Violent Past; Shady Present

I feel that violence has been an inherent facet of Islam since the religion’s very inception. The Arab world at the time of Muhammad’s hermitic revelations comprised a series of tribal entities that very often fought for power. Elections were unheard of, and violence was the primary tool used to obtain and maintain power which was centered in the Muslim holy land of Mecca.

Muhammad himself was banished to Medina along with his followers by the tribal family who held power at the time because they felt threatened by this up and coming movement. Unsurprisingly, Muhammad’s “Islam” gained quite a following during his exile, and he later returned with all of his followers to wage war (okay maybe that’s an overstatement, but there was violence is my point) to reclaim Mecca. After Muhammad, a series of power struggles most often ultimately decided by bloodshed (assassination, violent disputes etc.) determined who would next be in charge. When Islam began grounding itself throughout the society such that unification became possible, Islamic empires such as the Umayyad and the Abbasid rose to conquer their vast territories.

That’s not to say other religions are historically clean of violence. However, the head figures of religions such as Christianity and Buddhism did not lead followers to conquer holy lands. In terms of Christianity, violent struggles for power were mostly unheard of. Certainly, rather un-Christian power struggles between popes and kings occurred, and by the time of Charlemagne and after his three-way division of his empire, political backstabbing (literal and figurative) became far more commonplace. Then, of course, there were the Crusades.

It was through such desires for political stature and might that religions began losing sight of the messages they taught (well, as far as I know Buddhism never really did ß-digression). I wish I were more fluent in Islam’s teachings so I could speak more clearly on the issue of whether the religion itself can possibly lead to a sustainable liberal-democratic style of governing. Wittes believes we should take into account three issues: how fairly Muslims believe minorities and women should be treated (in light of the fact that Islam apparently does not feel them deserving of equal rights), how open to pluralism a Muslim government would be, and whether or not the religious branch would “veto power over the democratic process” (Wittes 10).

One important question regarding this topic that Wittes asks is: “If language is often vague and behavior often contradictory, how does one know whether apparent moderation is real?” (Wittes 10-11). Considering this sort of strategic ambiguity and taking into account the violently turbulent roots of the Muslim world and Islam leaves me feeling somewhat suspicious. Additionally, Wittes notes the lack of political freedom in these societies which leaves the Muslim party with no real incentive to discuss its political ideologies. After all, political ideology only shines when a party has to stick to and defend it against an opposing party that threatens to bring to power its own ideology.

Why should language be vague unless its user is hiding something? I am not one for discrimination, but I do support full openness and honesty, for only through these can any two conscious entities—be they small as people or as large as nations—come to a trusting relationship between each other.