The West is walking straight into ISIL’s trap

The discourse is changing in western nations as hate and anger replaces reason and tolerance, says Shelina Zahra Janmohamed

Muslims join others during a vigil at Potters Fields Park in London to commemorate the victims of the terrorist attack on London Bridge and at Borough Market. Daniel Leal-Olivas / AFP
Powered by automated translation

The discourse is changing in western nations as hate and anger replaces reason and tolerance

They say that there’s a problem with the Quran. They say Islam is inherently violent, or at the very least has more violence in it. They claim that it’s just a matter of degree before devout turns into extremism. If you’re an observant Muslim you might find that even as you read those words you feel hurt and offended. After all, these are dear and precious things that inspire, uplift and guide. Words like problem or violence have no place in the description of these matters.

Yet the lay verdict in the aftermath of attacks in the United Kingdom has pronounced that Islam is the problem. And they have commanded that Muslims must admit it. And if they don’t agree with this point of view that is being forced upon them, then they are in denial, or part of the problem.

But the fallacy is this: if you ask the question, when does devout turn into extremism? The answer is simple: it doesn’t. Religiously literate devotion is rooted in the spirit of Islam, which is that preservation of life is the primary imperative. It nurtures compassion, concern and neighbourliness. It refuses violence. The struggle against the self is primordial and overshadows any struggle against others – which can only be taken in self-defence.

If every act that a Muslim undertakes must begin with the declaration “In the name of God the Kind, the Merciful,” the only conclusion is that human beings must also act with kindness and mercy. Any teachings of your place in society and in bellicose engagement must be read in the light of that merciful spirit.

The proof of this is that in the lives of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, goodness reigns. The world’s Muslims recognise and express that violent acts are not Islam. Of course no population is singular nor perfect, and the same applies to Muslims. And no population is free from people whose intent is to kill and destroy.

Yet those who are not Muslim want to bully them into accepting responsibility. The shift in recent language is subtle but has damning effects. We know that the majority of Muslims are good, they say, but you have to admit that Islam has a problem.

But the end result of this semantic shift is in fact even more laden with hate and danger than previous incarnations of this theory. Because if Islam is the problem, then anyone who follows it must be a problem too. If Islam is violent, then its followers must by definition be violent too.

The “conveyor belt” theory of radicalisation has always been popular. It says that when someone starts to show signs of devotion and becomes increasingly devout, then they are on the path to extremism.

But this new approach – couched in lay language – is far more insidious. No longer are Muslims inevitably on a path towards extremism; this theory tries to purport the view that they are already inherently throbbing kernels of violence.

It doesn’t matter where someone is on the scale of religiosity – even if they are barely religious at all – simply being Muslim makes them violent. And even if they capitulate to demands for apologies and denunciations, it’s clear that this theory means that Muslims will inevitably be seen this way.

It’s repulsive to write these things, and it must be even more repulsive to read them. But the shift in discourse is happening and we must be fully alert to it.

Islam is not the problem. Violent extremists are the problem. It is not Islam that is violent and extreme. It is violent extremists that claim the name of Islam that are the problem.

To create a bogeyman that 1.6 billion people are inherently a problem does not help solve the problem of violence. Quite the opposite. It is such an off-base and nebulous argument that it offers us nothing to solve the crisis. In fact, it offers nothing at all, except hatred and the call for collective guilt. Which is exactly what the devils of ISIL want. And this plays straight into their hands.

Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is the author of the books Generation M: Young Muslims Changing the World and Love in a Headscarf