An anniversary, some lazy thinking and a conversation

It’s the fourth anniversary of ‘violent extremism’ striking the towers. Violent extremism? I read somewhere (in Slate for instance) that the Empire is no longer fighting a war on terror, instead, it’s now a struggle against violent extremism. Four years on, there seems to be no shortage of confused, and confusing, thinking on whos and whys of ‘violent extremism’ (or Jihad International, or Islamofascism – what’s in a name, call bomb by any other name and it will still cause havoc).

Confused thinking, however, we shouldn’t mind. After all, it’s hard to understand why for instance a cricket-lover would blow themselves up right before the greatest Ashes series ever. There are theories. Many theories. Some theorists seem to be less confused than others. And in general, it seems, those who profess the least confusion are also the least convincing. But may be that’s my shortcoming as a reader. And as for these theories being confusing, that’s surely my shortcoming as a reader.

So confused and confusing thinking we are okay with. We shouldn’t however excuse lazy thinking. Not on a subject this sensitive, appearing on a publication catering for the Imperial elite, and coming from someone who should know better. Salman Rushdie wrote a piece in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, which has then been reprinted across the Anglophone world. The right time for an Islamic reformation calls for, yes you guessed it, an ‘Islamic reformation’.
Rushdie begins with the example of a ‘moderate’ British Muslim grandee who thought that death sentence was a light punishment for writing that evil book. This he argues is an example of how the community leaders have caused ‘inward-turned lives of near-segregation from the wider population’. That this ghettoisation is a problem I can understand. And it is very important to debate how a liberal state and society should approach it. But how does it relate to this ‘Islamic reformism’? Let me quote him:
The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men's objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men's alienations can easily deepen.

And what are these traditions? Again, this is what he says:
…..many whose views on women's rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views…..

This brings to a diversion, a conversation I had with a Desi sister. Sister? Mother of two and the homely demeanor makes aunty a more apt address, but she is only in her mid‑30s, so calling her an aunty would undoubtedly cause offence. This sister‑who‑looks‑like‑an‑aunty became interested in politics late last year. She was against the re-election of Bush, largely because of Iraq, but also because of Bush’s faith. Curious, I asked her which bit of Bush’s faith she disagreed with. My friend said surely a Christian fundamentalist can’t be good for Muslims. I persisted, asking her what exactly about Bush’s beliefs bothered her. By the end of our conversation, my naïve friend was all confused to learn that Bush wanted to ban gay marriage, outlaw abortion, and didn’t believe in evolution. If Bush and his supporters had these views, views good Muslims like her totally endorsed, then she wondered what the fuss was about. Why do they hate us, she said. My friend lives in one of those inward-looking communities that Rushdie decries. And these communities pose problem. But what about those moral voters of Ohio?

Anyway, back to Rushdie. So Rushdie bemoans insularity of Muslim communities living in West. And his solution is ‘Islamic reformation’. Now this is just lazy thinking. Why? Because an ‘Islamic reformation’ is just not possible. Islam, or at least Sunni Islam, does not have an organized clergy. There is no Islamic Pope, nor an Archbishop of Mecca. It is not as if a council of mullahs can sit and issue an official injunction for or against gay marriage. Your interpretation of Quran is yours and yours alone. This is why Islam didn’t have a reformation! And it’s not as if Rushdie doesn’t know this. Problems over interpreting the Quran, wasn’t that a major theme of that book that caused Rushdie so much grief?

That many Muslims, most Muslims, have these odd views about sexuality and women’s roles (and Jews or people who are different from them) is true. That these odd views can pose problem to a liberal society is also true. However, these odd views are shared by many religious people of other faiths, faiths that could and did have ‘reformation’. That Rushdie skirts over all these and promotes what he must know to be a non-solution is unforgivably lazy thinking.