How to tell a 'good Muslim' from a 'bad Muslim'

After spilling blood from Istanbul to Dhaka, from Kabul to Baghdad, purported Islamic terrorists targeted the second holiest site of Islam, the Prophet's Mosque in Medina on Monday evening.

Except few in Dhaka, and a handful at Istanbul, almost all the victims of the mindless terror attacks were Muslims. Islamic terrorists have still been able to successfully justify their actions in the name of Islam, describing the large number of Muslims who die as "collateral damage" in the path of a supposed larger cause.

The terrorists' stated position gains credence from a large number of politicians and citizens in non-Muslim countries, including some Muslim "experts", who believe every word of the "clash of civilisation" suggested by American political scientist Samuel Huntington.

For them thus the root of every act of terror or everything wrong in Muslim societies today is Islam, and the Quran.

I do not intend to go into the problems of the post-colonial world, the continuing authoritarian and monarchical regimes of most Muslim countries and the Western support they get, or the selective use of extremists, a la the Mujahideen of yesteryear.

Neither do I want to delve into the political instability in the Iraq-Syria region, the problems of Palestine or Afghanistan, the larger geo-politics and the "great games" played at different levels or the Shia-Sunni aka Arab-Iran rivalries.

Let's also leave out the alienation theory, the poverty angle or the hallucinated illusion of meeting 72 virgins in heaven if they are "martyred" in the way of Allah. So much has been written on each of these facets that even mentioning them is clichéd.

However, I hope to ponder over how selectively we react to events that play out our TV screens.

We pick and choose characters and incidents that suit the larger narrative of the "clash of civilisation", or reiterate the image of the Muslim "other" being barbaric, medieval, fanatical, backward, fundamentalist and such negative attributes.

Take for example, last week's terror attacks in Afghanistan by Taliban that killed dozens of young police recruits.

All the victims swore by Islam and dreamt of protecting the Islamic Republic, but their lives were cut short not only by self-proclaimed custodians of the faith, but also those who claim to fight for Afghanistan against a West-backed regime.

Except for a small section that favours the extremists, the Taliban are seen by most Afghans as illegitimate representatives of Islam, or Afghanistan, and those young victims as "martyrs".

Yet, in the larger narrative on terrorism, this would be seen as "Islamic" terrorism.

The most recent case is the Dhaka attack, where perpetrators apparently told their hostages to recite verses from the Holy Quran and spared those who passed muster.

Here, in these bleak times, there are bravehearts like Faraaz Hossain, who died protecting his friends, or Ishrat Akhond who preferred to die on spot than give in to the terrorists.

They both were Muslims and their stories were highlighted by the media too. However, their brave acts will not be attributed to Islam.

On the other hand, those lunatics who swore jihad in the name of Allah will become a symbol of fanaticism and barbarism that some think Islam preaches.

Similarly, marine veteran Imran Yousuf who saved the lives of dozens of innocents during last month's Orlando shooting will not be seen as Muslim enough.

It was Omar Mateen, inspired by the ISIS ideology, who dominated the media's narrative, while Yousuf was pushed to the margins.

Yusuf in Orlando or Faraaz in Dhaka, or those security guards who risked their lives at the Prophet's Mosque to protect the lives of thousands praying inside are also Muslims whose narrative and understanding of the Islamic faith is lost in the grand narrative of Islamic terrorism.

True, in all those instances, the terrorists claimed to pledged themselves in the name of Islam and profess to be 'martyrs' inspired by the holy Quran. Hence, merely saying that they cannot be true Muslims or branding them Takfiri - those who claim to be Muslims, but are not - is not the solution.

No doubt, there is rising extremism among a section of the Muslim youth and the community needs to confront this monster within. However, practising Muslims, particularly the religiously conservative, bear the brunt of the heinous attacks.

From women wearing the veil - even if they are journalists or doctors - or men visiting the mosques regularly or growing beards, everything Muslim is seen as a manifestation of fundamentalism.

The vast majority of Muslims, even conservative pockets like Saudi Arabia, are too busy with their everyday lives and routine - of raising families, maintaining the high costs of living, or facing everyday repressions.

For them, religion is a source of solace, and praying gives them the hope that they will enjoy some comforts in their next life, if not this world.

Most faithful have just one goal, achieving God's consciousness and pleasing him in the hope of going to paradise. Worldly materialism and family keep them too busy to even think of any shortcut to paradise by becoming a purported martyr.

One of my aunts, who spends a good part of her days praying, expressed her dismay when she heard that the attackers in Dhaka had asked their victims to recite from holy Quran and murdered them, one by one, when they couldn't speak the verses.

"Why on earth, would they do that?" she wondered as the faith she practices is alien to this brutality.

