Islam, Muslims And Terrorism

                      BY Asgar Ali Engineer

Islam is being invariably associated with terrorism both in media as well as in political circles, especially in Western countries. When they hear it being condemned by Muslim theologians, it is celebrated as something unusual. It is strange irony of both misunderstanding and motivated propaganda that if a small band of Osama’s followers give call for jihad, it is taken as authentic Islamic call and if it is condemned by mainstream Islamic theologians, it is accepted with mixed feelings of celebration and skepticism. The mainstream condemnation of terrorism is somehow not accepted with conviction.

When the Darul Ulum Deoband, a leading Islamic seminary in Asia, held an anti-terrorism conference the media spotlighted it and number of articles and editorials were written in mainstream media. There was underlying skepticism that how thousands of ‘Ulamas and imams could gather together in such large numbers, to denounce terrorism. In fact when media unceasingly targeted Islam for terrorism, these ‘Ulamas thought it necessary to do so to convince their non-Muslim friends that Islam does not stand for terrorism.

In fact it was hardly necessary to do so as all Muslim theologians know fully well that there is no link, whatsoever, between Islam and terrorism but due to such continuing attacks, Muslim theologians had to issue a declaration condemning terrorism. Let it be noted that not only Osama bin Laden but not a single leading member of Al-Qaida is a qualified theologian. They are all modern educated youth or politicians. Among Taliban too, there is no theologian of any credible standing. Some of them may be product of madrasas in North West Frontier province of Pakistan but they never went for higher Islamic studies. They never got beyond preliminary Islamic education. It was their political bosses who decided course of action and formulated policies invoking ‘jihad’ to justify their acts of terrorism.

Never any major theologian ever justified acts of terrorism. One of major Islamic thinker and theologian from West Asia issued any fatwa approving of terrorism as jihad. Yusuf Qardawi, a well-known theologian and highly respected by orthodox Muslims, condemned terrorism and suicide bombing killing of innocent people. A conference of leading Muslim scholars also condemned suicide bombing as un-Islamic. Qur’an is so clear on the issue along with hadith literature that save on political grounds, no one can approve of acts of terrorism.

There are in all 41 verses in Qur’an on jihad and not a single verse uses it for war or violence. In early twentieth century when terrorism, like today, was not the issue, a noted scholar of Islam Maulavi Chiragh Ali wrote a scholarly book on Jihad and showed that not even once word jihad has been used for war or violence in Qur’an. It is really a landmark work for those who want to understand meaning of jihad in Qur’an.

The prophet of Islam (PBUH) himself never fought any war of aggression; he fought battles only in defense. Most of the battles Prophet fought was in and around Madina where he had migrated to, to escape severe prosecution from his and Islam’s enemies in Mecca. It is opponents of Islam who attacked Madina and Prophet fought back. He followed the injunction of the Qur’an, “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors. (2:190)

This Qur’anic verse is self-explanatory and does not need any elaboration. How prophet could have violated this injunction from high on in his own lifetime? The real problem is that one fails to distinguish what is theological and what is political. Many Muslims had their own political interests and they conveniently invoked doctrine of jihad for their political project as Osama bin Laden has been doing in our own times.

The invocation of jihad for political purposes is post-Qur’anic development. The Prophet would have never approved it. Those who kept away from political struggle for power like Sufis, gave jihad a very different meaning. According to Sufis love and peace is the basis of Islam and jihad is spiritual struggle to control ones desires. In other words real jihad is war against ones own desires, as it is selfish desires which require human beings to resort to violence.

In fact Sufis always kept themselves away from political power struggle and believed in leading peaceful life and emphasized doctrine of sulh-i-kul (total peace and peace with all). Since they never involved themselves in political power struggle they led simple life and busied themselves in suppressing their desires and tried to achieve what Qur’an calls nafs mutma’innah (i.e. peaceful and satisfied soul). This could be possible only if one controlled ones desires.

