cease to be struck by disaster for what they have done - or a disaster will happen close to their homes - until God's promise is fulfilled. God will not fail to keep His promise." (Surat ar-Rad: 31)

There is another verse that emphasizes this same fact;

If your Lord had willed, all the people on the earth would have had faith. Do you think you can force people to be believers? (Surah Yunus: 99)

Therefore, it is the duty of a Muslim only to explain the facts and to invite people to accept them but whether or not people accept the invitation is completely up to their own conscience. God reveals this truth in the Koran when He says that there is no coercion in religion.

There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and has faith in God has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 256)

Therefore, there is no coercion to make people believe and become Muslims, or to make Muslims say their prayers and beware of sin. There is only advice. God reveals in a few verses addressed to our Prophet that Muslims are not oppressors:

We know best what they say. You are not a dictator over them. So remind, with the Koran, whoever fears My Threat. (Surah Qaf: 45 )

Say: 'Mankind! the truth has come to you from your Lord. Whoever is guided is only guided for his own good. Whoever is misguided is only misguided to his detriment. I have not been set over you as a guardian.' (Surah Yunus: 108)

Muslims are responsible only for explaining their religion, they apply no pressure or coercion on anyone and are enjoined to speak gently to even the most tyrannical deniers. Such persons cannot be "radicals" because radicalism stands for the opposite of those qualities we have enumerated. Indeed, radicalism is an un-Islamic current of thought and political stance that came into the Islamic world later from outside. When we examine social phenomena described in terms of radicalism, it will be seen that these are basically a collection of methods and pronouncements used by communists in an earlier time, or an expression of the bigotry of ignorance that has no place in true Islam.

All Muslims must totally reject an angry, unbending disputatious disposition which goes against the very nature of the Koran and in its place adopt a friendly, gentle, tolerant, calm and compassionate attitude. Muslims must be an example to the world and be admired for their maturity, tolerance, moderation, modesty and peacefulness. Not only in these things, but also in their fine achievements in fields of science, culture, art, aesthetics and social order and others, Muslims must live Islam in the best possible way and be its representatives to the world.

Explaining Islam to others and defending Islam against ideas alien to it are included in what we have listed above. In the verse below, God clearly reveals what attitude a Muslim must assume with regard to others:

Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair admonition, and argue with them in the kindest way. Your Lord knows best who is misguided from His way. And He knows best who are guided. (Surat an-Nahl:125 )


This article is taken from a site entitled “ISLAM DENOUNCES TERRORISM” and located at http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/ . Many other important comments and articles are available at the same site.


Best Wishes,
Gamze Bayrak

[Nic Name]

There is no "power" behind the tragic September 11 attacks ... only cowardice and ignorance.

I thought that the separation of Church and State in the American Constitution is for the protection of freedom of religion ... now, I believe it is to guarantee the freedom of government.

I think he meant it like "the force that made this happen". "The powers that be" etc.

[Nic Name]

It is, indeed, a sad commentary on a religion that it's adherents must label themselves "moderate" because those who have hijacked their religion have made it nearly impossible for anyone to admit to being "passionate" about Islam, without being labelled radical. As if the religion itself, or its adherents generally, were in need of moderation.

I suppose it's the new secularism: that all religions are good ... in moderation.

In the short space of two paragraphs above, gbayrak took pains twice to use the term "moderate Muslim," to qualify himself and the author of the article.



The following article, though a bit lengthly, is reproduced in full here because one can't be confident that the original web page might not be deleted from the Internet. (If you aren't interested in reading long articles on this subject, please don't. If you are, I think this one is well worth the read.)

Being Muslim: victim of labelisation

Farid Alvie is confused by the labels that he and those around him are slapped with; as a Muslim, he finds himself constantly having to clarify that he is a "moderate", knowing that there is just that hint of disbelief that any one of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world can be anything but "fanatic."

Over a decade before the tragedy of September 11 occurred, I first encountered a phenomenon, which, until then, I had only read about in newspapers or heard bandied about by visibly irate members of assorted political, religious or social organisations. For the first time in my life that day, I was slapped, without having done anything, with a "label".

