Earlier this year, I was trying to convince my friend Kate to visit Pakistan over the summer. Withstanding the scorching heat, Kate wondered if she would be able to survive the summer in a country known for its notorious aversion to women. I tried to make a case for Pakistan, by reiterating that these brutal acts of misogyny that she was wary of, were only limited to Northern and rural Pakistan, and that my culturally rich hometown, Lahore was free of such conundrums. Much to my dismay, Kate instantaneously challenged the validity of my argument: “Isn’t Lahore the city where a pregnant woman was stoned to death outside a court?” And in that moment, she highlighted the binary that exists between my personal interpretation of Islam, and the cultural Muslim identity that originates from stereotypes associated with the religion I was born into. I myself may not identify as Muslim, but the way I perceive myself is often diminished when the actions of other Muslims begin to characterize me. Before further exploring this binary, it is imperative to make some essential distinctions. The first is the difference between the religion Islam and the culture that originates when Muslims integrate Islam into their lifestyles. The religion in and of itself comprises of the Holy Quran, the Hadith by Prophet Muhammad and lessons from the lives of the Prophet’s companions. However, when people choose to interpret the teachings from the scripture and hadith, they give birth to diverse subcultures that are specific to the regions of their origin. Reza Aslan, in his Op-ed titled: Bill Maher Isn’t the Only One Who Misunderstands Religion elaborates: “No religion exists in a vacuum… People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.” The Quran states: “…take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom” (Al- Quran 6:151). Based on my personal interpretation, this verse emphasizes the sanctity of human life. This excerpt condemns the loss of human life, encourages individuals to respect the rule of law, and emphasizes the importance of going through a proper legal process before declaring that someone ought to die for a particular felony. Incidentally, this is the same verse that ISIS uses in their video, Flames of War, to justify the butchering of innocent men. And ISIS is only the start of it. Female genital mutilation is practiced in Muslim communities in Western Africa, women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and they are brutally stoned to death outside courtrooms in Pakistan. But, to say that all Muslims in Western Africa, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and across the world interpret Islam in the same manner and support these brutal acts of discrimination is simply put, uneducated. It is even more of a stretch to equate the entirety of the Muslim world with a militant organization like the Islamic State, where justice and law are entirely based on their own judgment. There is no court of law and there is certainly no respect for human life. That being said, it is also not a mere coincidence that most of the world’s terrorists today happen to be Muslims. The answers to the mystery surrounding Muslim extremism are rooted deep in history. I am in no way an authority on this subject and, being cognizant of that, realize that summarizing these origins into a few sentences would be tantamount to presenting an extremely shorthanded version of an extremely complex debate. However, for the purposes of this article I shall do my best with what I have. In his article, The Roots of Muslim Rage, historian Bernard Lewis argues that Muslim rage stems from humiliation and a need for revenge following successive stages of defeat at the hands of Western powers. Lewis claims:

“The first was his loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of Russia and the West. The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws and ways of life and sometimes even foreign rulers or settlers, and the enfranchisement of native non-Muslim elements. The third -- the last straw -- was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children. It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable. It was also natural that this rage should be directed primarily against the millennial enemy and should draw its strength from ancient beliefs and loyalties.”

While Muslim rage has been brewing historically, events over the past two decades have fanned the flames to the point that we see now. Lewis furthers his argument by asserting: “the cause most frequently adduced for anti-American feeling among Muslims today is American support of Israel. “ The Islamic State (ISIS) in its chilling video The Flames of War, continuously cites the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the United States’ inaction against Bashar-al-Assad in Syria as the chief reasons behind the need to resurrect Iraq and Syria out of their abysmal conditions. Hailing from Pakistan, I’m fully aware of the sympathy the Taliban acquire within certain populations of the Northwest each time a U.S drone kills one terrorist along with several civilians. The families of the civilians seek retribution, an outlet for which is provided to them by the Taliban. Lewis also contends that the Muslim resentment of the west and “non-believers” also stems from a sense of religious supremacy that Muslims assert over non-Muslims. Thus it is for this very reason that Muslims often resist and reject non-Muslim authority. Bernard Lewis uses this rationale to conclude that the “troubles in such diverse places as Ethiopian Eritrea, Indian Kashmir, Chinese Sinkiang, and Yugoslav Kosovo, in all of which Muslim populations are ruled by non-Muslim governments,” which have caused the “corruption of religion and morality in society.” Only recently, television audiences witnessed Bill Maher and Sam Harris condemning Islam on Maher’s show. Maher left no stone unturned through the course of his banter where he identified Islam as “the only religion that acts like a Mafia, that will kill you if you say the wrong thing.” Harris quickly joined in and declared Islam the “mother lode of bad ideas.” What was most shocking to observe at that point was how easy a public figure like Maher found it to color all Muslims using the same brush. The views expressed on Maher’s show weren’t nuanced in the least. They resonated with ideas presented by the conservative American writer, David Horowitz: in an interview with Michael Coren about the influence leftist elements have on academia in the United States. Horowitz described Muslim Students Associations operating on various university campuses throughout the United States as “arm[s] of the Muslim Brotherhood.” He went on to label these Associations as the “Cult[s] of Allah” who make “genocidal calls to kill the Jews.” When questioned about the non-violent nature of the members of these associations, Horowitz was very quick to assume that “they’re not terrorists, but they support terrorists.” For me, the phrasing used by Horowitz is incredibly similar to the phrasing adopted by ISIS in their video. Just like Horowitz describes Muslims as the “cult of Allah,” ISIS describes the actions of the western nations as “the dark face of the Crusader Force.” Based on logical reasoning, Horowitz and ISIS essentially represent two sides of the same coin: extreme, bigoted, and uneducated. The only difference being that David Horowitz hasn’t claimed a human life yet. Moreover, I am also opposed to some of the arguments Ben Affleck uses to defend Islam and its followers during his appearance on Maher’s show. “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot,” in no way constitutes as a defense of Islam. Two wrongs do not make a right. Every death is condemnable, be it Jewish or Muslim. What bothers me is when we reduce this loss of human life, and quantify it using numbers. Approximately three thousand people died during the September 11 attacks. Over 18,000 Afghan civilians have died in the War on Terror since 2001. However, to compare these human lives in terms of numbers is disrespectful. Each death represents the suffering of not only the deceased but it also represents the pain of their families and loved ones. To quantify that pain and use it as defense is gross and disgusting. What we must condemn is the loss of humanity, and the barbaric acts that lead to the massacre of countless innocent people worldwide, regardless of whether they are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Americans, Pakistanis or Afghans. As Fareed Zakaria puts it: “Islam has a problem today...There is a cancer of extremism within Islam.” However, to assume that this cancer has spread throughout the Muslim population is downright bigotry. There are moderate Muslims who believe in rights for women and denounce cold acts of terrorism committed in vain. But to categorize the moderates, the conservatives, and the radical extremists as the same, presents the very real risk of disenfranchisement. To disenfranchise the moderate Muslims is the worst mistake we can make in this context. Every now and then, it is necessary that we rethink the way we perceive Muslims in our everyday lives. Unlike Bill Maher, Sam Harris and David Horowitz, we must refrain from painting diverse Muslims with the same brush. Because, if we continue to do so, we face the very real risk of Muslims painting everyone else with the same brush with which they would paint these three gentlemen. And when that happens, may God help us all. This article was written by Alhan Fakhr. Send an email to [email protected] to get in touch. Photo Credit: Nicole Chan