|
Islam: The Future (Third of three parts)
Islam series Part
1 | Part
2 | Part
3
Rev. Brian J. Kiely, Unitarian Church of Edmonton,
November 26, 2006
In this third part of the sermon series on Islam I want to ask
if there is any hope for peace, and if there is, how might we get
there?
Well, the first answer is, yes. All wars end. That’s cold
comfort when you are in the middle of one, but it is a fact. Even
religious persecution ends. Sooner or later, people get tired of
the killing, the uncertainty, the hating and the fear. Sooner or
later good people of moderate views stand up and say. “Enough!”
Finances dry up, which means weapons can’t be bought. Often
changing economics make the fighting less attractive to people who
now have something to lose. And sometimes, one side just flat out
wins the war. For whatever reason, wars end.
There have been liberal and conservative splits within Islam since
not long after Muhammed’s death. Why? Islam has no central
authority, no pope-like individual or council laying out the one
approved interpretation of the Qu’ran. Every Muslim is free
to interpret the faith for him or herself. The Imams are not priests.
They are Qu’ranic scholars who gain popularity because of
the quality of their teachings. Not surprisingly cultural traditions
from various parts of Islam have crept into the faith. The burqa
or hejab, the floor length coverings of women, are cultural traditions
that have been incorporated into the faith. They have no roots in
the Qu’ran.
Periodically, extremists have provoked outbreaks of violence. There
have been wars of conquest, too. But more often there has been peace
within the Islamic world, the peace that inspired the development
of algebra and some of the world’s great poetry, architecture
and art. That peace will return.
Historically, extremist violence in Islam has most often been an
internal affair, Muslim pitted against Muslim over the proper practice
and interpretation of the faith. Those of other religions, such
as the Orthodox Christians in Turkey, have mostly been left to worship
in peace. When it comes to persecution of others of a different
faith, Christianity has a far more oppressive track record.
In the rhetoric of the so-called ‘War on Terrorism’,
western media tends to downplay this internal dimension of Islamic
strife. They are far more focused on the possible threat they might
pose to us, not each other. Let us not forget that one reason why
NATO is in Afghanistan is because the Taliban were torturing, killing
and tyrannizing other Muslims.
Let us not forget that Osama Bin Laden is just as committed to
toppling the House of Saud ruling Saudi Arabia as he is to destroying
America. It can be argued that he sees attacking America as a means
of destroying the oil rich and west dependent House of Saud. He
wishes to purify the nation of his birth and bring it back to his
brand of Islam.
Let us not forget that the inevitable and entirely predictable
civil war breaking out in Iraq is between the more liberal minority
Sunnis, of which ironically Saddam is a member, and the more conservative
Shi’ites backed by Iran. The fight is for the moral control
of the nation. Political rule is secondary. The goal of the Shi’ites
is to create a religiously based government such as exists in Iran.
So where does the hatred of all things western come in? For most
of the 20th century, the west has backed governments created not
to look after the needs of their people, but the needs of the oil
companies. And the governments and friends of the Shah of Iran,
Saddam Hussein and the House of Saud became both obscenely wealthy
and extremely repressive of dissent. In very simple terms, the practicing
Muslims of those lands looked around and saw injustices far more
egregious than the worst excesses of North American corporatism.
They saw their leaders dressing in western clothes, rejecting tradition
and flaunting Islamic law in a hundred ways. And, they ignored the
needs of the people they were supposed to serve.
In the second partn of this series I noted that in order to thrive,
ultra-conservative belief requires a conviction that life has gone
off the rails, that the people have lost their way and that a return
to strict religious observance is the only way out.
And I noted how author Karen Armstrong also made the point that
what would normally be a peaceful kind of fundamentalism only tips
over into violence in a society already in conflict.
An enormous gulf existing between a very small class of the ultra-wealthy
running a repressive regime qualifies as conflict. By blaming the
corruption on the west, those who would foment violence were able
to describe an Islam under attack. They could, therefore, make a
case for violence as acts of self-defence as is required by the
Qu’ran. These nations have become breeding grounds for extremists
and ultimately a small minority of terrorists who know no other
way to respond to the violence, poverty and deprivation foisted
on them.
So where is the hope?
For starters, we in the west must take responsibility for our part
in this morality play. We have to take a very hard look at the issues
and concerns of conservative Islam. Not the terrorists necessarily,
for they are, sadly, a lost generation. But we can look at the concerns
of those who are angry but not yet given to violence. Our first
Unitarian Principle affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every
person. To me, that says we have to assume that these folks have
legitimate issues. If we want peace, we have to learn, and come
to understand their issues. It won’t be easy, for much is
buried in the Islamist rhetoric that now sounds like so much, ‘blah,
blah, blah,” to our ears. But if don’t start grasping
that these are real and legitimate issues, then peace will be a
long way off.
And what might this require? Peace will almost certainly demand
a change in political alliances and economic realities. The west
will have to stop exploiting Middle Eastern oil and propping up
corrupt governments. We will have to deal fairly not with the few
isolated leaders, but with the people of these nations.
We will have to deal with their basic rights. We will have to acknowledge
their right to preserve their culture and faith. Some of that might
not sit well because some of those cultures do not have the same
view of human rights as we do. Peace may require that we swallow
our outrage and show patience while their understanding of human
rights evolves. But that understanding will not evolve in the midst
of a perceived state of war.
