Counter-Ideology: Unanswered Questions and the Case of Pakistan

[Zee-Gen]

A counter-ideological response to neutralize and defeat terrorism has become a popular theme in the anti-extremism discourse. It is widely believed that ideology is the key motivating force behind the current wave of terrorism. In fact, academics, journalists, and counter-terrorism experts take for granted that Islamic extremism has its roots in a particular extremist version of religion. Therefore, promotion of a moderate and peaceful version of religion is essential to combat terrorism at its roots. This ideological approach has led to some interesting perspectives in the bid to find solutions to the problem of Islamic extremism. One of the more attractive ones is the “Radicals versus Sufis” perspective.

According to this viewpoint, Takfiri, Salafi, and Wahhabi ideologies are radical and responsible for promoting terrorism. Opposed to these radical ideologies is Sufism, which is hailed as a moderate version of Islam capable of countering radical ideologies.

The following assumptions underpin this ideological approach to tackling terrorism:

1. Al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups gain ideological inspiration from Takfiri, Salafi, and Wahhabi versions of Islam. Jihad is central to these ideologies, so they are the sources of terrorism.
2. The Salafi and Wahhabi extremist movements have political agendas and want to impose their version of Islam not only in Muslim states, but also throughout the world.
3. Sufism, on the other hand, stresses self-purification and has little or no political dimension. So, it is a moderate movement and cannot pose any serious security or political threat to the world.
4. A Wahhabi cannot be moderate; and a follower of Sufism cannot be an extremist.

Given the popularity of these theories, it is important to examine and question these assumptions:

First, there is a need to define the objectives of this approach (i.e. what do we intend to achieve by promoting counter-ideologies?). The biggest challenges facing policy makers across the world today are: elimination of terrorism; and neutralization of the systems created by the extremist forces. In that context, is it necessary—and possible—to eliminate radical ideologies? And can these ideologies be countered by Sufism alone?

Secondly, there is a need to comprehend the Wahhabi and Salafi interpretation of Islam. Is extremism inherent in these ideologies? If so, how and in which regions can we see its impact? Can these ideologies not be transformed into the moderate ideologies? Conversely, are all Sufi movements moderate and incapable of generating any violent movement? Are Sufi ideologies intrinsically moderate or this perception is based on its cultural expression of music, dance, festivals, etc.?

The Case of Pakistan:
In the case of Pakistan, the situation is more complicated than the above “Radical versus Sufis” division suggests. There are 22 organizations and parties that represent the Wahhabi/Salafi sect. Out of them, only three—the Jamat ud-Da’wah (JuD), its subsidiary group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and another small group Jamat ul-Mujahedeen (JM)—favor militant jihad. Another Salafi militant group, Tehreek ul-Mujahedeen, which is active in Kashmir, considers its movement a part of the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

Apart from these groups, every other Wahhabi party considers “Jihad against the Self” (Jihad bil-Nafs) as the greater jihad and believes that militant jihad cannot be waged until declared by the state. These parties do not consider the jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan obligatory. The JuD, LeT and JM are also antagonistic towards the current democratic system in Pakistan and want to enforce a Khilafah, or the Caliphate, whereas the other Wahhabi parties not only recognize Pakistan as a legitimate, constitutional state, but also take part in electoral politics individually or in alliance with other political parties.

Similar differences of opinion on jihad and democracy are also found within the various groups of Deobandis, which are usually put into the category of Wahhabis because of some common theological precepts. Out of 46 major Deobandi parties in Pakistan, 10 are militant in nature, with jihadist and sectarian agendas. Moreover, these militant parties do not enjoy popular support from the mainstream religious clergy. Even on the issue of support for the Taliban, there are diverse contradictory views within the major Deoband political party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. A large faction of the party, led by Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani and Khaleed Somroo, remained critical of the Taliban, even when they were in power in Afghanistan. Last year, concerning the Lal Mosque issue in Islamabad, most of the Deobandi clerics from religious-political parties and the Madressah Board had denounced the activities of the students. So, the ideological demarcation within the school(s) of thought tends to revolve around jihad.

