In regards to this Thursday's readings, I found the portion of Frederic Volpi's article Framing Islamism: Understanding the Dynamics of Globalized Violence and Politics that dealt with Faisal Devji's book The Terrorist in Search of Humanity: Militant Islam and Global Politics quite interesting. In the book, Devji puts forth a new spin on the motives behind the actions of Islamic terrorists. He argues that instead of the motive being to terrorize non-Muslims for the simple facts that they are "natural enemies" or that they want to instill fear in the hearts of the attacked, these terrorist attacks are actually a defense of "humanity." In other words, these "global terrorists" are aware of Muslim suffering in the world and believe their sacrifices to be for the collective good, for they will help the great powers of the system to recognize their own mortality. The thought is to put Muslims and non-Muslims on the same level, for we all are capable of suffering equally. As Devji puts and supports it, "militant rhetoric is marked most forcefully by the logic of equivalence: you kill our civilians so we kill yours, because we suffer so must you" (p. 46).
Personally, I find this view to be compelling. Certainly, I do not condone the acts of Islamic extremists by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's always a good practice to try and understand from where the other side is coming be it friend or foe. Thus, I don't really see this argument as completely far-fetched or off the mark. When one considers the meaning of jihad, it's not hard for me to see why these people might believe as Devji describes. As you may already know, jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims, one that can entail the internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war. The latter is probably what most Americans think the meaning of jihad to be (if they know what it is at all, and admittedly, the concept along with the Islamic religion are still not completely clear to me), and because of that, they see terrorists-and maybe even all Muslims-as solely militaristic and perverted in their ways. And maybe there are some truths to that but certainly not with regards to Muslims in general. However, the second part of jihad above is the most compelling, for like Christian Americans-and Americans of all faiths for that matter-Muslims are people too and seek to improve the world in which they live, and in that world, their way of life is seriously threatened. So while I may question the act, I can therefore see the pursuit of societal improvement as a potential reason for international terrorism.
Devji goes on to argue that these acts of Islamic militancy are just as much a result of the Western world's counterterrorist movement as they are personal beliefs within the Islamist camp. This view doesn't seem to me as controversial, for I agree that we are just as much to blame as those other guys. While I believe leaders in the Islamic extremist movement to have a genuine hatred for Americans and the West, I don't think that all possess this hatred. But I do think our policies and presence in the Middle East do their parts in provoking these people to do what they do. Thus I think it's time for us Americans to recognize that we aren't playing the role of the innocent bystander. We need to educate ourselves in regards to the ideals, cultures, and religions of these peoples and understand them and then we make judgments from there. But until then, we need to stop encouraging and provoking them through our ignorance. That's easier said than done, though, and if I had the answer, I'd be getting money and getting paid.
No comments:
Post a Comment