Coming to terms with Islam's contradictions

Last week I was at a church in St. Louis encouraging Christians to build relationships of peace with their Muslim neighbors. Exhorting everyone in attendance to look beyond the headlines I promised that they would often find hospitality and friendship not hostility and violent fundamentalism. I received follow-up e-mails, as I often do after public engagements, asking about Islamism and terrorism. Then, Friday night I received a message with the subject line, "What do you have to say for yourself now?" 

The e-mail linked to news stories unfolding in Paris where a volley of nearly simultaneous attacks rocked the French capital and left 128 dead. Daesh -- the Arabic name for ISIS -- claimed responsibility for the attack and immediately the specter of religious inspired terrorism manifested itself again. 

At the same time, I saw prayers for peace on a Muslim Facebook page and heard stories about the ministry of a Houston imam visiting prisoners with grace and goodwill. Mixed with the sadness over the chaos in Paris was confusion, and questions, over which represents Islam. 

Is Islam that which inspires acts of brutalism in city streets? Surely, millions of Muslims would protest, using hashtags like #Iamnotaterrorist alongside messages of support and solidarity (#JeSuisParis or #PrayforBeirut). Or is Islam that which brings students from a local university to visit a masjid and the hundreds of faithful gathered for prayer to extend warm hospitality? Perhaps, it is both...and much more. That response can prove unsettling and unsatisfactory. Yet, it may be the most accurate and fruitful. 

The Mission & reclaiming humanity in our reading of history

The first time I encountered the movie 'The Mission' was in a hostel in Berlin. My wife and I were backpacking across Europe and we met up with a couple of friends at our Hakeschermarkt hostel. One of them was listening to the film's score and he shared it with me. It was beautiful, moving, and immense.

When I got home I watched the movie and found it intriguing and visually stunning. This week I was able to 're-read' the film by watching it again -- this time through the lens of the study of religion in Latin America. 

Besides proving that Liam Neeson is a bad ass even in a monk's habit and showing Robert De Niro can't stop the wild and volatile nature of, well, himself, this film is an invitation to recapture the human element of our records of the past and a challenge to the narrative of "the inevitability of history." These are two very important points that, I contend, we must recapture to address pertinent crises of our own today. 

*For more on religion & culture, follow @kchitwood.

First, a short overview of the film (go watch it, seriously...do it now). The film is set during the Jesuit Reductions in South America, specifically in the border regions (Tres Fronteras) between Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. The Jesuits have set up missions independent of the Spanish state in order to reach the Guarani people and to avoid political oversight or removal when the Portuguese are handed the territories within which they operate.  

Throughout, the film deals themes of violence, peace, and transformation (warning, spoilers ahead). The Guarani kill one missionary only to receive another -- Father Gabriel -- (played by Jeremy Lyons) who comes with music and peace. A mercenary named Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro) kills his brother in a love triangle in the colonial city Asuncion, which is built on a slave economy. Gabriel seeks to redeem Mendoza and leads him, through trial and travail, to join the Jesuit order and the mission "above the falls." 

The work of the mission, however, is threatened by political developments. The Spanish and Portuguese crowns have signed a treaty that transfers the territory where the missions are located from Spanish to Portuguese jurisdiction. Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally), an emissary from the Pope in Rome, arrives to decide whether the missions will remain under the protection of the Church. Tension and disagreement ensue as various interlocutors (the missionaries, colonists, and the Guarani) all contest the handover of land. The central issue is whether or not the Guarani will be forced off their land. 

While Altamirano is impressed by the missions among the Guarani he also recognizes that the missions pose an economic threat to the European (Spanish or Portuguese) plantations. Thus, Altamirano tells the Indians that they must leave and orders the priests to accept the transfer of the mission territories. In private, he explains to Gabriel that the future of the Jesuit order in Europe depends upon their not resisting the political authorities in South America.

The Guarani, unmoved by political arguments and unable to understand what Altamirano says is the will of God, decide to defend their home. Mendoza, encouraged by an Guarani boy renounces his vow of obedience as a Jesuit and chooses to fight alongside them. Gabriel discourages him and instead decides to lead mass with women, children, and older men as European troops descend and the mission is destroyed, the Guarani killed. 