Walking down Main Street (and that is exactly what it was called) in "Ruralville", Pennsylvania, that winter evening, minding my own business, I got called a wide variety of names by a group of half-drunk, half-witted university students, probably on their way back from a fraternity party. Among the many labels that were generously thrown my way that evening, two still stand out in memory. One was "Commie Cuban ****" (asterisks denote the word that rhymes with duck) and the other was "Stinky Pedro".

There were others as well, but these two epithets confused me more than they angered me. Here I was, a 17-year-old Pakistani Muslim student, who had spent more years living in the Middle East than in my native Pakistan, being told to go back home to Papa Fidel or to my vast ancestral estate spread out all over central and South America. All because of the colour of my skin and the way I looked.

Ever since, I have always marvelled at how casually, intelligent and seemingly well-educated individuals indulge in the practise of labelling other individuals, cultures, religions, nations, concepts and systems. Labels are almost always assigned with nary a thought as to what they might actually infer in relation to the subject in question; they are oftentimes simply a convenient way of hiding the sheer laziness and ineptitude of our own intellect. I am, for example, as Cuban as New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani is Afghan, but then again, labels are not meant to have any tract with truth or fact, or even with how and what things/peoples/religions/nations are.

After the tragedy of September 11, labels, it appears, have become our security blankets. They seem to be the only "real" concepts, which help us deal with the uncertainty and insecurity that surrounds us these days. We cling to them like the desperate (and utterly irritating) Leonardo Di Caprio hung on to jagged wooden planks in the last scenes of that moving cinematic experience, Titanic. Unfortunately, we fail to realise that the incredible power of a label to help us through a crisis (or even a minor unpleasant social or political hiccup), only leads us towards the same fate faced by young Leonardo as he sank, frozen, to the bottom of the ocean.
As I switch from one international news channel to the next, scan one front-page headline and move to another, I am inundated with newsprint and television screens throwing labels my way with a cruelty that leaves my eyes, ears and ego bleeding profusely and begging for mercy. Or at least for a long commercial pause in hostilities on humanitarian grounds.

"Is he/she a 'moderate' Muslim?" the media asks. "Pakistan is a 'moderate' Islamic state," they tell us authoritatively. "Can President Pervez Musharraf guarantee that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal rests within the control of the 'moderates' in his government?" they worry.

That's one of my favourite labels these days: "moderate". As a Muslim, I must walk around with the assumption that all non-Muslims believe that all 1.3 billion Muslims are fanatics (despite the many patronising assurances given us to the contrary by that insufferable member of parliament who lives rent-free at No.10, Downing Street). Thus, I must always include the word moderate into any business introduction that I might need to make in future. ("Hello, my name is Farid Alvie. I'm a moderate Muslim journalist. I can provide your newspaper with a weekly column on the Pakistani entertainment scene for an incredibly cheap rate, if you're interested?")

No one in the media ever asks what catastrophe Ariel Sharon, the extreme Rightwing, "democratically" elected prime minister of the nuclear state of Israel, might wreak on the rest of the world in pursuance of his political goals. Shouldn't the Israeli "moderates" be better suited to keep permanent control of all of that country's strategic military assets? Should the "moderates" in India be similarly sanctioned to wrest control of that State's nuclear arsenal from the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government? But then the BJP and its fundamentalist, saffron-clad political allies might be forgiven their blatant fanaticism because the people of India have "democratically" elected them. Much as the current White House incumbent was democratically elected, despite losing the "popular" vote in last year's election. But these, perhaps, are irrelevant, minor details with no bearing on reality.

Which brings us to another neat label: democratic.

This bewilders me even more than being called "Stinky Pedro". I sincerely believe in the concept of democracy as a system of governance. I believe in it just as much as the next guy. Unless the next guy is a bigot, in which case I believe in it even more. This sort of "freedom to choose one's government" is an excellent concept, and gives the ordinary Joe Bloggs (or Ali Khan in the "moderate" Pakistani Muslim world) a sense of participation, of controlling one's own destiny. I am just a little confused about its definition.