At the same time we will have to address the poverty not of the
oil rich nations, but of the large numbers of disaffected have nots
within those countries.
Two weeks ago former President Clinton spoke to Canadian audiences
calling for the world to invest in ending poverty. He noted how
the US military has spent $400 billion on war in Iraq this year
and $100 billion in Afghanistan, but has failed to deliver the relatively
paltry $30 billion it has pledged in foreign aid around the world.
And we wonder why ‘they’ hate the west and all it stands
for. Clinton insisted that investing in ending poverty now would
be far cheaper than dealing with the consequences in the long run.
We have only to see the chickens of the oil era now coming home
to roost to find the truth of his claim. If the west had set up
fair oil industries 60 years ago, we might not have the terrorism
of today.
I think Mr. Clinton is right, but I still am part that half of
Canadians supporting our efforts in Afghanistan. I am deeply concerned
that we are forgetting the reconstruction part of the mission, however.
If we simply defeat the Taliban militarily, we will only add to
the long term conflict. But if Canada can demonstrate how a country
can be rebuilt and become self-sustaining in a healthy way, we will
go a long way towards taking away causes of violence. We may still
fail, but I believe we are trying to do something different and
maybe even noble over there.
That said there are still many unanswered questions in Mr. Clinton’s
remarks. I fear that westerners will want to define what ‘ending
poverty’ might mean. That has been our habit, and when we
have done so, the efforts have usually failed. The end – or
more realistically, the reduction to reasonable levels - of poverty
in any nation must be realized by that nation and culture. The west
can help, but the nation involved must decide what it will become.
The same is true for the end of inequality, racism, sexism or any
other social ill. If the global track record shows anything, it
is that imposed solutions and money poured out indiscriminately
offer no way out.
But again there is a hopeful model.
A few weeks ago the Nobel Peace Prize went to Muhammad Yunus and
the Grameen banks he founded 30 years ago in Bangladesh.
From the Grammen website: “Sometimes called ‘banking
for the poor,’ microfinance is an amazingly simple approach
that has been proven to empower very poor people around the world
to pull themselves out of poverty. Relying on their traditional
skills and entrepreneurial instincts, very poor people, mostly women,
use small loans (usually less than US$200), … to start, establish,
sustain, or expand very small, self-supporting businesses. …”
Most loans are repaid within six months and the repayment rate
is about 97%, far higher than North American student loan or credit
card repayment rates. The Grammen focus is often on women, why?
Again from their website:
“Women are the best poverty fighters. Experience and studies
have shown that they use the profits from their businesses to
send their children to school, improve their families’ living
conditions and nutrition, and expand their businesses. They also
are more likely to fully repay their loans on time.”
A 1998 World Bank study showed 10,000 people a month escaping
the typical dollar-a-day poverty in Bangladesh. [1]
In making the award, the Nobel Foundation cited Yunus and the
banks, “for their efforts to create economic and social development
from below. Lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population
groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. Micro-credit
is one such means. Development from below also serves to advance
democracy and human rights.” [2]
Here is a made-in-Islam solution that is beginning to address the
needs of those people most in danger of becoming tomorrow’s
terrorists, people with nothing left to lose. The west must learn
how to support such initiatives.
There are other signs of hope as well. Many have spoken about how
the vast majority of the world’s six billion Muslims are peace
loving people. The vast majority of Muslims living in North America
want only to live their lives and practice their faith in peace.
But because they live in the west and because they don’t join
in the rhetoric of the ultra-conservatives, they too are threatened.
In August the communications officer of the socially liberal Muslim
Canadian Congress, one Tarek Fatah, resigned fearing for the safety
of himself and his family. Mr. Fatah opposes religious violence
and supports Gay rights. He had been the target of an intense e-mail
campaign.
A few weeks ago 43 year old professor Ingrid Mattson was elected
president of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest umbrella
organization of its kind on the continent. She is a Canadian born
ex-Catholic dedicated to social justice and a better understanding
of Islam. She is the first woman elected to the post and the first
North American.
Mahan Mirza, a former student, commented in a New York Times article
reprinted in the Edmonton Journal, “The more Americans see
Muslims who speak English with a North American accent, Muslims
who were born and raised here, who understand this culture, the
more it will cease to be a foreign phenomenon…” [3]
These are small steps, but they are the steps that show me that
moderate Muslims are gathering their courage and starting to step
up and reject the rantings of the extremists. If we support these
people trying to reclaim Islam – and by support I mean mostly
promote a climate of acceptance for their faith, we will be promoting
peace. If we support the Muhammad Yunnus of this world who are trying
to break the cycles of poverty that harm many Islamic nations, we
will be promoting peace. But most importantly, we must work to educate
ourselves, the people we know and eventually our governments. We
must learn to understand the needs, drives and desires of the Islamic
people in the nations where extremism is being fed by injustice.
Until we address those concerns in a realistic manner, there will
not be peace.
- www.grameenfoundation.org
— FAQ’s
- http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/press.html
- MacFarquhar, M (NY Times)
reprinted in The Edmonton Journal, Oct.
8, 2006, p E5
Back to Sermon Archive
|
