Terrorists who act in the name of Islam, have misappropriated many legitimate and peaceful actions of Islam.

The latest kerfuffle is over the New York terrorist saying “Allahu Akbar” soon after he killed eight and wounded 11, running them over with his rented truck.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” is not found in Islam’s holy book, the Quran. But it is commonly used in many aspects of religious and secular life.

Arab Christians also use the phrase in social settings, similar to its usage by Muslims. Arab Orthodox Christians even say “Allahu Akbar” in their churches.

So what does “Allahu Akbar” mean? Literally it means God is Great, but it implies that God is greater than anything, greater than any of our challenges, aspirations and allegiances. It is a way to remember and praise God, an exercise hardly unique to Islam.

After the New York truck attack, right-wing media unfairly pounced on CNN’s Jake Tapper for saying that “Allahu Akbar” can be used under the “most beautiful circumstances,” which is indeed correct. Missing in the Tapper criticism is the fact that he also noted “Allahu Akbar” is “too often” used by terrorists.

Those committing terrorism in the name of Islam are part of a messianic cult who twist sacred texts to comport to their parochial view of religious supremacy and eschatology. The problem is hardly unique to Islam, although popular imaginations conflate fanatical misappropriation of sacred religious ideas as a particularly “Islamic” problem.

Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” many times in their daily prayers. The phrase is also used in mundane circumstances, from cheering for a favorite team after every success to whispering it into the ears of a newly born child.

An average Muslim will say “Allahu Akbar” well over 20 times a day, which translates to over 20 billion “God is Great” a day! So why is its misappropriation by terrorists normative of Islam but the billions of peaceful expressions not?

Islamic exceptionalism is pushed by both terrorists and Islamophobes.

Those who commit terror in the name of Islam want to present themselves as warriors in a cosmic battle between right and wrong.

Islamophobes suggest that militant interpretations of Islam are the norm and not the exception in a faith practiced by over 1.6 billion worldwide.

Often such cues comes from the top. President Donald Trump never wastes an opportunity to fan the flames of divisiveness. After a white man in Las Vegas killed 58 people and injured over 500, the president and his supporters decried any attempt at gun regulations, saying it was too soon to act after a tragedy.

But after New York, they wasted little time arguing against a diversity visa program that the New York killer used to gain entry. The Las Vegas killer was not called an “animal,” while the New York killer was.

Liberals have their own culpabilities. Ayan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher are the leading edge of such bigotry.

Hirsi Ali once said that anyone who says “Insha Allah” (God-willing), another common phrase among Muslims, ought to be treated as a “red-flag.”

Maher noted that he never heard a Christian say “Merry Christmas” before detonating a bomb. Religion reporter, Sarah Harvard pointed out that the Christian equivalent for “Allahu Akbar” is not “Merry Christmas” but “Deus Vult” a Latin phrase that means “God wills it” and was used by Pope Urban II at the start of the first Crusade.

Today “Deus Vult” is a common hashtag among the far-right and has been used in several recent acts of violence.

Muslims will continue saying Allahu Akbar daily. Neither the terrorists nor Islamophobes are going to intimidate Muslims from peacefully expressing their religious identity and upholding their deeply cherished religious culture. We can use tragedy to drive deeper wedges or heal exacerbating wounds. That choice remains ours.

A few months ago, I asked a former state legislator, why he failed to cite far-right terrorism as a national security challenge during his panel discussion regarding immigration and refugees. He asked me to cite one evidence of far-right terrorism in America. Oklahoma City. That’s just one, he claimed. What about Charleston? He insisted that in America the norm was “Islamic terrorism.” He is not alone with such blind spots.

Mayor Lenny Curry was among a handful of city mayors in full throated support of President Trump’s executive order banning refugees and travelers from several Muslim-majority countries. Our local congressional representatives, John Rutherford and Ron DeSantis, also gave unquestioned support to this order. Partisan support for such bans notwithstanding, refugees nor citizens from the countries on the banned list have killed anyone in any act of terror in America.

In Charlottesville, a white supremacist used ISIS inspired methods to mow down anti-racist protestors, killing one and injuring 19. The dangers from such homegrown terrorists, who are now emboldened to gather in large numbers holding Nazi flags in one hand while clutching their semi-automatic guns with the other, have generally been downplayed. Charlottesville is the bitter fruit of scapegoating those who are perceived as the “other” while ignoring the dangers of extremism from “our own.”

Through my service on FBI’s local civil rights task force, I learnt that law enforcement agencies are vigilant about the dual threats posed by right-wing militants and self-radicalized Muslims. According to one count, from Sept. 12, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016, violent extremism in the US has claimed 225 lives, 47 percent from far-right extremists and the remaining from radical Islamic extremists. To the detriment of our national security, many of our political leaders, focus exclusively on threats from Muslims, while ignoring the threat from the far-right, euphemistically labeled the Alt-Right.

In February 2016, Newsweek ran a story with the headline, “Right-Wing Extremists are a Bigger Threat to America than ISIS,” which noted, “Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as ‘operational purposes.’ …The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.” In Charlottesville, many of the white supremacists were better armed than the police. They came in full battle gear, intending harm. Some reports indicate that a white supremacist shot at the police and yet the police “never moved.” Imagine if they were Blacks or Muslims. Would they have returned home to peacefully sleep in their beds while the rest of the nation lies restlessly awake?

