Showing posts with label Extremism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Extremism. Show all posts

Sunday, 17 February 2019

Caught between two extremisms


By Mohammed Ayoob, The Hindu
Dated: February 10, 2019

News reports about occasional acts of terrorism outside of Jammu and Kashmir, which for historical reasons forms a special case, attributed to young Indian Muslims have appeared intermittently in the press. In addition, several recent reports suggest that global jihadi organisations such as the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) have recruited a few Indian Muslim youth primarily by exploiting the latter’s local grievances to serve their own global goals.

Many analysts, Indian and foreign, had assumed until recently that Indian Muslims were immune to extremist propaganda because of both the syncretic and moderate nature of Indian Islam and the democratic and secular character of the country which made them feel they were equal participants in the political process. Both these assumptions are now problematic, as several factors have been at work in the past three decades that challenge this conventional wisdom.

Wahhabi influence
The first is the increasing influence of Saudi Wahhabism and related forms of Salafism on Islam as practised in the Indian subcontinent. This is the result of several inter-related variables but the most important of these is the vast increase in employment opportunities in the energy-rich West Asian countries following the oil boom of the 1970s. This resulted in many Indians of all faiths temporarily locating to these countries in search of higher earnings. While a much larger number of Indians belonging to other religions moved to West Asia in search of lucrative jobs, both white and blue-collar, the religio-cultural impact of the encounter with the fundamentalist form of Islam followed in these countries, especially Saudi Arabia, on a section of Indian Muslim emigrants was qualitatively different.

Several of these temporary migrants returned to India enamoured with the obscurantist ethos of these oil-rich countries. This fascination was publicly exhibited above all in the adoption by a section of Muslim women, often under patriarchal pressure, of an ultraconservative dress code, including the niqab, or full face covering, popular in Saudi Arabia and some other West Asian countries. This dress code is very different from the traditional concept of purdah (covering up or modesty) practised by conservative Muslim families in the Indian subcontinent.

Protected by Sufism
But this display of presumed orthodoxy constituted merely the tip of the iceberg. The impact of Wahhabi/Salafi Islam on the mindset of a segment of returnees, who also passed on their preferences to a much larger group of relatives and acquaintances already impressed by the former’s newly acquired prosperity, was more profound. Islamic beliefs and practices among some Indian Muslims began to approximate the harsh Wahhabi dogma, which stands in stark contrast to the indigenous version of Islam in India. The vast majority of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent belong to the Hanafi sect based on the most liberal school of Islamic jurisprudence.

Moreover, traditionally Indian Islam has been greatly influenced by Sufi teachings and is, therefore, tolerant and accepting of religious diversity. Visitors to major Sufi shrines, such as those of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer and Nizamuddin Aulia in Delhi, where people of all confessions come to pray and seek blessings, can testify to the syncretic spirit of Indian Islam. Consequently, it harbours natural defences against extremism in belief and practice. The ideological infiltration of Wahhabism/Salafism has eroded some of these defences and made a section of Muslims more insular and, therefore, open to extremist ideas.

Equally important, the spectacular rise of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism from the 1990s has had a major psychological impact on a section of Muslim youth, prompting their estrangement from the national mainstream. Inter-religious riots in which Muslims suffered disproportionately had been common in India since Independence. In some cases the police killed Muslim youth in fake encounters. The Hashimpura massacre in Uttar Pradesh by members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in 1987 was the most macabre example of such incidents.

However, until the 1990s the vast majority of Indian Muslims treated such occurrences as aberrations and their belief in the secular and non-discriminatory character of the Indian state remained unshaken. The demolition in 1992 of the Babri mosque by a Hindu mob under the direction of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) luminaries and the riots that ensued, in which scores of Muslims lost their lives, shook the confidence of many Muslims in the secular character of the Indian state. What was most galling was the Central government’s apathy in the face of this brazen act of mob violence despite the fact that it had been forewarned. This event began the process of alienation among a section of Muslim youth from the Indian state.

