No Religion Legitimizes Conflict

If a religion is to be judged on its role in conflict this should logically be done on the basis of its sources, not on the basis of extreme acts of a tiny minority of its self-proclaimed followers.

By Adan Wario Kabelo and Kristian Sloth Petersen

Does Christianity summon Christian extremists in USA to bomb abortion clinics? Does Islam summon Muslims in Palestine to kill Israelis and themselves in suicidal attacks? To most Kenyans (and Danes for that matter), Muslims or Christians, the answers to both questions would be “off course not”! These are examples of religion misunderstood.

When we went on our first joint visit to a number of partners of MS Kenya for planning and routine partnership dialogue, both Muslims and Christians were assembled. Our meetings were opened with prayers. This is a normal feature of Kenyan meeting-culture. It is also a normal procedure in forums where Muslims and Christians are gathered that leading the prayers is a role shared equally between members of the two affiliations. Did we leave less Muslim or Christian respectively? No. Did we sow seeds of religious conflict? We believe not. Rather, we hope and think that a meeting of this kind improves our understanding of and respect for each other as human beings and as believers.

Religions do not contain inherent “conflict-genes”, making unsolvable conflicts an inevitable outcome of their co-existence. Conflicts involving religion are always the result of misperceptions in our minds.

No clash of civilizations

In mid-nineties Samuel P. Huntington became widely known for his fright-provoking prediction of a future worldwide clash of civilizations. This new dynamic would amount to nothing less than a “re-making of the world order”. The Cold War logic of states uniting with either of two ideologically opposed superpowers would be replaced by a pattern of unity determined by the dominating religions. A possible outcome of this separation of the world society would be a world order derived from and determined by religious differences.

Looking at the current international scene one could be tempted to conclude that actual happenings are giving real life to Huntington’s scenario. We believe reality is a little more complicated than that…

Western political elites especially are applying an approach, portraying Islam as the root cause of terror. This is dangerous. It threatens to demonize followers of a specific religion thereby running the risk of producing endless counter-demonizations adding to a security dilemma of Cold War type where every step taken by one part is perceived as a threat by the other who then has to retaliate… Essentially, the approach is also an assault on the religion Islam itself. It implies that all Muslims are extremists, which is as inaccurate as saying that the ultra rightwing Moral Majority in USA fairly represents Christianity.

Finally, reducing the complex issue of why terror-networks are gaining in number to a matter only about Islam is simply too primitive. Can’t you do a little better, Mr. Bush? Has the possibility not struck you that there could be other factors like: imperialistic American attitude towards the rest of the world? Ongoing plundering of natural resources from the world’s poorest by elites in and outside their countries? American hypocrisy in dealing with human rights, promoting them with one hand while abusing them with the other? And the desperation that comes out of being kept in a stranglehold of massive poverty while at the same time being able to see a minority of the world’s population becoming richer and richer?

Religion as peace

One of many shortcomings in the world of today is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. If a religion is to be judged on its role in conflict this should logically be done on the basis of its sources, not on the basis of extreme acts of a tiny minority of its self-proclaimed followers. In the case of Islam the sources are the Qur’an and Sunna (teachings of prophet Muhammad), e.g.: “Allah commands justice and doing good and giving to relatives. And He forbids indecency and doing wrong and tyranny. He warns you so that hopefully you will pay heed” (Qur’an, 16:90).

Islam commands love, mercy and peace. This is made clear in the Qur’an, the main source of Islam, and in the practices of all true Muslim rulers, the Prophet Muhammad being the foremost of them. Terror on the other hand is cruel, merciless and demands bloodshed and there is no room for it in Islam. The same holds true for Christianity. Not many Christians disagree that one of the essences of the New Testament is the commanding of peace and of faith, hope and love.

Clash of fundamentalisms

Even though religions are essentially about building peace, they are unfortunately sometimes misinterpreted and misused. When this happens it is a result of constructions of the mind about religion and about “the other”. In the current global conflict between religious fundamentalists and secularists, for instance, each party perceives and talks about the other as posing threats to their societal orders and ways of living.

When secularists preach secular state, pluralism, and abolishment of Sharia-laws, fundamentalists perceive it as attacks on Islam. Banning headscarves in France or taking photographs and fingerprints of people wanting to enter USA just because they have Muslim names or come from Muslim countries does nothing but add to the perception. Muslim fundamentalists react to this as a secularist threat to their faith. Just as Christian fundamentalists in USA perceive the teaching of Darwin’s theory as an attack on Christianity.

Has secularism become a religion?

Secularists on the other hand perceive religious fundamentalism as an existential threat to their societies and ways of life. They almost regard the secular society as something holy. What were once open societies become xenophobic entities. Self-critical dialogue fades away. The capability of negotiating with religious societies disappears. Religious arguments are not accepted. The extreme secularists become just as fundamentalist as the religious fundamentalists, offering only one negotiation-solution: Their Model. But as Danish professor of Political Science Ole Waever says: the offering of one part’s position as a compromise has nothing to do with conflict-resolution (Information, 1/12-03). That is, however today’s pattern. Neither the religious fundamentalists nor the extreme secularists are willing to negotiate.

Extreme secularism needs to be mystified in order to be able to communicate with the majority of the world who do find space for religion in the public room. Without that communication the spiral of conflict will continue to develop.

Religion is basically about peace

Many religious leaders have expressed the need for harmony and unity in the fight against terror. Ironically, the biggest obstacle seems to be the political leaders who are fully occupied with demonizing “axis’s of evil” and “opponents of freedom”. As the Archbishop of Canterbury advices Tony Blair: “If we want to persuade moderate Muslims to sign up to toleration and pluralism of the right kind, anything that gives the impression that we are targeting Muslims is problematic. We have a lot of ground to make up”.

There is need for clarification of religion and its relationship to conflict. Firstly, it must be appreciated that it is not religion as such but specific fundamentalist constructions of religion that produces conflict. Secondly, religious fundamentalism itself tends to transform religion into ideology. This is an assault on religion that can only be done well through re-mystification.

To the majority for whom religion is basically a source of peace for the soul and a provider of ethical guidance and values that have to do with peace, responsibility and respect for humans of all kinds, the question is: For how long will we let the few religious fundamentalists and extreme secularists of this world set the current agenda? An agenda which produces escalating conflict and impoverishes our respective religions be they Islam or Christianity.

Religious conflicts are a product of misperception in our minds. Let us not create another cold war conflict based on them. No religion legitimizes conflict!