Earlier this year, Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell issued a chilling warning, “Despite an uptick in far-right violence …., the White House wants to cut spending for programs that fight non-Muslim domestic terrorism. … This approach is bound to weaken the authorities’ power to monitor far-right groups, undercutting public safety. How many more innocent people like …. have to die before the U.S. government starts taking the threat posed by violent white supremacists more seriously?”

Trump’s statements blaming first “many sides” and then “both sides” for Charlottesville while asserting that there are “very fine people” among those carrying swastika flags, has deepened our racial and religious divides. With that wound still gaping, Trump has gone on to pardon the controversial Sheriff Arpaio, who was convicted of racially profiling Latinos. Not too long ago, Trump’s White House harbored Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, mouthpieces for the Alt-Right. Evangelical leaders who pound their fists at “radical Islamic terrorism” are suddenly at a loss of word after Charlottesville. In addition, a new poll shows that 1 in 5 Trump voters think there were indeed “very fine people” among white supremacists.

What is radicalizing young white men? Look no further than the words and actions of our leaders, many of whom have lost the moral authority to claim such a mantle.

Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy in a New York Times article recounted her 2005 encounter with Mohammed Akef, the then spiritual leader of Muslim Brotherhood. When she suggested to Akef that the verses in the Quran regarding women’s dress have several interpretations, Akef replied, “…There are no different interpretations. There is just one interpretation.” A 2012 Pew survey indicated that nearly 6 out of 10 Muslims believe that, “there is only one true way to interpret the teachings,” of Islam, ranging from a high of 78 percent in Egypt to a low of 34 percent in Morocco. Do such attitudes reflect the core values of the Quran and the historical diversity among Muslims?

The 2012 Pew survey (“The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity”), which was conducted in 39 countries covering nearly 67 percent of the world’s Muslim population, showed strong consensus among Muslims regarding devotional practices.

Nearly 9 out of 10 fast during Ramadan, 7 in 10 give zakat (charity), and 6 in 10 pray five times each day. Almost 100 percent declare their faith in God and believe that Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is God’s Prophet and Messenger. Nearly 9 in 10 believe in heaven/hell, fate (qadr) and angels; 8 in 10 believe the Quran to be the word of God. However, beyond such basic agreements, there is divergence in thought and actions, particularly as it relates to the religious pluralism.

Attitude of Muslims towards intra-faith pluralism is varied and often elusive.

Nearly 1 in 5 Muslims, do not consider Sufis to be Muslims, with a high mark of 44 percent in Egypt. Such opinions overlook the role played by Sufi orders in the spread of Islam. Equally concerning, nearly 1 in 4 Muslims do not consider Shias as Muslims. Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, tops the charts with 52 percent. However, in three countries where Shias constitute the majority of the population (Azerbaijan, Iraq and Lebanon), on average less than 6 percent of the respondents disregard Shias as Muslims.

The picture for inter-faith pluralism is also gloomy. A 2006 Pew report (“The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other”) showed Muslims viewed Westerners as selfish, arrogant and violent, while Westerners viewed Muslims as fanatical, violent and arrogant. Examining the fallout from the publication of cartoons about Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, the report noted,

“By wide margins, Westerners who had heard of the controversy believe that Muslim intolerance is principally to blame for the controversy, while Muslims, by even more lopsided majorities, see Western disrespect for the Islamic religion as the root of the problem. The clashing points of view are seen clearly in Nigeria, where 81% of Muslims blame the controversy on Western disrespect and 63% of Christians say Muslim intolerance is to blame.”

Not taking the time to understand each other creates the environment for toxic flashpoints.

WHO INHERITS HEAVEN?

Theological doctrines on salvation is an important issue in all religions. How such doctrines are put into practice may dictate attitudes towards interfaith relations. A2013 Pew survey titled, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” show that

on average (median) only 18 percent of Muslims believe that people of other faiths may inherit heaven. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Malaysia 9 in 10 Muslims believe that “Islam is the one true faith leading to eternal life in heaven.” However, in Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Cameroon, Chad, and Mozambique, nearly 4 out of 10 Muslims responded that, “many religions can lead to eternal life in heaven.” Among American Muslims (“U.S. Muslims – Views on Religion and Society in a Global Context”), 56 percent believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.

On arguably one of the most important questions that consume people of all faiths there is impressive diversity of opinions. However, the parochial views in major Muslim-majority countries ought to elicit concerns.

Although hardline conservatives often deny the salvific value of other faiths, Muslim scholars Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim noted that while heaven is eternal, hell is not. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi inferred that the mercy of God cannot be held in such low estimation as to conceive that salvation is only attainable by Muslims. Mohammed Hassan Khalil, in his University of Michigan doctoral dissertation, “Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of ‘Others’,” concludes that given the wide variety of opinions about the salvific fate of people of other faiths, Muslims should avoid one-dimensional answers to questions regarding salvation. Verses such as, “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community,…(5:48)” and “Each community has its own direction to which it turns… (2:148),” suggests that pluralism is an integral part of Quranic values. Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of Islamic Studies at George Mason University, in his book the “ The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism,” cites chapter 2 verse 213 to argue about the pluralistic vision of Islam, “Mankind was a single community, then God sent prophets to bring good news and warning, and with them He sent the Scripture with the Truth, to judge between people in their disagreements.”

In addition, Kurdish theologian Said Nursi (1877-1960) and author of the Quranic commentary “Risale-i-Nur,” asserts that if followers of other faiths perform a genuine worship of God, then “the manifestations of the unseen and the epiphanies of the sprit, revelation and inspiration,” are not exclusive to Islam and can be found in other divinely guided faith traditions. Contemporary Turkish scholar, Fethullah Gulen stressed in a Fountain magazine article titled, “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” that Muslims cannot remain prisoners of their history and act out of “political partisanship” while cloaking it in the “garb” of Islam. He noted that Islam made history’s greatest ecumenical call by stating in the Quran, “Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all…(3:64).” In his view, this verse provides a big tent under which, “followers of revealed religions could end their separation.”

WHAT IS PLURALISM?

Merely accepting diversity is not enough, asserts Harvard Pluralism Project’s Diana Eck. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious world, it is necessary to “celebrate diversity,” which requires knowledge of the “other.” This does not imply relativism, often associated with watering down of one’s beliefs. Eck notes, “Pluralism is the process of creating a society through critical and self-critical encounter with one another, acknowledging, rather than hiding, our deepest differences” and a commitment to nurture constructive dialogues. Practicing pluralism holds out hope for a deeper human shared dignity.

For many Muslims, religious pluralism evokes deep-seated fears about Western-inspired secular relativism, given the absence of exact Quranic or Hadith terms about pluralism. In his 2009 paper, “Diversity and Pluralism, A Quranic Perspective” (Islam and Civilizational Renewal, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 29), Mohammed Hasan Kamali, former professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, advocates using al-ta῾ad-dudiyyah as the Arabic cognate for pluralism. Labeling every heterodox practice as “un-Islamic” erodes the fabric of the ummah and is the genesis of the takfiri attitude (calling Muslims as kafir or infidel), most violently manifested in terrorist groups. Decrying that Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the West, and yet succumbing to easy stereotyping of people of other faiths, leaves Muslims vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. The Quran condemns such attitudes, “Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason? (2:44)”

INCLUSIVISM IN THE QURAN

The Quran states La ikraha fi-din, (There is no compulsion in religion…(2:256), where the use of “la” to start the verse indicates that the negation is inclusive of the past, present and future. This is akin to the use of La-ilaha (there is no god), in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith), which ends with the emphatic il-lal-lah (but God). Following la is the word ikraha, often translated as compulsion. The triliteral root for the word ikraha is kaf ra ha, the same root that produces the verb kariha, meaning dislike or hate. The word makruh, which not only literally means dislike, but is also used as a legal standard to denote actions that are displeasing to God, also comes from the same root. In other words, compulsion (ikraha) is forbidden because it is an action that is disliked or hated by God. “There is no compulsion in religion,” cannot then be viewed as merely a philosophical statement but rather a foundational value and an obligatory practice. Similar to 2:256, another Madinan verse also informs Prophet Muhammad (SA) that, “…, your only duty is to convey the message (3:20)” not compel people to convert. Thus, ideas about pluralism is not alien to Islam. Curtailing the freedom of conscience for any individual or group will be in defiance of the will of God.

The Quran also acknowledges cultural pluralism, “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors (30:22).” In addition, the Quran notes that all Prophets and Messengers were sent to their people to preach in the tongue of the local population (14:4). The cultural, political, religious and economic pluralism, which we observe in all aspects of human civilization, is a purposeful divine action – “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community…(5:48).”

A contemporary scholar, Reza Shah-Kazemi noted in his paper “Tolerance” (in Amyn B. Sajoo, ed, A Companion to Muslim Ethics, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010),

“For Muslims, tolerance of the other is integral to the practice of Islam. It is not an optional extra, a cultural luxury. The Quran sets forth an expansive vision of diversity and difference, plurality and indeed of universality. This is all the more ironic since the practice of contemporary Muslim states, not to mention extra-state groups and actors, falls lamentably short of those expectations as well as of current standards of tolerance set by the secular West.”

Kazemi proposes developing pluralistic attitudes in Muslim societies as a, “principle at the very heart of the vision of Islam itself: a vision in which the plurality of religious paths to the One is perceived as a reflection of the spiritual infinity of the One.” InRisale-i Nur, commenting on the oft-cited Quranic verse of diversity (“People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another,” 49:13) Nursi said, “Being divided into groups and tribes should lead to mutual acquaintance and mutual assistance, not to antipathy and mutual hostility.”

Mutual assistance is possible when there is mutual respect, which is fostered by an unequivocal commitment to engage with diversity, not just merely tolerating it.

IS THE QURAN ALSO EXCLUSIVIST?

Muslims who ignore the message of universality in the Quran often cite 3:19 and 3:85 as evidence that salvation belongs exclusively to Muslims. In 3:19, the Quran states, “True religion in God’s eye is islam.” Later in the same chapter, verse 85 reads, “If anyone seeks a religion other than (islam) complete devotion to God, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the hereafter.” Several translations (such as M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s. “The Qur’an – A New Translation,” Oxford, 2004) used the lowercase “i” suggesting that islam is being used as a verb, which means submission or devotion to God. It is not being viewed only as the exclusive name given to the religion of Islam as it is practiced today. Even if literal exegesis is given preference, they still do not deny the truth contained in other religions. Several verses in the Quran present the act of freely submitting to God as a universal religion. In 10:72, Noah is commanded to submit (muslimin) and in 2:131, Abraham is asked to submit (aslim). Abraham and Jacob advise their sons to not die except in willing submission to God (muslimun) in 2:132. Japanese scholar, Toshiko Izutsu in “God and Man in the Koran” (Islamic Book Trust, p. 199. 2000) asserted that if islam is meant as submission and not a distinctive religious identity, then it closes the door of exclusivism and provides material for, “a very eloquent understanding of religious pluralism, one wherein all revelations throughout history are seen as different ways of giving to God that which is most difficult to give – our very selves.”

LI-TAA-RAFU (GETTING TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER)

The Quran in 2:113 and 2:120 condemns those Christians and Jews who assert that only their followers will be offered salvation by God. Why would the same Quran then endorse such exclusivist attitude by Muslims? Pluralism, as it is understood today, is certainly not a major theme in the Quran. And yet when placed in the context of state of human knowledge in the seventh century, the message of the Quran unequivocally celebrates diversity and encourages engagement (li-taa-rafu in 49:13). Persian poet Saadi Shirazi best surmises the Quranic ethos of pluralism in his celebrated poem Bani Adam,

“All men and women are to each other
the limbs of a single body, each of us drawn/from life’s shimmering essence, God’s perfect pearl;
and when this life we share wounds one of us, all share the hurt as if it were our own.
You, who will not feel another’s pain, you forfeit the right to be called human.”

(Gulistan, translated by Richard Jeffrey Newman (Global Scholarly Publications 2004).

Muslim scholars, political leaders and civic society must emphasize the pluralistic message of the Quran and urgently address the pervasive exclusivist attitude among many Muslims. Neglecting the pluralistic message of the Quran has allowed fringe groups to use anachronistic stereotypes about fellow Muslims, people of other faiths and entire nation-states, to unleash a form of violence rooted in extreme interpretations of Islamic eschatology (the study of end-of-time). From divisive identity politics to deranged messianic violence, all have their genesis in willful disregard of pluralism as a core Quranic value. It is not coincidental that societies that have embraced pluralism also tend to be more successful and peaceful.

Islamists, defined by AP as those who favor, “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam,” view their interpretation of Islam as Islamic, often to the exclusion of other point of views. In the West, an amalgam of ideologues, from the far-right conservatives to the libertarian atheists, also insist that any and all bad action by Muslims are derived from Islam and thus Islamic. Several years ago, I wrote an article questioning the authenticity of using the label “Islamic” to characterize otherwise secular functions such as politics, art or finance. Labels such as, Islamic Republic, Islamic Finance, or Islamic State, are an exercise in hubris arrogantly suggesting that whatever takes place under such banners is sanctioned by Islam. Islamic Finance, for example, may reflect certain values of Islam, but in practice it often violates the spirit of Islam, if not its letter.

The Arabic for “Islamic” is “Islamiyyah,” a word that is not found in the Quran. When opining on the permissibility or the impermissibility of any action, classical scholars of Islam eschewed using “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” as a label. They often opted for legalistic terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” to determine Islamicity. This legal paradigm allowed for nuances and contextualization. For example, drinking alcohol is impermissible in Islam but if life depended on its consumption then an impermissible action becomes obligatory, as saving life takes precedence. Thus, the binary worldview of “Islamic” versus “un-Islamic,” does not find support in the sacred texts of Islam. Ironically, the proliferation of the label “Islamic” is traceable to the Islamist identity movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islam, which sprang up in the post-colonial Muslim world.

In not labeling ISIS or ISIL as an “Islamic” group, President Obama was refusing to play into the narrative of the extremists, who are desperately trying to cloak their heinous actions with the legitimacy of Islam. To President Obama’s detractors, this was not viewed as either smart or strategic, but rather capitulation. If you cannot label the terrorists properly, how can you defeat them, so they howled? This argument over labels has distracted us from the real debate over ISIS – not what to call it but how to defeat it.

In a controversial article Atlantic’s Graeme Wood asserts that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” In the same article, Wood goes on to state that “nearly all” Muslims reject ISIS. How can something be “Islamic” if “nearly all” Muslims reject it? Wood’s main source to determine the religious authenticity of ISIS is Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar of Islam. The fact that Wood did not interview Muslim scholars of Islam to determine the authenticity of the “Islamic” credentials of ISIS, is a major omission. In addition, the only Muslims interviewed by Wood are fringe characters, such as the notorious British extremist Anjem Choudary, who despite claims that he motivated many British youth to join the Syrian war, remains free to give lengthy interviews to British newspapers and casually chat with American journalists in coffee shops. The Muslims interviewed by Wood who purportedly were providing the Islamic rationale behind ISIS, do not command any pulpit or lead any congregation. How can someone with no pulpit and no congregation become representatives of a religious faith practiced by 1.6 billion people?

Haykel notes that ISIS is reviving medieval interpretations of Islam. The fact that ISIS has to rely on anachronistic traditions of Islam certainly places them on the fringe of a modern-day Muslim, a fact that Wood does not adequately weigh when insisting that ISIS is Islamic. Thus ISIS is certainly not universally Islamic although it may rely on using words and images that suggests some tangential connection to Islam. ISIS is as much Islamic as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda is Christian.

Despite glaring weaknesses in his article, Wood perceptively points out important differences between ISIS and its parent al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda remains focused on hitting distant targets, such as the U.S., ISIS is mostly aiming to teach a lesson to “deviant” Muslims in the region and cleanse the land they control from any un-Islamic influence. In other words, ISIS is more of an existential threat to Muslims and Arabs in the region than they are to Western Europe and America. Moreover, ISIS unlike al-Qaeda espouses a brand of eschatology that favors an apocalyptic end-of-time clash between Islam and non-believers. Understanding this ideological underpinning is crucial, as Wood rightfully asserts. Thus, by avoiding characterizing ISIS as “Islamic,” President Obama is denying terrorists the comfort of thinking that the rest of the civilized world will indulge them in furthering their messianic visions. Any armed conflict with ISIS will have to be evaluated on the basis of security for the homeland and stability for the region, not on any messianic vision.

What ISIS wants is less important. They are a violent group that craves and revels in violence. No surprises. Defeating ISIS will depend more on understanding the factors that gave rise to them and less on how to label them. Without the US invasion of Iraq, there will be no ISIS. Without the disastrous post-war polices of de-Baathification, the Sunni minority would not have felt marginalized and gravitated towards their own Sunni devils (al-Qaeda) shunning the Shia devils, who as part of the government in Iraq, were just as brutal. Thus, the primary factor behind the rise of ISIS is a foreign occupation, a lesson that seems to be lost in the hullabaloo over how to label ISIS.

The second factor favoring the rise of ISIS is the repeated failures in governance. Without the failure of the Assad regime in Syria, there will be no space for ISIS to incubate. Not just Assad, but the dictators that have ruled across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have by-and-large failed to provide their citizens with good life. The UN Arab Development Report makes it clear that most of the nation-states in the region failed to make a smooth transition towards the new world order, which required both strong national identities and adherence to international charters. The lack of clear national identities is the result of forced repression of “cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity” that was a fact of life in the region. Pluralism remains an idea too foreign across much of the MENA region. As successive iterations in socialism, capitalism, democracy, and authoritarianism failed (sometimes due to internal follies and sometimes due to undue interventions by America and its Western allies), a “medieval” and thus out-of-context interpretation of Islam began to gain currency among the dispossessed. Islam is the solution, sounded plausible. Lack of human development (economic, social and political) is the root cause of terrorism, a narrative too often ignored in discussions about terrorism in the name of Islam.

But can Islam itself be absolved? Islam like other ancient faith traditions is replete with multiple and even contradictory interpretations, particularly in the realm of social contracts. Taking stock of Islam’s history of development and progress, one can easily detect interpretations that range from accommodationist (accepting of differences) to separationist (positing Muslim exceptionalism and apartheid). The fact that a small band of thugs and criminals are banding towards a separationist camp, is hardly a revelation. However, the fact that thugs now control vast swaths of land and have the capacity to inflict so much violence cannot be trivialized either. Thus, Muslim scholars, leaders and activist should challenge ISIS on their core ideology and discredit their interpretations as invalid and out-of-context. So far, this has not been done at a sufficiently large scale to make any difference.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, a transnational body made up of 57 Muslim majority countries had instituted an observatory for Islamophobia but none to study and debunk extremism in the name of Islam. Muslim groups in the West routinely publish reports on Islamophobia, which is an important problem to be addressed, but so far have not researched and debunked the twisted ideology that undergirds the deranged violence of those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam. While ISIS is producing slick magazines and engaging in impressive social media campaigns (one report suggested 45,000 Twitter accounts by ISIS supporters), the Muslim apex bodies either governmental such as the OIC or non-governmental civic advocacy groups such as CAIR in the US or MCB in UK have not developed any comparable campaign to discredit and marginalize the fallacious ideology that ISIS and their ilk propagate. Neither condemnations by Muslim groups nor dropping bombs by Western and Arab governments is sufficient to defeat ISIS. Security operations and statements of condemnations have to go hand in glove with exposing and discrediting the corrosive ideology being propagated by ISIS.

The debate over labels is thus a red-herring. The call for more condemnations by Muslims often masks ugly stereotyping presuming that Muslims have a monopoly on religious violence. Furthermore, increased militarization as solution is being tone deaf to the lessons from history. The real solution remains the same today as it was after 9/11 – reversing the downward spiral of human development across MENA. President Obama has asked Muslims to do more and certainly more can be done to debunk the ideology of ISIS. But President Obama has fallen short of laying out how he and his Western allies will nudge governments across MENA to speed up reforms that are necessary to give people in the region hope thus giving them less reason to buy into the messianic apocalyptic vision of ISIS.

The lack of a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often used as a pretext for anti-Jewish backlash. In the same vein, violence in the name of Islam is often used as a justification for the anti-Muslim backlash. Just as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nuanced, with Jews expressing a variety opinions spanning from the far left to the far right, violence in the name of Islam is also caused by a multiplicity of factors; religion could be one of many but is certainly not an exclusive factor. A study by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point suggests that terrorism in the name of Islam kills more Muslims than non-Muslims. This alone ought to suggest that terrorism has little to do with Islam. The terrorist narrative that they are some vanguard protecting Muslims against Western aggression holds no credence. Victims of terrorism in the name of Islam are 38 times more likely to be non-Westerners and eight times more likely to be Muslims.

Often lost in all the attention-grabbing headlines about violence and hatred are the many quiet acts of heroism. One of the policemen killed during the attack on Charlie Hebdo was Muslim, Ahmed Merabet. The hashtag #JeSuisAhmed was trending on Twitter because Ahmed died defending the right of others to express their opinion, no matter how abhorrent those opinions were to him. Ahmed’s brother Malek spoke out, saying, “I address myself now to all the racists, Islamophobes and anti-Semites. One must not confuse extremists with Muslims. Mad people have neither color or religion. … [D]on’t tar everybody with the same brush, don’t burn mosques or synagogues. You are attacking people. It won’t bring our dead back and it won’t appease the families.” The hostage taking at the josher shop, which prompted the Grand Synagogue in Paris to close, also had a Muslim hero. Lassana Bathily, described in media reports as a practicing Muslim, was credited for saving the lives of seven Jewish shoppers by hiding them in a freezer, switching it off along with the lights, before risking his life by exiting the shop to alert policemen about the location of the hostages.

Ahmed Merabet and Lassana Bathily are not isolated names. Preceding them in France are other Muslim heroes who have also shown uncommon courage to reject the forces of evil. One name that comes to mind, now more than ever, is Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan. She was the daughter of an Indian Sufi master and his American wife. Noor was recruited by the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in 1942 to serve as radio operator in France. She was the first female wireless operator sent to Nazi-occupied France during World War II. She resisted numerous opportunities to escape to safety and has been credited with saving numerous lives while bravely sacrificing her own. Just before being gunned down by a German firing squad, she cried out, “Liberté.” She acted out of her deep aversion to fascism and her deep attachment to her faith. Noor was posthumously awarded the George Cross in Britain and the Croix de Guerre in France. During troubled times like ours, we should remember Ahmed, Noor and Lassana. Their heroism should give us hope and inspire us to work towards overcoming hatred and bigotry.

In America we have a strong tradition of interfaith dialogue that helps us transcend our religious differences when radicals threaten to drive a wedge between faith groups to usher in their messianic vision of apocalyptic end of times. And yet it is not easy, because the propensity to stereotype is ingrained in our human character. It takes courage to understand and dialogue with those we view as the “other.” Through dialogue and discussions, Germany overcame its anti-Semitism. It can do the same with its Islamophobia. France’s prime minister rightfully feels that a flight of Jews will be a great loss to the French Republic. To translate this concern into action, France must reengineer social policies that will help address the rising anti-Semitism, particularly among its poorer immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Muslim leaders and imams, while speaking out loudly against Islamophobia, must also unequivocally denounce anti-Semitism. “Je suis humain” should be the battle cry against those who want to divide us on the basis of our nationality, race or religion.

I admire Charlie Hebdo for standing up against threats to free speech, but I am saddened to see them pay such a heavy price for their beliefs. Cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones, remain vital for a healthy civil society. Only the deranged are threatened by them. Charlie Hebdo wanted to spread a little laughter, albeit in ways that are were often distasteful and provocative.

The killers in Paris did not nothing to defend Islam’s Prophet. They made the faith of 1.6 billion look like a murderous cult that views beheadings, bombings, kidnappings, and mass killings as religiously sanctioned response to grievances. They forget that the pen is mightier than the sword. The very Prophet whose name they are purportedly defending said, “The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

It is indeed heartening to witness Muslim leaders condemn the barbarism in Paris that killed the editor of Charlie Hebdo and several of its cartoonists. The killers also gunned down two policemen, one of whom happened to be Muslim. However, beyond the condemnations lurks a murky question: Why is some of the most egregious violence being repeatedly carried out in the name of Islam? Charlie Hebdo had offended Jews, Christians and a myriad of political leaders. Why did only Muslims lash out in such a violent manner? Certainly Muslims have no monopoly on deranged individuals.

Imams and Muslim leaders have usually responded by asserting that such killers do not represent “real” Islam. While a modicum of truth is indeed inherent in this argument, it does not illuminate the situation. While many acts of violence are being perpetrated in the name of other faiths, by actors ranging from Christian militias in Africa to Buddhist monks in Burma, the acts of violence in the name of Islam shock the conscience like no other. The gunning down of cartoonists, the beheading of journalists, the bombing of schools — all are headlines from just the last two months!

The rage sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora is indeed rooted in the pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. This culture is exasperated by a sense of perpetual victimhood that undergirds the narrative of most Islamist groups. (Islamists are defined as those who use Islam as a fundamental pillar of their politics.) Psychologists define victimhood as a mentality that makes one feel powerless to affect their own circumstances, so for every wrong suffered, they blame and lash out at others. While many Islamists are engaged in peaceful political struggles, their fanning of victimhood often triggers violence, particularly among the marginalized victims.

The grievances of the Islamists and their militant counterparts overlap. Both groups dream about the establishment of a utopian society with Islam and Muslims at the top of the totem pole. However, the peaceful Islamists and the militants differ in their means of achieving this goal. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami want to transform society into voluntarily accepting Shariah as the law of the land. Militants such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS want to implement Shariah by brute force and feel no moral outrage at the idea of killing others to achieve their goals.

Even moderate Islamists such as the AKP in Turkey seem threatened by free speech. In recent months the Turkish government has jailed journalists, cartoonists and even children who allegedly mocked the president. In Saudi Arabia a blogger was publicly flogged for allegedly insulting Islam. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used as tool of political oppression. Such intolerance often gives way to the violence of extremists as the distinction between peaceful advocacy and deranged violence is too easily blurred because not enough commitment has been made to the principles of nonviolence, neither by the state nor by the Islamists. Even amongst the Muslim diaspora in the West, free speech and freedom of religion struggle to find unequivocal acceptance.

It is ironic that the very week that this heinous political violence erupts in Paris also marks the release of the epic film Selma, which chronicles the transformative power of nonviolence in the face of state violence. The Prophet Muhammad urged his followers to never be afraid of learning something useful and beneficial, even from those who do not share their faith.

Therefore it is time to look beyond condemnation. It is time for Islamists to unequivocally embrace nonviolence and distance themselves from all forms of militancy in the name of Islam. It is time for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia to open up their societies to free speech and free exercise of religion. It is time for Muslim democracies such as Turkey to end their paranoid attacks on freedom of the press. It is time for Islamic republics like Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy laws. It is time for Muslim imams to lead their flocks in recognizing free speech and free exercise of religion as integral part of Islam. It is time for Western societies to stop asking Muslims what they feel every time radicals perpetrate yet another spectacular act of violence. Only then will “Je suis Charlie” find real meaning.

One may contend that the genesis of ISIS (or ISIL) dates back to U.S. invasion of Iraq.Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who broke away from al-Qaeda and on whom the U.S. government once had a $25 million reward for any tip leading to his arrest, can be considered the ideological godfather of ISIS. However, the group entered into the consciousness of most Americans only after gruesome beheading videos made media waves. This has tipped a slight majority of Americans (53 percent) to now support yet another war in the Middle East.

It bears reminding that in 2003, 72 percent of Americans supported going to war with Iraq, titillated by spurious claims of mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction. Yet a decade later, most Americans wanted U.S. troops out of Iraq. The fickle public is once again the victim of fear mongering. The unsuspecting public cheers on as bombs and missiles generate shock and awe. As the media echo chambers glorify the sounds and fury of war, the public is assured that only the “bad guys” are dead. If anyone dares to question the death of civilians, they are branded as propagandists for terror. Very little time is spent questioning the efficacy of the war, and there is virtually no discussion about what happens the day after, assuming that the war on terror can actually be won anytime soon.

The Global Terrorism Database (GDT), a service provided by National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, records approximately 125,000 cases of terrorist incidents committed by 2,437 groups between 1970 and 2013. Over the past four decades, nearly half of the incidents of death from terrorism have occurred in the 12 years since the declaration of the so-called “war on terror” in 2002. Data also show that terrorism is not only being committed in the name of Islam, by well-known groups such as al-Qaeda; just as ominously, it is also being perpetrated in the name of Christianity by lesser-known groups such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, and by non-religious actors such as the Communist Party of India (Maoist). Between 2002 and 2011, the Lord’s Resistance Army ranked fourth in the number of fatalities linked to it, while the Communist Party of India (Maoist) ranked fifth. Ranking at the very top of the list are the Taliban, with whom the U.S. launched “peace talks” in 2013.

Undoubtedly, ISIS gained currency in the cauldrons of Syria’s bloody civil war, which has killed nearly 200,000 people, with of half of them being civilians. The conflict has displaced 6.5 million people, and over half of Syria’s pre-war population of 23 million is in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. President Obama called for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to step down, but he has never enacted any strategy to make this possible or — more importantly — offered any plan regarding what happens the day after. ISIS swept into Iraq partly because the Obama administration showed no will to confront the sectarian nature of Iraq’s democratic government, despite that government’s survival depending upon U.S. largesse. The parochial worldview of the Iraqi government alienated and radicalized Iraq’s Sunni minority. Only after ISIS captured vast Iraqi territories did Obama put pressure on Iraq’s Nuri al-Maliki to step down. Too little, too late.

ISIS is a terrorist group. But is it America’s responsibility to defeat them, particularly given the fact that no case has been made regarding the extent to which they pose a threat to the homeland? Saudi Arabia and Iran both claim that ISIS represents an existential threat to them. Why are they not cooperating with each other to defeat ISIS? A Shia-Sunni rapprochement led by Saudi Arabia and Iran would be far more effective and less costly than the over $10 million per day that the U.S. is currently spending on bombing ISIS. Who will ultimately pay for this war effort?

“ISIS is a response to state monopolization of violence,” noted Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, a professor of religion at Reed College in Portland. If indeed so, then this threat cannot be defeated via more state violence (i.e., military might) only. U.S. efforts to combat al-Qaeda have not diminished the threat from terrorism, as evidenced from the GTD data. Osama bin Laden’s absence has not defeated terrorism. It has created a power vacuum that has been filled by groups more radicalized and more ruthless than al-Qaeda. Once again the absence of a day-after strategy remains the Achilles heel. America keeps playing the terrorist Whac-a-Mole. There is no grand strategy, only arbitrary lurches from crisis to crisis.

That Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, is opposing ISIS is an irony and hypocrisy. Governments in both states have enabled ISIS, Saudi Arabia through bankrolling its puritanical version of Islam (pejoratively labeled “Wahhabism”), and Egypt by brutally suppressing the aspirations of the Arab Spring. Moreover, can Saudi Arabia really claim any moral high ground given the fact that in Saudi Arabia beheadings are a public spectacle?

