Don’t be afraid to challenge, condemn faith, its stereotypes

Thursday, October 8, 1998

Don’t be afraid to challenge, condemn faith, its stereotypes

ISLAM: Ending prejudice starts with addressing, deconstructing
origins

By Solomon Matsas

Ahmed Shama, in his article "Media, society perpetuate view of
Islam" (Viewpoint on Oct. 5, 1998), requisitely states, "Islam
condemns random acts of violence against innocent people." Shama
correctly describes how many people have biases against his faith.
There is no question that this is true. Muslims, like Jews,
Christians, African Americans, Hispanics, women and many others in
virtually every land, suffer to some degree from resilient
stereotypes that endure and thrive, particularly among the ignorant
or fearful.

But Shama’s article, I feel, does not go on to describe more
critical aspects of these stereotypes. Why do they exist in the
first place? How are they sustained? What are the inclusive
dynamics that tell the larger story?

One disappointment I felt in reading Shama’s article also
underscores my broader concerns. There was only one short phrase in
the entire column that condemned the senseless terrorist madness
that has escalated into our consciousness via the nightly news.
This is the same "small voice" mention that too often is offered by
Islamic authorities, through their national and clerical leaders,
when a documented atrocity by an Islamic extremist has been
committed.

For too long now I have wondered why the Islamic world, as vast
and diverse as it is, does not condemn these cowardly acts in a
louder, more comprehensive manner? Would this not go further to
dispel the stereotypes Shama justifiably references?

Perhaps I have missed other Islamic pronouncements of
condemnation of terrorism, but my impression is that what is heard
often seems perfunctory at best, or in some instances, inexplicably
lacking.

This failure as I measure it, to respond adequately when Islamic
followers are involved with terrorism causes me – and perhaps
others – to question the motives of some of this religion’s
leaders. Unfortunately, what I too often do hear are senseless,
sometimes insulting comparisons; such as comparing an overzealous
Israeli soldier’s manhandling of civilians to the psychopathic,
premeditated mass murder committed by a faith-blinded terrorist and
his bomb in the noonday marketplace. Sorry, no comparison.

It is not the 12-year-old Palestinian boy throwing the stone at
the hardened Israeli soldier that is difficult to understand. It is
how that quantifiable frustration, distilled through decades of
repressive policies, somehow rises to a level that "explains" or
rationalizes the wanton, random slaughter of defenseless civilians.
There is no cause on Earth or in heaven that justifies these acts
of brutality, yet Islamic extremists do proudly proclaim that it is
ultimately the will of Allah that guides their unconscionable
actions.

As an American, a Jew by heritage, Buddhist by inclination and
son of Holocaust survivors, I condemn many of the racist practices
of the current and past Israeli regimes. I have clearly seen how
these political and social policies have been wrong, incendiary in
nature and part of the intractable dilemma we collectively call the
Middle East Crisis. Yet, I believe it is also true that certain
Islamic countries and their respective and unrespectable clerics
are plainly guilty of not only tolerating known terrorist groups,
but, in many cases, openly supported them in every way!

From this perspective, Israel’s apparent lack of peaceful vision
and trust of others, while indefensible in the long term, is at
least understandable in the short term, particularly when bombs
continue to explode on city buses, and the heads and limbs of
children are flung about for all to witness on CNN.

I also feel that it is almost disingenuous – when describing the
core principles of the Islamic faith – to claim "personal human
freedoms." While there are some Islamic countries that have
socio-political structures resembling voting and selective
representation, and as these more encouraging democratic trends
continue, there is (perhaps) not yet anything resembling the full
freedom of expression that is, I would argue, only possible in
non-religious cultures.

In many Islamic countries, there doesn’t seem to be a truly free
press. As with most religions, there is no equivalent to the First
Amendment in Islam that would even allow this letter to be
published. In Iran, where there is voting for some public
positions, the long-standing death edict against Salmon Rushdie, an
author who dared to be critical of Islam, was only recently
rescinded.

Having said all of the above, it is most important to recall
that the vast majority of Islamic people around the world are
undoubtedly decent, ordinary people. But in defending his Muslim
faith, Shama and others may, inadvertently or by design, deny or
downplay the role of the extremists in their midst. To deny the
more controversial, self-critical elements in the complicated
analysis of stereotypical beliefs is to be, I believe,
intellectually and morally dishonest.

What scares me the most about the more extreme aspects of
Islamic doctrine, and I can also include fundamentalist
Christianity and any other exclusive perspective, is that too many
influential and vocal followers of these absolutist belief systems
want their particular ideas to become The World Religion. This is
evidenced by the hateful rhetoric that we routinely hear from
various religious fundamentalists, and also by the manipulative and
untiring efforts of those who would try any means to pressure the
weak-willed to their ranks.

Shama must recognize that these single-minded viewpoints
expressed by some in the Islamic world, although easily embraced by
the "true believers", may create the reverse effect for those who
define their most precious values in other terms. My general
response to most organized religions, particularly those that
require unquestioning allegiance, is … no thanks. I prefer to
worship freedom over all other concepts, and most religions, by
their inherent nature, have never been promoters of individual
freedom. For me, there is no higher spiritual cause than the
freedom to think for myself.

Shama’s article correctly identifies and challenges the ongoing
prejudices against Islam. But I also feel he may better counter
these wrong stereotypes regarding his faith in the same manner that
all credible confrontations must begin: by first genuinely and
loudly condemning those faith-driven zealots within the Islamic
world who, by their horrific crimes against innocents, continue to
play a significantly pivotal role in sustaining the basis for the
stereotype.Solomon Matsas

Matsas is a student-affairs employee and can be reached at
[email protected].

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]