You know the feeling by now. It’s a mixture of frustration and fear, apathy and apprehension, sadness and anger, confusion and clarity. It’s the feeling most of us get when we hear about yet another negative incident tainting this pristine religion of ours. And this feeling has become even more volatile in our highly charged environments, so neatly sprinkled with the explosive residue from 9/11, the war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.
Every episode, instantly beamed all over the world, either makes us cringe and look for the first person to whom we can apologize or forces us to shake our heads in disbelief at the worldwide ‘conspiracy’ against Islam. In this polarized world of ‘with us or against us’, every episode forces us to choose a side – if we try to rationalize and analyze its situational context, we are branded apologists for extremism and if we criticize the bigotry and hate with which these actions are perpetrated, we are labeled apologists for the West.
We as a nation have become lulled into this oversimplification. We have fallen into the trap of picking sides (or worse, throwing our hands in the air and walking away). Our senses are constantly being bombarded with instant news, forcing us to instantly make a judgment: “No time for analysis, make a decision quick, you with us or against us? How can it be so complicated, we presented the ‘facts’, so what’s it gonna be?”
I say all this because I was genuinely surprised to read Br. Tariq Nelson’s post, “Embarrassed by the lunatic fringe” where I feel he was unfair to himself in feeling an emotion of embarrassment, especially when based on narratives created by those who have an agenda, be it imperialism, TV ratings, war profiteering, or a lust for power.
I refuse to allow them (the ones creating these narratives) to affect my measured evaluation of every situation. I refuse to allow them to lump all the West into one fiery ball of sin. I refuse to allow them to lump all dissidents into one evil group of Islamists. I refuse to feel embarrassed to be a Muslim. I refuse to feel embarrassed to be a Westerner.
Let me give an example of this overly simplified polarization. Sheikh Saleh Al-Fozan, a famous Saudi cleric, recently answered a question about those calling themselves ‘Liberal Muslims’. He stated:
Loosely translated (corrections are welcome):
“…The one who denies the knowledge of the obligations of the deen, that which distinguishes between the Muslim and the Kafir and wishes for freedom which is not subject to the bounds of Shariah, and denies the Shariah laws, especially those concerning the women, and (denies) the commanding of good and prohibiting of evil, and (denies) the legality of jihad for the sake of Allah, then these are from the major issues which nullify one’s Islam. With regards to the one who calls himself a Liberal Muslim, it is a contradiction if he means by liberal that which has been described. And such a person should make repentance for such ideas in order to be considered an upright Muslim.”
Sounds pretty straightforward, no? Not when you look at it from the two extremes. First, in reporting the item, they willfully ignored the first segment in bold, as the context of his answer was very important. Secondly, they literally interpreted ‘Musliman Haqqan’ as ‘Real Muslim’ (implying the opposite to be Non-Muslim) as opposed to the more appropriate ‘Upright Muslim’ (to which the opposite would be a Deviant Muslim).
Both extremes interpreted his answer as an open-season on liberal Muslims, reading his fatwa as a takfir of anyone calling himself liberal. The Islamists saw it as a vindication of their extreme beliefs while the neo-cons referred to it as another case of mullah-gone-wild. Sadly, Sh. Fozan was forced to yield to this nonsense and explicitly stated that he was not making such a judgment.
Is it such a surprise that the two extremes made their extreme interpretations? Not at all. Why be surprised at the barking of a dog and the crying of a baby? What upsets me is that these two voices have become so loud and obnoxious that the voice of reason and moderation has become drowned out, forcing us to pick one of the two sides.
How many people actually read the news item and felt the need to research what Sh. Fozan *really* said?
We are failing our intellects when we conveniently choose one of these sides. The truth must be scraped from the bottom of the cooking pots of government propaganda, media distortion, and radical discourse. Let us make our independent judgments free from the farce of fanaticism. And I am confident that when we do so, we will create our own space where facts, not religious affiliations or political loyalties, determine our support, our criticism, and our feelings.
BBC – The rival to the Bible
2 hours ago
6 comments:
that was by far the most relevant piece you've written so far
nice read...
and it sucks to be in such a state of confusion everytime you turb the tele on or hear the news...
WS
Saqib
I understand what you are saying, but it is quite clear that there is a group (Khawaarij) that are out there and aim to kill and maim.
It is really sad to see the blood libel propaganda, stupid terror threats and other things being put out by people that are Muslim. Tens of thousands are being killed (directly or indirectly) by these people.
I think it is time we stop burying our heads in the sand and start confronting these people
Saqib,
I wasn't trying to make it out to be a state of pure confusion. I think we can sort out of fact from fiction, but it takes more of an effort than simply swallowing the news (from both sides).
WA-
Tariq,
True, there does exist a group (khawaarij) trying to kill and maim, but my question is WHO is defining that group? Is it the western governments? The media? The tin-pot dictators? The apologists? Or is it the truth-seeking individuals who are weighing the facts and throwing out the fiction?
I see too many of us simply falling in line behind the 'Islamist' argument without giving too much thought to it.
Is it fear of being associated with this group? Is it a knee-jerk reaction in this post-9/11 world?
Yes, lets confront the horrors of this group, but are we being balanced in our approach? That's all I'm asking...
WA
This is an example of the due diligence that should be done before making a judgment on the so-called Islamists (in this case, at the Lal masjid tragedy).
The link shows how the Ulema delegation had reached a settlement with Ghazi, but the government made last second amendments that 'resulted in the failure of the talks'.
I think its clear to most observers that Musharraf was in a rush to make a strong-handed statement. There was no reason to rush the compound. Turn off the power, cut off the supplies, and wait them out. Would that have been so complicated?
Naeem, you are right. I've been saying for years that common sense is a thing of the past. Also, it is a human trait that has nothing to do with religion. Seriously, what person with an iota of common sense would fire at a masjid or bomb women and children without so much as an apology?
I tell people to give me a break with all this nonsensical bs about terrorists/islamists/fundamentalists. Why should I or any other Muslim feel embarrassed by something we didn't do? They can say they are doing it for whoever they please but it doesn't and won't excuse their behavior. We should feel the same anger towards them that we do towards those that bomb and shell the innocent.
I say challenge the ones that challenge our beliefs! I think it's hilarious that most of these accusers won't take responsibility for slavery, imperialism, wars of agression, destruction of the world economy and the environment but they keep pointing their fingers in our faces.
Our beloved Prophet advised us not to argue with the ignorant. They will always say and hear only what they want. We have more important matters at hand then worrying about either of these groups, like creating our own space of common sense! Native Deen wrote a song about, wanna hear it? :-)
Post a Comment