Religious views, if extremist, can lead to conflict. On the other hand, conflicts can make religions appear extreme , actually tarnishing the faiths themselves. This past week, the horrific images of death and devastation in Mumbai have significantly changed the world's perception of the war on terror. Instead of recognizing the events as truly international in scope, the media has turned the tragedy into a regional conflict that cannot subside , lest "Pakistan" get away with some form of state sponsorship of terror. Regional experts have been saying that Mumbai was India's 9/11. In sum, the ongoing progression of dialogue between India and Pakistan has been damaged because of the faulty need to link the conflict-dynamics behind the attacks on Mumbai and the religion of Islam, which the gunmen supposedly espoused.
I didn't think the political situation could get worse for Pakistan's Muslim population , the generally moderate citizens, who are actively trying to combat their country's own plague of terrorism, but the news reports are actually worsening the situation. The cable news networks are continuously reporting clips of Indian citizens calling for war with Pakistan
War on account of a non-state sponsored terrorist act makes so little sense that news media should be held accountable for repeating the ignorant words of belligerent people. Once again, Muslims (and their leaders) are supposed to come one by one to the world stage and condemn the attacks. As Karin Laub wrote for the Associated Press, "Throughout the Muslim world, the attacks set off soul-searching."
Why is that such a doubtful statement? It may be on account of the fact that attacks have been increasing around the world over the past years, and each devastating and violent act of terrorism cannot possibly lead to new soul-searching. Furthermore, "soul-searching" implies reflection on personal religious choices, which raises questions about whether these terrorist acts should force the majority of peaceful Muslims to redefine their faith. Forcing Muslims to defend their religious views cannot lead to the political results desired by "Western" countries. If the media appears to be forcing moderate Muslims into "soul-searching," the result will be what Maha Azzam has written in International Affairs: The Muslim public will increasingly be divided between "those who condemn such actions and those who view attacks on the United States and Israel as justified and are therefore ambivalent about violence against them."
Actually, what we have seen in the last week is a mass interpretation of the Mumbai attacks as "religious extremism." In fact, if the gunmen were really members of Lashkar-e Taiba, the terrorists acts were far more politically motivated and based on the Kashmir dispute. Instead, if we want to look at a more "religious conflict,' the horrific news was coming from Nigeria this week. After two days of terrible violence, at least 400 people have been killed , Christian and Muslim gangs trying to take complete control of the city of Jos. The New York Times, however, has reported that even this conflict has its basis in other grievances , such as land, political power, and control over government funds. Nevertheless, Jos , a city and regional capital , is "balkanized," and therefore, the underlying causes of the religious intolerance and violence are no longer known to the average person. Instead, they will fight solely on account of the "impression' that there should be retaliation for past wrongs committed by the other community's members. The conclusion: religious extremism may actually be a guise for human nature's psychological need for retribution.
