"Suffering is a gift. In it is hidden mercy."
- Sufi poet Rumi
Some years ago, a mantra was associated with Bill Clinton's initial campaign for the presidency: It's the economy, Stupid! As I've reflected on this latest round of man's inhumanity to man - in Paris (which most fascinates and focuses the Western word), in Beirut, in Kenya, etc. - this saying has come back to me in an altered form: It's not about Islam (as so many seem to want to make it to be), it's about extremism, Stupid. Here's why I think so:
(Mistakenly, it turns out...) Many in the Western world believe that the word "Islam" means "peace." And most of its more than a billion adherents at present practice it that way, as a peaceful pursuit of the path to God (or, in Islamic terms, Allah). Yet, particularly in this century, we are more aware of a fringe element of Muslims whose theory and praxis of this religion looks nothing at all like the vast majority's approach.
In other words, relatively recently, we in the Western world have become much more aware of (though not particularly learned about) Islamic Extremism. Of course, there are many variants thereof - including perhaps the best-known, Wahhabism, that is primarily Saudi Arabian in provenance - but there are plenty of other lesser known ones, too. At present, the most significant of these lesser known variants is ISIL/ISIS and thanks to its virulent and violent practices, we are hearing about ISIL/ISIS a lot more lately (though seemingly not learning much about it). This being said, whether its that 'old foe,' al-Qaeda, or the new one, ISIL/ISIS, the net result is the same: we are struggling to comprehend the terrorism that claims Islam as its basis.
Some are quick to point out that the Qur'an has many passages that incite violence - including in its holy war version of jihad - and that this therefore makes the terrorism al-Qaeda and ISIL/ISIS practice emblematic of Islam as a violent religion. Without getting into it too deeply here, I would suggest that those who've done so (or are tempted to do so) re-read (or read) the Bible. Suffice it to say that few books contain that much violence, however righteous its proponents may claim it to be. (And for good measure, do some additional research and learn of what scholars of both texts have concluded: that the Bible is actually more violent than the Qur'an.)
Others bemoan the lack of a response from 'institutional' Islam condemning such fringe atrocity. Fair enough ... except many (if not most) of them don't realize that Islam is a far more decentralized/distributed religion than, say, Christianity. Hence, there's no equivalent of the Catholic pope in Islam to serve as a spokesperson (and lightning rod) for the religion. In fact, Islam is not monolithic, but 'splintered' - like Christianity - with two major sects, the Sunni and the Shia (the former comprising between 80%-90% of all adherents) and smaller variants like the mystical Sufis, too. Continuing to dig a little deeper, one will find condemnations from highly influential Muslim leaders of its various sects (and, for good measure, a few 'atta-boys' from some of its more extreme leaders, as it true of all groups/religions).
But the point is that the lethality and violence that is committed in the name of Islam today is no more authentically - or, perhaps, more correctly put, representatively - Muslim than the modern insanity of the Westboro Church is representatively Christian. Most Christians abhor Westboro and can't for the life of them recognize any semblance of Christianity in their behavior - though a few misguided pseudo-Christian 'leaders' encourage their insanity, of course - and would not want the entire religion judged on the misguided and extreme views of this fringe group. So, too, with the majority of Muslims relative to their extremist 'relatives'....
The reality is that Extremism works: the terror committed by the very few affects the great many, which is why it occurs. It also tends to provoke a violent response, which is then used by the original terrorists as proof of its foes' hatred and justification for more of its own cravenness. There is power in this inviting provocation to enter a doom loop: terrorists kill and then we respond violently which justifies - in their minds only - their continued 'right' to kill. The logic is perverse and wrong, of course, because that's what Extremism is, the severely wrong-headed perversion of some doctrine/set of beliefs/etc.
(In the colloquial, there's a more succinct and yet totally appropriate term that describes the nature of this aberration perfectly: crazy. What we're really fighting against is various strains of crazy in its most virulent [and pseudo-religious] forms.)
And Extremism is about power: by all estimates, there are fewer than 250,000 ISIL/ISIS fighters - though the estimates range from 15,000 on the low end to 250,000 or so on the high end, evidencing just how little we know about this adversary - but their influence is exponentially outsized: though they represent less than four hundred-thousandths (or four thousandths of a percent) of the world's population - <.000004 - everyone in the world is focused on them right now. Yes, Extremism works....
So, then, how do we deal with Extremism and, ostensibly, stop its threat to human life? The answer is as simple to suggest as it is difficult to effect: we must learn as much as possible about our self-declared adversaries and then respond as specifically as possible to them. In other words, in the present case of Islamic extremism, we can't condemn Muslims generally or their religion, but we can and should respond forcefully to the various fringe groups that claim Islam, each in its own specific way.
For example, whereas "al Qaeda has always portrayed itself more as a militant group comprised of highly trained operational masterminds whose successful attacks on America and Europe would ultimately gain them enough key followers to form a global movement of Muslims and detain the onslaught of the West," by contrast, ISIL/ISIS seeks the creation of a (local/regional) Muslim state now: "The Islamic State — also known as ISIS, ISIL and, to the group's disdain, "daesh" — has adopted virtually the opposite approach (to al-Qaeda) to consolidating power across the Middle East and beyond." (Bertrand, Business Insider, 5/21/15) (In fact, if ISIL/ISIS does prove to be behind the attacks in Paris, this would represent a major change in strategy for them, as their focus until now has been to try to create an Islamic state in the Middle East by conquering territory there.)
So, the approach to al-Qaeda will of necessity be very different than that to ISIL/ISIS (unless the latter does in fact switch and/or broaden its strategy to include 'foreign' terrorism). And that's the point: this isn't about Islam in general, it's about two (and, actually, more) identifiably different fringe groups who claim it (and yet whose practice of it contrasts virtually completely with that of the majority of its adherents) and the very specific/targeted/customized responses that are likely to be most effective against them.
Thus, it behooves us to remember that just like Westboro's not like the vast majority of Christianity, ISIL/ISIS isn't like the vast majority of Islam. So our response isn't to condemn the latter generally, but to address the former specifically. And if we can do this, we can bring our Muslim brothers and sisters - let us not forget that before they are religious adherents they are first fellow Children of God/human beings - closer to us in this present effort - to eradicate murderous extremism - and to an even more meaningful one - to live peacefully on this planet irrespective of how we see God (or don't).
"People see God every day. They just don't recognize him."
- Pearl Bailey
