The Pope, Violence and Dialogue
How should the pope's derisive comments about Islam and our Prophet (peace be upon him) be interpreted? We need to think cool-headedly and determine which developments can expected.
First let's size up the situation: When I was in the first year of junior high school, I was introduced to the late Seyyid Kutup's books, and the first one I read was "Social Justice in Islam." Later, I read his other books and, of course, his most important work, "Fizilal." I can say that I've known the works of Seyyid Kutup and Mevdudi for 40 years. But throughout my life I've never been interested in violence nor have I thought that terror, which threatens the lives of innocent people, is Islamically legitimate.To the contrary, I have always argued that no positive or legitimate connection can be made between Islam and terror. Terms like "Islamic radicalism," fundamentalism, political Islam and, now, Islamic fascism have been imported to the Muslim world from outside, and they are each being used as a straight jacket for Islamic intellectual, moral, social and political awakening that explains much and promises much to the modern world.
There is no necessary connection between the late S. Kutup-Mevdudi and radicalism, but, in spite of this, some are trying to make this kind of tie. The intention of this idea-pumping center is different. They are consciously, systematically and persistently making a sound connection between Selefiism and terror. If this proposition were true, it's necessary to count innumerable thinkers like Ibn Hanbel, Abu Hanife and M. Akif as terrorists. If the defense of occupied lands is deemed as "terror," Sufi orders and movements that participated in these legitimate struggles from Africa to Caucasia would be in the same class.
This doesn't mean that those who set up their own organization and resort to violent actions don't call themselves "Selefi." In addition to these, there are those who argue that no relation can be established between Selefiism and terror. Just like those who introduce themselves as Muslims but resort to violence without blinking an eye. Membership is not a basic indicator. Other factors are indicative in the emergence of terror. Although some with a Muslim identity resort to violence doesn't mean Islam is a religion of violence and terror. The pope, as if he weren't aware of this, equated Islam with violence by making a completely actual and political generalization. He said that the Prophet Muhammad hadn't brought humanity anything but the "sword." (For the full Turkish text see www.bilgihikmet.com)
It is necessary to decipher the code in the "Islam and violence/terror" dialectic. The problem is not whether Islam gives priority to violence or whether terror is the only means of expression Muslims choose, the problem is the imposition of violence and terror on Muslims and the prevention of their resorting to other means of expression. When it is said, "Islam gives precedence to terror or Muslims make terror," the actual meaning behind these words is, "Hey, Muslims, make terror." Just like Samuel Huntington's saying, "There will be a clash of civilizations," the actual meaning is, "there should be a clash of civilizations."
In this situation, what could be more prudent than for people in positions of authority, leaders with conviction and Islamic sages to say, "There's no connection between Islam and terror" and to give priority to dialogue? Dialogue obstructs a foundation of conflict. If relations are broken off completely, notes of war will be given, and it will benefit global powers that direct military and political operations on the "Islamic terror" dialectic. It's true that the pope has taken his place in this global process. However, individuals like Fethullah Gülen Hodjaefendi and Hayrettin Karaman Hodja, who see well what is going on, still say "dialogue," which shows that Muslims' discernment and foresight are very much alive. In my opinion, the best way to obstruct a big conspiracy is to keep the doors of dialogue open. The pope didn't give permission for dialogue, so why should it end with his foregoing it. There are innumerable Christians who believe in dialogue. After this, Islam is going to lead this process and invite virtuous people, who are concerned that the world is rapidly going toward a great disaster, to speak and discuss under its own umbrella and to conclude a virtuous alliance.
- Created on .