The war against radical Islam

The war against radical Islam

August 05, 2005


Most of the reactions from across the Islamic world to the London
bombings have been remarkably similar. While condemning the bombing,
almost everyone has pointed out to the 'root causes' that have spawned
Islamic terrorism.

These 'root causes' range from alienation and lack of assimilation in
Western societies to 'Islamic rage' at the perceived 'injustices' being
perpetrated on hapless Muslims around the world (Afghanistan, Chechnya,
Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine -- the list is endless) and from the political
expression of anger against illegitimate dictators and monarchs who are
ruling over Muslim countries with the support of the West, to the
abysmal social and economic conditions in the Islamic world.

But the implicit justification offered by the so-called moderate
Muslims to acts of Islamic terrorism by pointing out at the 'root
causes' begs the question: does the 'root cause' of Islamic terrorism
lie in social, political and economic conditions in Muslim societies or
do they lie in the religion itself? Do the root causes lie in
'grievances' of Muslims or do they lie in the way Islam is perceived,
taught and imbibed by its followers?

To say that 'no religion teaches hatred' is utter nonsense. The fact of
the matter is all religions teach hatred (anyone who disagrees needs to
read Religion in Politics by Arun Shourie). They also teach love and
compassion and tolerance. What matters is the ruling paradigm of any
religion at any point of time, and this depends on what the followers
of a religion make of their faith.

Until the separation of the Church from the State, Christianity was
hardly a religion of peace -- remember the inquisitions and the desire
to 'harvest the souls of heathens and pagans' by whatever means
necessary. However, today, Christians, if not their Church and priests,
are far more tolerant of other religions and cultures.

Hinduism too has its share of institutionalised hatred. It is hardly
important whether the obnoxious caste system has religious sanction or
not. What is important is that many practising Hindus still
discriminate against the so-called lower castes. But caste
discrimination, while it still exists, is no longer the ruling paradigm
of Hindu religion. Whether this is the result of a political churning
taking place in the country or the result of 'enlightenment' is hardly
an issue.

In the case of Islam, there is enough religious sanction available to
justify terrorism. In Pakistan for example, terrorism is an essential
part of military strategy and derives inspiration from the Quran. In
his book Quranic concept of War, Brigadier S K Malik writes: 'Terror
struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is an end
in itself,' and finds justification for this in the Quranic verse Anfal
(Sura 12) which reads as -- 'Remember, the Lord inspired the angels
(with the message), 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I
will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers'.'

Thus, for every Quranic verse that preaches love, brotherhood and
equality of man, there is another verse that preaches the opposite.
Therefore, to say that 'suicide bombing' is an Un-Islamic act is simply
a matter of how someone interprets and understands the religion. Those
who tie bombs around their bodies and blow themselves up actually
believe that they are waging war in Allah's name. Those who blew up the
Bamiyan Buddhas' also thought they were doing God's work.

The problem in Islam today is that the ruling paradigm is increasingly
gravitating towards violence and intolerance. The moderate and
enlightened voices are getting snuffed out by their failure to take an
unambiguous stand against terrorism.

Every time they mention 'root causes' in the same breath as they
condemn an act of terrorism they effectively end up providing a tacit
justification for terrorism. What is more, this state of denial
prevents a deeper soul searching within the community on the direction
the religion is taking and prevents any course correction.

An example of this is the position Pakistani leaders take on the issue
of jihad, which they consider (probably for political reasons) to be
obligatory in their religion. Of course, for political and diplomatic
reasons again, they will put a spin on what constitutes jihad. But the
signals this sends out are to say the least ambiguous.

With love from Pakistan

Even the so-called 'root causes' need a closer examination. There is a
lot of anger in the Islamic world over the civilian casualties in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The Pakistani press and television channels like Al
Jazeera have been in the vanguard of using these casualties to
implicitly justify terrorist acts in Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in
rest of the world.

But there is a great difference between the 'collateral damage' in Iraq
and Afghanistan and terrorist attacks on civilian targets. The American
or British troops have never deliberately aimed at the civilians and in
fact the entire US hi-tech military capability is designed to limit
civilian casualties to a minimum. On the other hand, the terrorist who
targeted the Twin Towers in New York, or the trains in Madrid or the
Tube in London, were deliberately targeting civilians and
non-combatants.

Another very important point that is often missed in any discussion on
Iraq or Afghanistan is who has caused maximum civilian casualties. The
fact of the matter is that most of the civilian casualties in Iraq,
Afghanistan or even Kashmir have been caused by the holy warriors or
jihadis.

In Kashmir for example even though most of the civilian casualties have
been caused by the terrorists, this fact is often glossed over by the
Pakistani propaganda machine because it is so inconvenient.

Such is the state of denial in Pakistan over the barbarity of its
proxies in Kashmir that even the most blatant acts of terror are
explained away by blaming them on 'Indian agents'. This tendency to not
accept blame for what their co-religionists and compatriots do was
again on display when the Pakistani ambassador to the UN, Munir Akram
called Britain -- 'a breeding ground for terrorists too... (it) has its
own radical preachers and now home-grown suicide bombers' -- and
glossed over the role his own country played in turning these people
into human bombs.

But this state of denial is not only limited to the Pakistanis. It also
extends to their proxies in Kashmir, like the All-Parties Hurriyat
Conference, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and others. Why else
would they deny the religious cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the
valley and in turn blame it on the then governor, Jagmohan?

In fact, by cleansing the valley of the Pandits, the separatists proved
that their movement was not one of national liberation but inspired by
a nationalism based on religion.

The bottom line is that today the Muslims are working themselves into a
victimisation psychosis and driving the world towards a 'clash of
civilisations'. In this the responsibility lies with Islamic countries
like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan that have propagated and promoted
radical Islam for achieving political and diplomatic objectives.

It's the Al Qaeda again

Instead of cosmetic measures like crackdowns on radical groups every
time there is an international incident, what is required is the
rooting out of the entire infrastructure that has given rise to radical
Islam. It is also the responsibility of ordinary Muslims to snatch
their faith from the thekedars of Islam, who are pushing them towards
radicalism, and base their faith on the more benign rather than
aggressive and regressive aspects of their religion.

Finally, it is critical that no justification is provided to terrorism
by talking of 'root causes'. The war against Islamic terrorism has to
be really fought within Islamic societies if a 'clash of civilisations'
is to be avoided.

Sushant Sareen is a Delhi-based journalist. The views expressed are his
own.

.