Peter Awn

Traditional, revivalist thinking--common to all religions and not unique to Islam--has the capacity for extremism and violence and should be challenged in civic discourse today, says Columbia University Religion Professor Peter Awn, dean of the School of General Studies.

"The vast majority of Muslims clearly find [the recent attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon] incredibly abhorrent," he said. "The same is true for the vast majority of Christians.

"All religion has the potential to do extraordinary good as well as extraordinary harm," said Awn. "Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism, in the sense that, put in a certain environment and a certain context, you can elicit an extraordinarily violent rhetoric couched in religious terms to legitimize horrific behavior."

Universal truth--the idea that all humans should live their lives according to a single religious doctrine--is a traditional, revivalist concept that tends to highlight differences inherent in individuals, groups, and movements, said Awn.

"In Islam, the classical vision is--we are the community of truth. As with Christianity, it's a universalistic religion--all people should end up under the umbrella of Islam and lead lives according to Islamic law, Islamic precepts. The ideal within most religions is homogeneity, not diversity."

Many who uphold traditional, revivalist ideals often take it one step further, labeling those with differing beliefs as threatening. Awn said these individuals may gradually begin to regard those with differing beliefs as an enemy, and they see this enemy as more and more dehumanized.

Those who embrace religious revivalist ideals also tend to attribute the complex problems they encounter in the world around them to a lack of morality in society. They often feel a moral obligation to fight against a perceived threat, and sometimes offer their lives, if necessary.

"What you will hear coming out of the Islamic revivalist movements is--the reason that we are economically oppressed, why we are politically in shambles, why we don't win our wars, is primarily because we don't lead good Muslim lives, we don't impose traditional values on the family," said Awn.

He cited similarities of this view with those recently expressed by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, in terms of reducing complex social, political, and economic problems into moral problems. On television, Falwell stated that God allowed Americans to suffer because of what he termed moral corruption of American society. He named groups he considered partially responsible for this moral corruption including gays and lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union, abortionists, and feminists.

"Christianity, in fact, has the same kinds of notions--that it has ultimate truth. This is clearly pre-reformation, but I would argue evangelical Christianity is very, very similar in that they often identify movements, individuals and groups outside the community not just as different from themselves but as totally threatening," said Awn. "When you identify that threat, it becomes your moral duty to fight against it and, if necessary, offer your life to that cause."

Further, he sees these attitudes surfacing among people in the U.S. with regard to the September 11 attacks.

"For some, the normal reaction is to find a group you can identify as the enemy, whose ideology is so different than ours that clearly, there's no possibility of reproach. The only thing you can do is prepare yourself for some kind of conflict. I think some segment of the population has clearly done that with Islam.

"What you see in the Islamic world, which is very problematic is that many of these religious revivalist movements have made real progress in terms of influencing if not seizing control of the apparatus of the state in various parts of the Islamic world to impose their will. The Taliban are classic examples of that.

"One can argue that the various attempts on the part of the religious right in the U.S. to influence legislation and attitudes toward various minority groups, based on these kind of simplistic moral arguments have become very much a part of the political debate in the U.S. Do I see them seizing control of the apparatus of the state? No. Do I think they have more influence than I think is healthy for civic discourse? I think the answer is yes."

Awn said that most Muslims, Christians, and Jews reject the symbols that legitimize violence, but they are hesitant to condemn the movements that emphasize such symbols.

Awn said he has observed a phenomenon, that people often don't try "to critique religious ideology...If you couch it in religious terms, the perception is, somehow I have to respect that. Well, why? Because it's your religion? I'm not going to disrespect you, but although you have every right to practice your faith, I have every right to say I disagree with your basic premise."