Sufism is a complex and cross-cutting belief system in Pakistan. Even the Deobandis believe in Sufism. Naqshbandi, the major Sufi cult in Pakistan, is mainly comprised of the Deobandis. Furthermore, it is also interesting that Maulana Masood Azhar, head of the major terrorist group Jaish-e-Muhammad, is also believer of Sufism and has restricted his followers to the practices of the Naqshbandi cult.

To further complicate the intermingling of beliefs and practices, the Barelvis, who are considered to be representatives of Sufism in Pakistan, are not free from pro-militant jihadi tendencies. In the Kashmir insurgent movement during the 1990s the Barelvis were quite prominent. Some Barelvi militant groups, such al-Baraq and Tehreek-e-Jihad, are still active. Sunni Tehrik, a major Sunni sectarian group, was found to be involved in the violent activities in Karachi and Interior Sindh. The Safi’es, an important Sufi group in Afghanistan, was an ally of the Taliban in their struggle to take over the country. They even managed to obtain a few important government offices under the Taliban regime.

Pro-Sufism Barelvis dominate Pakistan’s religious landscape. The reason why they did not play a major role in the Afghan jihad of the 1980s was not because of any religious or ideological bindings, but because of political factors. The Saudi influence in the Afghan jihad was another reason for their marginalization. The Saudis had supported only Wahhabi and Deobandi groups during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union.

Moreover, the Arabs and Africans who took part of the Afghan jihad had similar sectarian orientations as the Wahhabis and felt more at ease working alongside the local Salafi and Deobandi commanders. The Afghan and Pakistani groups had also preferred to work with Arab and African mujahideen because they had the more substantial resources. Had it not been for the Saudi and Arab factor, the Barelvis too would have been able to secure their share in the jihad effort. If that had happened, would the promotion of the Wahabi ideology be suggested as a counter-strategy today?

When one ideology is supported financially, morally and politically to counter the other, it can increase sectarian strife in a society. Pakistan faced the consequences during the Afghan jihad as sectarian strife dramatically increased in the country. Similarly, strengthening one group or sect can give rise to similar trends in other sects. So we see that many Sufi groups have also been radicalized and they are as anti-US and anti-Western as other violent groups, though they lack the training and resources received by the Deobandis and Wahabis.

Instead of targeting the entire Wahhabi/Salafi community, can terrorism and political extremism not be countered by encouraging the more moderate elements within the Salafi school of thought?.

Conclusion
It cannot be denied that the Wahhabi movements have created challenges within Muslim societies. They have marginalized the elements of moderation by promoting a narrow vision of Islam. But how these movements are changing Muslim societies and what kind of political, economic, cultural and social challenges they pose is a separate issue. Their domestic and international implications demand different kinds of strategies to the one proposed by counter-ideology theorists.

It is not a surprise that campaigns to promote counter-Islamist ideologies like Sufism have had little success in Pakistan. The official moderate enlightenment and Sufism movements have failed to gain acceptance among the masses. Anti-US and anti-Western feelings are on the rise in Pakistani society and any campaign aimed to counter these sentiments is perceived as a part of the American agenda. It also remains a fact that a large majority of the educated class in Pakistan considers the spiritual rituals of the Pirs inappropriate and activities like use of drugs and prostitution on the shrines immoral. The Sufi culture in Pakistan itself needs reforms. That is why the government-sponsored enlightened moderation has failed to attract common people. Instead, such efforts are increasing support for radical movements.

To develop a comprehensive counter-extremism strategy, there is a need to examine all the aspects of this problem and assess the impact of promoting so-called moderate counter-ideologies in Muslim societies.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Hi Zeshu, thanks for this post. It provides a sense of optimism for all who are concerned about terrorism and it is good to see that there are people who do introspect so thoroughly.

But I think terrorism around the world is based more on the objectives of those terror groups rather than ideology. They are driven by revenge or by the desire to occupy territories. That is what I observe and feel.

Plus I have a question: How come there are versions of Islam? Are people unabe to comprehend the messages of the scriptures properly or do the messages themselves produce confusion in a follower's mind?

 

[Pro Pak]

“No doubt, there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like. It is based upon highest principles of honour, integrity, fair play and justice for all.” (Jinnah, 5th March 1948)

Islam expect every Muslim to do this duty, and if we realize our responsibility time will come soon when we shall justify ourselves worthy of a glorious past.

