Diversiunea „Statul Islamic” se dovedește multivalent folositoare pentru creatorii săi. Pe lângă efectele deja cunoscute, iată încă unul…
Mona Sahlin, coordonatorul național al programului guvernamental suedez împotriva extremisului violent, o compară pe curajoasa moașă Elinor Grimark, care refuză participarea la avorturi, cu războinicii jihadiști: ea ar fi o „practicantă religioasă extremistă, într-o manieră similară cu cei care luptă pentru Statul Islamic”…
Doamna Sahlin este fostă viceprim-ministră (din partea, evident, a Social Democraților, partidul-stat în Suedia – da, se poartă și la case mai mari!). Retorica defăimătoare nu este neobișnuită pentru unii politicieni „liberali”: este vorba despre așa-numita tactică „dă-i cu huo” (boo word) prin care se urmărește provocarea unei frici iraționale și care previne de obicei orice apărare argumentată a celui în cauză, confruntat cu emoția terților.
Noi credem că Sahlin este, pur și simplu, o ignorantă. Adică, habar nu are despre ce vorbește. Să o ajutăm noi să priceapă faptele:
Iată ce face un jihadist din Statul Islamic:
Să revenim puțin la „dă-i cu huo”: încercări de asociere a mișcării pro-viață cu terorismul practică și unele organizații feministe precum AWID (Association for Women’s Rights in Development). Iată mai jos, în original, fragmente dintr-o publicație a lor care ajută la înțelegerea modului în care creștinii pot fi echivalați cu haita de câini turbați supranumită „Statul Islamic”. Textele se găsesc pe pagina awid.org:
Religious fundamentalisms “oppose women’s rights and freedoms”
The second most frequently mentioned characteristic, included in almost a quarter of all responses, is that religious fundamentalisms are by definition against women’s autonomy and/or promote patriarchy. One in four respondents considers the antiwomen position as a defining characteristic reflecting the “radical patriarchy” espoused by religious fundamentalisms. Furthermore, the responses reflect that those with experiences of Catholic fundamentalisms (either alone or in combination with Christian fundamentalisms) are those who most often mention anti-women and patriarchal as defining characteristics of religious fundamentalisms.
Religious fundamentalisms are “absolutist and intolerant”
The most commonly identified characteristic of religious fundamentalisms by women’s rights activists is “absolutist and intolerant” (more than 40% of responses). This experience applies equally not only across regions and religions, but also across ages. In addition, a significant portion of women’s rights activists state that religious fundamentalists take positions that are not open to debate or challenge.
The usefulness of the term “religious fundamentalisms” for activists
Another important question related to the definition of religious fundamentalisms is to explore whether women’s rights activists consider the term useful. Although the term is widely used, its utility remains a central concern for academics and activists alike.
While it is clear that for some, there is undeniably a dimension of religion that can be considered fundamentalist, for others the label itself is problematic and should be discarded because of its many limitations. Both the complexities of defining the term and the unease some people feel with its use, especially in the context of the ‘War on Terror’, raise some concerns about the use of the term for the purposes of activism.
Half of women’s rights activists find the term useful
The responses reflected in the AWID survey convey the complex relationship that women’s rights activists have with the term “religious fundamentalisms”. While half of survey respondents affirm that the term is useful in their work (51%), the other half express doubts about its usage – either they are not sure that it is useful or they have clear reservations about its usefulness. Therefore, in spite of its wide use, it is important to bear in mind that a significant percentage of activists do have concerns about its use.
Differences in usefulness across regions and religions
Respondents in the context of Muslim fundamentalisms tend to find the term less useful (28% responded that the term was not useful) than those affected by Catholic fundamentalisms (17% responded that the term was not useful). This points to the limitations discussed before, i.e. that the term is used in racist or xenophobic narratives against Muslims, particularly post-9/11. There is also the consideration of the context and origins of the term, which clearly tie it to a particular geographic and religious history relating to Christianity in the United States. However, it is important not to overstate this point, since even for respondents dealing mainly with Muslim fundamentalisms, over half of women’s rights activists surveyed still do find the term useful in their activism.
In terms of regional variations, women’s rights activists focusing on Latin America and the Caribbean region are more inclined to find the term useful (61%). This significant difference with other regions can likely be explained by two main factors;
first, the existence of successful campaigns in popularizing the term (such as the Articulación Feminista Marcosur campaign, Tu Boca es Fundamental contra los Fundamentalismos); and second, the minimal presence of Muslims in the region means that concerns over the term being used against them are less relevant.
In your work, how influential are the following fundamentalist actors or forces?
When considering Catholic fundamentalisms, the Vatican and the Catholic Church as institutions top the list. However, Opus Dei is singled out by approximately one in ten respondents from Catholic fundamentalist contexts. NGOs and charities are also a vital means of operation for Catholic fundamentalisms and a name that repeatedly comes up is Human Life International. Politicians and/or political parties influenced by fundamentalist Catholic doctrine are also considered important fundamentalist actors.
In terms of Christian fundamentalisms, NGOs and charities seem to have a large role to play, but equally important are very localized churches, individual preachers, and religious fundamentalist influences within nominally or purportedly “secular” parties.