It was Sufi Islam, which was most popular among the masses, as Muslim masses also had nothing to do with wars for political domination. Sufis believed in controlling themselves rather than control others. One needs violence only when one wants to control others, rather than oneself. Since Sufis controlled themselves they avoided violence and politicians desire to control others and hence justify use of violence.

All empire builders use violence and then justify it in the name of religion or patriotism or security. America today uses violence on largest scale imaginable and causes havoc because it wants to control whole word for its material resources. It attacked Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam before, only to control oil and other resources. And as Vietnamis were forced to fight in their own way now Osama and their followers are fighting against America.

Of course there is big difference between Vietnam’s fight against American aggression and Osama bin Laden’s use of violence. Vietnam was a country and it was defending itself and Osama is a fugitive from Saudi, represents no country and leads a group founded by him al-Qaida and uses hit and run tactics and involves innocent citizens in his attacks. Osama has not been authorized by any country, much less by any religious authority, to attack All leading theologians always condemned him for his terrorism.

The problem with media is it never goes in depth. It has no time for it. Its news is related to events and particularly negative events. What we call investigative journalism is rare and again in depth analysis appeals to intellectuals, not to average readers. Then add to this hostile attitude, political agenda of certain vested interests, Zionist lobby in USA and USA’s own justification of war of aggression against Muslim countries and one can understand why western media projects Islam as religion of jihad and terrorism.

There is great need to understand various parallel trends in the Islamic world today. Media reporting and statements of certain political leaders has developed a stereotype that Muslims are essentially jihadis and united in their fight against non-Muslims. When we are hostile to a community or a nation, we homogenize it and look for negative traits ignoring diversity and complexities.

It is no different when it comes to Islam and Muslims. Since theologians tend to speak of Islam and not Islams, a message goes that there is one single understanding of Islam and all Muslims fall in line with this theological Islam. Sociological and cultural differences in understanding of Islam is totally ignored. Apart from Sufis there are several Muslim sects who do not approve of use of violence as integral part of Islam.

It would be of great interest to know that among all other Islamic sects Isma’ilis consider jihad as one of the seven pillars of Islam (generally Muslims believe in five pillars) as at one time in history Ismailis were involved in long struggle for power with Abbasids and yet today Ismaili communities throughout the world are most peaceful communities. This clearly shows that violence is political, not religious necessity.

Christians too, despite Biblical doctrine of love and presenting other cheek if slapped on one cheek, came out with the theory of ‘Holy War’ during crusades and the Geeta pronounced concept of dharmayuddha. We find so much violence in Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Thailand. Thus it would be seen that all religions talk of love and peace and all religions permit use of violence in defense. But the followers often misuse the concept of defensive violence for aggressive purposes.

Media may have its own compulsions, politicians may have their own needs, but scholars should not buy their formulations. They must fight their own prejudices and go for in depth understanding of issues. Intellectuals and scholars should be committed to quest for truth as peace and non-violence is not possible without truth. Gandhiji insisted on truth and even said truth is God in order to promote peace and no-violence.

War needs propaganda for its justification and propaganda is based on half-truths and outright lies and peace needs truth and nothing but truth. It is quest for truth which brings peace of soul – nafs-i-mutma’innah or shanty. Desire for controlling others and political power creates unrest and violence. Today Middle East is a war torn zone as it sits over unlimited source of oil. It is control over oil which tempts America to attack Arab countries and people like Osama indulge in reactive violence. Terrorism is reactive violence whereas state violence is active violence. Thus terrorism is not all about jihad but reaction to American violence for its lust for oil.

JIHAD is not Terrorism

Jihad? But What About Other Verses In Qur’an?       By Asgar Ali Engineer

The terror attacks in India as well as abroad has created an impression as if jihad is central to Qur’anic teaching. First of all, as we have asserted repeatedly, jihad does not mean war in Qur’an as there are other words for it like qital and harb for war. Jihad has been used in Qur’an in its root meaning i.e. to strive and to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (ma’ruf) and contain evil (munkar).