This feeling grew exponentially a decade later in 2002 with the massacre of about 1,000 Muslims in Gujarat under BJP rule to avenge the death of 59 kar sevaks who were burnt to death in a train at Godhra after an altercation with local Muslims. What added insult to injury was the inaction, or, as the Human Rights Watch report on the bloodbath put it, the refusal of the state machinery to protect Muslim citizens.

More recently, the disenchantment caused by these earlier events has been reinforced by the lynching of several Muslims in northern and central India on the pretext that they were taking cows for slaughter or eating beef. The lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri, in western Uttar Pradesh, in 2015 on suspicion that he had stored beef in his house was the most chilling example of such incidents. It was followed by additional acts of mob violence carried out with relative impunity by the so-called gau rakshak (cow protector) vigilantes. Such incidents have led to a widespread feeling among Indian Muslims that the state, instead of providing security to them, now colludes with those determined to intimidate them into submission. This series of actions and reactions makes it evident that the growth of Hindu nationalism has acted as a major stimulus for the radicalisation of a section of Muslim society in India and that the two phenomena feed off each other.

Onus on governing elites
Opinion leaders and religious scholars from within the Muslim community have the primary duty to confront and defeat the malign Wahhabi-Salafi influence on Indian Muslims in order to preserve the liberal and syncretic nature of Indian Islam thus pre-empting the spread of extremist ideology among Muslim youth. However, the impact of the growth of Hindu nationalism on the Muslim psyche can be countered only by the policies and actions of the governing elites at the Centre and in the States. Only they can take concrete steps, such as quick and impartial action against those responsible for creating mayhem in the name of religion, to reassure Muslims that the state will not shirk its responsibility of providing them physical security and ensuring that they are treated with fairness and dignity. This will be the best antidote to the percolation of radical ideas among Muslim youth by removing their sense of alienation from the Indian state that in the long run can threaten the country’s security.

About the Author:
Mohammed Ayoob is University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Michigan State University and Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center for Global Policy, Washington DC

Reference:

How should we oppose extremism?


By Grason Slover, February 04, 2019

The term “Extremism” has always been somewhat vacuous. Its use is so widespread, and its deployment by some so dubious, that it often seems it has no serious substance at all. But while there are far too many instances in which ignorant or politically motivated individuals degrade the term’s integrity, there also have always been and always will be ideologies that remind us of why there is a need for such a category.

The main difficulty is in deciding how to distinguish between views we vehemently disagree with and views that are truly extremist. And of course, finding the best avenue to express our disagreement with those views.

This is the question at play in the case of the recently unearthed FBI investigation into California-based activist group BAMN, or By Any Means Necessary. The Guardian obtained official documents that outline an FBI “domestic terrorism” investigation into the group which was opened after they helped to organize a counterprotest against a 2016 neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento. At the rally, the neo-nazi demonstrators armed with knives were confronted by a mass of counter-protestors armed with sticks. A conflict quickly ensued between the two groups, leaving seven people hospitalized.

The reactions of many to the news that the FBI opened an investigation into the anti racists – not the hateful neo-nazis and white supremacist groups involved in the scuffle – were predictably bemused. But these reactions reflect a surface-level analysis of the real problem in this instance and its implications.

The intentions of the counter-protestors were abundantly clear from the start. BAMN spent weeks planning what they called a “shut down Nazi rally,” through social media and posting flyers around the city that had messages like “no free speech for Nazis.” When the mass of protestors had gathered in opposition to the neo-Nazis, they chanted “When Nazis come to town what do we do? Shut them down!” When taking these facts on board, it is fair to say that it was the counter-protestors – not the neo-nazis – who were the ones that initiated the confrontation.