My message to you all is of hope, courage and confidence. Let us mobilize all our resources in a systematic and organized way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great nation.​

Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim Ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure and which, we hope other will share with us.​

We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind” Speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi July 1, 1948​

May Allah (SAW) Bless Pakistan.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

“No doubt, there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like. It is based upon highest principles of honour, integrity, fair play and justice for all.” (Jinnah, 5th March 1948)
​

Isn't it more like forced regulation? That no Muslim has the right to look for truth for himself and find answers to questions that may go out of Islam's axioms or even against them?

P.S. No offence meant, just a point to make.

 

[Pro Pak]

Isn't it more like forced regulation? That no Muslim has the right to look for truth for himself and find answers to questions that may go out of Islam's axioms or even against them?

P.S. No offence meant, just a point to make.

My Friend there is nothing as forced regulation.

A Muslim has to submit to the divine out of his own free will.

A Forced Marriage is not considered a marriage in Islam.

There are forbidden things like gambling, prostitution, fornication etc we cannot choose these as rightful things

But when it comes to Secular fields of life you are free to choose what ever suites you best as long as you do not step outside the realm of Islam.

Hope it clarifies the situation.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Hope it clarifies the situation.

Well, it does to a certain extent, thank you. But my point was a little different. I wanted to ask that whether a person born in a Muslim family has the freedom to search for truth himself and to decide his future and faith for himself?

 

[niaz]

A counter-ideological response to neutralize and defeat terrorism has become a popular theme in the anti-extremism discourse. It is widely believed that ideology is the key motivating force behind the current wave of terrorism. In fact, academics, journalists, and counter-terrorism experts take for granted that Islamic extremism has its roots in a particular extremist version of religion. Therefore, promotion of a moderate and peaceful version of religion is essential to combat terrorism at its roots. This ideological approach has led to some interesting perspectives in the bid to find solutions to the problem of Islamic extremism. One of the more attractive ones is the “Radicals versus Sufis” perspective.

According to this viewpoint, Takfiri, Salafi, and Wahhabi ideologies are radical and responsible for promoting terrorism. Opposed to these radical ideologies is Sufism, which is hailed as a moderate version of Islam capable of countering radical ideologies.

The following assumptions underpin this ideological approach to tackling terrorism:

1. Al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups gain ideological inspiration from Takfiri, Salafi, and Wahhabi versions of Islam. Jihad is central to these ideologies, so they are the sources of terrorism.
2. The Salafi and Wahhabi extremist movements have political agendas and want to impose their version of Islam not only in Muslim states, but also throughout the world.
3. Sufism, on the other hand, stresses self-purification and has little or no political dimension. So, it is a moderate movement and cannot pose any serious security or political threat to the world.
4. A Wahhabi cannot be moderate; and a follower of Sufism cannot be an extremist.

Given the popularity of these theories, it is important to examine and question these assumptions:

First, there is a need to define the objectives of this approach (i.e. what do we intend to achieve by promoting counter-ideologies?). The biggest challenges facing policy makers across the world today are: elimination of terrorism; and neutralization of the systems created by the extremist forces. In that context, is it necessary—and possible—to eliminate radical ideologies? And can these ideologies be countered by Sufism alone?

Secondly, there is a need to comprehend the Wahhabi and Salafi interpretation of Islam. Is extremism inherent in these ideologies? If so, how and in which regions can we see its impact? Can these ideologies not be transformed into the moderate ideologies? Conversely, are all Sufi movements moderate and incapable of generating any violent movement? Are Sufi ideologies intrinsically moderate or this perception is based on its cultural expression of music, dance, festivals, etc.?

The Case of Pakistan:
In the case of Pakistan, the situation is more complicated than the above “Radical versus Sufis” division suggests. There are 22 organizations and parties that represent the Wahhabi/Salafi sect. Out of them, only three—the Jamat ud-Da’wah (JuD), its subsidiary group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and another small group Jamat ul-Mujahedeen (JM)—favor militant jihad. Another Salafi militant group, Tehreek ul-Mujahedeen, which is active in Kashmir, considers its movement a part of the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

Apart from these groups, every other Wahhabi party considers “Jihad against the Self” (Jihad bil-Nafs) as the greater jihad and believes that militant jihad cannot be waged until declared by the state. These parties do not consider the jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan obligatory. The JuD, LeT and JM are also antagonistic towards the current democratic system in Pakistan and want to enforce a Khilafah, or the Caliphate, whereas the other Wahhabi parties not only recognize Pakistan as a legitimate, constitutional state, but also take part in electoral politics individually or in alliance with other political parties.