But supposing jihad means war, as many Muslims, especially those who want to use it for their own political agenda, even then jihad is not that central to Qur’anic teachings. The word jihad occurs in the Qur’an 41 times (though not a single verse uses it in the sense of war) there are other key words in Qur’an representing values. As we have pointed out in one of the previous articles there are four most fundamental values in Qur’an i.e. justice (’adl), benevolence (ihsan) compassion (rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah).

These are Allah’s names also in Qur’an i.e. Allah is Just, Benevolent, Compassionate and Wise. Thus the Qur’an is embodiment of these values and a Muslim is duty bound to practice these values above all. One who fails to practice these values can hardly claim to be true Muslim. Jihad is not even obligatory in Islamic jurisprudence whereas these values are indicative of a Muslim’s character and hence quite important.

In Qur’an compassion is quite central and Allah’s names Rahman and Rahim (Compassionate and Merciful) are among the most important names. A Muslim begins his/her work by invoking Allah’s names Rahman and Rahim (i.e. I begin in the name of Allah Who is ‘compassionate and Merciful). Thus it would be seen that Compassion is most central to Qur’anic teachings and the words compassion and mercy in their various forms occur in Qur’an 335 times as against jihad only 41 times.

The word ihsan (i.e. to do good to others) occurs in the Qur’an 194 times which also greatly outnumbers jihad. Similarly the word wisdom and its derivatives occur 101 times. Qur’an lays great emphasis on wisdom as wisdom is superior to reason in a way. Reason is also quite important but at times it can be misused by human beings whereas wisdom includes reason and values put together. Qur’an advises Muslims again and again to use wisdom. It asks Muslims to call to Allah also with wisdom, not with threats or force. One cannot invite anyone to ways of Allah by use of force, coercion or threat but with wisdom and kind words.

Also, there is great emphasis in Qur’an on justice in all social and political matters and Qur’an uses three words for justice i.e. ‘adl, qist and hakama and all these three words put together there are 244 words for justice in Qur’an. Thus it clearly shows that justice with all is highly necessary which clearly implies no innocent person would be punished in any case.

Also, Allah is thirty three times described in Qur’an as Ghafur al-Rahim i.e. Forgiver and Merciful and not one who seeks revenge. To seek revenge is human weakness, not strength of character. Thus a devout Muslim tends to forgive like Allah who forgives his servants if they sincerely repent. Those who are waging ‘jihad’ in the form of terror attacks are bent upon seeking revenge whereas a good Muslim would tend to forgive alike Allah forgives. It is true Allah punishes oppressors (zalimun) but no individual or a group of individuals not representative of community or state can dispense punishment. Only Allah or state or its representatives of states can dispense with punishment.

That is why in Islamic jurisprudence (Shari’ah law) jihad can be declared only by state or those empowered by the state, no one else. Terror attacks, on the other hand, are planned and executed by few individuals unrepresentative of any state or state institution. So their attacks cannot be legitimate by any Islamic or Shari’ah law. That is nothing but committing murder of innocent people. Also according to Islamic laws in jihad too no non-combatant can be attacked much less women, children and old persons and no civilian property can be destroyed unless it is being used for military purposes or for purposes of combat.

It will be seen that rules laid down for war by Islamic laws are no different from modern laws of warfare or Geneva Conventions. But terror attacks are gross violation of all these Islamic rules and there is no way these attacks can be characterized as ‘jihad’. These terrorists are described by media as jihadis. It is also gross misuse of the word as there is no word like jihadi in the first place in Arabic language. It is in fact mujahid and word mujahid is used in laudatory sense – one who devotes oneself for a good cause like fighting against social evils etc. At times it is also used for a warrior but in that sense it used for a brave person who is not only fearless but also wages war only for a good cause and fights only on the front, not hit and run kind.

