Religious extremism and its brave opponents

Islam is one of the world's most popular religions. Though it's fairly unpopular in the west nowadays. During the Middle Ages, the cultural and scientific center of the world was not Christian Europe but the Islamic Middle East. What many believe to be the oldest university in the world is not in Italy or France but in Egypt. Before it become synonymous with the end of the Earth, Timbuktu was one of the most important educational centers on the planet and housed an amazing library and archive.

So how did the Islamic world go from being the cutting edge of science, technology and culture to being scene as regressive and anti-modern?

That's a subject better addressed by scholars than by me. While the Islamic world was cutting edge in the 11th century, some societies in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia for example, seem stuck in that era.

It's obvious that the majority of modern day Muslims are moderate, peace-loving people. It's also obvious that there is a small group of Muslim puritanical fanatics who've hijacked the faith for their own purposes.

In that sense, it's not much different than Christianity or Judaism. But one of the important differences is that the Muslims radicals exert a power and influence far beyond their numbers. Mainstream Christians (and Jews) are far more likely to criticize extremist co-religionaires than mainstream Muslims. Most Christians condemn murderers of abortion doctors; most Israelis criticize some of the whacko settlers.

The biggest reason for this is that predominantly Christian countries or countries with a Christian tradition tend, at this moment, to be freer than Muslim ones. This isn't universal. Zimbabwe is a mostly Christian country, as is Belarus. But on the whole, this is true.

The other big factor is because in most Christian countries, there's a strong emphasis on the separation of church and state. This wasn't always the case. In places like Quebec, France and Chile, the church (Catholic in those cases) once unabashedly meddled in politics. And all of those places prospered after government asserted its independence and reined in the influence of religious institutions (not to be confused with religious belief) on public policy. In those places, the separation of church and state occured after a backlash erupted against religious straightjackets. The backlash has yet to occur* in most Muslim countries.

(*-many predict that such a surge is imminent in Iran, however the threat of sanctions and military action is allowing the regime to stir up nationalism/patriotism that will undermine the chances of such reform and thus strengthen the regime)

A final factor to consider is this. The Muslim world is on the defensive. The west has invaded two Muslim countries in the last four years and there's serious talk of military action against a third. When you're on the defensive, you tend to close ranks. President Bush's approval rating in November 2001 was an astronomical 86 percent. In August 2001, it was a modest 55 percent. Did a third of the country suddenly decide that the president was a genius? No. After the September 11 attacks, Americans, even many liberals and Democrats, felt under violated and closed ranks. Muslims, even many moderates, are doing the same. (Again, this applies to Iran)

With the passage of time after 9/11, normal service was resumed; once the Muslim world no longer feel under siege from outside, moderates will also feel more free to criticize extremists. Sadly, the siege mentality is likely to last until at least 2009. And even if a moderate succeeds President Bush, mistrust and suspicion in the Muslim world, two of the three key terrorist and martyr recruiting tools, aren't going to disappear overnight.

It's worth adding that while the influence of religious institutions on state institutions is prominent in many countries in the Middle East, South Asia and in Indonesia, it's relatively minimal in mostly democratic countries of Muslim West Africa (with the notable exception of northern Nigeria). This demonstrates that the Muslim world can peacefully co-exist with both church-state separation, social moderation, religious tolerance and democracy, provided there is a broad public and governmental will to marginalize extremism.

You might be confused for thinking that criticism of Islamism (Islam manipulated for reactionary socio-political purposes, rather than those of faith) was limited to the US neo-conservatives, the Theocracy Brigade and others who seem want to invade every Islamic country in the world.

In reality, human rights' and feminist groups were criticizing the reactionary practices of Islamist regimes long before most American conservatives could spell Taliban, let alone identify what country it ruled. Progressives were criticizing these regimes long before it became a cause célèbre amongst conservatives to justify random acts of military aggression. This was done because the moderate left realized that these reactionary, theocratic regimes were the worst enemies of progressivism.

Human rights' groups, feminists and other progressives said we should care about what was going on in Taliban Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other places and did so by echoing Martin Luther King Jr's warning that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

They were patronizingly dismissed.

These concerns were pooh-poohed the naive whinings of that most mocked of groups: do-gooders.

At least until September 12, 2001. That's when conservatives expropriated these arguments for their own militaristic ends. Ends far different than those of the progressives, who wanted human rights not war, who wanted humanity not the destruction of humanity.

Sadly, the conservatives' solution was to remedy the injustice by perpetrating a far greater injustice.

And most tragically and criminally of all: the original injustice has barely been addressed.

As a result, it's worth reminding people that large parts of the Islamic community really does have issues to deal with. It's not a complete fiction of disingenuous neo-cons (even if their motives are dubious at best). There is a progressive argument to justify the need for an Islamic Reformation.

While many mainstream Muslims are afraid to criticize the zealots, it's worth saluting the bravery of those who choose to speak out. Especially since that Reformation can only come from within.

Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's a Muslim who was born in Somalia. She fled to Holland in the 90s and is presently a member of the Dutch parliament.

She wrote a short film criticizing Islam's treatment of women which aired on Dutch television. The co-writer and director of the film, who happened to be a descendant of the painter Vincent Van Gogh, was assassinated by a Muslim radical. It's true that Theo Van Gogh was long an agent provocateur but Ali was a humble woman who merely wanted to make a few points, modest by Dutch standards. Ali herself received serious death threats. She went into hiding for a while and now is constantly accompanied by body guards.

Extremist Muslims view her as a traitor in much the same way critics of President Bush and the Iraq aggression are viewed as traitors by extremist Americans. Fanatics view self-criticism as the ultimate act of disloyalty.

She recently published a book of essays called The Virgin Cage, which was just translated into English. As she explained in an NPR interview, the essays attack Islam's treatment of women and gays. When asked why she published the book even though she was already feeling heat from the film, she explained that she had nothing to lose. She said that at least by putting out the film and book, even if she were murdered like her colleague Van Gogh, her impact would live on, hopefully undermining the radical interpretations of Islam.

She's a Muslim, not an Islamophobe. She does not want western countries to invade Syria or seize Iran's oil fields. She just wants Islam teaching to demand women (and gays, apparently) be treated with respect and afforded freedom to live in a dignified manner.

You want absolutism? Here's my absolute. Any interpretation of a religion that justifies wanton violence is inherently illegitimate. Any interpretation of a religion that justifies, or even casualizes, the inhumane treatment of people is inherently illegitimate.

The messed up intrepretation of Christianity that allows George W. Bush to rationalize waging unprovoked military aggressions and destroying the lives of countless people, none of whom did anything to him or his countrymen, is immoral. The messed up intrepretation of Islam that allows Osama bin Laden to promote the murder of thousands of innocent people and ruin the lives of their family members, none of whom did anything to him or his co-religionaires, is immoral. The messed up intrepretations of their religion by al-Qaeda, the Lord's Resistance Army, the IRA, the UVF, Zacarias Moussaoui and others like them are immoral.

None of them are fit to lick Ayaan Hirsi Ali's boots.