Islam’s Image Problem and Religion’s Responsibility for its Own “Brand-Nameâ€
It may indeed be, that despite all our attempts at fair-mindedness and all our fervent wishes to the contrary, Islam – when spoken of as a world-wide social movement – actually is “a violent religion.â€
This troubling thought has been growing on me for some time and finally found expression during a discussion at Dave’s Mormon Inquiry.
I would venture that most of us have been, to some degree or another, aware of the ongoing international outcry sparked by certain less than politic remarks by Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI and fanned by angry Muslims, of various stripes, worldwide. Apologies (or non-apologies – depending on who you talk to) have been issued and reissued, and accepted or rejected. Throughout it all, the “progressive-minded†among us have been eager to reassure their Muslim neighbors that “no we don’t think you are all insane nut-jobs.†The oft-repeated mantra is heard everywhere: “Islam is a religion of peace.â€
But is it really?
To start with, here’s the comment I made over at the aforementioned Dave’s Mormon Inquiry discussion (apologies in advance for the self-referencing):
Question:
What happens to the core character of a religion when the moderates essentially surrender the pulpit to the firebrands?
Because this is what is happening with Islam today.
When Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the World Trade Center disaster, where were the moderate Muslim clerics?
Why wasn’t he publicly declared an infidel?
When Hamas and Hezbollah call for genocide of Israeli Jews, where is the condemnation in American and European mosques?
When Iraqi shepherds are being executed for failure to cover up the “sexually suggestive” portions of their livestock’s anatomy, where is the American Muslim outrage?
Where have these people been on any number of issues, from nutty-speak from mad Iranians, to gang-style violence between Fatah and Hamas? Where are the moderates?
I know they’re out there. I’ve even met a few. They seem nice enough.
Actually, I DO know where they are, because they are making public statements. But whenever moderate Muslims get up to “make a statement,” what do we hear?
“It’s important to remember, post 9-11 not to pick on American Muslims.”
“This is always going to be a problem, as long as the US supports Israel.”
“Well Israel brought this on themselves because of A, B, and C…”
“You people are being SOOO intolerant of Islam.”
The statements go on and on like this.
What they add up to is basically: “These troubles are just as much YOUR fault as… (fill in the blank with your favorite reprehensible fanatic).”
Now, I’m not trying to argue that blame isn’t to be had by Israel, or the US, or whoever else. I’m also not trying to suggest that these statements should never be made.
But the fact that the apologetics, the accusations, the justifications, the counter-attacks are made in almost a complete absence of any condemnation of the very real failings of fellow Muslims adds up to a much different message.
I submit that while Osama bin Laden-type individuals are doing their thing, the moderate Muslims are:
A) asking us not to overreact
B) making excuses for their actions (usually by pointing the finger of blame at the victimized governments)
C) mumbling something almost inaudible about how these guys “don’t necessarily represent ‘true Islam’”) or
D) simply not saying anything at all
So what am I supposed to think? And I’d like to ask right now:
Will the real Islam please stand up?
The upshot of all this is that Islam has a real image problem, and it simply cannot be explained-away as the product of unenlightened prejudice at American truck stops and sports bars. Regrettably, the extremists of the Muslim world have the pulpit, and the moderates have been either unwilling or unable to wrest it away from them.
This is not to say that religious bigotry doesn’t exist. Neither would I argue that the responsibility for a religion’s image lies solely with its adherents and representatives. For example, I would be among the first to reject any argument that, say… the Jews were primarily responsible for the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany or that the Turkish genocide of Christian Armenians is primarily explained by the failure of the Armenians to project a “positive image†with the Turks. Sometimes there really is no room for rational dialogue.
But there comes a point where we have to ask how far the mantle of “misunderstood faith” will take us. And does a propensity toward religious bigotry against Islam absolve Muslims from taking care of their own image?
Contrast the PR efforts of the Islamic community with the PR efforts of the LDS Church, for instance. Church headquarters in Salt Lake City is well known for monitoring newspapers for any slurs, misrepresentations, or inaccuracies. Whenever a mainstream reporter so much as calls us “Mormons†without first using the lengthy official title, there is an immediate official response setting the record straight. Whenever certain “fringe off-shoots†of Mormonism start making headlines, there is a quick and decisive response from LDS officials reiterating that these folk were excommunicated sometime ago and absolutely do not represent “true Mormonism.â€
One might find a similar official response from other established religions on similar matters of controversy.
But, one might protest, this is a bit unfair. Islam is a diffuse worldwide religion with little central authority. Most moderate imams would likely point out that they have little authority to speak officially for world Islam.
This is no answer to Islam’s image problem. All it really tells us is that public face of Islam is currently up for grabs. Essentially, it’s anyone’s game right now.
My money is on the extremists.
