What is the role of violence in human
life? Under what conditions does Islam permit violence? What rules
and conditions has Islam laid down for the conduct of armed
conflict? When does violence qualify to be termed as ‘terrorism’?
Does Islam at all allow for terrorism? This article deals
specifically with these questions, although it is not possible for
me to do full justice to these issues in a single article.
The reason why I have chosen to write
about violence and terrorism is today’s particular context, where,
in many places, Muslims have been made victims of violence and
terrorism, while in numerous other places Muslims themselves have
taken to violence and terrorism. Is it at all permissible for
Muslims to do so? Will this in any way benefit Muslims? Can violence
be undertaken by Muslims in retaliation for violence directed
against them? These are crucial issues that I would like to discuss.
Today, the ongoing joint American and
British conquest of Iraq and the growing wave of Hindutva aggression
in India have created a sense of extreme nervousness among many
Indian Muslims. They are apprehensive about what the future holds
for them. In such a context, what must be done for ensuring a better
future for the Muslims and for Islam? This article also deals with
these pressing issues.
Violence and
Morality
It must be stressed that violence is,
in essence, an immoral act. A civilized society that functions on
the basis of a proper code of morals can permit violence only for
the punishment of crimes, in order to counter criminality, and for
self-defence, so that individuals can defend themselves from the
violence of others. Other than for these purposes, violence cannot
be permitted. The proper way to attain one’s goals is not through
violence, but, rather, through dialogue, exchange of views, and
peaceful persuasion. Using violence for religious purposes is wholly
inappropriate, because it entails compulsion, while, as the Quran
says, there can be no compulsion in religion:
There is no compulsion in religion;
truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error;
therefore, whoever disbelieves in Satan and believes in Allah he
indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break
off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
Islam is based on mercy, love,
tolerance, mercy and forgiveness. Killing, violence, disruptive
activities and hard-heartedness all are not in accordance with the
true Islamic spirit. As God says in the Quran,
Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammad), and
enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.
The Prophet Muhammad also preached
softness and kind-heartedness, and warned that hard-heartedness and
extremism do not produce any positive results. According to a
tradition narrated by his wife, Hazrat Ayesha, the Prophet said that
God is gentle and likes gentleness. He gives to those who act with
gentleness what He does not to the hard-hearted. In a similar
narration attributed to him, the Prophet is said to have advised
people to adopt soft-heartedness and to stay away from violence,
adding that while gentleness conduced to progress and welfare, its
absence gave rise to a host of ills.
This is why Islam has forbidden
offensive violence and has also not encouraged violence in
retaliation. As the Quran says:
The good deed and the evil deed are
not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo!
he, between whom and thee there was enmity, (will become) as though
he was a bosom friend.
This is not to deny that Islam does,
in some cases, allow for violence, such as for defence or the
punishment of crimes, but our effort should be to minimize the use
of violence to the extent possible and to present before people the
true image of Islam, which is based on love, concern and mercy. That
is why the Quran has presented us with such models who, when they
could have resorted to violence in reaction to the violence
unleashed on them, chose not to do so. Thus, the Quran relates:
But recite unto them with truth the
tale of the two sons of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and
it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from
the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other)
answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (evil). (27)
Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not
stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I fear Allah, the
Lord of the Worlds. (28) Lo! I would rather thou shouldst bear the
punishment of the sin against me and thine own sin and become one of
the owners of the fire. That is the reward of evil-doers. (29) But
(the other's) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he
slew him and became one of the losers. (30) Then Allah sent a raven
scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's
naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this
raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became
repentant. (31) For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel
that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or
corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all
mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had
saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old
with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many
of them became prodigals in the earth.
In the above verses, the Quran teaches
us that Adam’s noble son did not resort to violence even to defend
himself. Immediately after these verses is another verse that
announces stern punishment for those who spread strife, violate the
law and engage in war against God and His Prophet.
Permission for
Killing
It must be noted that in Islam
violence that entails taking the life of another person is allowed
only under clearly specified circumstances, as mentioned in the
Quran. Till the early Muslims lived remained in Mecca and the
Prophet Muhammad had not migrated to Medina, no permission was given
to them by God to resort to any form of violence even though they
were cruelly tortured by their Meccan opponents, which even resulted
in the loss of Muslim life, such as that of a Muslim woman, Hazrat
Summaiya. The point may be raised that Muslims did not resort to
violence in self-defence at this time because they were then small
in number and weak. But, by the sixth year of the Prophet’s
declaration of his prophethood, a number of powerful and influential
men had joined him and became Muslims, such as Umar and Hamza bin
Abdul Mutalib, and they had even asked the Prophet for permission to
take on the oppressors of the Muslims. Yet, even at this time, the
Muslims did not receive consent to respond to violence with
counter-violence. Instead, in the face of mounting violence and
oppression directed against them, they were advised to migrate to
Ethiopia. Consequently, more than 100 Muslims took refuge there.
