Muslims, the Pope and Asia

Intolerant religious states such as Iran exploit the line between, and seek to make semantics of, imperfect universal acceptance and blunt repression. Make no mistake: the two are completely different.

Muslims are, and should be along with other religions, permitted to practice their faith in all states around the world. The same right should be extended to all religions in places such as Iran where Muslim governments are the majority voice. Belligerent non-democratic religious governments interpret the imperfections and sometimes mud-slinging (thought-provoking?) aspects of democracy to be an attack on their own religion. However, what these governments conveniently ignore is that they not only routinely belittle other religions besides Islam, within their borders they openly persecute, discriminate against and harass those who aren't Muslim (for more, see The Economist magazine, "Muslims and the Pope" in the Leaders section, December 2 2006).

As Iran (including non-state actors like Hezbollah, Shi'ite and Sunni groups in Iraq and Hamas) denounce what they consider international degradation of Islam, they pull a hood over a gullible international audience. Valid it is that degradation and lack of equality of opportunity are serious issues with negative social and economic consequences. However; aggressive and intolerant Muslim leaders, by finger-pointing at western governments whose open policies allow political and social problems to be public issues, engage in misdirection by forcing a blind eye to these belligerent states' (see Iran, Saudi Arabia et al) very real, and far more severe, persecution of minority religious views. Being subject to sharia law is the epitome of an embarrassing, demeaning and barbaric example of religious intolerance.

The same week The Economist wrote the editorial about Muslims and intolerance (triggered by the Pope's visit to Turkey), Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote an equally important editorial about Islam. Its message was different than The Economists', but just as valid.

Kristof made the painfully obvious but frequently overlooked observation that the western perception of Muslims are grossly simplistic and are inflamed by a radical selection of Arab Muslims. Kristof reminds his readers that not only does this gang account for less than 20% of all Muslims, but that most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East; rather, they live in Asia. True, Kristof concedes, there are radical iterations of Islam within Indonesia, and the religion there isn't without its faults. But Kristof also points out virtues and peaceful trends within Islam and the Koran, as well as the potential for violence within Christian texts. Islam, Kristof wants us to understand, is not equal to intolerance, hypocrisy and violence .

So what does this mean? In a nutshell, it means that western views of Islam are blighted towards negativity and simplicity. (It's embarrassing to ask, but how many westerners in 2003 do you think even knew that a Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim weren't chums? How many even knew that such a distinction among Muslims existed?) This is easy for non-Muslims to do: usually only the hotheads, criminals and loudmouth Muslims from Iraq toting grenade launchers and AKs are the ones seen in headlines and on telecasts. Part of this is negativity towards Islam is justified: murder, beheadings, blatant disregard for human property and life - always somehow rationalized - should never be condoned or accepted as it is in radical Islamic circles now. In politically open countries this behavior is not accepted, and there is (and should be) an outlet in these countries when their forces commit atrocities, and outrage is (and should be) the public response. However, a chilling silence is heard in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia thanks to the acceptance of persecution in these and other intolerant Muslim (and non-Muslim) countries. This is disturbing and hypocritical.

However, we must remember what Mr. Kristof points out. That this hypocritical Muslim minority does not represent Islam, a religion that spreads far beyond Arabs and far beyond the Middle East. Nor is it fair to say that Islam itself is the reason for this hypocritical and archaic minority. What is the cause then? That's the $1 million question. But as westerners, we'll never see this problem solved if we can't be willing to look a little deeper ourselves.