Near the end of the film, Cardinal Altamarino and the Portuguese political representative (Don Hontar) are discussing the events that unfold and the latter laments that what occurred was unfortunate, but inevitable. He says, "we must work in the world; the world is thus." To this, Altamarino replies, "No, thus have we made the world. Thus I have made it." 

In this one line is the point of the film that I am trying to highlight -- that history is not inevitable, that human actors play a key role in all historical events, forces, or movements. Cardinal Altamarino recognizes that the massacre was not predetermined, but instead that human actors had made it so by their thoughts, words, and deeds. 

View fullsize

School children peer over at a wooden representation of a victim of the Inquisition in Lima, Peru. 

A similar point is made in another work concerning colonial South America -- Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World by Irene Silverblatt. Interrogating records from the Inquisition in colonial Peru, Silverblatt argues that rather than being a paragon of pre-modern religious fanaticism, the Inquisition was a thoroughly modern, and some might say 'civilized,' affair engaged in bureaucratic wrangling, a fidelity to procedure, and a magical process of modern state-craft built around race-thinking. She argues throughout the book that in order to see the Inquisition as such we must plumb the historical depths of the records to find a) that the accused, the inquisitor, the witnesses, and the participants in the autos-de-fe were all human and b) that the Inquisition was not inevitable as such. 

She wrote of looking at the records, "we read about disputes, errors, missed chances, and disastrous calculations; we read tales of human strength and courage, about moments of extraordinary valor and acts of profound dignity; and sometimes we can even find flashes of humor." (p. 23) She intimates here that in looking to the historical sources, we must find the characters to not be some mindless figures caught up in fixed forces, but as "human beings -- replete with foibles, strengths, and shortcomings -- who act in ways not always predictable or anticipated." (p. 22)

Likewise, in her book Time and Sacrifice in the Aztec Cosmos Kay Almere Read approaches the bloody system of sacrifice in the Mexica cosmos and takes a novel approach compared to other historical overviews and explanations. Rather than assuming that the entire Mesoamerican civilization was full of sadist-psychopaths who enjoyed murdering one another, let's assume that it's not just about sacrifice and that these human beings of the past were engaged in, what they thought, was a world-ordering and moral affair engaged with the fundamental powers of the universe (time and space). Let's try to understand their point of view. At the same time, Read perhaps goes too far in underestimating the level of resistance to this system of sacrifice in order to illustrate the rationale of it. Certainly, peripheral communities within the Mexica world resisted their capture and the sacrificial system, even though they may have bought into the rational of the cosmological narrative. Again, history is not inevitable. 

This same dual emphasis could be applied to other epochs of history -- investigating the "Golden Era of Islamic Science," the "Galileo Affair," the development of Mormonism in the U.S., etc. In each of these instances we can read them according to their headlines, or we can listen to the small voices of history and try to recapture the human elements of each story. Doing so, we will find true believers and dissonant rebels, people on both sides of the conflict and certainly some in the middle. We will discover conflicted characters and moments when maybe, just maybe, things could have gone a different way. 

Essentially, we can read history in a black-and-white, "this was always going to happen," manner or we can nuance the story, romance its miscellany, and find the tangible, fallible, and flesh-and-blood stories of men and women wrestling with the worldview of their day to bring about the events that we now read as "inevitable history." In doing so, we will find that these events were anything but assured, but that history could've turned on a dime. 

Why is this important? Today, we are dealing with myriad crises. Whether we are in Ferguson, Missouri; Mosul, Iraq; Paris, France; or Monrovia, Liberia we must never lose sight of the human elements of each of these stories, and, likewise, must not assume that there are inexorable forces at work that fate these circumstances to play out in a certain way. Black lives can matter and police work can be respected; violent extremism and sectarian religious communism can be combatted, and disease can be eradicated. There is no need to throw our hands up in the air and either a) ignore the problem or b) act as if there is only one unfortunate outcome. 

The way to address these issues with an open mind and for a possible positive outcome is to actively remember, and recapture, the human element at every turn.