It was only after the Prophet and many
of his companions shifted to Medina that Muslims received permission
to resort to violence to defend themselves from the attacks of
others. At this time, the Prophet had established a political
community that was ruled in accordance with God’s laws. Yet, despite
this, aggression and violence directed against Muslims, including
those who had remained behind in Mecca, continued, and so God
instructed the Muslims to resort to violence in self-defence, as a
response to their opponents’ barbarities. As the Quran declared:
Sanction (to fight) is given unto
those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed
Able to give them victory; (39) Those who have been driven from
their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah.
Elsewhere, the Quran says:
Fight in the way of Allah against
those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah
loveth not aggressors.
The sort of war that Muslims have been
permitted to engage in by the Quran is not an offensive or
aggressive one or one that is waged in order to capture and
incorporate any territory into a Muslim political domain. Rather,
this is a strictly defensive war that aims at preventing the
aggressor from engaging in war again. When in Medina, the Prophet
and the early Muslims were finally allowed to resort to violence in
self-defence, and this was in a context when their Meccan opponents
attacked the Islamic polity in Medina and also forcibly sought to
prevent people from accepting the message of Islam, which was their
fundamental right. Consequently, Muslims were given permission to
fight so that strife could be stopped and everyone who wanted to
accept God’s path could do so. As the Quran says:
And fight them until persecution is no
more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there
be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
And, elsewhere, the Quran says:
How should ye not fight for the cause
of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the
children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town
of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence
some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!
According to the Quran, by creating
life and death God wants to test those who choose, on their own free
will, to walk on the right path and those who choose to go astray.
As the Quran puts it:
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the
Sovereignty, and, He is Able to do all things. Who hath created life
and death that He may try you which of you is best in conduct; and
He is the Mighty, the Forgiving, Who hath created seven heavens in
harmony.
Clearly, strife and corruption in the
land often leads to people being denied the right to choose the path
that they want to adopt for themselves. Thus, while Islam allows for
Muslims to resort to violence to save their lives and lands from the
attacks of aggressors, it also permits violence to challenge those
who forcibly suppress people’s right to follow Islam on their own
free will. Still, it must be noted that in Islam the use of
violence, whether for punishment of crimes or for the protection of
Islam and Muslims or for upholding the right of people to freely
choose their faith, is allowed only to the limit necessary for the
purpose, because violence more than that required for a particular
purpose is impermissible.
To reiterate, besides for the purpose
of defensive war and punishment of crimes, resort to violence is not
at all permitted in Islam, especially the sort of violence that
results in the loss of life.
Thus, the Quran specifically
states:
Say: Come, I will recite unto you that
which your Lord hath forbidden to you: that ye ascribe no thing as
partner unto Him and that ye do good to parents, and that ye slay
not your children because of penury - We provide for you and for
them - and that ye draw not nigh to lewd things whether open or
concealed. And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made
sacred, save in the course of justice. This He hath command you, in
order that ye may discern.
Elsewhere, the Quran says:
And do not wrongfully kill any living
being which Allah has forbidden; and for whoever is slain
wrongfully, We have given the authority to his heir, so he should
not cross limits in slaying; he will surely be helped.
The last sentence in the
above-mentioned Quranic verse indicates that the heir of someone
slain wrongfully can indeed take revenge on the killer. But it is
for the Islamic state, rather than for the aggrieved party, to take
this action with regard to punishment for the crime of premeditated
murder. Islam does not encourage violence in revenge for violence.
Rather, as it sees it, the best solution is to work out means to
prevent future violence, and with regard to past violence to adopt a
policy of forgiveness. As the Quran lays down:
And those who, when an oppressive
wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend
themselves. The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto
(in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his
reward is due, from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do
wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend himself after a wrong
(done) to them against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is
only against those who oppress men with wrong-doing and insolently
transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and
justice: for such there will be a Penalty grievous. But indeed if
any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of
courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs.
