On the evening of 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks — consisting of mass shootings, suicide bombings, and hostage-taking — occurred in Paris, the capital of France, and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. And as before, chorus of criticisms and condemnations directed to terrorists and sympathy and deep sorrow directed toward innocent victims. Although I also feel sympathy and condolences for the victims, here I want to write down the other side of this terror events, namely the issue of identity. This can only be explained through a series of terror cases that have occurred since the early 2000s, precisely when the hijacked planes hit the twin towers of World Trade Center. Since then, the trend of terrorism began and constantly reproduced through a range of 'medium', thus forming imaging in the spaces of imagination.
Word of terror, indeed, contains direct accusations or indirectly to one or several parties. If there is a terror group, then it means, there is a group that wants peace, as well as pluralism. This is one form of identity issues that appears more "sexy" to this day.
Thus, when a "terror" event is found, the thing that immediately comes to mind is a bunch of people who behave in a barbaric, in the name of religion -- in this case Islam -- turban on head, thick beard, carrying a weapon and then attack innocent civilians. As if the image of this model is indeed the factory settings that have been "self-evident", unquestionable.
From there, we already know how various media presenting it to the public. A dish that is not free from bias and value. Preaching for the sake of preaching is done intensely about how evil the terrorists who do it and loudly campaigning the spirit of pluralism and peace, by pointing to groups who campaigning for it.
From there also, we as the public world, "automatically" confirm and condemn the barbaric terrorist group, inedible by religious indoctrination, as well as use it as legitimate acts of violence. Yes, the terror group that has tarnished Islam face in the world's eyes. They act based on hatred and blind fanaticism.
This is also reinforced by campaigns of tolerance, pluralism, inter-religious peace that is often regarded as an alternative for solving the conflict culturally. Not surprising, indeed, if we look at the ideas offered, namely on how to live religion flexibly, rational, open and moderate. By doing so, it's normal, if we look at the assumptions of these circles in seeing the problem's root of religious radicalism. Namely, excessive hatred and blind fanaticism, reading the Qur'an textually or scripturalist, unable to respond to modernity with open, thus creating a radical extreme behavior.
However, for me, pluralism and tolerance solutions offered exclusively become inadequate because they ignore the dynamics of socio-political structures. It is seen from so many readings on radical behavior or "terror" that just dwell on the reading of mere doctrine, without supposing concrete reality that underlies it.
Surprisingly, readings performed by Maxime Rodinson actually quite shocking : that it almost does not exist, or very few factors inherent in Islam's teachings which makes it left behind when compared with other teachings. In fact, structural dynamics -- political conflict, colonialism, the West supremacy over the non-West -- that causing the backwardness of Muslims.
Rodinson's conclusion indicates -- implicitly -- that to read Islam that just dwell on the doctrine does not answer why Islam can show the face of such radical and extreme: in case, it is assumed as a result of inability to accept Western modernity internally. Also, the above shows the existence of such orientalis framework which penetrates into the realm of thought of pro-plural and tolerant activists. And this is not free value, because it is always concerned with the relation of capital and knowledge.
Orientalists often use Weberian analysis in explaining the decline of Islam and Muslim community, namely: irrational attitude, personal, and religious. Then it should be made an institutionalization of society in order to be rational, impersonal, and secular. Weberian framework has consequences for the exclusion of religion from political sphere into the realm of cultural and ritual. We know the movement of Islamic fundamentalism in Middle East and Liberation Theology in Latin America can show the emancipatory element of a religion in response to social inequality, but the element of emancipation is viewed negatively. With Weberian framework, religion is considered intrusive and hinder the process towards the establishment of an advanced society, in the sense of rational, impersonal, and secular.
So, there's no doubt, if we look at how the work done by the inter-faith peace activists and pluralist, then they already feel "comfortable" with issues related to identity, without moving to the analysis of the issues of real inequality problems, which it actually is conditia sine qua non for acts of violence. Terror case in Paris finally is just seen just an issue of identity, namely the conflict between Muslims and the West, between the religious and the secular, between personal and impersonal, between rational and irrational, regardless of the economic and political colonization factors that have been so sadistically done by the capitalist class and its comprador elite to this day.
If the situation has been like this, then pluralism and peace only stale discourse with epistemological and axiological that do not have the clarity of case.
***
[CZ - Paris France 111915]
