The world falls short of answer to the latest spate of violence with an alarming proportion of ferocity on the already volatile scene in the Middle East. The rise of Islamic State (IS) has apparently puzzled the stakeholders of regional and global politics.
So, the belligerents are searching for a shortcut solution to the crisis – defeating the extremist force on the battlefield. But many are yet to properly recognise that the ongoing conflict is not a completely new one, save the transformation of IS into a state actor from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda as a non-state actor.
The concept of Caliphate, being propagated by IS militants, evolved not in the abode of recent civil wars; only the brutality represents a defaced and distorted image of a supposedly ideal state its advocates dream of – the golden age of Muslim rule centuries ago.
Contemporary state actors including Muslim rulers have thoroughly tried to counter the operations of fanatic forces by manoeuvring conventional military strategies. The current crisis proves that both Westerners and moderate Muslim leaders were reluctant to anticipate an extreme possibility: The use of terrorism might appeal to a section of people to embrace it as a strong ideology at one point in history.
Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations has somehow ignited an inter-faith suspicion. Islam, which literally means peace, is the one which is wrongly presented and perceived here and there, no matter how eloquently the leaders outside of Islam speak of the greatness of one of mankind’s greatest religions.
Now, when Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq and Syria, the Ummah or the Islamic world has lost a sense of direction, exposing the absence of collective entity. When President Barak Obama said Washington was “yet to have a strategy” on IS in Syria, we can understand the West’s – not solely America’s – lack of focus on divisiveness in Islamic societies and their implications to the extent of beheading journalists who were not party to the conflict.
Historically, subjugation of the natives gave birth to hatred even among pious people against the aliens, who were often believers of a different faith. Modern Muslims have further ignored the inner crisis over sectarianism and struggle for dominance for centuries, which shaped today’s polarisation among themselves. Many have taken the path of moderation, and some have become escapists. A minor portion has followed the route of derailed Jihadis (crusaders), and a few frustrated ones have metamorphosed into psychopaths.
However, the Islamists’ killer instinct reminds us of the likes of Anders Behring Breivik – the Norwegian ultra-Christian mass murderer, Yigal Amir – the Jewish assassin of Israeli premier Yitzhak Rabin, and Nathuram Godse – the Hindu chauvinist killer of India’s independence leader Mahatma Gandhi.
The ascendency to power of groups that once suffered due to exclusionist politics at home may turn dangerous for a society if their members do not abide by social contracts or practice tolerant democracy. IS is such an example.
It’s a horribly unfortunate situation that has left many Muslims as their own enemies, not brothers, unlike the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Muslims are neither a united community nor do they have a central command to uphold the spirit of Islam and remove any confusion whatsoever. Followers of Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity, too, have undergone a similar process of sectarian conflicts.
Maybe Islam, as the newest conformist religion, is in the process of refining its followers, but at a terrible cost. And it’s up to the Muslim leaders to resolve the crisis. The situation in the Middle East and its ramifications elsewhere have given repeated wake-up calls for a dialogue among the Muslims, especially among leaders of different schools of thought within Islam.
An inter-faith dialogue seems less relevant to Muslims until they find a common face and united voice. The spirit of tolerance, brotherhood, and equal dignity – all intrinsic values of Islam that are appreciated by most outsiders who are knowledgeable about Islamic theology – is missing in the conflict-prone zones where Muslims live.
Divided, aggrieved, and full of suspicion, different sects of Muslims have not yet met each other at a suitable platform to narrow down differences. In a dialogue, Muslims should be reminded by themselves that there is no room for extremist views in Islam, let alone killing innocent human beings. Violence cannot be the means of pursuing goals unless a war is imposed upon the righteous people, and that too by the renegades and evil forces who would avowedly challenge the truth.
Quarrel is rather hated in Islam which supports Ijma or consensus to be reached through consultation (Shura) and deduction of analogy (Qiyas) whenever and wherever a dispute arises. Before holding a series of dialogue with leaders of various faiths, Muslims should initiate the process of reconciliation among themselves.
It’s agonising to see that Muslims are not living in peace in many places from Gibraltar to the Philippines. An intellectual dialogue will not resolve all the conflicts immediately. It shall yet begin a process of defusing tensions and pacifying hawkish minds, a process that may have far-reaching effects on present and future generations to live in peace.
The world deserves peaceful coexistence of peoples of different faiths, and the peace-loving global community expects messages of peace from the protagonists of the Islamic faith. Today, world peace is hardly possible without harmony in Islamic societies that spread beyond the territories of predominantly Muslim majority countries.