In this regard, one should keep in
mind the response of the son of Adam mentioned in the Quran, which I
referred to earlier. True believers in God do indeed have the right
to respond to violence with violence, but it must be remembered that
Islam has before it certain higher goals that might demand a
different sort of response, and it is precisely this that the Quran
repeatedly points to. It is true that we have the right to react to
violence unleashed on us through counter-violence, that is to say in
self-defence, but we must also keep in mind that doing so might, in
many cases, have a seriously negative impact on our mission of
inviting others to God’s path and of being witnesses unto humanity.
The Quranic verse that I just quoted
was revealed at a time when the Prophet was still in Mecca and the
Muslims were being cruelly oppressed. Yet, despite this, they did
not receive permission to resort to counter-violence. Rather, this
permission was received only later, in Medina, when an Islamic
polity had been set up. Till such a polity is not in existence,
retaliatory violence cannot possibly abide by the moral limits that
Islam has set for it.
Violence and
Terrorism
When some individuals or a group that
are themselves not a ruling power in a particular country, but,
rather, are subjects, resort to counter-violence, sooner or later
their methods will degenerate into what we today call ‘terrorism’.
In this context, it must be noted that Islam has no room whatsoever
for terrorism, including indiscriminate killing of people,
non-combatants, women, children, the infirm and the elderly, burning
people to death, mutilating their corpses and so on.
Keeping this in mind, survey the
present context. On the one hand are nation-states that spend the
resources of their nations on maintaining huge armies and buying the
latest and most sophisticated weapons of war that can kill people on
a massive scale. On the other hand are individuals or groups, who,
in theory, are prohibited by their governments from possessing any
sort of weapons. It is illegal for these individuals or groups to
maintain an army. They cannot openly raise a volunteer militia. If
they resort to violence against their own government or against the
government of some other country, they must do so secretly. In
attacking their enemies they cannot abide by the strict limits that
Islam has laid down, because they cannot themselves choose the
battle-field or the time of the battle. They are forced to make
secret preparations and to use any available opportunity to attack
their enemies. This they might do by attacking civilian aircraft or
killing civilians or trade centres, because they may not be able to
easily target their enemies’ military aircraft or army personnel or
military installations. The level of organization and control over
such terrorist activities is, of course, much less than that of the
army of a regular state, primarily because those who engage in such
activities must do so surreptitiously. The history of secret,
underground movements that engage in this sort of violence clearly
indicates that they cannot remain under a unified leadership for
very long. Nor does the leadership have a very strong control over
its activists at the grassroots, unlike in the case of a regular
army of a recognised state. Such movements that take to violence
even in response to state terrorism inevitably and necessarily
degenerate into terrorism themselves. And, as I said earlier, Islam
does not allow for terrorism at all, although it does allow for
counter-violence, but under strict conditions and limits and in the
light of Islam’s higher purposes and aims.
The following incident well
illustrates this point: When Abu Bakr, the first caliph [of the
Sunnis] sent an army in the direction of Syria he instructed its
commander, Zaid bin Abu Sufiyan, to abstain from killing any woman,
child or very old person, not to cut down any fruit-bearing tree,
not to lay desolate any habitation, not to unnecessarily slaughter
any goat or camel, not to burn or disturb any bee-hive, not to
tamper with the spoils of war and not to show cowardice on the
battle-field.
Destroying property, blowing up
buildings, setting to waste fields, etc. are all a form of ‘strife
in the land’ (fasad fi‘l ardh), which is strictly prohibited in
Islam. As the Quran says:
And unto Midian (We sent) their
brother, Shu'eyb. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no
other God save Him. Lo! a clear proof hath come unto you from your
Lord; so give full measure and full weight and wrong not mankind in
their goods, and work not confusion in the earth after the fair
ordering thereof. That will be better for you, if ye are believers.
Elsewhere, the Quran says:
And when he turneth away (from thee)
his effort in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy
the crops and the cattle; and Allah loveth not mischief.
The counter-violence engaged in over
the last two decades or so by Muslim groups in various countries,
against the own governments or against non-Muslim powers, such as
America, Russia, Britain and France, in response to their aggression
or their anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim policies or their naked
aggression, has clearly over-stepped the limits set by Islam. This
is the case, for instance, of violence, driven by anti-Americanism,
in recent years in places such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen,
Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and America itself, in which innocent
people have been slain and public utilities have been destroyed.
This has also happened, although on a much smaller scale, in our own
country, India, as a response to the violence of a section of the
majority community directed against the Indian Muslims.
Such acts of terrorism, even in
retaliation, on the part of Muslims are clearly prohibited in Islam.
These acts cannot be considered legitimate defensive violence. Nor
can they be treated as necessary for stopping strife. They cannot
also be considered to be punishment for crimes, such as that a
legitimate government can impose on criminals. Without a doubt, it
can be said that the counter-violence that Muslims have been
resorting to in recent years is entirely contrary to the teachings
of Islam, trespassing the strict limits set by Islam for the conduct
of counter-violence. Assaulting embassies, hijacking aircraft,
killing tourists, including innocent women, children, the elderly
and other non-combatants, are entirely anti-Islamic acts. As a
consequence of these terrorist acts, the image of Islam in the eyes
of people across the world has been greatly tarnished. Ironically,
it is in the name of that religion, Islam, which preaches mercy,
kindness and love for humanity and even calls for the respect for
innocent life in the course of war, that these cruel and wholly
immoral deeds are being perpetrated. The media highlights all this,
and shapes the minds of ordinary non-Muslims in such a way that they
now regard Muslims with fear, dread and even hatred. For a community
that is meant to invite others to the path of God, and whose mission
it is to be a witness unto humankind, there cannot be a greater
calamity than this.
Violence in Today’s
Context
After detailing the Islamic teachings
related to violence and counter-violence, let us turn to the case of
some specific circumstances under which violence, some might argue,
might be legitimately adopted. In this regard, let us consider four
particular contexts:
A Muslim majority country, where the
government oppresses Islamic groups.
An independent Muslim land, which has
been forcefully occupied by a non-Muslim country.
A democratic, non-Muslim majority
country, where a section of the country’s Muslims are oppressed.
Countries such as America and its
allies that are today targeting some Muslim countries, groups and
individuals.
A good instance of the first context
is Egypt, where, for many decades now, a reign of oppression has
been continuously unleashed on the Islamic movement known as the
Ikhwan ul-Muslimun. In such cases, it is not proper for Islamic
groups to react to state oppression through violence. Rather, they
should use peaceful means to work for the preservation and promotion
of human rights and justice.
An illustration of the second context
is Palestine. The Palestinians’ struggle against Israel can be
considered a legitimate Islamic cause, fought in self-defence. It is
for the concerned people to themselves decide that in this war when
and to what extent violent means may be used, and when and to what
extent other options may be explored.
The third context is one that prevails
in our country, India. If in a democratic, non-Muslim-majority
country a Muslim minority is being targeted and the government is
unable to protect its life and property or deliberately allows or
encourages others to attack them or even does this itself, as
happened in Gujarat in 2002, what should Muslims do? Should they
resort to violence in response to this violence?
It is, of course, true that, like
other Indians, the Muslim Indians have the right to defend their
life, property and respect. The law of the land allows people to
take appropriate measures to stave off attackers, even it means that
in seeking to defend one’s life the life of the attacker is lost.
However, due to the pressure of circumstances, some Muslims have
begun to advocate offensive violence, or what they regard as
preventive strikes. I am of the view that this is not at all
appropriate. Islam does not allow for Muslims to attack others
before they have attacked them. Nor does it allow them to attack
innocent people of one community in retaliation for violence against
Muslims perpetrated by their co-religionists. Some people might
think that this sort of counter-violence is permissible as it might
deter non-Muslim attackers or the state and its police forces from
further anti-Muslim violence. But, in my view, revenge attacks
against innocent, unarmed and peaceful co-religionists of those who
attack Muslims is completely un-Islamic.
American Aggression
Against Muslims
The fourth context that I touched upon
earlier concerns the present-day American aggression against Muslim
states and groups. Using the attacks of 11 September, 2001 as a
pretext, America announced what it called a global ‘war on terror’.
The main targets of this war are Muslim individuals and groups that
are angered with America or with their own governments, or those who
regard the rapidly mounting American influence throughout the world
as a threat to Islam and the Muslims, and who, therefore, seek to
damage America and American interests. Because America regards
certain Muslim countries as harbouring such Muslim individuals and
groups, these countries have also been made a target of America’s
‘war on terror’. It was because of this that America first bombed
Afghanistan and then invaded and occupied Iraq, and is now talking
of waging war against other countries that it is opposed to, such as
Iran and Syria. Alongside this, it is also on the look out for
individuals in Pakistan and West Asia who have committed, or can
commit, acts of terror directed against America. Assisting America
in its ‘war against terror’ are pro-American regimes in countries
such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that are now instituting
even greater controls on Islamist groups within their borders.
Because of this, across the world many Muslims are greatly
suspicious of America’s intentions. They fear that just as America
used the condemnable and criminal attacks of 11 September, 2001 as
an excuse to pursue its preconceived agenda of invading Afghanistan
and then Iraq, it will do the same with regard to Islamic groups and
movements across the world, because it regards them as a danger to
American interests. Using the ‘war of terror’ as a cover, America
wants to destroy all those who dare to challenge American hegemony,
especially those who want to keep their societies safe from
American-style immorality and permissiveness.
Muslims the world over are
apprehensive about America’s intentions, but the Indian Muslims are
particularly concerned, because the advocates of aggressive Hindutva
in India also have similar anti-Islamic intentions. They are
denigrating our madrasas, surveying our mosques, keeping a close
watch on Muslim missionary groups and seeking to impose laws
forbidding religious conversions. India’s Muslims are wary that
extremist Hindutva groups might use America’s global ‘war on terror’
as a cover to pursue their own anti-Islamic agenda and that, for
this, they will secure the help of Israel and its intelligence
agencies.
For want of space, it is not possible
for me to discuss these apprehensions in detail in this article.
Relations between America and Islam, or between America and Muslims,
cannot be seen simply in the context of recent events. Our concern
in this article is the question of whether or not Muslims should
take to violence in response to American aggression against them.
My argument is that, given today’s
circumstances, it is neither permissible nor beneficial for Muslims
to take to violence to counter American aggression. On the contrary,
this sort of violence is only causing further damage to Islam and
Muslims. However, if America attacks any Muslim country without any
legitimate reason, as it did in Iraq, undoubtedly the people of that
country have the right to fight in order to defend their land. This
applies only to the people of that particular country alone, and the
violence must be conducted strictly according to the conventional
rules of international warfare. To use the American invasion of any
Muslim country as an argument to call upon ordinary Muslims
everywhere to kill American citizens, wherever in the world they
might find them, and to destroy American buildings, embassies or
anything else representing American interests throughout the world,
as some groups have declared, is anti-Islamic. It clearly
transgresses the limits set by Islam for the conduct of
counter-violence. Further, it causes far more damage to Islam and
the Muslims themselves than it does to America.
The Need for
Complete Abstinence From Violence
In my opinion, Muslims must not take
to the path of violence against America. Muslims must also seek to
stop those Muslim individuals and groups that have adopted this
path. In the present circumstances, the path of violence can only
harm the interests of Islam and Muslims. Hence, Muslims must not
cooperate with or assist anyone who has taken to this path. Such
people should not be helped financially or in any other way. In
today’s context, violence engaged in by Muslims against America
necessarily degenerates into a form that is wholly forbidden (haram)
in Islam and can be categorized as ‘strife in the land’, which Islam
vehemently condemns. Such violence cannot be ever legitimised, no
matter for what purpose.
The violence that some Muslim
individuals and groups have hitherto engaged in against America has
wrought, as I noted above, grave damage to Islam and Muslims. The
media has used this violence to depict Islam in a very negative
light and to portray Muslims as cruel, hard-hearted and utterly
inhuman, thereby causing many non-Muslims to hate Islam.
Simultaneously, the American government has used this violence as a
means to garner the consent of the American public for its global
‘war on terror’, through which it has sought to target Muslims
throughout the world. In this way, this violence has only
strengthened the hands of right-wing American Christians and the
Zionist and Israeli lobbies.
Muslims clearly lack the strength to
counter American aggression through violence. To seek to defeat
America through violence is foolish and tantamount to inviting one’s
own defeat. If Muslims simply have to confront America (and this is
something that I do not agree with), then their welfare resides in
doing so in the ideological and cultural fields, not on the
battle-field. It is wrong to think that engaging in violence against
America will serve as a deterrent that will stop American aggression
against Muslims in the future. The experience so far does not
indicate anything of the sort. The balance of power is so heavily
titled in America’s favour that it is completely unimaginable that
violence committed by some Muslims against America could be so
powerful as to prevent America from any future aggression.
