The New Nation - Internet Edition

Community cohesion and extremism

Anealla Safdar

One would never imagine that such a seemingly sociable and, some might say, tepid topic like community cohesion, defined by the Government as the "attempt to build communities" could spark such snappy debate. But, that is what happens when you put Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, Conservative Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action Shadow Minister, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Stunell, in the same room with around 100 young Muslims.

November 28, saw the second monthly session of its kind, where three members from each major political party meet with young Muslims in the House of Commons. Community cohesion, preventing extremism, the Government's relationship with Islam and empowering communities were on the agenda of this month's dialogue, with Barrister Fatima Kurji Jumabhoy chairing the debate.

Blears kicked the meeting off with a subject that British Muslims are all too familiar with. "I think that extremism is an issue that isn't simply for the Muslim community, it's an issue for the whole of the country," she said, "The truth is that we are facing a significant threat from terrorism." The way in which that 'threat' could be dampened must be a careful and delicate one, agreed the Government officials.

Blears admitted that the term 'community cohesion', one of the proposed remedies to extremism, was an instance of typical political jargon. So, she unpicked it for the audience. "I think it's about a sense of belonging, it's about a sense of belief, what you believe in. Nobody has a duty to assimilate themselves [but] I do think we need to understand how each other lives."

On October 7 2007, Blears announced that £50 million would be invested into cohesion promotion and tackling community tensions. This was an increase from £2m in 2007/08.

The roots of extremism, however, are deep and while funding for community action might be a positive step, audience members were keen to press the panel on the ways in which terrorism is targeted. "Every faith group has a positive duty to make their youth better, it's about enhancing communities," said Warsi, but agreed with other panel members that mosques, while sometimes being responsible for propagating extremist ideas, were not totally to blame.

Universities, on the other hand, where young people are politicised by just about anything, were seen as key locations where terrorism could be bred. "People express all sorts of views at universities. I look back to the days when I was at university, and when somebody said there was march on, you didn't really ask what the march was about, you just went…because you thought that was thing you had to do at university," said Warsi.

Stunell described himself as an 'active Christian' and sympathised strongly with the way in which the Muslim community was being treated by putting himself in the position of Muslims. "What would be most likely to radicalise me? It would be a clampdown at university on Christian students," he said. Stunell expressed the view that extremism would not be tackled by targeting mosques and Muslim university students, or by stopping and searching those who 'looked' Muslim. "I just want the same test to be applied to every community, and to every faith group and in every situation," he said. He pointed out that up until now, the IRA has killed more people in the UK than any 'Muslim' extremist has, "yet we avoided the demonisation which is so easily tumbled into by public policy and then of course led on to that by the media."

The audience was also keen to discuss foreign policy, 'state terrorism' and the part they play in influencing extremism in the UK. Blears failed to give one audience member a definition for 'state terrorism' on the grounds that she didn't know what it was, but later, when pushed to talk about foreign policy, said: "I do not accept simply that foreign policy is the cause of al-Qa'ida terrorism across the world".

Both of the other party members said they did not support the so called 'War on Terror'. "I would not say that [foreign policy] legitimised what they did, but clearly it has had a powerful impact on them, and it's had a powerful impact on a wider circle of people," said Stunell. "Some of those situations which have provoked that response ought to have been done differently," he added. Warsi urged Muslims not to use their faith in taking political stances, suggesting instead that they use a reasoned approach like she did over the war in Iraq. "My viewpoint about the war in Iraq had…probably very little to do with my faith. If anything, it was more to do with the fact that

I am a lawyer and I had concerns about it from a legal perspective." Warsi, herself a young Muslim woman, seemed to regain some of the confidence lost after her controversial comments concerning the BNP's 'legitimate' views on immigration were made public. Stunell's empathy and the way in which he insisted Muslims must not be demonised or alienated surely won the Liberal Democrats a few potential voters.

But Blears, despite her pledge to inject millions of pounds into 'community cohesion', found it difficult, as any other Labour representative would, to discuss terrorism without being questioned over her party's hugely unpopular political decision to invade Iraq.

The ethical triangle

Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq

The Quran has not been revealed because people will believe without due diligence and then believe in it and show their reverence by printing it in the form of a decorative artwork, and then wrapping in velvet fabric would place it in an unreachable shelf close to the roof, and occasionally recite without understanding the meaning to search the key to heaven. The real purpose of recitation is to read, learn, and understand that should lead to implementation of the teachings of the Quran in our full spectrum of life.

