Whose Moderate Muslim?

 By Iain Buchanan
 
Who gets to decide what a “moderate Muslim” is? In this extended piece, Iain Buchanan argues that as the West demands Muslims fit themselves into its definition of the moderate Muslim, it ignores that it has itself failed to abide by its own standards. The way to initiate true dialogue between moderates, he says, is for the West to take steps to address its own failures.

 
This is a tiresome time for Muslims. Especially in the West. Collectively, they are seen as wild, narrow-minded, and unevolved; a relic society still stuck in the Middle Ages. They are the world's biggest troublemakers, a demographic time-bomb in the heart of Europe. So Muslims have a great deal to account for, a great deal to live down. Of course, there are many Westerners who are happy to accommodate Muslims in the world they both share -- even cheek by jowl in the same city or state. But there is a quid pro quo. To be accepted by civilised society, Muslims must declare their peaceful intentions, their integratedness, their moderation. "Moderate Muslims", as it were, must wear on their arms the badge of a yellow crescent.

But what, exactly, is a "moderate Muslim"? Our definition of what a "moderate Muslim" is will depend on our definition of many other things. Firstly, it will depend on who demands the definition, and what they want from it. Secondly, it depends on the definitions of the two extremes between which "moderate" sits. Thirdly, it depends on the qualities – social, political, ecological, religious – that are being calibrated and tested for "moderation". So it is, perhaps, a thankless exercise. There can be a great many definitions of just what a "moderate Muslim" is. And there will never be agreement between all these definitions -- or those who make them. After all, we make of words exactly what we want to make of them.

"Moderation", like honesty, should be a virtue we can all agree upon, whatever our religious calling. It is, after all, the mark of a good human being – treating others fairly, making modest demands on our fellow beings and on the rest of God's creation, whether it be the land we occupy, the trees we use, the creatures we eat. Moderate people do not exploit, over-eat, abuse living things, waste resources. Moderate people are sympathetic, understanding, and calmly disposed. Moderate people do not make war, torture, or oppress ...

We could go on. But it would be evading the real issue. And the real issue is not a question of moderate human beings. It is a question of moderate Muslim human beings – and a question, ultimately, of geopolitics. And, ultimately, the issue is the right of the Christian West to pass judgement on others, and to demand their submission to a view of the world that the Christian West holds. For the growing demand for Muslim moderation is not so much a Muslim initiative, for Muslim benefit-it is much more a reactive demand to Western pressure, which seeks definitions and undertakings that please the Christian West.

At a simplistic level, there seems little to argue about. Christian Westerners, for the most part, consider a "moderate Muslim" to be the kind of Muslim they can live with: one who is quiet and unassuming, loyal, predictable, law-abiding, unthreatening in any way. This sounds reasonable enough, at least within the Christians' own lands. But the world is much bigger than the Christians' own lands: there are Muslim lands, and the lands of many others, often with very mixed populations. And the Christians have long had a decisive (and often very destructive) presence in all of these lands – as well as an unfortunate tendency, still, to want their writ to run over every single one of them. And so, at the very least, if Muslims accept a Western-defined "moderation" for themselves, perhaps they should examine more carefully the credentials of their definers.

Historically, of course, there is a problem. Whatever Christianity is as a religion, its followers have all too often been anything but "moderate" in their dealings with one another and their dealings with everyone else. For well over a thousand years, Christian history has been defined by the unholy marriage of power and the Bible. All too often, the gospel of the poor and needy has been suppressed, and Christians have shown themselves to be brutal, greedy, and war-mongering – and have justified their actions on the basis of holy scripture. Perhaps this only proves that human beings devise their holy scriptures to serve human ends – and that those ends are sometimes good and sometimes bad. Or perhaps it demonstrates that, however virtuous and well-intentioned their scriptures, human beings will usually be led by their baser instincts, and will readily misinterpret the book they claim inspires them. Clearly, there is a disconnection between what people say they believe, and what they do. And that disconnection has been particularly strong in European (and Christian) history.

And the reason is not hard to see. Over the centuries, as European (and eventually American) culture came to dominate the world, its use of the Christian gospel as motif and justification expanded dramatically. As powerfully as its secular patrons, the Gospel came to represent the hegemony of an imperial culture over a diverse but subservient world. In profound and complex ways, the Christian gospel became so institutionalised, as part of the dominant culture, that it became hard to tell where the West's secular personality ended and its spirituality began. And this conflation has had the direst effects -both on the integrity of Western and non-Western cultures alike, and on the reputation of the Christian gospel itself. Above all, it is essential to recognise that, all too often, what is seen as the Christian way is in fact the way of Western culture – and what is seen as Western culture is often, in many a mangled form, the Christian way as well.


Read the article HERE

lain Buchanan is the author of Fatimah 's Kampung (Consumers Association of Penang, 2008) and The Armies of God (Citizens International, 2010).