Religion is not responsible for people committing acts of terror in its name. This has become a crucial issue in the current debate about terrorism legislation in Australia.
On the eve of the introduction of new anti-terrorist laws in Australia, it has become difficult not to question the way policymakers and sections of the media have inadequately been addressing this topic based on misleading information.
Religion has undoubtedly been a sensitive topic. Some prominent politicians, not known for being counter-terrorism “specialists”, have tried to marry Islam with terrorism.
Their comments suggest this “new” terrorism is religious in motivation, more deadly and fanatical. The implication is that Islam or Islamism creates an incentive for a “cycle of terror” and indeed that Islam is a threat to democracy.
The list of nonsense goes on and on and on. The truth is that in the aftermath of 9/11, racist, anti-Semitic, nationalist, patriotic and anti-immigration fears about national security were reinforced. More specifically, the boundaries between Islam as a political ideology (Islamism) and Islam as a religious or theological construct have become blurred.
What’s more, much of the discussion in the West regarding Islam and political violence has frequently been based on unstated assumptions.
People tend to use the terms “Islam” and “Islamism” without making a distinction. In doing this they are making a conceptual mistake. Islam refers to a religious or a theological concept while Islamism, also known as “Political Islam”, refers to the use of Islam by individuals, groups and organisations to pursue political objectives.
In simple words, Islam is a religion like any other such as Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Islamism, on the other hand, is the use of Islam for political purposes. In a sense, it is similar to the distinction that needs to be made between Judaism and Zionism.
The controversy arises from the often unstated Western assumption that both Political Islam, and Islam itself, are rigid and violent. This failure to distinguish between the two puts Islam in the unique position of being assumed, as a matter of course, to use religion for political purposes to create structural changes, sometimes by violent means.
But is Islam as a theological construct responsible for creating cycles of violence? Or is the political use of Islam a contributing factor in “feeding” terrorism?
To answer these questions it is crucial to keep in mind the intrinsic difference between Islam and Islamism to objectively understand behaviours, beliefs, feelings and other group dynamics that explain how individuals become radicalised.
The real danger emerges when Islamic radicalism taps into general public sentiment in the Muslim population. Their revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam claims to return to the fundamental meaning of the faith. Under this scenario, violence is morally justified since radicals perceive that it is the only way to restore Islam’s original purity.
Radical Islamists can then use pervasive dissatisfaction to pursue a more politically extreme agenda. For example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a “war of choice” rather than an act against a terrorist threat, was a strong recruitment tool for terrorism.
Religion gives people a feeling of security and predictability because it provides explanations, as well as emotional support. Similarly, Islam sets rules for conduct, relationships, rights and obligations, regarding family, community, the nation and the world.
But radicals have distorted Islam’s history and teachings by commandeering Islamic religious terminology and infusing it with their own reinterpreted content. As a result, religion is used as an excuse to manipulate and exacerbate the emotions of a specific audience to achieve a particular political agenda.
Islamic fundamentalism is not responsible for creating terrorism. On the contrary, the way society functions can cause social dissatisfaction which in turn can distort religious sentiments and pave the way for possible engagement in acts of terror. The Western world has played a crucial role in this matter. The West’s assumption that its version of democracy is universal and its claim to hold the high moral ground has created a rigid world view.
How can we assume that a particular Western model must be accepted as an ideal form of polity for humankind?
Any political narrative needs to address the particular reality of every nation according to its specific historical, cultural, economic and political experiences. Trying to apply prescriptive reasoning to another region with remarkable differences will yield the wrong results.
Muslims have their own distinct moral and ideological identity and historic-cultural personality. The Islamic political system represents the relationship between humans and God. It is a complete code of conduct.
Most Muslims regard western attempts to impose its laws, institutions and policies as an attack on their faith, values and aspirations. There is no contradiction between Islam and the essence of democracy. Islam and true democratisation are two sides of the same coin. If democracy means the rights of people to self-determination and self-fulfilment, that is what Islam and the Muslim people have been pursuing. Unfortunately, we live in a world of double standards where the search for “abnormality” overwhelms individuals who perceive their “truth” as unique.