I would also like to throw some light on the word jihad as understood and explained in Islamic literature. If these Qur’anic values are important and they are undoubtedly then real jihad would be to cultivate and promote these values with utmost efforts and sufi saints considered real jihad only in this sense. After all Islam came in this world through the Prophet to combat all social evils then prevalent in Arab society in general, and in Mecca, in particular.

Since primary importance in Qur’anic teachings is for these values, a true Muslim would devote himself/herself to fight all evils in the society which negate these values. The Prophet (PBUH) devoted his entire life in practicing and promoting these values. He was, therefore, rightly described in the Qur’an as Rahmatun lil ‘Alamin (i.e. mercy of the worlds) because mercy can prevail in the world only if one eliminates all these evils.

The Islamic history during Prophet’s life is to be seen in two important phases i.e. the Meccan phase for first thirteen years after Muhammad (PBUH) became Prophet and then 10 years in Madina after his migration. In Meccan phase the Prophet and his followers were most oppressed minority and yet Prophet did not ask his followers to use violence in any form. On the contrary, Qur’an repeatedly advised Prophet and his followers to bear all hardships patiently and not to despair.

The Prophet bore with utmost patience all the hardships, even insults and humiliations and carried on his mission. His followers were subjected to great hardships but he always advised them to be patient and penitent. Thus the Prophet (PBUH) guided Muslims how to behave in such adverse conditions and how to ensure peace despite such hardships. But when conditions became unbearable he advised some of his followers to migrate to Ethiopia and later he himself migrated to Madina with some of his followers.

Thus Meccan model of Islam can be very useful for those Muslims who are facing similar situation in parts of the world. As Qur’an lays great stress on hikmah (wisdom) one has to imply wisdom and carve out a proper strategy of survival rather than take plunge in violence throw themselves into peril. The Qur’an advises Muslims “…and cast not yourselves to destruction with your own hands and do good (to others). Surely Allah loves the doers of good.” (2:195)

This advice of the Qur’an not to throw yourself to destruction with your own hands is important and relevant even today in similar situations. See what the 9/11 attack on New York towers resulted in? Did Al-Qaida not invite great disaster to the entire Islamic world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did they not throw themselves in perdition with their own hands? What good that attack do to anyone. Was there any wisdom in that rash and ruthless attack?

Qur’an repeatedly advises Muslims to use wisdom. Was there any wisdom in that attack on New York trade towers? How can one be Muslim without following Qur’an in every sphere of life? To launch such attacks recklessly will bring nothing but disaster for Muslims and Islam. On the contrary the Qur’an advises Muslims to do good to others instead of throwing themselves into perdition (tahlukat).

Qur’an is clearly advising Muslims to win over hearts of others by doing good to others and thus ward off evil from them. Also, both peace of Hudaibiyah (name of the place where the Prophet signed a peace treaty) and behavior of the Prophet (PBUH) after conquest of Mecca are shining example of exemplary conduct of a great and generous leader. It is in this sense that Qur’an describes the Prophet as uswah husnah i.e. good role model for all.

Both at Hudaybiyah and in Mecca after the conquest the Prophet (PBUH) rather than dictating terms or seeking revenge showed great generosity towards his enemies and won over their hearts. At Hudaybiyah the Prophet had enough strength to dictate terms to the unbelievers of Mecca but instead he accepted certain humiliating terms dictated by them. Ultimately the treaty benefited Muslims. But it required wisdom of the prophet to enter into such treaty which was apparently humiliating but proved to be otherwise.

Similarly after conquest of Mecca the Prophet forgave worst of his enemies who had insulted and humiliated him and oppressed in most inhuman ways his followers. That won over his worst enemies and all of them embraced Islam. Had he chosen to seek revenge which was customary to Arabs, another bloodbath would have resulted and Islam would not have won so many adherents. Thus moral victory is far more superior to seeking revenge. Revenge only satisfies our ego and injures the ego of the enemy and thus war of attrition continues.

