The Roots Of Muslim Rage Analysis

Better Essays
In both given articles, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” by Bernard Lewis, and “The Roots of Muslim Rage Revisited” by Nicolaas J.E. van der Zee, argue about the enhancement of the Muslim fundamentalism with different perspectives; however, I believe that Lewis’ view may be quiet misleading to the actual perception. Lewis indicates that Muslim fundamentalism is conceived through the Muslim community’s oppression and dissatisfaction with the West’s political involvement, as well as “Islam is a source of aggression” . In defiance of Lewis’ opinion, the word ‘Islam’ comes from the word peace as well as the will of submission to God. The notion of aggression and violence that Lewis conceptualizes to be the headline of Islam does not have any supporting…show more content…
“We were witnessing nothing less than a war of Islamic fundamentalism against both secularism and modernism” , Lewis states that Islam is an oppressed religion and the lack of secularism caused many of the wars and conflicts with the West. This however is misleading because as he generalizes the whole religion, each religion has its own pleasing as well as its atrocious adherents. As he continues to generalize the Islamic religion as a whole and state that it is indeed oppressed, he seems to lack the information about how each individual may respond differently to other cultural traditions despite any religious aspects. Islam may be viewed to be an oppressed religion, but in fact, it supports freedom and one’s voice to be spoken and heard. For example, as Islam advises women to cover up with a hijab, it certainly does not mean that women have no rights and that they should be placed at home. Oppression defines power taken away from someone, while the hijab is an element of privatizing the woman, both which have no linkage whatsoever. In fact, Islam supports and praises women in many ways, the hijab is an approach to cover her up with no intentions of making a Muslim woman any less than a Western woman or any…show more content…
The very concept that I agree with regards Nicolaas’ article, is that he states Islam is diverse and accepting of others. Nicolaas says “In addition, Islam’s religious elite is defensive by default and often regard changes as a threat to the purity of the faith” . He clarifies that the only problem with the Muslim community is their fear of change within their religious beliefs and that is no harm to anyone or the West. As Lewis misunderstands, yet Nicolaas focuses on is that there are religious customs in which religion and legislative issues are contrastingly seen. Their dedication to their tradition was a barrier to their acceptance of the West’s freedom of speech. Every tradition is relied upon to be regarded by different societies and that the difference should not be a reason for disdain between both, the Muslims and the
Get Access