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.
————————————————————-
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai
E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in
Photo:Quran
Indian Muslims are our full brothers and sisters. How dare anyone consider them any less than any other Indian. Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, AR Rahman, Shah Rukh Khan, Amir Khan, Abdul Qualam, Waheeda Rahman, Madhubala (ofcourse my most favorite), Dilip Kumar, Maulana Azad, just to name the few are more Indian than some of us bloody Hindus. My friend Dr. Iqbal Khan(from Bhopal) is the only Indian friend in Detroit USA, that I know, who hoists Indian flag at home along with US.
Dont forget 40 victims of Mumbai terror were Muslims (how can the army-of-the-pure, LeT allow this?) Sure their brain-washed terrorists are not going to the Jannat. I am very pleased that post Mumbai, our brethren Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian in India have shows great solidarity and unity.
Ofcourse, we know there are some misled youths inside India who are exploited by the terror organizations in Pakistan with misguided religious indoctrinations. I am sure some of our citizens in India have some knowledge or hint of such cancerous human beings or their families among us. We should all watch for them and report to authorities to put them on radar before such cancers attack us. Government should announce some incentives for such informers. May be there should be some incentives for those terrorists inside India to come forward voluntarily and surrender.
The initiatives taken by Imams, Deoband institutions etc. clearly sends message to PAK (rather I would call na-PAK) that Indian muslims are INDIAN FIRST and are our GENETIC SIBLINGS. They cannot be divided.
Amit @ 60:
1. Your two para, selective response to my detailed, point by point rebuttal is indicative of who is unsettled.
2. You may want to apply your “learn to read” plea to yourself first. I was the one who used the word some first! We’ve been talking of “some” Muslims right from the start. In case the English was lost on you, here it is again: We were talking about those who had the option to move. Your choice of words & manner of stringing them together suggests that you are attempting to belittle the Indian Muslim’s Choice by implying that:
I have of course, demonstrated that economic conditions didn’t stop my Paternal Grandparents from migrating. Nor did a common culture. They were Punjabis who went all the way to Calcutta (near neighbouring B’desh!).
Sorry, but your “assumptive-logic” arguments are falling flat on their face, in the face of incident-based evidence.
3. And you are as usual absolutely wrong. Learn to read. Re-read point # 4 in comment # 57 again.
Dr. Madan Arora,
HATS OFF Sir!
Dr Arora,
I am extremely impressed and deeply moved by what you have expressed. If each Indian could think the way you do, we will reach a lasting peace very soon. Do be around on this forum.
1con, selective response because there wasn’t anything in your response that was substantive in the first place.
If a terrorist chooses to act based on his faith and religion, and openly cites it as a motivating factor, then I have no problem with using the name of their religion along with their acts. As for what’s propaganda, it cuts both ways.
Amit…
C’mon…
-You find the Baburnanma reference in 2. unsubstantiative? And the link in 5? I’m referring to comment # 57 of course.
-And no response to 2 & 3 in comment # 62 either…?
And that’s EXACTLY what I meant by easily buying into advertising/propaganda! The Bombay terrorists were using the Deccan Mujahideen name. If they hadn’t been exposed by GOC Hooda’s men & later investigations, we’d all have believed that an Indian group was responsible!
Learn to dig deeper. Knowledge comes from digging deeper.
1con, simply throwing Baburnama at me doesn’t cut it. You need to cite the pages or the relevant text. I could tell you to go read articles by Koenraad Elst or Gautier too.
Deccan Mujaheddin? Didn’t the terrorist spill the beans about his training and handlers? So, what’s your point? Lashkar-e-Toiba has a clear goal of turning South Asia into Islamic kingdom, and Taliban openly cites its interpretation of Quran for their acts. So, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it is a duck. If you don’t want to call them Islamist/Islamic terrorists, that’s your choice.
The bearded Mullah (mulla) and Burqa with assimiliation means, a Pakistani Hindu must not sport a tilak and Christian nun wearning her uniform. Here, you do not agree and invoke identity. The obsession or to be more correct, hatred for beard, cap or burqa shows the true mentality. Muslims are attacked because of Islam. What more needs to be discussed now???
