Daily Times

Despite the fact that the ethical, cultural backgrounds of Muslims from around the world are vastly different, they are all put together in a box. They are discriminated against on basis of their perceived beliefs and names. The Runnymede Trust in its 1997 Report acknowledged that the racism against Muslims goes by without being challenged as Muslims are not sociologically & geographically a ‘racial group.’ This is an interesting contradiction that needs a closer look.

Racism is a belief that certain race possesses behavioral traits and physical appearances that are very different from the others and can be discriminated on grounds of others being superior to them. Basically racism is antagonistic and prejudiced against, because they are of a different ethnicity/race. However, it is clear that different Muslims from different countries are different from each other on the basis of culture, lifestyles, physical appearance and so on. So the discrimination is strictly religious discrimination and placing it under the umbrella of racism may not be correct. “While Islam is not a race, it is argued that Muslims can nevertheless be racialized. Racialization is a contested concept that arose in scholarly circles in the wake of the gradual discrediting (not disappearance) of doctrines of biological superiority and difference, which led-in some circles-to a shift from race to culture as the marker of group superiority. White people could no longer speak openly about being biologically superior but could claim to have a superior culture that makes them more advanced, developed, and civilized, and this cultural superiority is then used to justify policies of domination and exclusion.” (Caner K. Dagli specializes in Qur’anic studies, interfaith dialogue, and philosophy: College of Holy Cross)

The question that arises here is: are all Muslims as a race religious extremists? And are Muslims alone extremists to the exclusion of followers of other religion? History does not support this view.

The world must first understand that Islamophobia exists. And the fact that whenever there is exclusion, antagonism; there will be reaction. Sometimes reaction or action can come before exclusion

In any given religion the beliefs followed may take different forms. These include the Moderates. The Fundamentalists. The Extremists. The Militants. The moderates’ belief is not watered down as compared to other categories. They implicitly believe in their beliefs & practices but understand that different knowledge comes from different kinds of sources.

Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary; the derivative, fundamentalist, was added only in its second, 1989 edition. The Fundamentalists do believe that only their way of thinking is correct as opposed to any other. However, a Fundamentalist need not be an extremist or a militant. Extremism may broadly be defined as, “”the quality or state of being extreme” or “the advocacy of extreme measures or views”. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) If one historically views the Christian Fundamentalists, one can see that they observe the world from a Manichean view that bases its conflict of doctrine like light vs dark. There are no shades of gray in-between. Christian Fundamentalism for example began among British & American Protestants as early as 19th & 20th Century. They opposed the theologians whom they accused of misinterpreting certain doctrines that formed the basis of Christian faith like biblical inerrancy. They always have an approach of interpreting the Bible literally.

According to authors Robert D. Woodberry and Christian S. Smith:

Following the Civil War, tensions developed between Northern evangelical leaders over Darwinism and higher biblical criticism; Southerners remained unified in their opposition to both (Marsden 1980, 1991). Modernists attempted to update Christianity to match their view of science. They denied biblical miracles and argued that God manifests himself through the social evolution of society. Conservatives resisted these changes. These latent tensions rose to the surface after World War I in what came to be called the fundamentalist/modernist split. (Woodberry, Robert D; Smith, Christian S. (1998). “Fundamentalism et al: conservative Protestants in America”. Annual Review of Sociology. 24 (1): 25-56.)

Religious Militancy is yet another layer of approach. Religion can be a powerful aphrodisiac to unite people and mobilize them. They can be not only used but also misused in this way. Religious extremism can & does arise within a religion against different points of view that lead to conflict & subsequently militancy. Many Jewish thinkers & militants hold the view that Golan Heights & Gaza are a permanent part of Eretz Israel (Translated it means “Land of Israel”). They support larger Jewish establishments in the occupied areas with a view to marginalize Palestinian settlements. The Israeli army has killed more Palestinians in the intifadas than the other way round.

The brief discourse hopefully clarifies that any religion has different cultural, ethnical groups of people that cannot be jointly labelled under one heading. Even within one religion different individuals have different approaches towards religion. Also, this is not one-religion specific. It applies to all religions.

It was not until the Islamic Iranian Revolution that the term ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ was coined. This made it easy for the West to relate to what was happening in that part of the world, as they were well aware of Christian fundamentalism.

Pew Research Center in an interesting research, in a report stated that from a period of 2007 till 2017 government restrictions on laws, religious freedom, beliefs & their practices have increased manifold. In its Tenth Annual Report, PEW presents the data that 52 governments including Russia & China placed a high restriction on religion. The percentage has gone up by 40% from 2007.

Religious militancy is intertwined with religious terrorism. According to Juergensmeyer, religion and violence have had a symbiotic relationship since before the Crusades and even since before the Bible. (Juergensmeyer, Mark (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press)

The world must first understand that Islamophobia exists. And the fact that whenever there is exclusion, antagonism; there will be reaction. Sometimes reaction or action can come before exclusion. There are no hard & fast rules. However, the issue to be handled needs better understanding at grass root level of strands involved. Generalizations are self-defeating. The majority of Muslims around the world are moderates & do not support religious militancy. Clubbing all Muslims in one group-in unjust and in turn gives birth to more negativity.

International media can play a pivotal role in putting forth in a balanced view that shun confrontation and encourage inclusivity. Media must transform the general culture of blame game & promote one of tolerance and promoting understanding between communities hailing from different religions. The hostility and hate lets out in different areas may it be civil society, academia and activism. The narrative of women wearing hijab for example is part of their religious belief, just as nuns covering their hair. The covering of hair is attributed to modesty since time immemorial. A traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 in the New Testament inspires covering of head while “praying and prophesying”. (Osburn, Carroll D. (1 July 2007). Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume 1. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 208)

This world needs inclusivity.

And more inclusivity.

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9