The time that is especially important for us to intimately understand the above-mentioned connection is the month of fasting. It is to materialize and practice the divine guidance we need Taqwa. Yet, most of us are either not aware or caring about the link between fasting and Taqwa. Even many of among us who are conscious of this connection neglect our responsibility to recognize and accept Taqwa as the foundation of building our entire life in light of the Quran. Those who understand the triangular connection can also easily understand the consequence of ignorance about and negligence toward this connection.

In the context of the breakdown of moral and ethical fabric of the contemporary Muslim society, it is important for us to recognize that the solution is intimately related to the functional link between Taqwa and our moral and practical values. There is no hope for our true liberation, both at the individual and the collective level, until we can bridge the gap between our words and action and solve our problem of lack of integrity of purpose and behavior. We need a fundamental overhaul of our values. It is not that we as Muslims are not familiar with such values. However, a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding exists in regard to the proper place of such values in our life.

It is also a basic failure of those among us who are educated and/or scholars, especially from the religious viewpoint, to present this importance of the value and ethical system to our masses. This is evidenced by the fact that one can observe the contents and focus of the Jumuah Khutbah (Friday Prayer Sermon) where so much is mentioned about prayer and other aspects of Islam, but in my life I haven't heard one Friday sermon emphasizing the importance literacy or developing good relationship with everyone including non-Muslims.

Let us ignore the case of those who are secular (in some cases, anti-religion). Ignorance of or negligence toward religion in general on their part is understandable. In different societies there are many types of people who are secular or even anti-religion. Even in our Muslim societies, there are "secular Muslims" - that is, essentially "anti-religion Muslims." It is such a ridiculous as well as pathetic situation. But we will deal with this aspect on another occasion.

The reality is that secularism, atheism, agnosticism, nationalism, socialism, or capitalism does not give us such as an effective, balanced, comprehensive, and coherent framework of moral and ethical standard that in aggregate is beneficial for us. One can't escape in this context the question that how in the world then the Muslim societies are so messed up. Some may also raise the question, what then is the secret of the dazzling success of the West? Is their ethical foundation and moral values ineffective or useless? We have to analyze these questions at two levels.

At one level we have to deal with those who either are not fanatical against a central role of religion in human life or do not have a strong position on this issue one way or another. They generally have a different perspective about religion. Then there are those who would like to see religion as central to human life, among whom Muslims are supposed to be included. The discussion at the first level is important, but its scope is different. Our focus in this article is the second group of people.

Those who identify themselves as Muslims have a well-defined set of ideals and principles as well as a framework of moral and ethical standard. There is no need for or room of blind faith in Islam. Islam doesn't recognize or dignify blind faith and that is why it educates us in no ambiguous terms that to believe in Islam means that we should embrace Islam based on knowledge and understand and in its totality - that is, its philosophy, vision, values and laws. And if we do accept Islam, we should make a sincere and committed effort to organize our entire life according to Islam. We may have doubts or vacillation about it. Islam fully recognizes our liberty and invites us to the same effect to work toward removing such doubts or vacillation. If such doubts or vacillation cannot be overcome or resolved, why should we accept Islam? What is really then the need to believe in Islam? What is the reason or benefit of such faith and identity? What is the meaning and value of being a Muslim with such doubt, hesitation or ambivalence?

Therefore, we need to be clear and honest to ourselves that those who have such ambivalence about Islam neither they will benefit from Islam, nor will they benefit the Muslims or humanity at large. Let us now briefly discuss the case of those who sincerely believe in Islam.

What is the reason behind the moral breakdown of our society, the majority of which are intimately identified with Islam. What is the explanation of the fragility and decadence of such society?

Whatever views we hold about the Western societies and whether we have any interest or not in engaging ourselves in a comparative analysis, there is a clear criteria for us as Muslims to evaluate our problems, and that criteria is Islam.

