Being Politically Correct about Good Muslims

K2 Template by Michael Heilemann and Chris Davis, modified by us. This blog is best viewed on Firefox. Will undoubtedly mess up on Internet Explorer.

Being Politically Correct about Good Muslims

Published Friday, September 15, 2006 by oh admin | E-mail this post

I read this in the Sun today :

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and U.S. President George W. Bush is mistaken in casting his war on terror in terms of a "struggle for civilisation", Malaysia's outspoken former prime minister (Dr Mahathir) says. "What is happening today has got nothing to do with religion. It has got to do with territorial disputes, mainly the dispute over Palestinian land," he told Reuters after a religious congress in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan. "There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."

People who acknowledge that there are "good, peaceful" Muslims can be too politically correct sometimes, don't you think? When the international media tries to be too politically correct about "good, peaceful" Muslims, then tend to label us as being "moderate". While I do agree that the "good, peaceful" Muslims are moderate in one sense, I have to say that we are also very conservative fundamentalists. Does that sound weird? To call one's self a conservative fundamentalist? The two words that would invoke in some minds images of people strapped with bombs taking a bus and blowing up innocent people, or overtly-strict old men with overtly-strict interpretations of the religion (usually influenced by local culture) that may border towards becoming un-Islamic? Funnily enough, the international media seems to like to term radical extremists as "conservative fundamentalists". Ah, political correctness. Conservative would imply a person who holds on to his religious beliefs very strictly. And thus, by calling a radical terrorist a conservative, isn't the international media - unintentionally, I believe, because of the gnawing wanting to want to be PC - giving a bad impression of Islam towards non-Muslims? That any one of those who adhere to its tenents and practice it fully in their daily lives have terrorist tendencies? Very ironic, and I shall explain why. The most basic definiton of what fundamentalism means to me:

Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.

From here. And what conservative means to me is to conserve religious values in our daily life, or Islamic values in the context of us Muslims. So, in that sense, aren't we all - the "good, peaceful" Muslims of the world - conservative fundamentalists? Who adhere strictly to the principles of Islamic mercy and justice? I've met some people who have made up their mind that some Muslims are violent because they follow the Quran strictly. And what I try to tell them is that a lot of Muslims follow the Quran strictly, yet we are not keen on beheading anyone for no apparent justful purpose than to satisfy bloodlust and anger. In fact, for me, personally, my solidarity with world peace and what not is not just simply a matter of personal choice, but also because it is a religious obligation for me to feel as I feel, because that is what the Quran and sunnah and ulama tell me. But I digress. To me, the international media's tendency to tell the world that there are "good, peaceful" Muslims out there by labelling them as "moderates" is, well, commendable at the least, but is not so healthy terminology-wise. By trying to be too politically correct, they are in fact confusing some non-Muslims that indeed Islam is violent at core but only those Muslims who are moderate (not in the way of how we define moderate, but in how they define it) - who practice only certain parts of their religion that conveniences them, and leaves out others - are the "good, peaceful" Muslims. In actuality, whom they term as "moderate" Muslims are in fact mostly conservative who adhere to the fundamentals of Islam - the sort of people who wouldn't dare kill anyone for fear of God's anger. There really needs to be a differentiation on what radical (mis)interpretation is from conservative interpretation. Calling the "good, peaceful" Muslims of the world as "moderates" is not really wrong - it is in fact even "comforting" to know, realise and see that the media do not choose to blanket us all under the same label as terrorists and radical extremists - but isn't the terming incomplete and confusing? It shuns the very conservatism in the "good, peaceful" Muslims that made them "moderates" in the first place. People reading international media might have the notion that Muslim "moderates" are the sort of people who are so nice it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside to be around them - which is all true (generally speaking), but we also pray five times a day, fast in Ramadhan, wear hijabs, go to mosques, read the Quran, follow the prophet's Sunnah and basically, live our lives as how we believe Muslims should. Not that all of this really matters, but it's an interesting thing to point out - that "moderates" are indeed conservative fundamentalists. What do you guys think? --- This article was written purely out of non-political intentions. While the writer wrote this article because he felt like it, this article also serves as an experimental lamb left in the green pastures of cyberspace to see if any sheep feel that the lamb has been made on its behalf a bad decision. Feedback on this genre (opinions on the Muslim society) can be sent to our email.

7 Responses to “Being Politically Correct about Good Muslims”

echopena on 9/16/2006 5:09 AM

Bismillah,

I beg to differ with the statement of Dr M and part of your commentaries Mr Admin. Your final statement is the real point that I would like to bring up into the spotlight.

Muslim is a fundamentalist. I think a lot of people but not all have already accepted the notion and a lot of Muslims will agree with that, although I think most Muslims -might include myself - are just 'hoping' to be a fundamentalist Muslim while on the surface of the earth we didn't exactly do things in accord with the Quran and Sunnah.

Dr. M remarks, Reuters quoted, The Sun quoted, Admin quoted and I quote, "There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim" has gibed me. What happened to the Islam's urged to be an 'ummatan wasoto' ?? Isn't that by any means calling Muslim to be moderate? Islam hates people who are extreme to both ends - not just one.

Futher, he has also being quoted to say these stuff that make me feel even more insulted: ""(Muslims) are without arms, they are weak and they are pushed into a corner. If you are pushed into a corner and the only thing you can do is bite, you bite," he said."

What in the world is he thinking? Labelling Muslims as weak? He didn't even bothered to use the word 'we' ; instead, he used 'they'. Is he not a Muslim at all? Thinking outside the box maybe? Sometimes, somewhere we still need to think inside the box.

Seriously, he needs to be more empathy rather than being outspoken to gain popularity.
oh admin on 9/16/2006 11:00 AM

echopena: "What happened to the Islam's urged to be an 'ummatan wasoto' ?? Isn't that by any means calling Muslim to be moderate? Islam hates people who are extreme to both ends - not just one."

Yup, I know about the need for moderation in religion. I did actually include that bit in my post, but couldn't find a good translation of the hadith (with all the periwayat included) on the net, so I omitted it out (although references to "moderation" is still made).

You can still be moderate while being conservative, in fact. Strictly speaking, a conservative following Islam strictly would want to be moderate.

I mean, quoting Dr M doesn't mean that I agree with him 100% (which is the reason why my quote was selective, as you have noticed when you read the whole article), but he does have a point in trying to bring up the incorrectness of a simple labelling of the good, peaceful Muslims as simply being "moderates".

I think what he meant by saying "there are no moderates" is that he was trying to dispel this myth that some Westerners might have of us "moderates" as being "liberals" or "modernists of Islam", choosing to tutup mata to certain bits of Islam and only buka mata to things we like (ie that goes with global flow).

I think I might've surprised some people when I told them I believed and follow 100% of the Quran (or at least I try to lah...or want to follow it 100%), and they'd ask, "Eh, I thought you were a moderate?"

Well, conservatism is what makes many people moderate. Though I'm not a pious/good Muslim at all, I still think I lean more towards conservativism.

echopena: "What in the world is he thinking? Labelling Muslims as weak?"

Yes, you might have a point, but so did he, I think. I mean, we have to acknowledge the fact in the current status quo Muslims can barely defend their own country from being invaded (the ummah has the means - but they are too afraid to unite against the invaders, which is a weakness on our part).

But thanks for the response, very enlightening :D I think my points weren't well organised in the post, but yeah on some points I do agree with you 100%.

---

Rather than choosing to be nitpicky about smaller details about the person, this debate would be better off if readers (and the writer, hahahahahaha) only discussed the ideas therein, because veering into politics can only lead to heated arguments. My quoting Dr M was merely as a starter to the whole post, not as a political endorsement of his opinions/stands (I didn't mention him anywhere else in the post, mind you).
atif on 9/16/2006 7:19 PM

saudara echopena,

selepas baca respons saya, tolong tinggalkan komen di sini atau di shoutbox untuk beritahu bahawa saudara sudah pun membacanya, kerana saya mungkin mahu un-publish artikel ini. susunan retorik saya kurang, ehem, tersusun, jadi mungkin maksud artikel ini tidak kesampaian 100%. maka untuk elakkan confusion di kalangan pembaca, lagi baik saya masukkan dalam kabinet dulu =D
echopena on 9/18/2006 10:59 AM

Atif,
Hehe.. got you.. actually i understood well your points since you did stated at the end that Muslims should be moderate. Saje je nak pekena sedare admin. Tp bab Dr. M (ops.. sorry to include his name), I don't agree with him since some of his actions does not support his words.

