"The secular mind is deeply entrenched with the idea that Islam is a system of beliefs where fanaticism and moderate devotion to a supernatural deity is indistinguishable."
-Epic Beard Man
I began that quote from listening to an hour and twenty-three minute video of Karen Armstrong giving a lecture regarding the secular views of Islam today. According to Karen Armstrong, the "bed rock message of the Qur'an is it is good to share your wealth fairly, and wrong to horde a private fortune, and the aim of life is to build a just and decent society where vulnerable people are treated with equity and respect." In Ms. Armstrong's lecture, she brings up a good point where in viewing other religions we tend to view them through the lens of Protestant Christianity, where religion is considered as a separate activity. Hence in the west we see Protestant Christianity as a benchmark in which we judge all others. This is why Buddhism and Confucianism are considered "secular ideologies" but according to Armstrong, the Buddha and Confucius would have not understood secularism as we see it.
Unfortunately, throughout the years (actually centuries) Islam has been presented by the west as a blood thirsty religion bent on Holy War, or Jihad to commence the campaign of Dar al-Islam. The western viewpoint of Jihad is the misunderstanding (whether intentional or unintentional) of Quranic interpretation of a holy struggle of the self. Jihad is the constant battle from within and in fact according to Islam, the constant battle from within is the greatest form of Jihad. Jihad appears in the Qur'an only 44 times and in 10 of those does it refer to warfare. Jihad is a struggle. Ms. Armstrong cites some examples regarding what it means to struggle such as for instance it being a struggle to give someone something to eat because they are hungry when you yourself are hungry. Do you give in to your own senses and biological desires or do you transcend beyond that and do the selfless act and give to the starving person.
In the west we turn on our television and watch news outlets of ISIL (or ISIS) or other terrorist organizations who commit acts of violence such as bombings and suicide bombings and the fervor or these groups who vehemently believe what they're doing is for God. It is historical fact that suicide bombings was not invented by Muslim extremists in fact, it was an invention by the Tamil Tigers, an extremely secular organization. According to Armstrong, though we see the early bombings happening in Lebanon committed by Shi'ites, most attacks during the 1980's in Lebanon and Jordan were done by secularists and socialists and secularists from Syria 7 suicide bombings were done by Muslims and 27 were done by secularists. Suicide bombings is strictly unIslamic and many Muslim scholars cite several verses but one verse is more popular when responding to critics concerning suicide bombings:
“Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32).
When it comes to violence of this type in looking at the actions of these Muslims who commit these violent acts, we must look at the root cause of these actions. Because what we see are people who believe that their country is invaded by a power more advanced in weaponry than the people. Coupled this with doctrinal ignorance, low education, hopelessness, limited resources, desperation, and a fiery and fanatical Imam, you have a recipe for disaster. There is something inherently wrong when a child who has never lived life expresses glee in the manner that some of these kids do, when they see their violent causes as something for "The Lord of the Worlds." The problem I see when people examine Islam is that we tend to see Islam from a Western perspective. I mean, we do this with a lot of people. Instead of asking why, we need to be asking how? How does the psychopathology of someone who is desperately trying to kill themselves and others develop? Where do people get these ideas?
People do not examine the perspective of the other by stepping outside themselves, and even though some do, they still place their western perspective in scenarios like "even if I was in that situation I would do such and such, and such and such." No, you wouldn't because if you were in that scenario you would not be having a western perspective on life or having the perspective of life that you have now, you'd have their perspective. I tend to ask myself when looking at the violence that is happening in the world in that sector I wonder what is compounding the violent ideologies? I firmly believe it is the socio-political infrastructures that over time have become unstable and paralyzed in time due to a collective effort of outside forces (western influences of warfare e.g. think CIA influence on the Taliban fighting Russians).
When it comes to the religious interpretation of he Qur'an like Judaism and the reading of the Talmud, the Qur'an is read through a filtration system such as the Imam or the Hadith. People often ask "what is the correct interpretation of Islam?" I would answer from an outsider's perspective it depends where you are in the world. For many impoverished Palestinians, their interpretation of Islam is a lot different than the perspective of Muslims who live in Detroit or New York. Just as the perspective of an Irish Christian would be different religiously than the perspective of a Taiwanese Christian. Our environment can be our x-factor in how we see ourselves in the world from a religious perspective.
What is the correct way to look at Islam?
Any faith that promotes good, justice, and equality, and promotes self-growth and excellence and the fair treatment of others which is the baseline of Islam, is the correct way of looking at Islam.