Similar differences of opinion on jihad and democracy are also found within the various groups of Deobandis, which are usually put into the category of Wahhabis because of some common theological precepts. Out of 46 major Deobandi parties in Pakistan, 10 are militant in nature, with jihadist and sectarian agendas. Moreover, these militant parties do not enjoy popular support from the mainstream religious clergy. Even on the issue of support for the Taliban, there are diverse contradictory views within the major Deoband political party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. A large faction of the party, led by Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani and Khaleed Somroo, remained critical of the Taliban, even when they were in power in Afghanistan. Last year, concerning the Lal Mosque issue in Islamabad, most of the Deobandi clerics from religious-political parties and the Madressah Board had denounced the activities of the students. So, the ideological demarcation within the school(s) of thought tends to revolve around jihad.

Sufism is a complex and cross-cutting belief system in Pakistan. Even the Deobandis believe in Sufism. Naqshbandi, the major Sufi cult in Pakistan, is mainly comprised of the Deobandis. Furthermore, it is also interesting that Maulana Masood Azhar, head of the major terrorist group Jaish-e-Muhammad, is also believer of Sufism and has restricted his followers to the practices of the Naqshbandi cult.

To further complicate the intermingling of beliefs and practices, the Barelvis, who are considered to be representatives of Sufism in Pakistan, are not free from pro-militant jihadi tendencies. In the Kashmir insurgent movement during the 1990s the Barelvis were quite prominent. Some Barelvi militant groups, such al-Baraq and Tehreek-e-Jihad, are still active. Sunni Tehrik, a major Sunni sectarian group, was found to be involved in the violent activities in Karachi and Interior Sindh. The Safi’es, an important Sufi group in Afghanistan, was an ally of the Taliban in their struggle to take over the country. They even managed to obtain a few important government offices under the Taliban regime.

Pro-Sufism Barelvis dominate Pakistan’s religious landscape. The reason why they did not play a major role in the Afghan jihad of the 1980s was not because of any religious or ideological bindings, but because of political factors. The Saudi influence in the Afghan jihad was another reason for their marginalization. The Saudis had supported only Wahhabi and Deobandi groups during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union.

Moreover, the Arabs and Africans who took part of the Afghan jihad had similar sectarian orientations as the Wahhabis and felt more at ease working alongside the local Salafi and Deobandi commanders. The Afghan and Pakistani groups had also preferred to work with Arab and African mujahideen because they had the more substantial resources. Had it not been for the Saudi and Arab factor, the Barelvis too would have been able to secure their share in the jihad effort. If that had happened, would the promotion of the Wahabi ideology be suggested as a counter-strategy today?

When one ideology is supported financially, morally and politically to counter the other, it can increase sectarian strife in a society. Pakistan faced the consequences during the Afghan jihad as sectarian strife dramatically increased in the country. Similarly, strengthening one group or sect can give rise to similar trends in other sects. So we see that many Sufi groups have also been radicalized and they are as anti-US and anti-Western as other violent groups, though they lack the training and resources received by the Deobandis and Wahabis.

Instead of targeting the entire Wahhabi/Salafi community, can terrorism and political extremism not be countered by encouraging the more moderate elements within the Salafi school of thought?.

Conclusion
It cannot be denied that the Wahhabi movements have created challenges within Muslim societies. They have marginalized the elements of moderation by promoting a narrow vision of Islam. But how these movements are changing Muslim societies and what kind of political, economic, cultural and social challenges they pose is a separate issue. Their domestic and international implications demand different kinds of strategies to the one proposed by counter-ideology theorists.

