Right-wing pundits in the U.S. and Europe sometimes argue that it is misguided to avoid religious language when describing terrorists. They point out that members of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates call themselves “jihadists”, a derivative of the Arabic noun “jihad” meaning a struggle for God. They explain that it is therefore accurate and fair to refer to Al-Qaeda and its affiliates by the same term.These same commentators also assert that political correctness in labelling the enemy is the last thing Western societies should be worried about. In fact, they say, focusing too much on not offending others may even weaken Americans’ and Europeans’ will to defeat those who wish them harm.Yet Gallup research paints a very different picture; an ambitious new study suggests that casting tensions between Muslims and the West in religious terms may actually weaken the ability of America and Europe to fight religiously-branded extremists. This report, which inaugurates Gallup’s Abu Dhabi Center, is entitled “Measuring Muslim-West Relations: Assessing the “New Beginning,” and presents the results of more than 100,000 interviews with citizens in 55 countries. A key finding is that those who see the conflict as primarily due to religious differences are more likely to see a clash as inevitable.
To better understand this finding it is useful to examine the message of Al Qaeda affiliated violent extremists. The religious authenticity of the terrorists group, as well as the inevitability of conflict between Muslims and the West, are cornerstones of Al Qaeda’s narrative. Violent extremists who wave a religious banner do so to legitimise their movement and bolster its claims to moral superiority. Therefore, when pundits cast these violent activists as religiously motivated, they only reinforce the terrorist appeal to religion.
Moreover, if these tensions are indeed unavoidable, the extremists’ narrative continues, then dialogue is useless and force is necessary. Once a clash is the only option, the extremists claim that for their own survival people must support those fighting on their behalf Western thought-leaders would therefore do well to refute, not reinforce, the idea of inevitable religious war.
Yet commentators may be promoting precisely these arguments when they characterise terrorists as religious actors, or tensions as primarily the result of differences between Islam’s teachings and Western values. The Gallup analysts found that those who believe tensions between Muslim and Western communities arise more out of religious differences than political interests were more likely to say the two societies are doomed to clash. This trend holds up in both majority Muslim and Western populations. The researchers also discovered that in both predominantly Muslim and Western societies, those who most oppose positive interaction with the other are most likely to see the tensions as religious rather than political. Put simply, the more people see conflict as arising from religion, the more they see it as inevitable. The more they see it inevitable, the less open to dialogue they may become.
But it is important to note that research also shows that people who believe conflict is due to religion are not necessarily more religious themselves. Quite the opposite; religious practice among Muslims is associated with a greater readiness for engagement. These results confirm earlier Gallup research, showing that Muslims who most opposed the 9/11 attacks gave moral or religious reasons to support this opinion. The minority who said they thought the terrorist attacks were “morally justified” mostly cited political reciprocity to explain their views.
Religion remains one of the most powerful forces in majority Muslim societies, with the vast number affirming its importance in their daily lives. Like any group wishing to mobilise followers and recruit support, Al-Qaeda knows its audience and attempts to appeal to their points of reference. Framing these violent extremists as religious zealots rather than violent political activists, supports both their credibility and their key message.
To better understand this finding it is useful to examine the message of Al Qaeda affiliated violent extremists. The religious authenticity of the terrorists group, as well as the inevitability of conflict between Muslims and the West, are cornerstones of Al Qaeda’s narrative. Violent extremists who wave a religious banner do so to legitimise their movement and bolster its claims to moral superiority. Therefore, when pundits cast these violent activists as religiously motivated, they only reinforce the terrorist appeal to religion.
Moreover, if these tensions are indeed unavoidable, the extremists’ narrative continues, then dialogue is useless and force is necessary. Once a clash is the only option, the extremists claim that for their own survival people must support those fighting on their behalf Western thought-leaders would therefore do well to refute, not reinforce, the idea of inevitable religious war.
Yet commentators may be promoting precisely these arguments when they characterise terrorists as religious actors, or tensions as primarily the result of differences between Islam’s teachings and Western values. The Gallup analysts found that those who believe tensions between Muslim and Western communities arise more out of religious differences than political interests were more likely to say the two societies are doomed to clash. This trend holds up in both majority Muslim and Western populations. The researchers also discovered that in both predominantly Muslim and Western societies, those who most oppose positive interaction with the other are most likely to see the tensions as religious rather than political. Put simply, the more people see conflict as arising from religion, the more they see it as inevitable. The more they see it inevitable, the less open to dialogue they may become.
But it is important to note that research also shows that people who believe conflict is due to religion are not necessarily more religious themselves. Quite the opposite; religious practice among Muslims is associated with a greater readiness for engagement. These results confirm earlier Gallup research, showing that Muslims who most opposed the 9/11 attacks gave moral or religious reasons to support this opinion. The minority who said they thought the terrorist attacks were “morally justified” mostly cited political reciprocity to explain their views.
Religion remains one of the most powerful forces in majority Muslim societies, with the vast number affirming its importance in their daily lives. Like any group wishing to mobilise followers and recruit support, Al-Qaeda knows its audience and attempts to appeal to their points of reference. Framing these violent extremists as religious zealots rather than violent political activists, supports both their credibility and their key message.
No comments:
Post a Comment