I am also calling for Muslims to
completely abstain from violence because this violence is causing
great internal damage to Muslim society itself. The valuable
material and human resources of the Muslims are being wasted on
surreptitious activities, acquiring weapons and plotting and
carrying out violent attacks, instead of on education, the media,
political empowerment and economic development.
As I indicated earlier, individuals or
groups which engage in violent activities against the state whose
citizens they are or against another state necessarily have to carry
these out in secret. At almost every turn, they are forced to
violate the law. For such activities they evolve a new leadership,
for the old established religious and political leadership of the
community will not be willing to engage in underground, illegal,
violent activities. Hence, the help of criminals is often taken, of
people who know how to violate the law, smuggle weapons, travel
under false names and fake passports and so on. Sooner or later,
they will be forced to take the help of smugglers and international
criminals. The sort of violence that these underground groups engage
in can never remain within the boundaries strictly set by Islam, nor
can pious Muslims engage in such activities.
The internal disruption and damage
caused to Muslim society as a result of such violence is
incalculable. In the Indian context, it would be absolutely wrong to
let such un-Islamic individuals or groups take over the leadership
of our community in the name of combating Hindu aggression. Instead,
we would like our best people to take the lead in building bridges
with our non-Muslim countrymen, people who, through their actions
and words, are proper representatives of Islam, and who, even if
they are forced to resort to violence in self-defence, would
strictly obey the Islamic rules in that regard. It is also to be
noted that during communal riots, when Muslims display proper moral
conduct, such as protecting innocent non-Muslims who have no role in
the violence, many non-Muslims come forward and display the same
exemplary behaviour vis-à-vis Muslims, protecting innocent Muslims
and speaking out and resisting their aggressive co-religionists. Our
actual weapon to combat Hindu aggression or right-wing Christian
groups or American hegemonists must be our morality and character
and the ideology of Islam that we are supposed to uphold and which
we are bidden to communicate to the whole of humanity. When, in the
face of some temporary pressure, we resort to violence, our moral
stature is seriously damaged and we are diverted from our Islamic
mission for humanity to tasks other than what Islam ordains.
Need For
Transparency
Among the various reasons why
Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiments can so easily be spread is
that non-Muslims, such as in Europe, America and even in our own
country, India, know little or nothing about Islam. It is difficult
and time-consuming to communicate to others the story of the
Muslims’ past, but I think it is possible to easily disabuse people
of the wrong perceptions that they have about present-day Muslims.
What is taught in the madrasas? What happens inside mosques? What is
preached by Islamic missionary groups? The answer to the wrong
propaganda about all these issues is to keep our doors open to
others to observe for themselves. It should be possible for anyone
to be able to visit Muslim institutions to see things personally.
Muslims themselves will benefit if their institutions become more
transparent in their finances and management and clearly avoid
ambiguity and secrecy. Records of their accounts and finances should
be properly maintained so that no one can accuse them of garnering
money in the name of providing religious education but using it to
fan terrorism instead. This is also the appropriate way for saving
our madrasas, mosques, charitable hospitals and other welfare
institutions from falling prey to corruption. Their income and
expenses should be properly recorded and audited and be open to
public inspection.
Democratic
Functioning of Islamic Institutions
When all the powers over finance and
administration of an Islamic institution are in the hands of a
single person, it is obvious that there will be a serious lack of
transparency. For any institution to run on transparent lines, it is
essential that decisions be taken collectively and through
consultation. America and its allies allege that Muslim countries
and institutions are un-democratic and that they are not governed
through consensus or consultation. They accuse them of being
dictatorial, and their leadership of not to being representative of
the people, of being, instead, inherited from father to son, as in a
system of monarchy, or acquired through force. It is a fact that
this model of leadership characterizes many Muslim countries and
institutions, including even their religious organizations, where
the head continues to exercise control lifelong, till his death,
after which he is generally succeeded by his offspring. Obviously,
those who come to power through such anti-democratic means cannot
take decisions in a democratic fashion. Naturally, this reinforces
the impression that Muslims are mere puppets in the hands of their
leaders, whether of their countries or of those who control Muslim
institutions, and, therefore, in need of being ‘freed’ by others.