What terrorists are doing is seeking revenge and that too from a weaker position and thus every attack brings nothing but disaster for themselves and others. Allah certainly does not like those who only seek revenge to satisfy their egos. Conducting ummah’s affairs with wisdom would be far more beneficial to Muslims as a whole. However, it does not mean surrendering to unjust powers but how to fight for justice must be decided through collective wisdom to minimize danger to the cause of Islam and Muslims.

Also the question is of methodology for interpreting Qur’an. The Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) over a period of 23 years and most of the verses were revealed in response to certain situation and the relevant verse has to be understood in the context in which it was revealed. Every text has a context and only context can explain how to understand the text. And while understanding the text it is also necessary to judge whether context has changed and similar conditions prevail.

Various verses quoted to justify ‘jihad’ are generally taken in literal sense and also ignoring the value system of Qur’an. It is not only context but also value system of the Qur’an which must be kept in mind while applying the injunction contained in the verse. When Qur’an was being revealed the revelation was from Allah and was being revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and both were fully aware of the value system and hence they knew when war becomes absolutely necessary.

But when human beings other than the Prophet apply Qur’anic injunctions it is very different thing. Ordinary Muslims are neither infallible nor thoroughly immersed in Islamic values because unlike the Prophet they are not a real role model (uswa-e-husnah). And when someone applies these Qur’anic injunctions without any consensus of ummah behind it, it is all the more unacceptable. This is what these terrorists are doing.

It is well known fact that be it Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, they do not represent any government or larger Muslim organization. They succeed in mobilizing some angry youth who have no maturity or wisdom and are carried away by ‘Islamic’ rhetoric and commit terrorist attacks taking lives of several innocent bystanders. These attacks violate all Qur’anic values.

Apart from this the conditions as obtained in 7th century Arabia cannot be compared to the conditions in the contemporary world. In those days violence could be met only with violence. The Arabs had their age old tribal traditions of qisas (retaliation) and Qur’an, looking to the context permitted qisas with strict condition that it be strictly in equal measure in the interest of justice but also advised if you forgive it is better.

In those days there were no other institutions available and Qur’an permitted only defensive war and banned aggression even against enemy. And as the example of peace of Hudaybiyah shows, war should be avoided wherever peace is possible even on enemy’s terms and the Meccan example shows instead of qisas one should better forgive and win over the hearts of the enemy. Both these models are part of the Prophet’s sunna and Muslims should follow Prophet’s sunna.

And today’s world is radically different from 7th century Arabia and today we should go more by Qur’anic ethics than injunctions about war. Today several institutions are available for arbitration, reconciliation and solving disputes. One cannot rush to resort to violence. All Muslim countries are members of United Nations Organization and without referring any international dispute to it no other action could be contemplated.

Well, the extremist organizations can point out that UNO is dominated by the USA and other western nations and one cannot get justice from it. It is entirely true but then this also has to be continuously exposed and world should know how UNO works in the interests of USA, rather than in the interest of justice. It is also known that USA committed aggression against Iraq despite UNO refusing permission to wage war against Iraq. It exposed USA and world at large knows today how helpless UNO is before powers like USA.

Also, if one wants to really solve the problem peacefully violence will only damage the cause and make world opinion also adverse. The greatest strength of the cause in contemporary world is the favorable public opinion. One must try and win public opinion. Non-violent action is much likely to win public opinion rather than violent actions. Killing innocent people through terror acts can never be effective against a very powerful enemy. And it also makes public opinion very adverse.

Today media is very powerful in creating public opinion and non-violent actions will certainly impact the media people. Unfortunately the youth being impatient with democratic processes and under illusion of following Qur’anic traditions rushes to resort to so called jihad and antagonizes the world opinion. And what they do not understand, other Muslims, including Muslim countries, have to face adverse consequences.

Such thoughtless violence as committed by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Pakistan has created an image of Islam as violent religion, religion of jihad though the value system of Islam gives precedence to compassion and respect for human life and dignity. While Buddhism is being equated with compassion and Christianity with love and peace Islam is being equated with jihad and violence. Should these Muslim youth not deeply reflect what adverse image of Islam they have helped create?

These youth are so brainwashed by certain vested interests that they think jihad is obligatory on Muslims and that jihad is the only way out. These youth are totally ignorant of Islamic value system and importance of moral superiority over superiority of weapons. The examples of Hudaybiyah and peaceful Meccan conquest clearly show moral superiority ultimately matters. The most powerful can be disarmed before the might of moral stand.

In our own time Gandhiji showed the effectiveness of truth and non-violence. The mighty British Empire had to bow down before the might of truth and non-violent action. Unfortunately many think non-violence is cowardice and is born out of weakness. It is very erroneous view. It is only most courageous and truthful person who practices non-violence. Violence is borne out of anger and revenge, not out of truthful stand.

The Prophet of Islam once defined jihad as ‘telling truth in the face of a tyrant ruler’ Telling truth in the face of a tyrant ruler requires tremendous courage and a coward will only kneel on his knees before a tyrant. One who is convinced of truth (Haq in Qur’anic terminology) will stand by it most courageously and endure all hardships patiently. The Muslims in Meccan period of Islam endured unimaginable hardships with greatest degree of patience and most steadfastly. They were never provoked into violent action.

Meccan Muslims are best example of how to endure hardships in the face of most challenging situations. Today we have so many Muslim majority countries and the Muslim youth have to put pressure on the rulers of their countries to unite and fight against injustices being perpetrated by the USA and other powers. If the rulers are pro-US and do not take action they must launch public agitation peacefully. It will expose those rulers who serve their personal interests rather than the Muslim ummah.

One can argue such agitations do not produce immediate results and no one knows what effect it will have on the ruling class. This argument is partly true. But then one would like to ask how effective is terrorist attacks? Do they succeed in achieving the desired goal? One has no such example. And again, violence against whom? So far there is not a single example that such violent attacks have forced US or any other power bringing them on their knees. It invites greater counter-violence and it becomes vicious circle. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan (and now also in India) hundreds of innocent people have died and yet violence has been going on.

It becomes more of ego fight than fight for any cause. Wisdom (which is one of the important values in the Holy Qur’an) requires that one should thoroughly and objectively assess the situation before adopting any strategy. Those resorting to terrorist violence are no match to superior might of these western nations they are fighting against or any government for that matter. And in armed struggle they cannot involve masses. The violent actions, on the other hand, alienate the masses from violent groups for their arbitrary attacks.

Thus wiser course will be to fight democratically mobilizing public opinion in their favor. The Meccan model of Islam is far more useful than any other model. The verses relating to war in the Qur’an were revealed in Madina because Muslims were being attacked by Meccan kuffar (unbelievers) again and again and in those days only course of action available was to defend themselves. The Islamic history is witness to the fact that all the battles fought by the Prophet were defensive in nature.

And if the USA attacked Iraq and Afghanistan it was for the armies of these countries to defend themselves or devise other strategies, in case of defeat. It does not give license to any group to launch violent attacks. And these groups cannot attack the innocent civilians of their own countries.

In case of India one cannot avenge communal violence by such terrorist attacks on innocent Hindus and Muslims in market places. It is same sin which communal forces committed against innocent Muslims. Wisdom requires that one should patiently mobilize public opinion through democratic means and win over hearts of common Hindus and expose communal fascist forces in the eyes of public.

One hopes the misguided Muslim youth resorting to such violent actions would realize the futility of terror attacks and renounce such sinful and criminal acts and instead concentrate on excelling in learning and acquiring superior moral character thus truly following transcendent Qur’anic moral precepts. Did not the Prophet say ‘ink of a scholar is superior to the blood of the martyr?’