I totally disagree with the writer in her argument that Islam gives legitimacy to so-called extremism and militancy (“ >Ideology and the rise of terror ,” Jan.21). Islam advises its followers to be extreme in their faith. It doesn’t mean giving permission to people to kill innocents.
Basheer Misbahi,
Malappuram, Kerala
The one aspect that binds the different factions of militant ‘Islamic’ movements and operating under different names is the ideological interpretation they attempt to propagate. Those spreading vitriol miss the point that no religion instigates one to bear arms against an innocent victim. Recent incidents of terror in India point to the fact that the problem is not just one that concerns the West or is specific to the Arab world. As the writer concludes, the need of the hour is to think. India can work with the GCC countries to exchange sensitive information regarding rogue operatives. We need to give Muslim youth a chance to progress through better education and empowerment. Quelling Islamophobia requires action. The community must take it upon itself to spread the message of brotherhood. I quote Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world, in fact it is the only thing that ever has.”
Rajesh Tripurneni,
Vijayawada
The writer has correctly analysed that Islam is not the driving force behind violent organisations and it being “merely the fabric in which an articulation of inequality, marginalisation, and alienation is embedded or stitched.” Her excellent research also demolishes the thesis that seeks to establish a link between “Islamist” terrorism and the prevalence of medieval laws in some Muslim societies. The truth is that a reformation of Muslim laws that are out of sync with the humanitarian spirit of Islam is an ongoing process and will go on irrespective of the existence of violent extremism. Militancy, on the other hand, has to be assayed in the context of politico-economic situations prevalent in societies where such violence takes place, as pointed out by the writer. Seeing it purely as a result of medieval laws or a lack of reform is a simplism which, in most cases, is based on a cocktail of prejudice, ignorance and imprudent foolhardiness.
A. Faizur Rahman,
Chennai