The post very clearly states that none of the members of Al Qaeda or of Taliban are qualified theologians. Therefore, they cannot purport to act on behalf of Islam and therefore no one should try to link Islam and terrorism.
Terrorists just need to be treated as pathological criminals because that is precisely what they are. Trials need to be fast and punishment severe.
Its is more than a year and we are struck in the race of calling ourselves more Indian or more Peace loving. Meantime, few thugs of the despised ‘Deendar Anjuman’ were sentenced for their misdeeds. Let me remind the Islamophobes who use the stick of ‘Ahmediyyas, the Qadiyanis’ to bash Muslims that the so called Deendar Anjuman was declared ‘un-Islamic’ in 1923 itself because of their nefarious activities which have been contrary to any logical humanism with the exception of exploitation prevalent in temples specilly the South Indian ones. The Qadiyanis too have been treated that way but Islamophobes insist Muslim call them Muslims, just like their insistance of violence by a Muslim named person is ‘Islamic’. They insist that muslim does not have culture or claim over land, so insulating the LTTEs and IRAs and even Naxals from being labelled terrorist. The love and affection shown by all Muslims in India has not been replicated by any other religious groups which includes all castes of Hidus as well. Despite having chances and oppotunities, we do not leave our ghetto for a city, what to talk about a foreign shore? Same spirit was their when the Deobandis’ the so despised ‘wahhabis’ opposed the creation of Pakistan, because land cannot be divided for religion. All the land on this earth is divine and no one can claim divinity for say Hinduism (as being done for India) and Judaism (as accepted for the Jews in Palestine). Those who are powerful and are not looking after the ‘have nots’ will deplore having the power on the day of Judgement.
Love India, Love Humanity. All the blood flowing is Red!!
Amit @ 67:
1. elst??? elst??????? You’re clutching at straws now!
NO Historian (or History student) worth his salt takes elst seriously! elst isn’t even a has-been! He is a never-was! elst is known ONLY for being the editor of a right-wing Flemish journal back home & aligning with the religious right-wing in India! The only people who quote people like elst are the right-wing in India. And that’s because no genuine historian writes for them!!!!!
Thanks for the entertainment man!
2. Don’t you know the deccan mujahideen story that they were trying to sell?
3. STILL no responses to points in comment # 62??
1con:
Nice try to deflect. I’m still waiting for a link or quote from Baburnama.
By the way, can you post some links that discredit any of the claims by Elst, and which ones specifically? Simply saying he’s a right-winger may be enough to convince you since you nurture a pathological hatred, but I need some more meat as to why he’s not taken seriously, and by whom? If he’s not taken seriously by those whom he criticizes, then that’s of course, expected. But have any of his claims or theories been discredited by other historians? That’s what’s of interest to me. So feel free to share some links which you read and which made you come to the conclusion about Elst that you mentioned in the above comment. Just make sure that those are not opinion pieces and are factual. I’ll read them and make up my own mind.
The only people who quote people like elst are the right-wing in India. And that’s because no genuine historian writes for them!!!!!
1con, ever heard of petitio principii? You should look it up. Thanks for the entertainment.
Amit @ 72 & 73:
It wasn’t a deflection at all. If you’re so keen on an exact quote from Baburnama, you’ll just have to wait until I visit my Sister as she’s reading the book currently. Do you even remember why you want a Baburnama quote? Because if you did, that information isn’t difficult to validate even on the Internet.
Have you considered that one of the reasons why criticism of elst doesn’t abound, is because no one took him seriously. Because he was ignored by all historians of repute?
That said, my search is on. I will present a link in accordance with my record.
Heard of it from you. Looked it up. Thanks for the reference. Your point being?
Amit…
For example when you type in “criticism of elst” in Google, ALL you see are right-wing hindutva links!
If that doesn’t tell you something, let me know.
The only people who quote people like elst are the right-wing in India.
1con,
In your hurry to write a response as your knee was frantically jerking soon after you came across the word “Elst” in my comment, you failed to notice that nowhere did I quote Elst. The reason I mentioned him and Gautier was in response to your mention of Baburnama, instead of you quoting relevant sections from it or giving me some links that backed up your earlier claim. I also used “could” in my sentence, but then again, you haven’t really shown any maturity even after so many months that you understand what others are trying to say or understand their point, or understand logic. What seems to drive you is a hatred of Hindutva, and there’s no point of having a dialog when someone like you keeps jumping to conclusions. If you choose to respond, that’s your prerogative, but don’t expect me to respond back to your shoddy understanding of logic – it’s a waste of my time.
#1
Have you considered that one of the reasons why criticism of elst doesn’t abound, is because no one could refute his facts. Because all historians of “repute” know that someone challenged them and the game is up?
#2
So these are the reasons for your …. reaction at the mention of Elst, instead of actually reading what he wrote and evaluating the contents for yourself? Are you for real??? Is this your standard of discussing an issue (“all are Hindutva links – that should tell you something” – that’s the same as someone saying “A Koran was found in Mohammad Atta’s car, so that should tell you something about Koran”); instead of reading up on it, trying to understand it and then discussing the pros and cons of the contents? Go read something and learn some logic before you discuss issues. … [comment edited]
Amit @ 76:
I really don’t know how to respond to this one. You’ve gone around is circles throughout this discussion & most of all in this comment. And why would one do that if he had a few straight points to make?
[....]
Anyway, the could-would-did-didn’t semantics notwithstanding, I’ll honour your comment with a response.
Right from comment # 55 onwards, you’ve been … assuming, jumping to conclusions, misreading, misquoting, dithering etc. Anyone who goes through this thread will be able to see that. [...]
If you have [...], you will know my propensity to provide link after link as proof. I offered the Baburnama reference. If you were really interested in the truth, you’d have gone & picked up a copy. The fact is that you’re not keen enough on knowing the truth. Your motive currently is only to undermine a fellow-commenter, only because he’s your ideological opposite & stands for equality rather than segragation.
Unfortunately for you, a) it isn’t that simple & b) as you can see, there are others who agree with what I have to say.
One thing you’re half-right about. I do harbour disapproval of hindutva. I believe it is something that needs to perish & I am driven by that cause. Just like Gandhiji & others was driven by their disapproval of untouchability & racial-segragation & the right to Swaraj.
I too hope to succeed.
I’ve asked you earlier, if I remember correctly, “What exactly are you driven by?”
[...]
_________
@ 77:
If you put your points 1 & 2 together, you’ll see the picture emerge.
Only the right-wing seems to mention elst & suggest that he has a point.
elst is very easy to refute. All I needed to read were 3 of his articles on bharatvani to know that he was inconsistent from one article to the next.
But let’s not talk about my opinion. Since you have yourself chosen to dig deeper for the truth, I am happy to be an instrument in providing it to you. They say, careful of what you ask for. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenraad_Elst#Reviews
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_archive.html
Decide for yourself whether the man is meant to be taken seriously.
If however you do come back in defense of the man, I doubt if I will be able to help you anymore.
[...] – Comments Edited
Acts under a “secular” regime
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pwd-engineer-killed-up-govt-saves-face/81290-3.html
Manoj Gupta was killed when MLA Rajneesh Tiwari’s men allegedly barged into his house in Auraiya – 250 km from state capital Lucknow – locked his wife in the bathroom and then beat him up. Gupta was then taken in a critically injured state and dumped at the local police station by Tiwari. The engineer’s relatives allege that Tiwari was demanding Rs 50 lakh for Mayawati’s birthday celebrations.
While you debate on “terrorism” in Islam – the goons are much more practical. For them killing and money is the end – the excuse is sometime religion and sometime “social justice”. Its just plain “might is right” and “defunct” police system. If you have any intent to act rather than ” setttle scores on message boards” you might want to decide where you need to act.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/kasab-pleads-with-pakistan-for-legal-aid/81259-3.html
In his letter he had claimed that he and the other terrorists who had been killed in the attacks were Pakistani and had sought a meeting with the Pakistan High Commission. However, Islamabad did not pay heed to his request, saying he was not a Pakistani.
Pakistan denies about its citizens in Indian soil – Kasab and even its citizens on its soil – Maulana Masood Azhar. Thats the “Islamic” Pueland for you. Do you still think these people fight for religion?
Why are you mounting a defence when its not even required?
1conoclast,
Every sincere person always has detractors who take off on him without provocation. Don’t worry about it. Just chill