By A. Faizur Rahman
November
12, 2020
Javed
Anand is at it again — conflating Islam with the violent behaviour of some
Muslims. His modus operandi appears to be to name any widely reported issue
concerning Muslims and question, without any basis, the very idea of Islam.
Even
in democratic societies, any attack on Islam in the name of free speech becomes
an emotional trigger that releases pent-up frustrations that cannot be wished
away by scapegoating the “moderate Muslim” (Illustration: Manali Ghosh)
-----
In July
2017 in this newspaper (‘Islam’s reform: Way to go’), he used the triple Talaq
issue as a peg to suggest that the Quran had “bad” verses, an innuendo that was
based not on any original research but rooted in the writings of Hassan
Radwan, who founded the Agnostic Muslims & Friends group on Facebook.
This author was forced to join issue with Anand to expose the speciousness of
his arguments (‘The Word and its meanings’, August 22, 2017).
This time,
too, in ‘The
root cause fallacy’ (IE, November 6), Anand exploits the horrific
cartoon-related murders in France to insinuate that Islam does not stand for
peace. No evidence is produced to support this claim except the oft-repeated
rhetorical question: “If Islam means peace, why is there so much violence
across the globe in its name?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read:
Blasphemy, Islam and Free Speech
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To complete
the violent imagery of Islam, he fabricates a phantasmic fall-guy called
“moderate Muslim”, and defines him/her as one who cursorily condemns the
aforementioned French murders “but quickly rushes to absolve Islam of any
blame”.
However,
the article’s main target is Islam, not the imaginary “moderate Muslim” who
loves to quote from the Qur’an and Prophetic sayings to “emphatically affirm
that Islam means peace”, as Anand mockingly puts it.
Anand’s
hostility towards Islam seems to have blinded him to the contradictions in his
own arguments. For instance, after accusing the “moderate Muslim” for absolving
Islam of any blame, he cites scholar Reza Aslan to argue the opposite saying,
“Islam, like every other religion, is what its followers make of it.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read:
Islam and Free Speech: A Reply to A. Faizur Rahman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He
approvingly quotes another Muslim scholar, Farid Esack, as stating, “Whatever
else Islam, as any other religion, may be, it is also that which is
interpreted, lived out, aspired towards, ignored and debated among ordinary
individuals and communities.”
But when
Muslims try to argue that the violent acts of a miniscule minority cannot
define Islam, “agnostic Muslims” such as Hassan Radwan and his admirers like
Anand deride them as apologists for Islam who seek refuge in “whataboutery” and
search for “root causes” everywhere except in their own religion. The fact,
however, is that Anand could not find space in his long article to cite a
single instance where any “moderate Muslim” can be held guilty of the
aforementioned charges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the
contrary, Muslim scholars and public intellectuals have always condemned
violence committed in the name of Islam. A few days ago, this author organised
a 90-minute international webinar to condemn the recent brutal killings in
France and other places by Muslim fanatics. Nearly 90 intellectuals from across
the world participated, including prominent Islamic scholars Ebrahim Moosa,
Mustafa Akyol, and Ahmet T Kuru. Many such discussions have taken place all
over the world in the last few days where Muslims have openly come out against
violent responses to blasphemy.
These facts
make Anand’s outburst against Islam totally unwarranted. His incoherent fustian
has all the hallmarks of an argumentative device that seeks to camouflage his
endeavour to not only project (without any basis) Islam as a violent religion
but to also discredit (citing “whataboutery” and “root-cause fallacies”)
sincere attempts from within the Muslim community to reclaim Islam from the
extremists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
Washington Post called out this mindset in a report published soon after the
November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. Aptly titled ‘The next time someone
blames Islam for ISIS, show them this’, it quotes Reza Aslan as saying, “We’re
using two or three examples (of isolated cases of Islamist terrorism) to
justify a generalisation. That’s actually the definition of bigotry”.
Anand’s
favourite muse, Farid Esack, went further. Commenting on the 2015 Paris
killings, he said, “I am not praying for Paris; I am not condemning anyone. Why
the hell should I? I had nothing to do with it… I am sickened by the perpetual
expectations to condemn. I walk away from your s****y racist and Islamophobic
expectations that whenever your chickens come home to roost then I must feign
horror.” Esack’s vexatious anger is not justifiable. But it gives us an idea of
the complexities surrounding violent Muslim responses. The problem cannot be
simplistically attributed to sectarian readings of Islam or to Islam itself, as
Anand has done. Hidden beneath the surface are several unrecognised issues such
as the discrimination of Muslims as minorities or migrants, restrictions on
their religious freedom, economic deprivation and political disempowerment.
This is
why, even in democratic societies, any attack on Islam in the name of free
speech becomes an emotional trigger that releases pent-up frustrations that
cannot be wished away by scapegoating the “moderate Muslim”. The solution is
more complex.
In this
context, Anand’s justification of the right to offend Prophet Muhammad is
untenable. It is based on his unsubstantiated belief that the Prophet greatly
offended his own clan/tribe “by saying things which they considered to be
highly blasphemous”.
This is not
true. Doctrinal differences between religions cannot be falsely equated with
offence or blasphemy. Besides, the Quran in 6:108 warned Muslims against
mocking other gods, and in chapter 109 categorically upheld religious freedom.
It is about
time Anand realised that if the “moderate Muslim” can be accused of being an
apologist for Islam, the “agnostic Muslim” too sounds like an apologist for the
Islamophobes.
-----
A. Faizur Rahman is an independent researcher
and secretary-general of the Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate
Thought
Original Headline: Scapegoating moderate Muslim is a bid to
discredit attempts within community to reclaim Islam from extremists
Source: The
Indian Express
URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/if-moderate-muslim-be-accused/d/123444
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism