Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Call to counter religious violence an important one

The commentary, “Counter fundamentalism with ‘critical Islam’” (Sept 11), is a road map for freeing Islamic thought from the shackles of fundamentalism. That Muslim fundamentalists and Islamophobes define Islam in similar ways is something to think about.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
Mark Woodward

The commentary, “Counter fundamentalism with ‘critical Islam’” (Sept 11), is a road map for freeing Islamic thought from the shackles of fundamentalism. That Muslim fundamentalists and Islamophobes define Islam in similar ways is something to think about.

The call to counter intellectual or symbolic violence, which often takes the form of the demonisation or portrayal of people who have different opinions as archetypes of evil and existential threats, is especially important. In Muslim discourse, this often takes the form of “takfir”, or declaring professed Muslims to be outside the boundaries of the faith.

The move from intellectual to physical violence is easy. Outside the headquarters of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) in Indonesia, a banner with the word “iblis” (devil) inserted in the names of its many opponents is a clear example of symbolic violence.

The FPI has also engaged in physical violence against Muslim minority groups and others who do not conform to its understanding of Muslim orthodoxy. Indonesia has been unwilling, though, to take effective measures against FPI’s sectarian violence.

The tendency of states to engage in intellectual violence to promote particular versions of belief/practice, and prohibit others, poses different but perhaps greater dangers than FPI thuggery.

Religious exclusivism combined with state power stifles intellectual creativity, limiting religion’s ability to respond to emerging challenges. Attempts to enforce orthodoxy often lead to physical violence and oppression of groups deemed to be deviant.

Finally, official coercion can establish the appearance of piety by enforcing conformity.

In reality, coerced piety is not piety. State-sponsored piety almost always focuses on external aspects of religion, such as fasting.

States can, perhaps, make people refrain from eating and drinking. But a state cannot make anyone fast in the spiritual sense that is the meaning of Ramadan.

The writer is a lecturer at Centre for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mudsa Indonesia. His research interest includes religions of South-east Asia, and conflict and violence. This was first posted as a comment on Todayonline.com

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.