Clutching The Comfort Blanket

It All Depends . . . 

We have commented frequently on the compulsion in the West to self-dissimulate over Islam.  When it becomes more Islamic and less Western in its practices, Islam is routinely described as extremist.  A classic in the genre appeared recently in one of New Zealand's most widely read blogs, entitled How widespread is extreme Islam? In the context of the article, "extreme" Islam means an Islamic society which practises Sharia law--which just happens to be historical and traditional Islamic law.  To be fair, the article develops the case that "extremist" Islam is actually much more widespread than Western propaganda generally avers. 

"Extremism" is in the eyes of the beholder.  The West in general has a Euro-centric and existential perspective on these matters.  Essentially, extremist Islam is any manifestation of the Islamic religion, or an Islamic society, which does not follow the values and ethics and historical legal traditions of the West.  As Edward Said would have said, this represents a profoundly arrogant, self-centred and xenophobic perspective.  On the other hand, to Islamic societies, the West is extremist--so extreme in its degeneration and evil that it warrants the title, The Great Satan.  The term "extremist" is of little meaning, and can be understood only by reference to one's starting point.

Islam is a historical religion, with a redemptive mission to take captive the entire world.  Its beliefs and doctrines are written.  They can be interpreted historically, in the sense that there is a mass of historical records about Islamic beliefs, practices, institutions and cultural impact.  In other words, Islam can be measured against itself.  It can be measured by its own orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

To be sure, within the broad church of Islam there are mainstream expressions, and extreme outliers.  "Mainstream" is to be measured doctrinally and in terms of historical practice and historical teaching.  It is to be identified by consistency with the Koran's teachings, to Sharia Law, and to the hadith (recorded sayings of the Prophet Muhammad).  Within the historical Islamic expression, however, there have also been extremes (that is, departures from core teaching and traditions) such as the Alawites, the Sufis, the Babis, the Ahmadiyyas, and so forth. 

There have also been plenty of nominal Islamic people who "believe" in Islam in a vague cultural association because it belongs somewhere in their past.  Just as Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand as a vague remembrance of some event in history, so many nominal Muslims bear only the loosest associations with their nominated religion. Such folk represent not core or true Islam, but the nominal, superficial outliers.  In doctrinal and historical terms, these folk are the extremists. Yet these are the folk which the West strangely trumpets as "real Muslims".  Orwellian double-speak is doing overtime.

When it comes to its own morals and ethics, the West is staunchly relativistic and libertine.  When it comes to other traditions and cultures, the West tosses its post-modern perspectivalism to one side and trumpets present Western secular rights, justices, freedoms as if they were moral absolutes governing all of humanity.  It is cultural imperialism of the worst sort.  Europhilia provides no basis for ethics, moral grandstanding or lecturing everyone else.  It's in this light that the Christian faith and Christians have increasingly been labelled "extremist" by an amoral, atheistic, and self-righteous West.

Such Europhilia is beneath contempt.  As Christians we despise it for what it is--self-serving, special pleading to justify license and immorality.  No doubt mainstream Islamic believers think the same.  Both alike regard Western solipsistic degradation and self-indulgence as extremist.  It all depends on your starting point.