The Islam she practises, and most Muslims know of, spreads the message of peace and brotherhood, and believes "there is no compulsion in religion".

It asks the devout to be cordial to relatives, neighbours and even strangers. It makes it incumbent upon Muslims to share a part of their wealth with the poor and needy, and makes charity mandatory; that guards against harming anyone, that teaches honesty and piety in life, and everything Muslims do.

What is more intriguing is that Muslims face everyday discrimination and taunts online, and on the streets, despite the fact that none of those involved in the Dhaka attack or the Orlando shooting or even those to who attacked Charlie Hebdo were actually religious, before being brainwashed into choosing the heinous path.

Even the 2008 Mumbai attacker Ajmal Kasab had run away from home to try his hands at robbery and was only later persuaded to join the terrorist outfit and indoctrinated.

Moreover, how fair is it to trust a lunatic fringe and not the overwhelming majority of practising Muslims? If a terrorist sitting somewhere in Raqqa in Syria or Quetta in Pakistan tomorrow declares himself the President of the United States, will the world immediately pay allegiance to him?

Why is it then that anyone who claims to be Amirul Momineen or the Caliph is immediately believed to be so by most non-Muslims, even as most Muslims deride such elements and religious scholars issue fatwas against them?

The media refers to them by their self-proclaimed titles despite the fact that the vast majority of individual Muslims, as well as Muslim countries, do not consider them legitimate leaders.

Similarly, a violent terror outfit starts controlling a swathe of land that no country in the world officially recognises, but almost everyone accepts it as the "Islamic State", simply because the extremists have branded themselves as one.

If Fiji declares that it is a world power or India claims that it is a permanent member of the Security Council, will all newspapers start calling them so?

Except propaganda aimed at vilifying Muslims, what else can explain every media outfit calling the illegitimate, illegal occupation of a violent, repressive terror outfit not only "Islamic", but even a "state"?

Palestine has unsuccessfully struggled to get that status of a "State" for over six decades, and yet it isn't called one, even by pro-Palestine state newspapers.

Islamophobia is a reality that is rapidly spreading as an epidemic, so much so that even large sections of self proclaimed liberals as well as a section of educated Muslims are suffering from it.

It has reached such an alarming proportion that even liberal writers have started seeing growing fundamentalism in the usage or pronunciation of Arabic words.

The same Islamphobia and media narrative lets one conveniently ignore the fact that most individuals as well as political and religious leaders - except a handful of extremist mentors - denounce violence in the name of religion.

Every time an attack happens anywhere in the world, every Muslim would be expected to condemn it unequivocally, lest you are suspected to be guilty by association to the same faith.

There is also this white men's superiority complex that entitles one to selectively outrage over certain attacks and ignore others. Thus, an attack in say Paris would get more coverage than say Kabul, where blood-spilling and bomb blasts have now become "routine".

In Baghdad, few days ago, more than 200 people were killed by a severe car bomb in a busy market, but contrast its coverage in international media with that of the Dhaka attack, where foreigners including Japanese, Italian, Indians, et al lost their lives.

As if those "pre-modern" Iraqis, Arabs or Afghans - who might have been potential extremists themselves - are mere numbers and their deaths do not count.

Anthropologist Mahmood Mamdani wrote the beautiful book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, way back in 2004 critiquing the US policy of playing secular, westernised "good" Muslims over pre-modern, fanatical "bad" Muslims.

Such a distinction of good, moderate Muslims over evil ones hardly exists and hence there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

What has been termed as Islamic terrorism is a modern phenomenon, extending a few decades.

The problem is political and needs political solution.

If the world community is really serious about ending terrorism, it must unite and confront this menace before it sheds the bloods of more innocents.

Of course, there is a deep rot in the larger Muslim world and most regimes are busy consolidating their position.

They are deeply fragmented and there is little hope of uniting the Ummah of the Prophet. Unless they rise above petty politics and work together, the monster of terrorism will devour them before anyone else.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should know this now more than anyone else.

They have long sponsored Pakistan's adventures in extremism, and Islamabad's interior ministry has now confirmed that the Jeddah suicide bomber was a Pakistani national, and a resident of the city for several years.

Like the good Muslim-bad Muslim dichotomy, the good terrorist versus bad terrorist double-game is bound to backfire someday.

The attempted attack on the second holiest site in Medina that houses the grave of the Prophet was planned to cause severe casualties in what could have been the eve of Eid-al-Fitr, presumably to spoil the celebrations.

Still, calling the menace of terrorism as Islamic or associating it with a particular religion or a sect may help far-right politicians get some votes or publicity in media.

However, it will not defeat the Frankenstein's monster the world has created.