AUGUST 3 — The seemingly unending acts of terror that have taken place in several cities throughout the world in recent months serve to return our focus time and again to the relationship between terrorism and Muslim extremism. To the extent that terrorism is fuelled by extremist ideologies, it is wrong to assume that only violence-oriented extremist ideologies are the problem. Violence-oriented ideologies, such as those subscribed to by terrorist groups such as the so-called Islamic State and al Qaeda, are, of course, directly responsible for acts of terrorism.
These ideologies advocate violence against innocent human beings. Many people, however, are not aware that some non-violent ideologies are also extreme in their orientation. While such ideologies do not advocate violence, they nevertheless have a negative impact on society.
There are Muslims who have extremist ideas, but who are against perpetrating violence against others. They are extremists in that they may have exclusivist, misogynist and literalist ideas about religion, but are, at the same time, against violence.
One problem is that the ideas of non-violent extremists resonate with those of the terrorists. What is the link between non-violent extremism and terrorism? It could be said that it is a slippery slope from the former to the latter.
For example, a religious teacher or imam may engage in hate speech against the Sufis or mystics of Islam without believing that they should be physically harmed. This may still encourage others who hate the practices of the Sufis to perpetrate violent acts against the group.
Many anti-Shia activists do not advocate violence against Shias. In some Muslim countries, however, a great deal of hate language against Shias says Shi’ism should be eradicated or that Shi’ism is dangerous. Such hate speech may encourage violent elements to act against Shias.
Consider the example of some Muslim organisations in Malaysia. These organisations neither support terrorism nor Islamic State. On the other hand, many of them do support an exclusivist and narrow-minded understanding of Islam, which resonates with the orientations that inform Islamic State or other terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda.
For example, when imams, muftis and other religious officials in Malaysia speak of the dangers of Shi’ism or the need to rid Malaysia of Shi’ism, or suggest that Shi’ism poses a security problem for the country, this complements the views of Islamic State, which has perpetrated much violence against Shias in Iraq and Syria.
Another problem with non-violent extremism is that even if it is peaceful in orientation, its views are inappropriate if peace, harmony and goodwill are to be maintained in society.
Consider the views of Dr Zakir Naik, a controversial Muslim preacher from India, who had apparently been the inspiration for two Bangladeshi terrorists responsible for the attack at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka early last month. Many of Dr Naik’s views would appear to be extremist in orientation and are entirely inappropriate for any progressive society to adopt.
For example, he suggests that it is wrong for Muslims to greet Christians with “Merry Christmas”. According to Dr Naik, doing so means that such Muslims agree with Christians that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, a blasphemous idea in Islam.
Dr Naik’s logic here is chaotic. Even far less educated Muslims understand that greeting Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews during their religious festivals is not tantamount to an acceptance of the truth of their respective theologies and doctrines. It is simply a matter of neighbourliness and good manners.
The reverse is also true. Muslims feel happy when greeted by non-Muslims on Hari Raya Aidilfitri, for example. But even a simpleton knows that non-Muslim friends, in offering such greetings, are not accepting Muslim religious beliefs. The view that Muslims should not greet non-Muslims during their religious festivals is already spreading among Muslims in Singapore and elsewhere. Not only does this dangerous idea not have the support of Islam, it will have a negative effect on inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations.
The views of Dr Naik are to be contrasted with the enlightened attitude of Habib Hassan Attas, the imam of the Ba’alwi Mosque and a leading religious scholar in Singapore and the region. In a recently published pamphlet titled Greetings in Islam, Habib Hassan stresses that the teachings of Islam strongly encourage actions and words that make fellow human beings happy, regardless of their religion.
He quotes a verse in the Quran (Al-Nisa’: 86) which conveys the meaning that if a person greets us, our reply should be a better greeting. Habib Hassan notes that many Muslims have parents and relatives who are not Muslims. It is completely unacceptable that Muslims disrespect their non-Muslim family and relatives by refraining from greeting them during their religious festivals.
The prohibition against greeting non-Muslims or the view that discourages such greeting may seem trivial. It is, however, symptomatic of a much greater problem in contemporary Muslim society, that is, an attitude of exclusivism and the failure to interpret the texts of Islam in a manner that facilitates harmonious living. Even though the proponents of such exclusivist thinking do not necessarily support terrorist acts against innocent civilians, the extremism of their views is something that we should be concerned about.
Our contemporary fight is not just against terrorism and the violence-oriented extremist ideologies that support terrorism. It is vital that the authorities, as well as scholars and activists, take a firm position against not only terrorism but also non-violent varieties of extremism. Not speaking out against extremism, even the non-violent type, is irresponsible. — TODAY
* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