I also think that saying Muslim as weak is the same as making du'a for Muslims to be weak.

I'm impressed with your idea about people asking "Eh, I thought you were a moderate?". I've never thought about that, but that is totally true.

Since you are the writer, it depends if you want to store this in a cabinet or inside the refrigerator (mcm simpan jarum yg patah tu) since Abu Bakar pun ade bakar tulisan die kan.

It's always fun to read your discourse
oh admin on 9/18/2006 6:52 PM

@echopena : thanks for the comments! :D

on keeping the article in a cabinet/frigde/assorted compartmental thingies, saya tak tau lah nak simpan ke tak. hmmm... ok lah, kita tggu feedback seterusnya. kalau ada rasa x sesuai, artikel ini akan disimpan (yang merasa x sesuai tu, sila bersuara!).
Firdaus Tarmizi on 10/07/2006 3:46 AM

Firstly, let's talk about yardstick, or measurement. When you talk about something, you will want to measure that thing according to what you have around you. In case of conservatism, moderation, liberalism, even though there are definition, people will go with what they can compare with.

We have to understand that Christians in USA and Europe mainly (the main focus of the debate perhaps) have their own definition of conservatism, etc. We also have to remember how church is separated from the state, as per their constitution. So they measure these terms according from their experience, the same as how we measure the terms: based on what we know about Islam.

Do you know that some Christian fundamentalists feel insulted if they are compared to Islamic fundamentalist, and vice versa? This is because the western media already grouped various terrorist groups as fundamentalists. Clearly, the word fundamentalist in Christian and Islam are differently understood.

Also, conservatism and fundamentalism are not necessarily correlated. An atheist could be a conservative, if he adhere to moral codes that are the status quo. Of course, conservative fundamentalists would imply the worst of both worlds for them : the inability to move with time, the stubbornness to practice a defunct code of life, and the unwillingness to accept other points of view. We Muslims sometimes do not understand this, due to the fact that we understand Islam as a way of life for the ages, and need not "change " with the time.

I could go on and on, but the moral of the story is, we might have to talk to non-muslims about this. If we just discuss this within our own sphere of knowledge, we can't actually see the differences in our way of thinking.
oh admin on 10/07/2006 11:44 AM

Mr Firdaus Tarmizi, are you a debater in competitions? Just curious, because your style of argumentative delivery of points in that direction =D

On your point:

"Clearly, the word fundamentalist in Christian and Islam are differently understood."

But rather than discuss the matter using the definitions of fundamentalism and conservatism per religion as provided by the international media, I was merely stating that, in essence, the moderate Muslim that the world seems to like practises the fundamentals of Islam and conserves its values of peace and tolerance.

Rather than act as a piece of writing to influence people into conservatism, I was trying to point out the irony of how the media seem to view the "moderates" and so-called "conservatives".

My point is, the writing centres not around the status quo definiton of practical use, but only by by-the-dictionary definitons as the writing revolves around the concept, not the situation.

Now that we're broadening the scope - say we take the media's definition for fundamentalism: "someone who enforces upon others, by force, his own beliefs". I've seen people who dislike this definition of fundamentalism so much they even dislike proselytisers (then again, it depends on the way the proselytiser is proselytising). The irony is, I've always wondered if such a concept as "secular fundamentalism" exists - a system of governmental (or even individual) practice that discriminates the religious, and forces them to limit what they can otherwise freely practice without violating anyone's human rights (ie French hijab ban).

Click here to leave a comment

Behind the scenes

21/10/06: New contributors.

Maresmart Sentral is...

...formerly the blog portal for ex-MRSM Taiping students of the 0405 batch, but has now become the unofficial blog portal cum randomly-updated-webzine for all ex-students of MRSM Taiping.

Ex-Maresmartian? Have your own blog? Want to link to us?

Our Contributors

Want to write for the Sentral? Get to know the Crew first!

Noticeboard

The blogtal has been reinvented. Come and join us!

We are always looking for contributions and new contributors. Help promote us!.

E-mail us your blog link or inform us here to join our blogroll.

Blog maintenance: Several posts (by the admin) are not up-to-date. Maintenance will be made at the end of the year when we have more time to work with rebellious htmls.

Kotak Jeritan

Syndication

Get this for your site!
Maresmart Sentral should not be made liable for the content of any external websites syndicated.