Give A Voice To Moderate Islam

[JohnRN]

At a time of great religious polarization and violence that is sweeping across the world, and a persistent campaign of terror in the name of extremist political ‘Islamism’, while there is no room for complacency, it is useful to note that the ideology of extremist Islam is, in fact, being defeated in many places, and this is happening precisely because it is a weak and erroneous idea. It prevails only where the enveloping context is oppressive and does not allow questioning and criticism in an open discourse. In structurally free societies, it is only where such discourse has been suppressed by terrorism that, once again, extremist Islam begins to appear to have prevailed. It is important to remind ourselves, however, that appearances are not reality, that compliance under extreme duress does not mean that an idea has been embraced. That is why the terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) have to kill so many of their own ‘Muslim brothers and sisters’, whose ‘rights’ they claim to be fighting to protect – nearly 90 per cent of all civilian fatalities inflicted by the terrorists in the State are Muslims. This is consistent with what had happened in Punjab as well, where the population was relatively more evenly distributed between Hindus and Sikhs – 65 per cent of the civilian victims of the ‘Khalistani’ terrorists were themselves Sikhs. Unsurprisingly, today, with the threat of terror gone, the ideology of Khalistan finds no advocates among the Sikhs in India, though a handful of non-resident Indians continue to rant about the ‘oppression of Sikhs’ in ‘Hindu India’. The fact is, intolerant belief systems constantly find it necessary to impose censorship through violence, because they would simply shrivel up and die under the sunlight of an open discourse.

It is in India that extremist Islam has met with its most resounding defeat, despite an enormous and sustained campaign of terrorism, vast financial resources from a wide range of state sponsors, and continuous support and encouragement from Pakistan. It is interesting that, in the Pakistan sponsored sub-conventional war in J&K, Pakistan has succeeded in sending in jehadis from more than 18 different countries to fight and die in the State, but they have failed entirely in getting Indian Muslims from other parts of the country involved in what they have sought to project as a jehad to protect Muslims against the ‘unbelievers’.

India’s success in contesting the movements of extremist Islam is based largely on the tolerant, pluralistic Islam that has been embraced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims here, and the relationship of stable accommodation with other Faiths that Islam has entered into within the context of a democratic, open and secular constitutional polity.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that moderate Islam is, today, under siege in India – and the threat comes from more than one direction. The most significant threat, of course, is of terrorism itself. The moderates of the Faith cannot directly confront the extremists once the latter begin to push their ideas through campaigns of terrorism. The moderate voice is often stifled with the first shot of the extremists’ gun. While moderates can be expected to raise their voices against extremism, and have often done so, this is possible only under conditions where the risks are manageable. It is, consequently, necessary for both state and society to protect moderate Islam in India today, just as extraordinary measures were adopted to protect the voice of moderation in Punjab at the height of the terror in that State.

The resource base of the moderates, moreover, is relatively limited, as compared to the vast and unconditional resources the extremists are able to secure from their foreign sponsors. The result is the increasing orbit of subversive activities and well-funded campaigns for the mobilization of support for the extremist cause, and the relative absence of a coherent moderate response. In this, the role of the media also tends to be negative – though largely inadvertently so – since its primary focus is on ‘news’ and on the sensational it yields far more column space and airtime to covering the activities of extremists than it could ever credibly commit to airing the message of the moderates. This is natural and cannot be expected to change, but it places moderates at a distinctive disadvantage, even as it assures a steady supply of the ‘oxygen of publicity’ that keeps the extremists alive.

Another and more insidious danger comes from the Indian state itself, as it seeks progressively to engage Islamist extremists and their state sponsors in negotiations. This reflects a grave miscalculation on at least two counts: first, the extremist ideology is not amenable to reasonable accommodation; second, and more significantly, when the state and its agencies engage the extremists in a dialogue and increasingly define their policies in terms of their assessments of extremist reaction and response, they inevitably marginalize the moderates. Today, moderate Islam has no voice in world opinion precisely because the world is eager only to engage with those who are killing in the name of Islam. If Islamist extremism is to be defeated, the world and the Indian state must not only speak to the moderates, and to the moderates alone, but they must also protect and empower them.

Regrettably, India’s political leadership is progressively losing its moorings on the communal question. Inviting ‘Muslim intellectuals’ to dinner and iftar parties appears to exhaust the range of political initiatives in this direction today, across the entire ideological spectrum. This can hardly help break through the ideological logjam, because these ‘intellectuals’ are themselves confounded by what is happening. Worse, the ‘secular’ lobby tends to be enormously patronizing, and has no real ingress into, and little understanding of, Muslim culture, which has largely been reduced to a politically correct parody of itself in their imaginings. This is no less than offensive to the Muslims, just as similar and reductionist stereotypes were offensive to the Sikhs during the era of terrorism in Punjab. The loss of Urdu as a living and vibrant cross-cultural language and intellectual movement has done irreparable harm in this context. If bridges are to be built, real knowledge and understanding of the culture is required, both among non-Muslims and among Muslims themselves, with each confronting and coming to terms with the realities of their own mixed histories and transgressions. The culture of denial that dominates a hypocritical ‘interfaith’ discourse in this country will have to be rejected if any forward movement is to be secured in the relationship between communities.

The intellectual and cultural accomplishments of Indian Muslims are far greater than the sum of those of all other Muslim countries put together, and Indian Islam is unique in its accommodation, as it lives in peace within a multicultural, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. The Indian Muslim has repeatedly made his aspirations clear to the nation and its leadership: he wants to be Indian and Muslim. Thousands of Muslims don the Indian uniform in all of the country’s fighting forces, and have repeatedly distinguished themselves for their courage, dedication and patriotism. Muslims in India do not want the special concessions and treatments that opportunistic political leaders constantly emphasize and project; they want a real equality within a non-discriminatory social and political context. Eventually, the people want governance, they want transparency and they want justice – and Muslim aspirations are no different. It is because secular institutions are failing to provide these that fanaticism and the ghetto mentality are resurfacing in irrational but powerful ideological guise – and this is not happening in Islamic communities alone.