If a polity has a frequently-held exercise that allows its citizenry to stuff ballot boxes with names of political organisations printed on it, it is entitled to being called "democratic". So when someone like Jorge Haider wins in a "democratic" election in Austria, why must Israel and the United States threaten to withdraw their ambassadors from that democratic country? Jorge Haider is an odious choice no doubt, but did he not come in through the ballot box fair and square?

So perhaps the etiquettes of this enterprise called democracy need to be enunciated more clearly. Voters must be clearly instructed to make acceptable choices, and not unacceptable ones. Participants must never show favour towards an anti-Semitic candidate, but give benefit of the doubt to an Islamophobe hankering for their vote. Presidential candidates in northern Africa must always win 90 per cent of the vote in every election if they live along the Nile, and command the region as a pharaoh-democrat. And any candidate sporting a beard in neighbouring Algeria must not be allowed to assume power, even if the ballot box gives them the legitimate right to do so.

Lest you think I get confused only when the strong and the powerful seem baffled by the complexity of labels, let me assure you that that is certainly not the case. Even the weak and the poor are label-conscious. Sample the following, from an email I received regarding the Taliban, "Please note, that the following is NOT a defence of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, nor are we supporters of the regime, due to them being shadeed Hanafees, and mu'tassib, and having incorrect Aqeedah about Allah and Islam (they follow the ways of the Sufiyah and the Deobandiyah, and not that of the Ahlus Sunnah)."

Since I am an ordinary, "moderate" Muslim, and not well-versed with the multi-faceted schismatic complexities of the Islamic faith, with which an infinitesimally tiny, email-sending variety is concerned, I confess that I cannot be of much help in deciphering the many "labels" contained within the lines quoted above. Suffice it to say that my Label Lexicon is greatly enriched by the following: "shadeed Hanafees", "mu'tassib", "Deobandiyah", "Ahlus Sunnah", "Sufiyah". Some of these labels are used to denounce the Taliban.

However, what I find absolutely incredible is the primary rationale used to criticise the Taliban. They are denounced, not because of their appalling violation and utter disregard for human rights and human life, but because they allegedly follow the Deobandiyah and the ways of the Sufiyah and are shadeed Hanafees, and possess incorrect Aqeedah! They are condemned not for the brutal treatment of human beings (and women are human beings first, no matter what other labels men might ascribe to them) within their care, but first and foremost for belonging to the wrong sect!

And this from the followers of a religion that says "to save the life of one human being is comparable to saving all of humanity". And this from the followers of a faith whose holy book begins with the words: "In the name of Allah, the most merciful and the most compassionate". And this from the followers of a God who told His Prophet that He was merely a messenger of the Divine Message, and not a warden over the people to whom this message was given.

Of course there are innumerable other all-encompassing labels. Some of them are constantly being used by "civilised", "good" people to describe "psychotic" "cave dwellers" in remote parts of the world. As a moderate Muslim human being, I am bewildered by the rhetoric I hear emanating from a big white house with huge pillars, as well as that being emitted from outside a crumbling cave. Labels galore yet again. "Crusade" is matched by "holy war" or "jihad", "infidels" is countered with "evildoers", and both sides order us to declare our allegiance: we must decide if we are with them or with the "evildoers/infidels".

Labels: evildoers, terrorists, freedom fighters, good guys, bad guys, fundamentalist, extremist, moderate, infidels, democrats, Blacks, Orientals, natives, Arabs, Jews, gays, liberals, pinkos, militants, commies, gentiles, hawks, radicals.

Plain, simple, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-purpose nametags. Bred in insecurity, narrow-mindedness, bias, just as much, perhaps, as our own anxiety and the uncertainty of the world around us. Not only are they useless, but dangerous as well. Is it easier for us, as ordinary people, to defer to the comfort zone of a pre-determined, pre-judged idea of someone else's second-hand experience? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I remain a moderate Muslim, 30-something, Pakistani journalist who lives in the Middle East, has a whole host of Arab, black, white, infidel friends, loves Afghan cuisine, Woody Allen and Cohen Brothers movies, the music of Echo and the Bunnymen, Dido, Pathanay Khan and Vivaldi, the words of Maulana Rumi, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Arundhati Roy, Chinua Achebe, Ernest Hemingway and Faiz Ahmed Faiz, and utterly fail to comprehend prejudice, war, self-righteous cultural, racial, religious arrogance, and the appeal of country western music.