This type of behavior aimed at shutting down speech through force has been increasingly common. Incidents in Portland, Berkeley, Washington DC, and others have shown that there are no shortage of people willing to get physical in order to disrupt peaceful demonstrations by those they disagree with. There are more than a few examples of these tactics being used against rallies based on mainstream conservative ideas that no fair-minded person could designate as “extremist”: but that is neither here nor there. Regardless of the topic of a peaceful demonstration, we as a country cannot condone those who would use force to stop it under any circumstances.

Indeed, there are views so abhorrent that many of us would be motivated to take drastic measures in order to ensure that they do not become influential. There are even ideologies, such as Nazism and white supremacy, that have been the central causes of two of the bloodiest wars in all of human history. But the alternatives to allowing those we despise to speak freely, no matter how reprehensible their views may be, will inevitably create worse problems in the long term. Anything short of explicit advocation of violence should be permitted in a truly free society.

The nineteenth century political philosopher John Stuart Mill made the best arguments for a radical adherence to freedom of speech in his paper “On Liberty,” and they remain among the most important ideas underpinning the liberties we enjoy in America.

The first defense he gives is that hearing views we disagree with helps us to master the reasons we have for believing differently, and therefore gives us a greater ability to rebut those beliefs in a coherent way. Our goal should be to convince as many people as possible that, in the case at hand, Nazism and white supremacy are not just immoral, but wrong. The only way we can successfully accomplish this is by developing the skills to confidently argue against those ideologies.
It is also unwise to censor speech we disagree with because it gives a reasonable precedent for those espousing those beliefs to do the same to us if they ever come to power. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists could deploy the same types of arguments in favor of censoring today’s mainstream views of tolerance and coexistence that many of us now advocate.

Furthermore, censoring opinions that we find disgusting only serves to strengthen their supporters’ belief in them, as well as those who may be on the edge of committing to them. If we allow these views to be spoken freely, and actively argue against them ourselves, people can decide on their own whether or not to believe in them. But if we make it illegal to articulate certain opinions, or threaten those who do with vigilante violence, it will reinforce the narrative that a sort of “forbidden truth” is being silenced, and that the only way to hold on to it is to join whatever extremist organization is defending it.

Although it is unwise to silence them, we can still vehemently oppose ideologies that we think run counter to our way of life in other ways. We can organize peaceful counter protests, write argumentative essays, or even go find a person to speak with who thinks differently and try to seek common ground. There are numerous ways in which we can actively push-back against what we see as hateful or extremist ideologies while also preserving the right of all those who subscribe to them to safely speak their minds. If we adhere to strategies of peaceful opposition to extremist views, we can expect that the most logical opinions will win out in the free marketplace of ideas. And if we are truly confident that the foundational American ideals of tolerance and pluralism are the most logical, we have nothing to fear from those who would try to argue otherwise.

Reference:

Sunday, 2 December 2018

Muslim scholars in bid to fight extremism



By Ishaq Jumbe
Standard Digital
December 01, 2018


Local and foreign Muslim scholars are in Mombasa for a two-day conference to discuss misconceptions about Islam and combat extremist ideology. The scholars from Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Kenya came following the invitation of the Mombasa Da’awa Convention which is convening the conference at the Sheikh Zayed Hall under the theme-“Mohamed, the most influential person in history.” The scholarsare Abdulrahman Qahtani of Saudi Arabia (pictured) and Nurdin Kishki (Tanzania) while Said Ali Hassan, Yusuf Abdi, Ahmed Ubeid, Izzuldin Alwy and Badru Jaafar are from Kenya. The conference which starts today is open to all religions, races and gender.Mombasa Da’awa Conference chairman Rishad Rajab Ramadhan said the two-day conference seeks to tackle “emerging conceptions about Islam by highlighting his (Prophet Muhamed’s) glorious teachings through his biography.”


Rishad said the conference seeks to foster harmony and peaceful co-existence among people of all religions and sects. He noted that in recent years Islam has been, wrongly, depicted as promoting extremism. “We shall demystify notions regarding Islam and prove Islam advocates for peaceful co-existence,” he said.  

Reference: