An Islamic choice: peace or violence

By Nick Obradovich

I am responding in part to the issues raised last week by Roujin Mozaffarimehr's opinion piece, specifically in relation to the idea of Islamic censorship of the exercise of 'Western' freedom of speech.

News stories about controversies between Islam and the West have been a recurrent theme for the past few years. The murder of Theo van Gogh in 2004 for his movie "Submission," which detailed the domestic violence that many women in Islamic societies face, set off controversy worldwide. Ultimately, the controversy was 'resolved' when van Gogh's throat was slit, and he bled to death on the Amsterdam sidewalk.

Conflict after controversy seems to severely plague the West's recent relations with Islamic countries. Recall the 2005 Danish cartoon controversy. More recently, with the provocative statements concerning Islam by Pope Benedict XVI, we have seen a resurgence of hostility toward individuals and organizations that symbolize Western and Christian ideals. Because of the Pope's statements, Sr. Leonella Sgorbati, an Italian missionary, was brutally shot to death in Somalia after a Somali cleric denounced the remarks. A Turkish lawmaker suggested that if Benedict were to come to Turkey, he ought to be arrested for violation of laws against religious defamation.

In other words, arrest the Pope for a few lines of his speech (a speech that was overwhelmingly positive toward interfaith relations) that had been quoted out of context, and, God forbid (pun intended), had seemed to criticize Islam.

Clearly, we respond to religious criticism slightly differently in the West than many of those living in Islamic countries.

Our reaction is fundamentally driven by a secular understanding of the need for criticism and comprehension of ideas and lifestyles within the world's societies.

We as Santa Clara students are open to dialogues about Catholicism (as seen in the ongoing debate over pre-marital sex and contraception in this section), homosexuality, evolution and intelligent design.

Maybe this is just my secular-self talking, but I feel these are all various ideas and ways of life that are all open to critical evaluation. And frankly, religion (even Islam), at its heart is no more than that. It is a constellation of beliefs, values and ideas leading to specific ways of life. As such, it should be inherently open to constructive criticism.

Before leading into criticism, we must recognize the 'Western' mitigating spin on Islam. In truth, Islam as practiced in the West is largely a religion of dialogue and peace. However, while Muslims in the West practice a mainly nonviolent version of the religion, the incontrovertibly violent aspects of Islam's history need to be identified and examined.

Former Muslim and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, raises a pointed criticism. As noted by Santa Clara professor David Pinault in a recent essay on Hirsi Ali published in the Jesuit magazine, "America," Ali writes that "Muslims in the West" must analyze "absolutist attitudes towards the Quran and the infallibility of the Prophet Muhammad."

These absolutist attitudes and the notion of the 'ismah, or infallibility, of Muhammad are integral to the debate concerning violent reactions to criticisms of Islam.

Early Islamic textual sources include stories of Muhammad's altruistic aspects and charity towards the poor. Yet, they also indicate that Muhammad authorized the execution of singers, storytellers and satirists who had the foolishness to poke fun at him.

This is where the problem arises. When the infallibility of Muhammad and notions of the purity of his actions are combined with the actual acts of his life, it follows that executing those who mock Muhammad is not simply allowed, but required by faith.

This is how the troubling murder of van Gogh can be examined as a direct link between Islam and violent acts. If Muhammad authorized the killing of those who spoke out against him, then should not Muslims do the same?

To argue that these violent acts are inconsistent with Islam and history is false. Rather, like other faiths, Islam is open-ended -- Muslims can choose to emphasize either the peaceful or the violent dimensions of their legacy. Christians, Jews and members of other traditions face the same struggle. Perhaps, at its best, peaceful Islam provides freedom of expression. However, to dismiss as abnormal the violent aspects of Islam's history and the faith-based predilection for violence shown by some Muslims would be to ignore some of the key aspects of the Islamic faith.

These criticisms are meant to enlighten us as Santa Clarans to the various aspects of Islam and to shed light on controversial subjects within our society. I hope that dialogue will prevail over violent coercion, both within Western society, and between the West and Islamic states.

Yet, with the current situation, I am concerned.

Nick Obradovich is a sophomore undeclared major. Religious studies professor David Pinault assisted with editing of this article.