We must not think of the protests in Ferguson (and elsewhere) as an "us v. them" drama, but a story of a family who lost a child, a police officer who took a life, a community that feels social pressures that they feel are outside of their control, and political, religious, and social leaders trying to lead toward a peaceful future. 

View fullsize

This man has a story, let us not forget. 

We must not think of ISIS or other terrorist elements in the world as mindless drones caught up in a tidal wave of "Islamic extremism." These are men and women who feel isolated, de-territorialized, and confused in a chaotic mess of identity crisis wherein they are forced to choose between false binaries of being modern or Muslim, European or Islamic, etc. We must also remember the refugees and the soldiers on the ground with their lives, families, religious sensibilities, and daily concerns. We must also not forget the victims and their hopes, dreams, and aspirations cut short or derailed by violence. 

We must not think of Ebola as an unstoppable disease or the cultures wherein it is wreaking havoc as backwards or unable to cope. Diseases have been eradicated before, plagues have been stopped. Throughout, we must remember that those effected are more than bodies, they are embodied beings whose heart beats with similar passions to our own, but are forced to live in a context of fear, suspicion, and death that we can only scarcely imagine.  

In conclusion, it is my contention that remembering the human element will often lead us to more level headed, compassionate, and deeper understanding of not only historical events, but contemporary crises. By considering the movie "The Mission" and the study of various eras in American hemispherical history we are invited to recognize that these stories are not of individuals caught up along some inhuman wave of social forces or inevitable metaphysical dramas, there is an ontological, chaotic, dynamic relationship between event and human. 

We must never forget the human element. If we do, we will often misconstrue history and/or contemporary events to the point that we assume that the people involved have no humanity to defend, that they were simply good/bad, evil/heroic, and that history dealt with them accordingly. Likewise, we must never ignore the history of a people. As William Loren Katz wrote, "Those who assume that a people have history worth mentioning are likely to believe they have no humanity worth defending." 

Appreciating the history, and humanity, of people, stories, and events, on the other hand, will lead us to greater understanding, dialogue, and eventually, hopefully, to compassion as we consider the story, as we wrestle with its implications, and we draw lessons to learn from the past and the present to confront our common future. 

*For more on religion & culture, follow @kchitwood.

How a novel can help us navigate religious, ethnic, tension in Europe

The news coming out of Europe this week is disparaging. On Wednesday January 7, 2015 the headlines read, "TERROR IN PARIS." As CNN reported, "Hooded, black-clad gunmen burst into the office of provocative French satirical magazine 'Charlie Hebdo'...killing 12 -- an attack that could be a game changer...." 

This comes on the heels of protests over Muslim immigration and 'Islamization' in Germany and reports of "anti-Islamic sentiment finding a foothold" in Sweden (we think, the "open door nation" of all places?!)

Terror. Islamophobia. Immigration. These are trying times and difficult debates for Europe to wrestle with. They are pressing issues we must all confront. In attempting to understand the situation according to both its historical context and contemporary impact we turn to pundits, academics, progressive Muslims condemning the attacks, far-right political parties, journalists defending free-speech, and world leaders. 

What if we turned to Henning Mankell, a Swedish novelist and dramatist? Best known for his crime-fighting creation Inspector Kurt Wallander, famously portrayed by Kenneth Branagh on BBC, Mankell's first novel starring Wallander not only speaks to the current crisis, but presents a novel way to help us navigate the tensions between Islam, state secularism, immigration debate, fear over foreign incursion, and racism. 

View fullsize

Faceless Killers opens with blood and terror, much like the headlines hit us on Jan. 7, 2015. An elderly couple, the Lövgrens, have been gruesomely murdered. Before she dies from being strangled by a noose, Maria Lövgren whispers one word, "foreign." Though Detective Wallander attempts to keep this aspect of the investigation quiet it soon leaks to the press and soon white supremacist groups increase their hateful rhetoric, which leads to a bloody anti-refugee reprisal including an additional murder. Eventually, Wallander solves the crime through careful, reasoned, investigation, but along the way he wrestles with the changes coming to Sweden in the form of an influx of refugees and immigrants, white supremacy, nationalist sentiments, a conservative swing in politics, increasing drug use, crime, violence and his own feelings about the rapid pace of change and inner feelings of prejudice and racism. 