I wonder if old Fidel's still got a place for a much-labelled soul like me in his backyard?

(Farid Alvie is a Pakistani journalist based in West Asia)

Note: The final facetious question was written, of course, before Guantanamo Bay was selected as the appropriate location for Taleban and Al Qaeda detainees. I don't think the author would use that analogy today, for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Nic Name
Note: The final facetious question was written, of course, before Guantanamo Bay was selected as the appropriate location for Taleban and Al Qaeda detainees. I don't think the author would use that analogy today, for obvious reasons.

No, I would venture to guess that he would <b>not<b>.

[tw]

There is a fundamental problem with being a strictly, devout religious person. To be so strictly religious is to deny the many post Bible, post Koran concepts we have since learned. For example, don't eat pork. Maybe back then it was a good idea, but today, things have changed. Those early books have long since been supplemented or corrected by so much we have since learned. Do we deny Darwinism only because we worship words in an old book? The strictly religious must deny such fundamental, 'post old book' concepts.

IOW to impose religious beliefs on everyone in a nation is to impose things we now call erroneous, stupid, or even superstitious. To be truly a devout religious person, one must have peers of equal piety - no infidels permitted. Such devout beliefs mean imposing religious beliefs on all adjacent souls. Tolerance of concepts in violation those old books cannot be permitted.

A truly strict and strong believer in any religion must become extremist because his beliefs put him in direct conflict with so many new ideas discovered since those old books were written.

Those who balance their religion with today's realities are not truly, strong believers. They temper those old book concepts with the realities of today's world. It is only when people worship the Bible or Koran at the expense of today's realities - today's knowledge - only then do those people truly become fanatics we also call extremists.

There is much that extremists do in violation of their religion. But that is only a necessary over-response to the enemy - the evil ones. Those who would balance the real world with religion or those who would properly delegate religion to insignificance are not devout religious believers.

World's problems are not from extremists, but the underlying concepts and ideas that take those people to extremist positions. Not all extremists are religious fanatics. But a truly strong, unbending religious believer must be in opposition, in direct contradiction, to many principals that make today's world operate and improve.

The Bible and Koran were good first editions on how to build a social organization - a country, a people, an economy, whatever. But we have since learned so much more. Democracy for example. Blasphemy. The people now elect a leader - not god?

To become a strict believer in those old books means denying so much of what we have since learned. In doing so, one must alienate himself from the real world - which one cannot do. Or one must treat that other world as evil - which so many religious fanatics do. In that latter case, fanatics justify their violations of the Bible or Koran by declaring those "others" as evil.

There are honest people who balance religion with realities of "post Bible and Koran" life, and honest people who have no need for religion. Then there are those who futilily attempt to define life only in terms of some once good but now flawed old books. There lies the source of conflict. Good honest people don't really believe everything in the Bible and Koran - and therefore eliminate a reason for extremist viewpoints. To believe everything in those old books eventually leads to conflict.

A fundamental problem with extreme belief in those old books - one must assume that all imporant things in life have already been defined by those books. God's chosen people are really those who know nothing is yet fully defined or known. God's real chosen people keep learning more of God's laws knowing full well that the Bible and Koran were only good, early, and flawed versions of that science.

This raises an interesting question. Do the most religiously devote worship learning and education? IOW are the religiously devote really devoid of conventional 'religion'? What I am really asking is, "What is religion"? The old and flawed concepts taught in the Bible and Koran OR mankind's continued need to learn, advance, improve, cooperate, and innovate?

I fear I may have presented too much in one post to digest.

[jaguar]

to summarize tw

Religion is primitive. Please evolve, the rest of us are waiting.

Its only purpose now really is an emotional crutch, it gives people a reason for living etcetcetc, pity we can't replace it with something, Stalin tried that with leader worship (which was kinda stupid, considering communism by nature should mean individuals, leaders included are not important)

Its interesting, some people come here and are just idiots (asdfasdf and that moralhighground dude in the truck thread come to mind) some peopple, like this guy post really, really interesting stuff.