Why does the Muslim World not rise up against extremists?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not a student of anthropology or the human psyche, though I have dabbled into the reasons for why people behave the way they do off and on. Post September 11, questions about human behavior, especially in the light of the apparent capitulation of Muslim society in front of the forces of extremism and violence, provided cause for deeper introspection - both personally and culturally. It also became necessary, in the face of constant questioning and accusations, direct and implied, from both friends and acquaintances about the stasis within the Muslim world, to try and explain how the reaction within the Muslim world was no different from what any other human would do. Fear - of death, of reprisal, of becoming an outcast, of Men numerically fewer but with weapons and the desire to use them.

I came across this response from a gentleman named John B on a blog by Dean Esmay, that articulates some of the conclusions I came to about how Muslims are like any other human being on this planet, in how they have reacted to the threat that has killed far more of their own than those in the West.

John_B :
Rhianna: I could suggest that the answer to your question about why the majority of Muslims can't control the radicals is going to be the same answer as to why the Italian neighborhoods couldn't control the Mafia and why the Irish neighborhoods couldn't control the IRA: Lots of reasons.

Part of it is simple inertia. If something doesn't adversely affect you personally, then people tend to let it go.

Part of it is the threat of violence. Having amply demonstrated that they will kill those who oppose them, people tend to not oppose them.

Part of it is schadenfreude, taking pleasure in seeing someone who has been behaving obnoxiously get his come-and-uppance. (It's not only the Islamic world that thinks the US has been behaving obnoxiously. Look at the anti-globalization crowd. Look at those who decry "cultural imperialism." You only have to look past the Canadian border--or in many American universities--to find that.)

What is uniquely Muslim, however, is the role of religion in daily life. Islam, unlike Western religions, is not easily separable into Church and State. It influences--no, directs--the daily life of pious Muslims.

Its weak point is that it is far too easy for any Muslim to be condemned as "not Muslim enough." When someone comes in citing chapter and verse (well, chapter and sura) of the Quran to demonstrate how you're a bad Muslim and threatens to expose you to the world as such, people have a tendency to keep their mouths shut. It's not quite "Omerta," but it's extortion nonetheless.

Most Muslims--like the followers of most religions--are not scholars in their own religion. They listen to authorities and those who sound authoritative.

Thus, they are not willing to go to the mat, generally, to argue a point of theology. And when the mat means social and economic disadvantage or damage--not to mention death--there's little incentive to start arguing. (I just noticed that the Arabic word for "dead" is, actually, "mat".)

You seem to demand that Muslims act in extraordinary fashion, that they not respond as human beings tend to do.

Most Muslims, in fact, wish this whole thing would just go away. They don't want to convert the world to Islam, though they may hold that as a nice thought, along the lines of Christian beliefs and desires for a "Peaceable Kingdom." They want to get on with the really important things, like feeding and clothing their families, getting their kids a good education and getting them married off so that grandchildren will brighten their darkening days.

They deeply resent that their religion is being brought into disrepute by terrorists, but also that their religion--the way they practice it--is being trashed by outsiders who don't make the effort to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam.

Dean's World - "Taqiyya"

 

[roadrunner]

There's different reasons. but it depends on the scenario you're talking about..The Muslim community in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, the West? They've all got different reasons for acting the way they do. One thing about the Pakistani scenario, I don't think that Lal Masjid typos are that common or popular. Religious parties for sure arent. There's been a big drama over it, and the threat is still there, but I don't think much else is going to happen. The Army took care of it, why should the civilians get involved? Now talking about Waziristan, their reasons would be different. They don't rise up against the extremists because they remember the Soviet war too much, feel betrayed by America blah etc, they don't believe that extremists are necessarily bad because they are extreme in religion (which can be true). You can have the opposite and find extreme anti religionists, which is better between an extremist that follows his religion rigidly and someone who wants others to conform to their atheist ways, I'd have to say the religious extremist is doing no harm. The trouble lies with some extremists who take things to a new level, the militant version of radical Islam. It's difficult to root out the militant extremists from the non militant ones. One cannot really stop people from growing their beards in the name of religion, or acting a particular way in their own time. So often it's difficult to root out these people, unless you do some research. It's the job of the authorities anyway.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There's different reasons. but it depends on the scenario you're talking about..The Muslim community in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, the West? They've all got different reasons for acting the way they do. One thing about the Pakistani scenario, I don't think that Lal Masjid typos are that common or popular. Religious parties for sure arent. There's been a big drama over it, and the threat is still there, but I don't think much else is going to happen. The Army took care of it, why should the civilians get involved? Now talking about Waziristan, their reasons would be different. They don't rise up against the extremists because they remember the Soviet war too much, feel betrayed by America blah etc, they don't believe that extremists are necessarily bad because they are extreme in religion (which can be true). You can have the opposite and find extreme anti religionists, which is better between an extremist that follows his religion rigidly and someone who wants others to conform to their atheist ways, I'd have to say the religious extremist is doing no harm. The trouble lies with some extremists who take things to a new level, the militant version of radical Islam. It's difficult to root out the militant extremists from the non militant ones. One cannot really stop people from growing their beards in the name of religion, or acting a particular way in their own time. So often it's difficult to root out these people, unless you do some research. It's the job of the authorities anyway.

Good points. You are correct to point out that religious extremism by itself is not necessarily bad. I was defining extremism as those who choose to force others into following their code. That can be applied to both atheists or religionists, and to clarify, I am not a supporter of the French or Turkish models either.

I do think that there has to be a more vocal involvement of society, like has been seen in the aftermath of the LM issue, where parents and citizens were vocalizing their disagreement with an education of violence and the sort of activities that were going on in the LM. Perhaps that is being seen now that private television channels have provided and outlet for that voice, and we will only see it get stronger, but I do think that there is a role for "moderates" in this whole business. That role however is linked with the authorities doing their job as well.

 

[A.Rahman]

Muslims are supposed to be moderate, because Prophet(PBUH) was moderate.

 

[roadrunner]

Muslims are supposed to be moderate, because Prophet(PBUH) was moderate.

You might be right, though I'm against extremism in virtually all its forms, I'm for every person to follow whatever they want. I don't think I should be telling someone to not follow some rigid rules if that's what they believe, just as they shouldnt tell me whether I should grow a beard, or shouldnt be telling someone to wear a Hijab. So long as it doesnt impact on a society, it shouldnt really matter, declaring Jihad until their extreme form of Shariah is established is way too much though, i'd say high treason.