Sound familiar? It should. Given the parallels between Mankell's novel and this week's news stories from Sweden, Germany, and France I propose FIVE THINGS WE CAN LEARN FROM A NOVEL TO NAVIGATE RELIGIOUS & ETHNIC TENSION IN EUROPE and HERE AT HOME:  

1. EUROPE AND "THE RISE OF ISLAM" 

One of the principle issues that Wallander deals with in Faceless Killers, and indeed all of the detective's stories, is "future shock." Things are changing, rapidly. Many Europeans feel that there is a Trojan-horse like infiltration of Muslims and other immigrants sneaking, forcing, and imposing their way into Europe. The fear is that the "Islamic worldview," -- essentialized as a monolithic bloc -- is entirely incompatible with the secular, liberal, and pluralistic values that define European society. 

Basically, the sentiment is that Muslims aren't, and can't be, European. Like oil and water, Islam cannot amalgamate with European civilization. Wallander wonders in the novel whether or not Sweden's "lax immigration policy" permits a new Swedish world order imcompatible with the old. He longs for the past. The safety of an imagined history wherein xenophobia, multiculturalism, violent crime, and fear are supplanted by the forgone smörgåbords, pickled herring, and communal music of old. 

In reality, there has been a rapid rise in the European Muslim population. According to the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population in Europe (with Turkey excluded) was around 30 million in 1990, rising to over 44 million in 2010. Estimates range from a total of 55-70 million by 2030. The growing number of Muslims is due primarily to higher birth rates and immigration. While Muslim birth rates are expected to decline and settle over the coming years, the rate will remain slightly higher than the non-Muslim population (2.2 compared to 1.5). In addition to immigration and birth-rate, conversion is also a factor with over 100,000 convert in the UK, over 70,000 in France, and 50,000 in Spain. 

In total, there are around 350,000 Muslims in Sweden (4.4% of the population), 4 million in Germany (5%), and 5 million in France (7.5%). The latter being the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. While not all of these are practicing Muslims (a study in France revealed that only a third [33%] are faithful in prayer, alms, etc.) there has still been a significant influx of Muslims in Europe from North Africa and the Middle East. 

What this swift swell is causing is a European identity crisis typified by the German supporter of Pegida who held a sign that emphatically declared, "Islam and Europe are not compatible." In attempting to resolve this identity crisis, to cope with the global becoming local, an increasing number of European's are turning to the bedrock of one the first theories of globalization and the worldwide Muslim population -- the Huntingtonian thesis. 

Essentially, Samuel P. Huntington's thesis states that cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict and tension in the post-Cold War globalized world. Famously, he quipped that this would prove a "clash of civilizations," principally between "Islam" and "the West." He proposed that wherever the two meet there are "bloody borders." 

While this thesis may assume the borders of nation-states the rub is -- what happens when the lines are blurred, when neighborhoods are creolized, and arrondissements are hybrid amalgamations of "Islam" and "the West?" 

On the other side, Muslims in Europe, particularly second-generation youth, are wrestling with their newfound secular contexts, individualization, Westernization, inner-hybridity (being both Muslim and European). Sometimes this tension breaks into violence. Other times it is expressed in a re-doubling of religious piety. The tension is expressed in graffiti, hip-hop, poetry, and visual art. More often than not, it is expressed in accommodation of European culture over a Muslim past. 

Whether "European" or "Muslim," everyone in Europe is dealing with an identity crisis. From Sweden to Belgium, from the UK to Spain, the people are asking "who are we?"

Unfortunately, in attempting to resolve the inherent tension apparent in this questions, some turn to xenophobic rhetoric or terroristic violence. They buy into Huntington's thesis -- both radical religious terrorists and extreme secular Islamophobes -- share the same language and exacerbate an already strained situation.  

2. EUROPEAN SECULARISM.

The following two points are essentially sub-points to the above, in that they explain two primary issues at stake when discussing "the rise of Islam in Europe."