It is utterly absurd that a
characteristic feature that the Quran identifies with Muslims—that
of consulting each other in their affairs—is totally lacking among
them. Using this as an excuse, America and its allies have attacked
Muslim countries and Muslim institutions in the name of promoting
‘democracy’. The Quran very clearly lays down that Muslims must
settle their affairs though mutual consultation or shura:
Those who harken to their Lord, and
establish regular prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual
consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for sustenance
The more transparent Muslim
institutions become, the more beneficial they will be to Muslims
themselves. Running these institutions on the basis of mutual
consultation will make them more effective and will secure them
greater public support. If Muslim organizations and religious
institutions seek to involve all concerned people in their
decision-making at all levels, their credibility is bound to
improve. Sadly, today the situation is markedly different, because
of which these institutions do not have the support of all Muslims.
This provides Hindu extremists in India and, at the global level,
America and its clients, to level all sorts of accusations against
these institutions. It is easy to accuse religious institutions led
by individuals who do not represent the people of being enemies of
humanity, intolerant and extremist. Because throughout the world
Muslim countries, organizations, educational institutions and other
organizations are not run on conventional democratic lines, they
easily raise doubts and suspicions. If Muslims were to adopt
transparency and democratic culture in all their political and
cultural activities, allow for the free expression of views and
democratic decision-making, and respect dissenting views, it will
make it much easier for non-Muslims to properly understand them. In
this way, some of the deep fears that they have about Muslims can be
set at rest.
Popularity Among
the People
As I just mentioned, transparency and
democracy are essential for any organized effort on the part of
Muslim institutions and movements to reform and uplift the
community. But, a third ingredient is also required, and that is to
establish strong fraternal links with people of other faiths, to
share in their joys and sorrows and, as far as possible, to seek to
solve Muslim problems, not as a unique case, but as something that
Muslims share with other people. In actual fact, in India or
elsewhere, the list of specifically ‘Muslim problems’ is very
limited. Muslims mostly face the same problems that others do, such
as poverty, disease, lack of appropriate housing and hygiene,
illiteracy, insecurity and so on. These problems afflict the
majority of people in Asia and Africa, Muslims as well as others.
Efforts to overcome these hurdles will
be much more successful if Muslims work together for this with their
non-Muslim neighbours and countrymen. Muslims must not seek to set
up their own separate world. Rather, they must consider the whole
world to be God’s and, accordingly, seek to work for its welfare and
progress. In today’s context, when many non-Muslims are suspicious
of Muslims, such joint activities with people of other faiths could
play a major role in building bridges and promoting confidence and
good relations between Muslims and others, doing away with the
hatred and suspicions that divide them. This is absolutely essential
in order to combat violence and terrorism.
Today, NGOs are playing a major role
in serving society in different ways, such as by preserving the
environment, fighting against pollution, working for peace and human
rights, struggling against poverty, disease, illiteracy, bonded
labour and child labour, demanding a respectable status in society
for women and so on. Our religion commands us to take an active role
in such activities and efforts. The present climate of extreme
suspicion about Muslims also demands that we join hands with our
non-Muslim brothers and miss no opportunity to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with them, and this can best be done through
working with them for these issues of common human concern.
Conclusion
While steering clear from violence is
not the solution to all of the many problems besetting Muslims, it
is obvious that it will certainly solve those many problems that are
a result of a tendency noticeable among Muslims to take to violence
or counter-violence. The question of when our present lamentable
state will change for the better and we shall be rid of those
weaknesses that hold back our development has been debated for a
long time now. Many efforts have been made for the uplift of Muslims
in terms of their education and health, their economic and political
conditions. This work requires a long time, and must be done with
care and determination. To fall prey to temporary circumstances and
take to the path of violence will only be a sign of despair and a
reflection of lack of wisdom. Muslims must abstain from this path.
Instead, they must walk with determination and wisdom on the path
that God has prescribed for them.
(This is a translation
of a chapter titled Tashaddud, Islam Aur Tehrik-e Islami, in
Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqui's Urdu book, Ikeesvin Sadi Mai
Islam, Musalman Aur Tehrik-e Islami (Islam, Muslims and the
Islamic Movement in the 21st Century), markazi Maktaba-e Islami, New
Delhi, 2005, pp.27-52).
Mohammad Nejatullah
Siddiqui is a leading Indian Islamic scholar, whose specialisation
is Islamic Economics. Recipient of the King Faisal Award for Islamic
Studies, he has taught at the Aligarh Muslim University and the King
Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah. He was a Fellow at the University of
California, Los Angeles and Visting Scholar at the Islamic
Development Bank, Jeddah. He served for sixteen years as member of
the central committee of the Jamaat-e Islami Hind. He is the author
of numerous books.
He can be contacted on
mnsiddiqi@hotmail.com
|