Actually, properly understood, the Pope’s remarks are not really objectionable in any way. The inflammatory sentence was quoted out of context. To this day, to my knowledge, many in the Muslim world have no idea what the Pope’s speech was about. It is true that in the speech, he condemned violence in the name of religion. If this hurts Muslims where it hurts, then perhaps there is some need for introspection on their part.
Comment by john f. — October 10, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Actually, you could pick any number of “Islam incidents” in the last decade (cartoons of Mohammed for example) and insert them. The Pope’s remarks have simply placed the issue of the true world face of Islam, once more front and center.
Comment by Seth — October 10, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
Seth,
I think you just hit upon the heart of the problem of the “image” of Islam. Who has the right to define the direction of the whole of Islam these days? Is there a “Pope”, or a “Prophet” that speaks for the entire religion? Is there someone who can silence extremists in their religion?
We cannot look upon Islam the way we look upon organized religions, such as Christianity, because that would not be realistic. We cannot assum Islamic “leaders” can reign in any extremist.
Moreover, there is a reason why moderates haven’t spoken out as tough as we want them to. They see inconsistencies in the West’s approach toward the Middle East and the Muslim world. They feel like the West is trying to control them. Extremists speak out against this, and in their hearts, they probably agree with extremists in their ranks that the West is out to control them. Kinda tough to speak out against those who say things you agree with.
It isn’t the religion that is at fault.
Comment by Dan — October 10, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
The forum speaker at BYU yesterday spoke about Islam and, I thought, presented a wonderful image of the religion.
Comment by Hannah — October 11, 2006 @ 10:26 am
I think your first sentence says it all.
Comment by annegb — October 11, 2006 @ 10:50 am
There was a professor from American University on NPR last night, discussing his attempts as a moderate Muslim to engage in interfaith dialouge (and I’m blanking his name at the moment).
Anyway, when asked where all the moderate Muslims are, he responded that they are there and are speaking out – it’s just that we Westerners aren’t looking hard enough (and that the media prefers sensational stories to more moderate ones).
Not saying I agree, but that is likely how he would answer this post if he happened across it.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 11, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
And I’d answer:
If you really want the spotlight, there are ways to get it that the media will not ignore. Large protest march? Well publicized news conference with a good selection of moderate clerics and community leaders? Any number of smaller cumulative measures on the side?
Those are all good ideas. They just haven’t happened. Which just goes right back to my point on how disunited and conflicted-in-purpose the Muslim community is on the issue of extremism. The media ignore the existing moderate voices because they simply aren’t forceful enough, or pervasive enough, or influential enough, to demand attention.
Comment by Seth R. — October 11, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
This is what Pope Benedict said:
Perhaps the Pope’s meaning was lost in translation, but repeating that Mohammed’s contributions were “only evil and inhuman” is absolutely objectionable, context or no context.
Comment by ECS — October 11, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Another question to put on your list, something to ask Muslims directly:
1) What do you believe should happen to the former Muslim who converts from Islam to another religion or who rejects God and religion entirely (i.e., atheism)? More directly: Do you support the death penalty for apostasy from Islam?
Comment by danithew — October 11, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
ECS, I disagree. The Pope was quoting a medieval emperor and showing that such is not the way to talk about someone else’s religion while at the same time teaching that violence is not justified in religion.
I’m surprised to see you saying context doesn’t matter.
Comment by john f. — October 11, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
ECS seems to have an irrational dislike for all things right wing and religous, so to him context doesn’t matter. As long as it allows you to condemn the religous right, context doesn’t matter. (Now, try and take a quote out of context for someone on ECS’s side of the argument, and then you will see just how much context matters).
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 11, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Ivan, ECS is a woman.
Comment by danithew — October 11, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
oops -
my bad for not proofreading the post.
Doesn’t invalidate my point.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 11, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
So I went back and re-read the Pope’s speech. Sure, there’s some context to the statement in question, but why repeat such an incendiary characterization of Islam verbatim? The Pope’s main point was buried by the fallout from this statement, and most reasonable people would agree it’s probably best to avoid repeating characterizations that another religion is “evil and inhuman”, particularly when your intentions (and history) may be (mis)construed as animus rather than analysis.
Comment by ECS — October 11, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Well, I agree with that. Still, we don’t give a free pass to law students who cite as the holding of a case the counter-argument that the court is only quoting to dispose of, do we? I hold the Muslim world responsible for an irresponsible reading and interpretation of the Pope’s speech, not the Pope for taking for granted that his audience at the University of Regensburg could understand his meaning (which they did).
Comment by john f. — October 11, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I think that is a very charitable reading of the Pope’s remarks, john. But I absolutely agree with you that the Pope is not responsible for the violent response to his statement. That said, like it or not, we know with reasonable certainty that the Muslim world WILL react violently to statements such as these, I think that uttering them in the first place is irresponsible at best, reckless and taunting at worst.
Comment by ECS — October 11, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
I think the Pope’s remarks were impolitic and perhaps not as well thought-out as they should have been. How many of us have used a poorly-chosen tangential example to make one of our subpoints in a discussion, only to have the minor point balloon out of control to take over the entire conversation?