View fullsize

A German PEGIDA supporter holds a sign that reads, "No Islamization of Europe." 

First, the idea that Europe is a secular entity, a paragon of nonreligious society making. While we in the U.S. might attach certain ideas to the idea of "secularism" it is important to identify the unique perspective of European secularism. 

European secularism might be more properly defined as "laicity." Founded in the French notion of "laïcité" the argument that secularism is bound up with the process of modernization and is a decided progressive move away from traditional religious values. In Europe, secularization has occurred on both a political and social level. 

An increase of Muslims, in name and/or practice, seemingly threatens this secular outlook. How can a religious identity mix, meld, or make peace with the nonreligious character of Europe? Again, we are back to this identity crisis. But in Europe it is an identity crisis that not only threatens the body politic, but the very social order, the fabric of the neighborhood, the fütbol pitch, and/or the local pub. 

It shakes the idea of European civilization, on both the popular and personal levels, to the core. It strikes at the idea of "who we are" and "who I am."  

3. EUROPE, INCREASED IMMIGRATION, and VIOLENT REACTION

Now, from a European perspective, when Muslims move into the neighborhood they upset the secular apple cart. The rhetoric becomes, as referenced above, one of discussing the oil of Islam and the water of European civilization (in its various nation-state manifestations and its pan-continental embodiment). This rhetoric leads to some racial/ethnic binaries from the "European" point of view (more on that later), but what I want to focus on here is the "Muslim" perspective.

With all this rhetoric about immigration changing the face of Europe and Islam invading the continent there is a message delivered to the Muslim populations in places like Spain, Sweden, and France, etc.

The communiqué is, "you, and your kind, don't fit in here. We are a place of secularism, liberty, free speech, freedom of the press, and separation of church & state (although we have official, formal, state churches...just ignore that). You are a religious, backwards, medieval, enslaved, censored, legalistic, and theocratic people." 

The unfortunate effect is that not only do far-right Europeans buy into this narrative, but so do many Muslims moving into town. Even though there is much that is modern, global, liberal, progressive, and even secular within the realm of Islamic discourse (especially among immigrant populations) many on both sides buy into the false dichotomy between being European and being Muslim. 

It is a recapitulation of the "bloody borders" thesis, but this time within the same country, the same region, the same city, the same neighborhood. Inevitably, this tension breaks. Unfortunately, individuals on both sides react violently as they seek to resolve the anxious self-seeking and identity crisis. Let it not be lost on us that the Charlie Hebdo attack is the most deadly attack on European soil since Anders Breivik killed 77 people motivated by a mutilated far-right European political ideology opposed to Islamization, feminism, cultural Marxism, and multiculturalism.

Using similar language and founded in parallel worldviews, but from different angles, the perpetrators of this type of violence are dealing with the same bastardized vision of the issues at play in increased Muslim immigration, births, and conversion in Europe. 

4. EUROPE'S ETHNIC TENSIONS.

Wallander struggles with this strain as well. Inspector Wallander endeavors to blunt the "foreign" identity of the perpetrators, but in a complicated manner in which he pondered, "I really hope that the killers are at the refugee camp. Then maybe it'll put an end to this arbitrary, lax policy that allows anyone at all, for any reason at all, to cross the border into Sweden. But of course he couldn't say that to Rydberg. It was an opinion he intended to keep to himself." 

Wallander is no white supremacist. Yes, he wrestles with racism and prejudices. His issues are with the immigration policy, not necessarily the immigrating people. Indeed, no explicit racist would, as Wallander does, put his life on the line to save lives at the refugee camp when it begins to burn. 

View fullsize

Our situation might be the same. And Wallander's circumstances gives us an opportunity to reflect on our own condition. 

We are all racist, prejudiced, or caught up in this clash of civilizations thought process to some degree. As Nyberg says to Wallander in the BBC version of this story, "everyone deals with [racism]. It just matters what you do with it." 

That's the key. We all wrestle with this idea of the clash of civilizations, the transformations and changes that come with immigration and population shift, with prejudice, ethnic tension, and racism. But it matters what we do with it. 

