'Who represents Islam?'

“Who represents Islam, Muhammad Ali or Omar Mateen?”  Truth is, they both do. The question of who represents Islam and who is a Muslim comes after every other attack now, because unfortunately every major attack, be it in Belgium, France, the US or Nigeria, is traced to a Muslim.  With Mohammad Ali’s recent death, this time it is the above mentioned (rhetorical) question that is posed by many Muslims around the world in online debates as a defence of Islam.

As investigations continue into the Orlando shooting, there could be very many truths to this particular attack. But regardless of how much religion played a part into this, if any, it is still worth considering why the defence of personal faith is a near immediate reaction to acts of mass violence. After all such attacks, there often appears to be a unity in argument of Muslims around the world, that ‘this is not what Islam preaches’. If this reaction is based on the sense of being part of a collective then it should be questioned why it does not extend to owning the very real problem of religious extremism.

It has become deeply depressing how when in any part of the world a terrorist attack happens, the debate so quickly changes from the act of violence itself to a victimisation of Muslims. Charlie Hebdo is an important case in point of blaming the victim. No amount of offence felt by the accused gives licence to kill, but Charlie Hebdo became more about racism on part of the magazine rather than ruthless killing.

This is not to underestimate the suffering of people who have and continue to suffer discrimination on account of their religious beliefs, but there are times, when it is not the most opportune moment to point out how something may impact your religion's image. Some instances of great tragedy are just moments of grief alone and call for togetherness on the basis of mere humanity.

Is Islamophobia worse than the possibility of a mother knowing her child is dying, the fear of knowing you are next in line to be killed, or waiting to know if someone you deeply love is on the list of the dead? And if it’s not worse, then how can, possibly, a massacre like this not just be a moment of grief. How can such a tragedy be anything other than just that - if even for a day.

With respect to Orlando, many Muslims have again turned to the problem of Islamophobia and the defence that Islam does not preach this, rightly arguing how the killing of one is the killing of all humanity. It is also true, however, that many of us growing up in Pakistan would have heard the story of what happened to “Hazrat Luth ki qaum” as an example of what God thinks about homosexuality. Many of us would - at least I have -  have also heard that homosexuals are then worthy of being killed on this premise.

On the same grounds then, commentators who argue for Islam being a religion of peace and ISIS and al Qaeda a mere result of misreading the Quran or Sunnah out of context, forget that when there is room for interpretation, then different interpretations will happen and it is only a matter of personal opinion as to whether it is correctly interpreted or not. It is illogical and hypocritical to argue, for instance, that polygamy is permissible on grounds of it being allowed in the Quran itself and then say ‘lighting beating’ is not. ISIS cannot be called out on ‘this is not Islam’ because of its strict interpretations, if we in Muslim majority countries are okay with unequal inheritance rights for women. If direct, non-contexual religious teachings are acceptable on some grounds then they would have to be acceptable on all. You cannot argue for the supremacy and progressiveness of Islamic law and then vehemently argue against an interpretation of the Shariah at the same time because it fits your purpose.

The argument of what is not Islam as a defence is then not only misleading but an obstacle to outrightly condemning violence. As more and more countries around the world bear witness to terrorism, there needs to be a more honest and contextual reading of religion and its practice.

There is nothing particularly radical or new about opening up debates on certain religious matters that are largely thought to be unquestionable. Morocco’s feminist movement is an example where activists, who very much identify with Islam, after years of a dedicated, sustained movement managed to change the family law in favour of a more egalitarian marriage contract, nearly prohibiting practices such as polygamy on the grounds of religion itself.

Opening up religion to debate is most necessary as the problem of terrorism continues unabated. Denying a problem will not make it go away. The argument of ‘this is not Islam’ then and what being a Muslim ‘actually means’ is not evidence enough for Islam being ‘a religion of peace’ if we think it is okay to kill for blasphemy or apostasy. 

As things stand, both Muhammad Ali and Abu Baqr Al Baghdadi represent Islam - depending on which way you look at it.

Published in The Express Tribune: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1129003/selective-religiosity/