Imagine that a wealthy, far-flung and fanatical Christian group, outraged by the mistreatment of Christians in a Muslim country such as Sudan, was attracting increasing admiration because of its indiscriminate violence against Muslims and Sudanese, together with well publicised threats of worse to come. There would be a never-ending rush to the media by Christian clerics and lay people impatient to denounce such acts as a terrible corruption of Christianity.
As Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi explained in an article in last Wednesday's Courier-Mail, the Islamist ideology -- usually though misleadingly called "Islamic fundamentalism" -- that animates Osama bin Laden and his supporters involves a similar perversion of Islamic teachings and traditions. The outcome is a totalitarian political doctrine that has many affinities with fascism, and indeed, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, one of the founders of the Islamist movement, was a great admirer of the European dictators of the 1930s.
In common with other observers, Sheikh Palazzi argues that despite their professed friendship towards the West, it is Saudi Arabia and certain Gulf countries who have done most to promote radical Islamist ideas, and that Saudi subsidies are allowing mosques in Western countries to come under the control of extremists.
This helps to explain an otherwise puzzling situation. While there can be little doubt that most Muslims in the West are disgusted by the barbarities that have been committed in the name of their faith, the public response of many of their leaders to the radical Islamist notions that justify these acts has been ambivalent, despite honourable exceptions.
Certainly, many Muslim organisations in Australia and elsewhere quickly issued media statements which condemned the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and quoted from the Koran to demonstrate that Islam promoted tolerance and peace. Such statements are admirable. But given the gravity of the situation that Western nations now face, and the extent to which extremist Islamist ideas seem to be gaining influence, they are far from sufficient.
A number of Muslims have pointed out that at a time when the media is saturated with images of terrorists who claim to be acting on behalf of all Muslims, it is imperative for their co-religionists who oppose extremism to seize every opportunity to repudiate the Islamists, both within their own community, and to their fellow non-Muslim citizens.
Writing in the Wall St Journal a few days after the terrorist attacks, Tarek Masoud noted that instead of asking what could be done to help those affected and to prevent similar horrors in future, the most visible reaction of Muslim leaders in the United States had been to wrap themselves "in the mantle of victimhood". The leadership was devoting its energies to warning Muslims that they would be the target of "hate crimes" by other Americans seeking revenge.
But as Masoud noted, even though the biggest "hate crime" in American history had just been perpetrated, the outbursts against Muslims have been few and far between. President Bush and other American leaders have been scrupulous in drawing a distinction between the small minority of terrorists and their sympathisers, and the great majority of Muslims in the United States, who are loyal and law-abiding citizens.
This was not a cynical ploy to ensure the co-operation of Muslim nations whose continuing support will be necessary for the struggle against terrorism. Rather, it is consistent with a major theme of contemporary American -- and Western -- culture. Progressive intellectuals may disparage the individualistic focus of our culture, but it does have the great virtue of providing a powerful antidote against ethnic stereotyping and attempts to make a people collectively responsible for the actions of some of their number.
Similarly in Australia, the focus has been on Muslims as victims, even though political leaders acted promptly to allay their fears and provide additional resources to protect their communities. True, there have been a few nasty incidents involving attacks on mosques and harassment. While these must have been distressing for those affected, they were the work of craven individuals, and they were far outnumbered by written, emailed and telephoned messages of kindness from ordinary Australians condemning such acts.
Nevertheless, it is an article of faith amongst Islamists that most people in Western countries hate Muslims and seek the destruction of Islam. Greatly exaggerating the threat that Muslims face from supposedly racist and intolerant Westerners is one way of undermining internal opposition and gaining further support. Unfortunately, this political tactic of the Islamists is given credibility by "progressive" intellectuals, who have their own reasons for promoting nonsense about the supposed level of anti-Muslim bigotry in mainstream society.
In their constant desire to assert their moral superiority over their benighted fellow countrymen, the "progressives" overlook the fact that individual Muslims are far safer and freer in places such as Australia and America than they would be in most Muslim nations. Of course, many Muslims know this to be true from their own personal experience, but either their message is being lost in the rush to denounce the West, or they are reluctant to speak out.
Local Muslim leaders may feel it is unfair that they should be called upon to do much more to repudiate and combat the messages of anti-Western hatred that are coming from the radical Islamists. But just as Australian Muslims have every right to have their fears allayed, so too does the wider community. If the multicultural industry had any sense, this is the message it would have been promoting since September 11.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment