Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue

<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>: <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on <strong>the</strong> State of Dialogue
30
International Politics
Box 3.2
Rethinking Moderates <strong>and</strong> Extremists
HRH Prince Hussam bin Saud bin Abdulaziz al Saud
HRH Prince Hussam bin Saud bin Abdulaziz al Saud is Prince, Saudi Royal Family, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
He is a member of <strong>the</strong> Executive Committee of World Economic Forum Community of <strong>West</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>
Dialogue (C-100).
It is a regular complaint from governments, scholars, political commentators in <strong>the</strong> media <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs that “moderate”
Muslims do far too little to make <strong>the</strong>ir voices heard in <strong>the</strong> debate about extremism. The argument is that if only <strong>the</strong>
“moderates” would speak up, we might marginalise extremism <strong>and</strong> create a foundation for a more constructive dialogue
between <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world.
This argument is wrong. The proposition that “moderate” Muslims are responsible for ebbs <strong>and</strong> flows in <strong>the</strong> tidal wave
of extremism assumes that <strong>the</strong> root cause of <strong>the</strong> extremism lies within lslam itself – a fundamentally mistaken assumption.
That proposition also skews <strong>the</strong> way that many so-called “moderates” are viewed within <strong>the</strong> Muslim world. Take <strong>the</strong>
example of Palestine. The border of <strong>the</strong> Jewish state has been affirmed as inclusive of sites that are holy to o<strong>the</strong>r faiths.
For most Muslims, those who advocate “moderation” in <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> Palestinian issue are promptly regarded as
having betrayed <strong>the</strong> sanctity of <strong>the</strong> holy Muslim sites – a cause for which many fellow Muslims are dying.
On <strong>the</strong> popular level – on <strong>the</strong> “Muslim street” – moderates are seen, rightly or wrongly, as pursuing an agenda that is
an ana<strong>the</strong>ma to legitimate <strong>Islam</strong>ic claims. The popular interpretation is that all <strong>the</strong>se “moderate Muslims” are doing is
pursuing an agenda that is not so different from that of <strong>the</strong> powerful <strong>West</strong>ern nations.
The vast majority of Muslims are happy to co-exist, to welcome visitors to <strong>the</strong>ir countries, to do business, to travel <strong>and</strong>
live globally. The problem arises when this “moderation” within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world finds itself in conflict with forces from
beyond <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world that do not respect <strong>the</strong> way of life of Muslims – a way of life that has evolved over many centuries.
It is inevitable that for “moderate” voices to be an effective force in driving dialogue, <strong>the</strong>y must acknowledge <strong>the</strong> grievances
of <strong>and</strong> injustices suffered by fellow Muslims. It should be understood that if all <strong>the</strong> “moderate” voices within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic
world were to condemn <strong>the</strong> points of view of all <strong>the</strong> “extremist” voices, it would – in <strong>the</strong> current, highly charged context –
be seen simply as marking a disregard for <strong>the</strong> injustices that are being committed against Muslims.
Why so? Because <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> “moderate” <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “extremist” is often not an issue of belief, but a matter
of action. The purpose of dialogue is to restrain violent action, not dilute belief. Muslims share <strong>the</strong> same beliefs about
<strong>the</strong> most contentious issues facing <strong>the</strong>m; where <strong>the</strong>y differ is in how to deal with <strong>the</strong>m. But if <strong>the</strong> “moderates” were
seen simply to be pursuing <strong>the</strong> agenda set by <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong> – <strong>and</strong> it is <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong> that is most prone to define some as
“moderate” <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs as “extremist” – it would mean that <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>'s dialogue would be with Muslims who were not
representative of general Muslim opinion. Thus, it would be unlikely to bring results.
Ultimately Muslims st<strong>and</strong> up for <strong>the</strong>mselves – because <strong>the</strong>y believe it is right <strong>and</strong> because <strong>the</strong> Holy Qur’an teaches
that it is right that <strong>the</strong>y should. When this position leads to violence, it is a sign of how dreadful a situation has become
<strong>and</strong> how intense <strong>the</strong> sense of injustice has become. Acts of violence will only stop if <strong>the</strong> injustice ceases in <strong>the</strong> first place.
In <strong>the</strong> meantime, <strong>the</strong> question that requires deeper dialogue is: How in <strong>the</strong> above context can <strong>the</strong> “moderates” begin
to make a difference, <strong>and</strong> seize back <strong>the</strong> initiative from <strong>the</strong> “extremists”?