Islam and terror, or neglectful assessments
Turkey's agenda is focused on the general elections that are to be held on June 7. However, the discussions regarding the relation between Islam and terror are not disappearing in the West. An interview that was published last week by Focus, a leading periodical in Germany, both displays some dynamics of this discussion and sets an example of the logical errors of the West caused by some cliches about Islam that are associated with conformism.
The periodical interviewed Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Federal Parliamentary Group Spokeswoman Erika Steinbach. Steinbach rejects the argument that "Islam belongs to Germany," which is defended by both former President Christian Wulff and the current Chancellor Angela Merkel. Consequently, this interview definitely deserves a careful discussion and a keen analysis. Also bear in mind that the criticism in the interview mainly targets Turkey. Some of the arguments Steinbach put forward are as follows: The first argument: "Violent sermons are preached at some mosques in Germany." This argument might seem right since at some mosques in Europe it is possible to come across some practices interpreting Islam in a perspective that legitimizes violence. It is not obvious if the violence is referred to in a political context or in the context of penal code. Secondly, when the holy writings dating back thousands of years are interpreted without considering their historicity and context, they could of course justify violence, and as a result, can be blamed as a whole, which is very problematic. And the solution to this problem is not the reinterpretation of the Quran as Steinbach imagines, but the true interpretation of it without being twisted.If reading and narrating some verses from holy texts is associated with violence without producing arguments on the subject, all holy texts and religions might be evaluated as a source of violence. This goes also for Christianity and Judaism. Second: "Turkey sends imams to Germany by charging them with the duty of Islamization." It poses a problem in terms of international relations when Islamization becomes a state policy. But it is essential to accept that every religious official is educated on the grounds of the idea of teaching and spreading a certain religion. If religious acts of showing the true path or engaging in missionary activities are expressions of freedom of thought and faith, this argument might lead to a practice that could inhibit freedoms. Concerns can turn out to be right if it is highlighted that Germany was founded on Christian values.
And the most problematic argument: "The subsequent generations born in Germany are more inclined to radical thoughts." This argument is not wrong in terms of its content. But Steinbach argues that this cannot indicate that the integration policy of Germany has failed. According to her, inclination to radical thoughts is particularly strong among the generations that received an academic education and achieved integration. If this is the case, we face a logical error again. If Islam contains violence as a whole then it is required to be accepted in a historical continuity. Consequently, successfully integrated Muslims are supposed to get rid of such inclinations. If integration reinforced this inclination, then either the source of the problem is the failure of integration or the argument suggesting that Islam has a potential of violence as a whole is baseless. It is required to accept that if violent tendencies are particularly seen among those who were born and raised in Europe, well-educated and completed their integration, then violence is the expression of a reaction that is revealed in relation with the West rather than bearing a relation to Islam.
These arguments reflect many aspects that are inattentively intermingled including concerns about domestic politics, fear of Islam and criticism of Turkey. The arguments prevent the visibility of problems and form a basis for distortions and politically motivated manipulations. However, political institutions are expected to create policies and act on the basis of reliable information and rational analyses.
The periodical interviewed Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Federal Parliamentary Group Spokeswoman Erika Steinbach. Steinbach rejects the argument that "Islam belongs to Germany," which is defended by both former President Christian Wulff and the current Chancellor Angela Merkel. Consequently, this interview definitely deserves a careful discussion and a keen analysis. Also bear in mind that the criticism in the interview mainly targets Turkey. Some of the arguments Steinbach put forward are as follows: The first argument: "Violent sermons are preached at some mosques in Germany." This argument might seem right since at some mosques in Europe it is possible to come across some practices interpreting Islam in a perspective that legitimizes violence. It is not obvious if the violence is referred to in a political context or in the context of penal code. Secondly, when the holy writings dating back thousands of years are interpreted without considering their historicity and context, they could of course justify violence, and as a result, can be blamed as a whole, which is very problematic. And the solution to this problem is not the reinterpretation of the Quran as Steinbach imagines, but the true interpretation of it without being twisted.If reading and narrating some verses from holy texts is associated with violence without producing arguments on the subject, all holy texts and religions might be evaluated as a source of violence. This goes also for Christianity and Judaism. Second: "Turkey sends imams to Germany by charging them with the duty of Islamization." It poses a problem in terms of international relations when Islamization becomes a state policy. But it is essential to accept that every religious official is educated on the grounds of the idea of teaching and spreading a certain religion. If religious acts of showing the true path or engaging in missionary activities are expressions of freedom of thought and faith, this argument might lead to a practice that could inhibit freedoms. Concerns can turn out to be right if it is highlighted that Germany was founded on Christian values.
And the most problematic argument: "The subsequent generations born in Germany are more inclined to radical thoughts." This argument is not wrong in terms of its content. But Steinbach argues that this cannot indicate that the integration policy of Germany has failed. According to her, inclination to radical thoughts is particularly strong among the generations that received an academic education and achieved integration. If this is the case, we face a logical error again. If Islam contains violence as a whole then it is required to be accepted in a historical continuity. Consequently, successfully integrated Muslims are supposed to get rid of such inclinations. If integration reinforced this inclination, then either the source of the problem is the failure of integration or the argument suggesting that Islam has a potential of violence as a whole is baseless. It is required to accept that if violent tendencies are particularly seen among those who were born and raised in Europe, well-educated and completed their integration, then violence is the expression of a reaction that is revealed in relation with the West rather than bearing a relation to Islam.
These arguments reflect many aspects that are inattentively intermingled including concerns about domestic politics, fear of Islam and criticism of Turkey. The arguments prevent the visibility of problems and form a basis for distortions and politically motivated manipulations. However, political institutions are expected to create policies and act on the basis of reliable information and rational analyses.
Last Update: March 18, 2015 01:11