The writers at Charlie Hebdo dealt with it by creating caricatures and using snark and satire to be equal opportunity offenders. Others deal with it through religious stereotyping and abject racism. Others take to the streets. Still others take to the polls. Others take up arms. Others write threatening letters. 

Still others engage in dialogue, share a meal, build bridges through friendships, and work together to navigate the tension seemingly between Islam and Europe. This is the type of "dealing with it" we need to pursue. 

The types of "dealing with it" that we need to denounce is essentializing caricatures, dichotomous rhetoric, religious racism, and violent terror.  

Indeed, we must bear in mind that is possible, and fruitful, to condemn both the attacks as well as condemn caricatures, religious stereotyping, and racism.

5. THE STRANGER NEXT DOOR

The "Ariadne's Thread" throughout Faceless Killers is Wallander's daughter's boyfriend...who happens to be a foreigner (in this case, a Kenyan). Mankell personalizes the politically charged storyline of his novel by engaging his character in a "stranger next door" situation. He puts flesh on the issue. 

And in doing so, Mankell makes it clear that Wallander's issues are resolved (sort of) through vulnerability, loving compassion, and his willingness to reveal his own deep sense of being flawed. Likewise, Mankell invites us to consider our own society, and ourselves, through Wallander's lens. The challenge he lays out is for us to take our responsibilities as citizens of a global village seriously, not avoiding the sometimes uncomfortable ambiguities of our situation, the unknown possibilities, prejudices, and "future shock" that confront us. The hope is that by personalizing a societal shift we might make incremental improvements and take authentic steps forward toward real renewal and community. 

What does that look like? We come back to this crisis of identity, this seeming chasm between European and Islamic worldviews. So much of the rhetorical force of the situations drives us to consider this situation as "us" and "them," the "normal" and the "other." 

The first step we must make is to reclaim community in a globalized world. Essentially, to redefine what it means to be European (or Western, or Muslim) in lieu of shifting population patterns. This will require relationship. It is difficult, nigh impossible, to feel a sense of community with abstract ideas and essentialized caricatures of "the other." 

Peacemaker Jon Huckins wrote for Relevant magazine, "as ISIS fills the headlines, Islamophobia spreads like the common cold and sound bites trump human interaction, there is no more important time to build friendships with our Muslim neighbors." He gives five reasons, which I will expand on briefly: 1. A cure for fear; 2. An expanded worldview; 3. An antidote to isolationism; 4. Meeting the need for mutual relationship; 5. An understanding of misrepresentation. 

Each of these is salient for the present situation. Fear, narrow cosmologies, isolation, loneliness, and misrepresentation are each plaguing the world and exacerbating the problems. 

By simply walking across the street, sharing a meal, or befriending the stranger next door we could reverse the rising tides of malignancy, misunderstanding, and marginalization that are more threatening than any increase in Muslims in Europe, North America, or elsewhere. 

It means flipping the script from "I'm friends with a Muslim even thought I'm European/Christian/Secular/etc." or "I'm friends with a European/Christian/Secular-Humanist/etc. even though I'm a Muslim" to "I'm friends with a Muslim because I'm European/Christian/Secular-Humanist/etc." and vice versa. 

Certainly, there will be difficulties in coming together. There will be moments of frustration and awkwardness and miscommunication. Friendships are no panacea. This is no utopian vision. However, friendship can be a progressive means of fighting the rising tides of militant secularism and violent Islamism that threaten our societies, our world, and our individual lives. 

As you wrestle with the harrowing headlines, struggle with your own prejudices, and try to figure out how to respond that you may consider Wallander's narrative as a guide for your own. More than anything, may it lead you deeper into relationship and understanding and away from violence encouraging rhetoric and a dichotomist clash of civilizations worldview that fails to appreciate diversity, hybridity, and the realities of local, intimate, social change. 

*For that matter, dig deeper by reading a list of "10 Novels Every U.S. Christian Should Read" (which includes Faceless Killers), the blog "the Problem with American (or Western) Muslims," or "The Lonely Jihadi" to learn more. 

*For more on religion & culture, follow @kchitwood