While Muslim religious leaders have indeed unequivocally condemned ISIS, they have not yet taken stock of the fact that the extreme conservatism fanned by many clerics and Islamist groups continues to enable ISIS to recruit globally. The penchant that hardline clerics and Islamist groups have for denying religious pluralism and their constant projection of victimhood have, in perverse ways, conspired to create the cesspool from which ISIS is successfully recruiting. Simply condemning ISIS is not enough. Muslim clerics and organizations must reexamine their message and methods. Factors ranging from the disempowerment of women to a lack of tolerance for unorthodox views are helping radicalize individuals and society. It is from this cesspool that ISIS and other militants are drawing sustenance.

Bombs and missiles cannot defeat terrorism, because they play into the narrative of the terrorists that the only effective response to state monopolization of violence is more violence. And so the cycle repeats. In the words of Admiral Mullen, the U.S. must prepare for a multi-decade military entanglement in the Middle East. And yet there is hardly much will to debate this generational commitment to an open-ended war. Tragically, there’s only the fervor to cheerlead.

Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times provided an an excellent response to Bill Maher in his column The Diversity of Islam.

“Let’s not feed Islamophobic bigotry by highlighting only the horrors while neglecting the diversity of a religion with 1.6 billion adherents — including many who are champions of tolerance, modernity and human rights. The great divide is not between faiths, but one between intolerant zealots of any tradition and the large numbers of decent, peaceful believers likewise found in each tradition.”

http://www.wjct.org/fcc-july-07-2014/

Recently a friend commented that even if the Muslim community engaged in a thousand interfaith dialogues, the headline that a Nigerian Muslim extremist group, Boko Haram, has abducted school girls threatening to sell them as slaves is enough to overshadow efforts at building bridges of understanding. Groups like Al Qaeda and Boko Haram claim to operate in the name of Islam while clearly being irreverent to its spirit and core values. On closer examination, much of the violence in the name of Islam is less motivated by faith and more so by poverty and desperation.

As smart and witty as Bill Maher is, he has a blind spot about religion in general and Islam in particular. On his recent ‘Real Time‘ show on HBO, Bill Maher asserted that extremism among Muslims is not limited to “a few bad apples.” Many Muslims are indeed committing gut wrenching violence in the name of Islam – from beheadings to suicide bombings. But Muslims are hardly alone. According to the U.S. Department of State, the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is one of “Africa’s oldest, most violent, and persistent armed groups.” UNICEF estimates that at least 66,000 children have been abducted by the LRA, which wants to create a state based on the biblical Ten Commandments. In Burma, Human Rights Watch cites, “Buddhist mobs attacked Muslim communities …. At least 44 people were killed and 1,400 mostly Muslim-owned businesses and houses were destroyed.”

To prove his point, Maher trotted out the example of Ayann Hirsi Ali who suffered genital mutilation in her native Somalia. He went on to note, “which almost all women do in [Somalia] and many other Muslim countries.” Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a scourge in many parts of Africa and the Middle East. However, its practice cuts across religious boundaries. For example, in the Christian majority nation of Eritrea, 89 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 49 have experienced FGM. In Ethiopia, another Christian majority nation, 74 percent women have suffered from FGM. And yet FGM is almost unheard of in many Muslim countries.

Boko Haram translates as “Western education is forbidden” and yet education was a top priority for Prophet Muhammad. There are well over 40 sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad exhorting the seeking of knowledge. Among the most succinct are,

“To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female”

and

“Acquire knowledge and impart it to the people.”

The only stipulation was that knowledge be beneficial. In one of the famous hadith (traditions) of Prophet Muhammad he is reported to have said,

“God, His angels and all those in Heavens and on Earth, even ants in their hills and fish in the water, call down blessings on those who instruct others in beneficial knowledge.”

It is common for Muslim moms to remind children to recite the following Quranic prayer before any school exam,

“Rabbi zidni ilma” meaning “O my Lord! Increase me in knowledge” (20:114)

Neither in the Quran nor in Prophetic sayings has the Arabic word for knowledge “ilm” any qualifier that knowledge be Eastern or Western, religious or secular.

In the maelstrom over Maher and Boko Haram something is remiss. Muslims majority societies are generally lagging behind the rest of the world in education, gender equity and social justice. The 2013 Global Gender Gap Report shows wide disparity in Muslim majority countries between men and women across for key areas of health, education, economics and politics. No Muslim majority country cracks the top ten in gender equity while at the bottom end, 9 out of 10 countries are Muslim majority. The Human Development Index, a composite of education, life expectancy and income, shows Muslim majority countries as lagging behind with not a single Muslim majority country ranking in the top 25 while the majority in the bottom 25 being Muslim majority.

Bill Maher has plenty of reasons to be critical of Muslims. However, by focusing on Islam, a faith that comforts and motivates hundreds of millions of people to do the right thing, he is alienating the very people whose efforts will be critical in eradicating the root causes that create such monsters as Boko Haram and al-Qaeda. Critics of Maher will also need to focus on confronting the retrograde preachers, the strident Islamists and the incompetent secularists whose actions or lack thereof underpin the rise of extremism. Maher is wrong. But he is not the problem. If Muslim societies lead the world in education, freedom and social justice, we will not have to deal with the scourge of Boko Haram or feel slighted by the incoherent rants of Maher. To use the clearly un-Islamic behavior of Boko Haram as a ploy to attack Islam is despicable. But it pales in comparison to the abuse of Islam’s sacred texts the extremists have engaged in to justify their nihilism.