Let us ask ourselves a few more pertinent questions? Why has our society become so unstable? Is there any solution of this in Islam? As Muslims are we facilitators or hindrance in this situation? What is the reason behind widespread poverty, deprivation, exploitation and oppression in our society? Is Islam a failure in this case; or, do we have these problems due to Islam; or, is it that it is because of us these problems persist? Why corruption, bribery and violent conflict so rampant in our society? Should we place the blame for these as well on Islam? Should we ignore our worldly problems and cherish our success in the life hereafter by attributing these problems to destiny? Why the control and authority in our societies in the hands of individuals, parties, or groups that have absolutely no integrity? Is Islam's teaching unambiguous in these regards? Why the precious infants in various parts of the Muslim world have to die prematurely due to malnutrition or diseases? Why do we still bear the curse of illiteracy? In the context of all these, what really is the power and benefit of our Iman (belief), Amal (action), and Taqwa (God-consciousness)? Does Islam then teach us to abandon this world in favor the life hereafter? Do we really expect to represent Islam to the humanity while we are humiliated, subjugated, dependent, or problem-ridden on one hand, and a laughing stock of the world as we seek the aid, recognition, and status from the West? Let us ignore others, but is there really any effective answer from the vast number of pious Muslims - who devoutly perform prayer and fasting - to all these problems?

Only God knows as to which month of Ramadan will be the last one in our life. Yet, if we are to deal with the problems mentioned above, it is vitally important that we understand Taqwa's triangular connection based on the month of Ramadan, fasting, and the Quran as the guidance.

This connection should help us understand and motivate better that Taqwa, Ramadan, and the Quran are not for a ritual-oriented life, but a value-based, action-oriented life for us, which is also for the betterment of the humanity. Let us welcome this blessed month of Ramadan with that spirit and awareness, and channel this Aakhirah-bound life to the desired direction by enhancing our Taqwa that would help us build a dynamic Islamic life.

(Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq is an Associate Professor of Economics and Finance at Upper Iowa University)

Myths about Islam

Cary McMullen

John Esposito said he gets asked the same questions repeatedly these days, one of them being, "Why is Islam such a violent religion?" In a lecture, "Violence in the Islamic Tradition," at Florida Southern College on Friday, he posed a question in response: "Why is it we have so much of a problem distinguishing between what a majority of Muslims do and what extremists do?"

Esposito, professor of religion and international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington, delivered the Warren W. Willis Lecture in Religion at the college to an audience of about 150. The author of more than 30 books on Islam and a consultant to the U.S. State Department, Esposito stressed in his lecture that Islam, like other religions, including Christianity, has been misused to justify political and economic goals.

"There are transcendent and dark sides to religion. Religion is about a transcendent reality but also helping those who follow it to transcend themselves and their baser instincts. It also is used, abused and misused to justify all kinds of things," he said.

As an example, Esposito pointed to a quote by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski that the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. He asked, "Who was it that engaged in and perpetuated the violence? Not Muslims, but America and Europe. It was not waged in the name of religion, but it was fought by religious people and legitimated by religious chaplains." Christians fail to notice their own complicity in such violence while reacting with shock to violence inflicted by Muslims and wrongly seeking to characterize Islam as a whole as a violent religion, he said.

Even Pope Benedict fell into this trap, he said, in a recent speech in which he quoted a medieval emperor who castigated Islam as a religion that was spread by coercion. After the death of Muhammad, subsequent Muslim rulers did forge an empire by use of war, but this was for reasons of political and economic gain, Esposito said.

"It was legitimated as spreading Islam. They got religious leaders to legitimate what they were doing," he said.

An Islamic term that is often used in connection with violence is jihad, but the word usually means to strive or struggle to be a good Muslim, Esposito said. It is also used to refer to the defense of oneself or one's religion.

"That's defensive warfare, but, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. . . . The struggle is, when is it just, when is it defensive, when is it offensive?

"For mainstream Muslims, it's a very central term. It's understood in a nonviolent way, but it is used by terrorists," he said.

Esposito is helping conduct a worldwide Gallup poll, "Can You Hear Me? Listening to the Voices of Muslims," which he said dispels many stereotypes held in the West about Muslims.

"A majority of Muslims admire the West for its scientific achievements, its freedoms of speech and assembly. They say, `We believe in greater political participation, but we don't think we're going to get it,' " he said.

The proper relationship between Islam and political authority is the subject of a major debate among Muslims around the world today, he said.

"Is it moving as fast as it should? No. Authoritarian regimes -- and most Muslim countries are ruled by authoritarian regimes -- and extremists are not interested in that debate," he said. But the West bears some responsibility for conditions that produce violence within, and the violence is fostered by Middle Eastern countries, Esposito said. In the 20th century, the colonial powers of Europe created nation-states there and installed leaders without regard to the future stability of the region. "The last thing they were concerned about was political modernization," he said.

When the colonial era ended, these nations were run as authoritarian military or plutocratic regimes, whose oppression led in turn to cycles of violent resistance and repression.