(Published in The Pioneer, December 20, 2003)

The author is K.P.S. Gill, the legendary police officer who crushed the Khallistan movement in India.

[JohnRN]

Guess their voice will be as silent here as in the mainstream meida

[kfadrat]

well, the whole idea of extremist Islam is actually an other media hysteria that got out of control, OBL is nothing more but Arab's version of white C Clan ... extremists exsist everywhere, but what are a hundred or even a thousand men in comparison with 1600 million Moslems around the world who ARE moderate?.


the problem is - and I say this with deep regret and sorrow - that politicians are riding this wave to serve their dirty purposes, they have been mixing the cards for years now and terrorism is the easiest way to politically smash any ligetimit resistance movement!.

it's been done before in Palestine, Afganistan - during the Soviet invasion the resistance used to be called terrorist movement - Lebanon and now in Iraq.

ok, some maniacs like Zarqawi and OBL are doing lots of media stuff about their presence in Iraq, but can we actually believe that ALL the resistance movements in Iraq are just terrorists?.

media sucks, the Sunni minority - as they call it - is something like 12 million people ... that IS a large group of people, but why is it that when some sunnis fight an occupation they are called terrorists while when Shies fight no body calls them anything? simple answer: " DIVIDE AND CONQUER " .
my point is, Moslems ARE moderate people, if some very little minority of them chose to do things the wrong way people shouldn't follow the media rush and believe that Islam is the newest danger after the Red danger was eliminated.

[Woodmonkey]

We all know that most Muslims are moderate, however, the actions of the radical ones are so horrendous and barbaric that they color the others. It is especially hard when the families of the suicide bombers are honored and rewarded for the actions of one.

We see car bombs, remote explosives and people strapped with explosives going onto public buses, restaurants, malls etc. We've had 4 planeloads of innocent people (and that included children) hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers killing more innocent people. Everyone of the cowardly murderers were Muslim.

I think that a strong denouncement of those actions would have gone a long way toward making people realize they represented the few, and not the many. However, that did not happen. What we saw and heard was rationalizing. There was no rationalizing that action and no excuse for it either.

When some of our soldiers humiliated (no torture there) a few Iraqi prisoners, they violated our laws and rules and they are being courtmartialed one by one and being punished for it. That is the way it should be done. They are not being honored and their families are not being honored either. There is shame because of what they did, as there should be.

[Caldric]

I do not think most are moderate at all. 98% agreed with beheadings according to Arab News Sources, the same ones thought 9/11 was a legitimate attack, there are many other things that point out them being not moderate in the majority. Or moderate to my way of thinking anyway, moderate appears to be the exception and not the rule.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Caldric

I do not think most are moderate at all. 98% agreed with beheadings according to Arab News Sources, the same ones thought 9/11 was a legitimate attack, there are many other things that point out them being not moderate in the majority. Or moderate to my way of thinking anyway, moderate appears to be the exception and not the rule.

Well, being moderate is easy so long as those about you are peaceful as well. Most of my Muslim friends are peaceful people. The problem is not with the people; it's with the command of Mohammad to rule the world through Islam - and those fanatics who are willing to do anything to obey that command as they understand it.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that moderate Islam is, today, under siege in India – and the threat comes from more than one direction. The most significant threat, of course, is of terrorism itself. The moderates of the Faith cannot directly confront the extremists once the latter begin to push their ideas through campaigns of terrorism. The moderate voice is often stifled with the first shot of the extremists’ gun. While moderates can be expected to raise their voices against extremism, and have often done so, this is possible only under conditions where the risks are manageable. It is, consequently, necessary for both state and society to protect moderate Islam in India today, just as extraordinary measures were adopted to protect the voice of moderation in Punjab at the height of the terror in that State.

This is the main problem, I believe - when fanatic or extremist Muslims decide to start the fight, they don't leave much choice to their peace-loving neighbors. They will continue to come. When they come, the peace-loving Muslims will obey out of love for their families and perhaps as a hope of bringing back peace in time. In any event, they know mercy is not forthcoming with those who follow bin Laden and his band.

kfadrat, I understand what you're saying about the Sunnis being those credited with so much of the current terrorism, but that's because the Wahabbi sect is within the Sunnis, which (without Wahabbism) was always the more peaceful part of Islam. The Shi'ites are known for their perceived excessive displays of religious fervor. The Sunnis - we always think of them as being more in line with their Christian and Jewish neighbors. In Saudi, with the coming of Wahabbi Islam, this has changed. All the Muslims in the attacks on 9/11 were Wahabbi, a sect not previously known in this nation. I imagine relatively few Americans had heard of them before 9/11.

They will continue to try to take over the world by war or in peace - the method is unimportant. The ultimate aim of the world being ruled by Islam is what this is all about - and has been all about for about 1400 years. Nothing has redirected that aim in all those centuries, and trying to stop it now will be very difficult, but it is essential that it be stopped.

The fact that the Imams and Arab news media never speak out against the violence speaks more loudly than any other single fact, as Caldric mentions.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

The fact that the Imams and Arab news media never speak out against the violence speaks more loudly than any other single fact, as Caldric mentions.

Amen Sister Marianne. That is what would have convinced people that the extremes are the exception. When so-called Christians killed abortion doctors and blew up abortion clinics, they were denounced by Christian individuals, clerics and other church officials. They were not praised and their families received no honor and no cash. When we see that happening, when we see no outrage from the Arab news and Imams, it tells us that this is approved and acceptable.