But he has clarified his position and apologized (to my satisfaction anyway). I think the Muslim reaction was overblown. Ironically, the backlash rather confirmed in many people’s minds that the 17th century Pope may have gotten it right. And that’s unfortunate.
Comment by Seth R. — October 11, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
I don’t think asking the Pope to edit his speeches for possible out-of-context soundbites is the answer. Or asking cartoonists to spare Mohammed thier pen. Sure the media could be more responsible and less inflammatory when confronted with such stories; but even then, these people are just waiting, no, salivating to be offended. They want the next reason to rally and to ‘fight back’.
Muslim culture feels humiliated by Western success and thier own culture’s inability to withstand external and internal exploitation. In such frustration it is natural that the closest common ideology be asked to provide explainations for percieved cultural failures. Islam has become that vehicle.
Tribalist loyalties failed following WWI; that nationalist movements, like those found in Egypt ,foundered and eventually failed to meet any more success as shown by the debacles of the 60s wars with Israel. Dictatorships were shown to be weak as Syria and Lebenon sank into backwaters and Iraq was toppled so easily. Muslims don’t trust the stable governments (Saudis, Kuwaitis etc…) because they know that those governments are sell-outs. Muslim nations and peoples have been repeatedly humiliated in front of the West as it exploits thier lands and buys off thier leaders.
Thier sole success at resisting the outside has been the purging of the West and its proxy Shah leader from Iran by radicals.
I think that given such circumstances, even moderates feel a sense of pride that Islam is now on the edge of everyone’s lips. (no such thing as bad press). Terrorism in the name of Islam is now powerful. Thier greivences are forcefully being appealed. Thus, they feel a new sense of power and esteem because something related to them is changing the face of the world. Why would moderates stop this unless they were fully integrated and considered themselves Western? After years of feeling inferior, even when living in the West, Muslims can now look proudly upon thier religion as the first force to pose any real challenge to western/Russian economic imperialism since WWII.
Our flaxen responses to the Iranian hostage crises, Somolia, USS Cole and other aggressions only served to encourage the trends toward violence because they garnished press and prestige but only minimal retribution.
All and all, I’d say that radicalism is now as mainstream in the Islamic sphere as anti-westernism, and has just as much staying power.
Comment by Sam — October 11, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Sam,
You’re absolutely right Sam… Prior Adminstrations are at fault for the ongoing debacle and increased terrorism that is at the heart of our failed forgein policy in Iraq. Carter deserves the blame for doctoring the story of WMD’s and Clinton for 911. These guys all by themselves helped usher in worldwide hatred and dislike toward our country.
Sam, your head is in the sand bro… And while we’re at it we can blame clinton/Lewinsky scandal on Republican Foley’s pedophile/homosexual scandal…
Comment by David L. — October 11, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
David L,
Anyway David L, did you have anything to say about Islam or did you just want to Bash Bush?
Oh I totally didn’t even register that all of those incidents I listed above related to administrations that were democrats. Oh well, good point. (PS: I’m not a Republican…bro). Up until 2001 I’d hesitate to blame the government’s actions solely on the party in power; be it Democrat or Republican…because up until 2001, no party acted without at least the partial consent of the other. I remember pre 9-11 talking heads bringing up just how little difference there was between parties and how that affected voter turnout.
Different world now.
PS: Some think that Monica Lewinski scandal is in part responsible for the failure to kill Bin Laden. Clinton was embattled, had no political leverage, so he couldn’t do more than launch a couple of missles…ironically because he thought it might expose him even more to Republican attacks. But that is another digression…
Comment by Sam — October 12, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Sure, I’ll buy the idea that Islamic extremism has been emboldened by liberal US presidents. Namely, the following liberals:
-Carter
-Clinton
-Bush Jr.
And conservative Reagan’s funding/arming of our current enemies didn’t help either.
But I didn’t exactly mean this to turn into a post on US foreign policy choices.
I think Sam is right in suggesting that the reason we aren’t seeing a forceful rejection of the violent “jihadists” is that the Muslim world is, frankly, deeply conflicted about how to regard the extremists.
Comment by Seth R. — October 12, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Muslims can and are peace loving! I teach Muslim children who are the best behaved in a classroom of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim children. Vigilantes are found in every religion! Mormonism and Christianity have had their fair share. To label Muslims and Islam as a violent religion is unjustified in light of history. A RM on an LDS internet introduction site wanted to correspond with me — as he had amassed a fine home and automobile and lifestyle. His modus for his lifestyle and likely status — flying jets that dropped bombs for the US government. This is the anti thesis of Christ’s message. When will we ever learn? Only Peace brings peace! War begets war! So decide for PEACE!
[edited to remove most caps]
Comment by Lani — November 5, 2006 @ 3:09 pm