"As long as you have authoritarian regimes, you're going to have levels of violence that are political and legitimated religiously," he said.

Asked about possible reconciliation between Muslim religious groups, such as Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, Esposito said the problems are basically political and economic but have historical roots that include religious differences. "There is tribalism and sectarian division. It's a very fluid, very dangerous situation," he said. Further commenting on the situation in Iraq, Esposito said America cannot impose democracy in Iraq lest it is seen as a new colonial power manipulating the political process. It is up to Iraqis to bring democracy to their country, he said.

"I don't think we should have gone into Iraq, but we did. I don't think we should simply pull out overnight. We have to devise a plan . . . that includes a phase-out of our major military presence and includes development and a major economic package. And it ought to be sooner rather than later," he said. "Iraq is already in a state of civil war."

The war in Iraq and fight against terrorism has implications for average Americans, Esposito said. "We as Americans are faced with trying not only to understand global terrorism but its implications in America. When we pass legislation that violates civil liberties, we have a problem," he said. "Some of us wonder if America in 10 years will be the America we knew."

(Cary McMullen can be reached at cary.mcmullen @theledger.com or 863-802-7509. The Ledger)

Whose body is it anyway?

Shelina Zahra Janmohamed

Christian and secular art have at least one thing in common - they like to have people in them. Christian religious art is brought to life with representations of the personalities that populate Christian history. From high art produced by the great masters, to local churches, the artistic interpretation of Christ and other figures opens the door to discussion about the spirituality conveyed. Body, whether through direct representation or iconography, is the gateway to the spiritual meaning of these works, and it feeds from the Christian idea that the incarnation of Christ connects human beings to the Divine through the body of Christ.

Islamic aesthetic principles find the body an alien impostor to spiritual aspiration. God has no incarnation, cannot be defined in bodily terms, nor has location, size, shape or gender. The Divine is found in the abstract and undepictable territories of the inner heart, and is manifested in the geometric perfections and multiplicities of both art and nature.

From a Christian European perspective, the body is uncomfortably absent from public Muslim life. Calligraphy and geometric art are used to transcend into the domain of the spiritual - human beings are not usually depicted. Even people seem to lack bodies in the public arena, with women tucked neatly under headscarves and men in looser shirts and full length trousers.

Muslim heritage rejects the body being a public billboard. Instead, it is to be celebrated and shared only in private, retained for personal and family interactions and for the pleasures of intimacy. This is one of the fundamental reasons Muslim women wear the hijab: to be valued for who you are, not what you look like. Muslims, in this sense, are simply exercising their very modern right to privacy.

Today's secular gods of consumerism and self indulgent gluttony, of beauty, youth and immortality, have their roots in the same Greco-Roman heritage that Christian art draws upon. Secular art, which is offered up to its own gods show us sculpted bodies that meet our contemporary ideals of bodily perfection. It idolises the oxymoron of super-slim yet ultra-curvy women, the sparkling white of pristine teeth that have gorged on chocolate - a modern day food for the gods - or the tough muscular six-pack man in the age of longer working hours and high alcohol consumption. Image is the ultimate altar to worship at. One men's clothing chain ran an advertising campaign last year using simply the words: "Looks aren't important. They are everything." Body is the ultimate god, and fashion designers are its disciples.

The body is thus the fulcrum for public debate, expression and attitudes. What happens when the body is not available as the yardstick? Is the response to see women who wear the hijab as 'withholding' themselves from the public space, and to consider that inflammatory?

The privacy of the body for Muslims means it is entirely natural for Muslim women not to shake hands with a man, but the role of body in social interaction through a European lens means it is highly unnatural not to. There is no quick fix to resolving these different perspectives, because they stem from deeply ingrained attitudes and perspectives. Intensive communication and understanding hold the only keys.

We are told that the body is public, but faith should be private. But if faith is about aligning your entire being towards a better way of being, then the body is de facto part of that. In the religious domain we focus on the body of Christ, in the secular it is the flesh of supermodels. In both cases, the body is a public canvas, a forum for discussion. The personal is public, and the public is political except, ironically, when it comes to using our own bodies to express faith. Faith, as an exception to everything else, is a private matter, we are told, separated from public life and to be left at home. It seems we are at cross purposes. Modernity protects our right to privacy, but this privacy does not seem to extend to the body.

(Shelina Zahra Janmohamed writes her own blog at www.spirit21.co.uk)