It is not a surprise that campaigns to promote counter-Islamist ideologies like Sufism have had little success in Pakistan. The official moderate enlightenment and Sufism movements have failed to gain acceptance among the masses. Anti-US and anti-Western feelings are on the rise in Pakistani society and any campaign aimed to counter these sentiments is perceived as a part of the American agenda. It also remains a fact that a large majority of the educated class in Pakistan considers the spiritual rituals of the Pirs inappropriate and activities like use of drugs and prostitution on the shrines immoral. The Sufi culture in Pakistan itself needs reforms. That is why the government-sponsored enlightened moderation has failed to attract common people. Instead, such efforts are increasing support for radical movements.

To develop a comprehensive counter-extremism strategy, there is a need to examine all the aspects of this problem and assess the impact of promoting so-called moderate counter-ideologies in Muslim societies.

I am in complete agreement with your view to the extent that solution of the Taliban and sectarian problems lies in following the Sufi traditions. Islam in Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh and NWFP had very strong Sufi and Pir following. The whole region is littered with the tombs of the Saints who converted non believers to Islam thru personal examples, not by force or by coercion.

What you write about the Deobandis is what was probably intended by the founding fathers of the Deoband. My personal experience with Deobandi of Pakistan (mainly of Punjab) is different. I have known mullahs following Deobandi maslak to be against bringing out Eid Milad un Nabi procession. However I never heard any one pronouncing any other sect as ‘Waajib ul Qatl’. This cancer started with bigot Zia and his henchmen such as the bigot Hamid Gul. These villains provided support to terrorist organizations such as SSP with Saudi finance and US help.

From the Deoband Madrassa website, I found nothing whatsoever that was objectionable or Takfiri. However, problem is that many Deobandis in Pakistan, specially the Taliban have aligned themselves to Al-Qaida and the Salafin. Salafin follow teachings of Ibne Taymmiya, who is considered as 5th Imam following Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal. Both Ibne Taymmiya and Abdul Wahab consider Sufism and veneration of Saints tombs as Shirk. That is why Wahabis and Salafin consider Shias as Kafir. Abdul Wahab began by leveling the grave of Zayd bin Al Khatab (RA) bother of Hazrat Omar (RA) and a companion of the Prophet (PBUH). Zayd was martyred fighting Masaylamah Kazzab and his grave existed near Riyadh until Wahab destroyed it the 18th century. In 1802 Wahabis attacked Najaf and Karbala, destroying the tombs and killing any one who resisted. Modern day Taliban belief is indistinguishable to the Salafin beliefs.

As long as Taliban Fitna remains, there is no chance of any counter ideology. Especially since Munnawar Hassan of JI and hypocrite Imran Khan, despite having no representation in the parliament, continue getting full coverage by the Urdu media. Regret to say that there is no moderate element within the Salafi School. Ibne Taymmiyya was the biggest critic of great Ibne Arabi, father of Sufism.

 

[EjazR]

There is already a thread discussing this here http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/36884-counter-ideology-wahhabis.html

The main thrust is not which school of thought is better placed to tackle extremism but the use of that school of thought for political puposes. For example Imam Malik (Maliki school of though is quite popular among the arabian peninsula) was requested by the then king to apply his school of thought as "state religion" but he refused because he didn't want that to be enforced top down. If a state sponsored "sufi" school of thought is going to be promoted, we will have a smilar problem a few decades down the track.

The problem is that in Saudi Arabia the salafi clerics were given politcal power and they outdid themselves in interfering with the state functioning with other radical influences like the Aghan-Soviet war helping them while in Pakistan, Zia used the Deobandi madrassas for the same purposes.

The problem lies with parties like JI JUI e.t.c. who use Islam for vote gathering and politcal purposes completely contrary to Islamic teachings. The more radicalised these groups get the more prone to violence they get.

As I have mentioned before no school of thought allows killing of civilians muslim or non-muslim. Still some of these people from varied schools of thought bring out wrong excuses to do this. Hence, the problem is using religion or ethnicity based nationalism that should be nipped in the bud and its use for politcal purposes.

 

[EjazR]

The Challenge of Islamic Fundamentalism
CPS International, the Centre for Peace and Spirituality founded by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
The Challenge of Islamic Fundamentalism | CPS International

With reference to the Muslims of the present day, the news most highlighted in the media relates to Muslim fundamentalism. Experience has shown that there is nothing more destructive than fanaticism—the driving force of Muslim fundamentalism. However, it is not generally appreciated that Islamic fundamentalism, launched in the name of Islam,has been dealing a death blow to the image of Islam as a religion of peace and mercy.

