Nawar Fakhry Ezzi My last article, “Who is really guilty of defaming Islam?” (Jan. 15), touched a nerve with Muslims and non-Muslims alike, stirring up controversy and eliciting many responses regarding the ideas expressed. The support from non-Muslims was overwhelming and some of them were even defensive regarding my claim that they generally supported Charlie Hebdo after the attack. On the other hand, the reaction of Muslims was divided between those who resented the fact that "Islam" was associated with the word "terrorism" in the first place and others who condemned terrorism, yet could always find a way to justify it. Unintended generalization was made in my previous article regarding the support of Westerners for Charlie Hebdo. It turned out that using the notion of "Islam vs. the West" is a slippery slope that seems to lead to generalizations no matter how hard the writer attempts to avoid it. Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri, who was a contemporary Moroccan philosophy professor and an Islamic scholar, argued that the notion or concept of Islam vs. the West is flawed because the comparison is incompatible to begin with: Islam is a religion and the West is a direction. This notion treats Islam as a religion, civilization, nation, and a group of people while in actuality Islam is only a religion whose followers belong to different schools and sects not to mention that Muslims can be found all over the world, including the West. Similarly, the West is used to refer to a civilization, a nation, and a group of people while West is a direction, which is used rather loosely in that some countries are not even located in the West yet they are considered part of it. Furthermore, the West consists of different nations and countries whose inhabitants belong to different religious traditions, including Islam. Thus, both concepts are not as distinct as we might think and refer to large groups and subgroups of people who cannot be identified with one word as they belong to different ethnic, cultural, educational and intellectual backgrounds. The fundamental meaning of this notion has almost always existed, but in another form; it used to be the Islamic Empire, which held the power, against the Christian world which feared annihilation as the Islamic Empire expanded. However, as the scale of power tipped to the secular West during the colonization period and the Islamic Empire collapsed while Muslim countries maintained their Islamic identity politically, socially and individually, the notion has transformed into "Islam vs. the West". Many people on both sides have made generalizations about, discriminated against, or even demonized the "other" with the aid of this notion whether from a secular or an extremist religious point of view. Understandably, after terrorist attacks began in the late 20th century, reaching their peak with the the dawn of the 21st century, Muslims have been on the receiving end of this equation. Therefore, many Muslims especially those who live in Western countries have been on the defensive and are sensitive to anything that ties the word "Islam" to terrorism and consider this a method of propagating Islamophobia. Hate speech against Muslims or repetitive images of Muslims killing innocent people in the media can definitely incite hate, but one cannot deny that the killing is not fabricated and that the ideology behind it is based on Islamic sacred texts albeit twisted and distorted from their true message. Thus, tarnishing the image of Islam might be propagated by non-Muslims, but enabled by extremist Muslims and terrorists as argued in the previous article. Rejecting this fact would lead to a blame game with us playing victims who will never own up to their mistakes or attempt to deal with the problem. Another reaction by some Muslims is condemning terrorism and then following it with the word "but", which indicates a justification for killing when there is no justification whatsoever. Without complete condemnation with no attempt at justification, sympathy for terrorism will not be eradicated. Terrorists are like any other criminals whose actions should be deemed wrong, while the causes and reasons for their actions should be studied and analyzed objectively in order to prevent others from becoming like them. Every person is born "pure" at least according to those of us who believe that human nature is essentially good, but people are accountable for their actions and the choices they make. Otherwise, it would be unfair to punish people for the crimes they have committed because there are always reasons which led them to be the people they have become. The power of words and concepts can never be underestimated and sometimes should be reexamined and replaced if possible because words express our thoughts as well as influence them. It is difficult to stop using the notion of "Islam vs. the West" during this entire struggle, but it should be used with more scrutiny by both sides because even when used with good intentions, it seems to widen the rift between people instead of decreasing it. Islamophobia is real, just as Islamic terrorists are real, and as much as we would like to deny their affiliation to our religion, we have to admit that they have helped to distort its image even though they do not represent it. The writer can be reached at [email protected]