For it is this Muslim fundamentalism which, today, has converted the image of Islam into one tarnished by violence.

Let us place this form of extremism in a historical perspective. At the time of the emergence of modern western civilization, the greater part of the world was politically dominated by Muslims. The Ottoman Empire at the western extremity and the Mughal Empire on the eastern border had become symbols of glory for the Muslim ummah. These Muslim empires came into direct conflict with the western empires and, in the long run, the Muslim empires were vanquished. This brought to an end 1000 years of their political supremacy. People in general tend to accept what they see on the surface, so that Muslims all over the world came to hold that, in the break-up of their empires, the upholders of western civilization were the oppressors, while the Muslims were the oppressed.

However, in actual fact, the internal degeneration of these Muslim empires had reduced them to the state of wood infested with white ants. It would only have been a matter of time before they collapsed on their own. It was only by a fortuitous concatenation of events that the military might of western civilization was ostensibly the cause of their fall.

Be that as it may, the upshot of this was that the entire Muslim world became averse to western nations. At an earlier period this aversion had already manifested itself towards the British and the French, and then somewhat later towards the U.S.A., for, in actuality, it is the Americans who have been leading the western nations since the end of the Second World War.

Now, I should like to identify and analyze the origin of the present extremist aspect of Islamic fundamentalism, which has made such a rapid descent into violence. The principal reason for it having come into being in this virulent form has its roots in a certain defeatist mentality which has, unfortunately, been developing in the Muslims since the loss of their empires. A defeatist, or a besieged mentality inevitably opts for a negative course of action. The possessors of such a mentality consider themselves as the oppressed, and those whom they see as setting themselves up against them as the oppressors. With this bent of mind, they are willing to engage themselves in any activity whatsoever, no matter how damaging to humanity or contrary to religion it might be.

What made matters worse—as a direct result of this negative psychology—was the emergence of certain Muslim leaders in the first half of the twentieth century, who expounded their own political interpretation of Islam, according to which Islam was a complete system of State and Muslims had been appointed by God to fulfill the mission of establishing this Islamic state throughout the world. Some well-known names associated with this interpretation are the following: Syed Qutub in Egypt, Ayatullah Khomeini in Iran and Syed Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan.

This political view of Islam, in spite of being a grave misinterpretation, spread rapidly among Muslims. The only reason for this was that Muslims, owing to their defeatist mentality, saw nothing incongruous in its negativity. Given the circumstances of their past history, this political interpretation was in total consonance with their psychological condition. Thus, due to their negative mindset and not due to Islamic reasoning, this false interpretation soon gained currency among them, and the activities which were an offshoot from this—paradoxical as this may seem—were backed by funding from America in a bid to stem the rising tide of Communism.

Prior to 1991, when the Soviet Union had assumed the position of a super power, and posed a continuing threat to America, one of the strategies adopted by America was to set off the Muslim fundamentalists against the Communists, because these fundamentalists were persistently writing and speaking against Communism as being the enemy of Islam. America also gave all kinds of help, to the fundamentalists. It provided them with weapons to set themselves up against the Soviet Union and assisted in the dissemination of their literature all over the world. But this enemy-of-my-enemy-is-a-friend formula ultimately proved counter-productive, in that it virtually amounted to replacing one enemy with another. The waging of this proxy war turned out to be only very temporary in its benefits.

Those who at a later stage felt the impact of extremist fundamentalism, took this to be a case of violence against them. So they opted for a policy of gun versus gun. But subsequent events proved this policy to be a total failure, the reason being that the issue was not that of conducting a purely physical struggle, but of exposing and scotching the fallacies of a flawed ideology. You can win a fight with arms, but to defeat an ideology, a counter-ideology is a sine qua non. Without that nothing can be achieved.

There is no doubt about it that Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to peace, for, due to their fanaticism, its proponents do not stop short of resorting to destructive activity, even if it should prove suicidal. Now the task we must undertake is to make use of the media on all fronts in order to make people aware of the fact that this political interpretation of Islam is totally without basis either in the Quran or in the examples set by the Prophet in thought, word and deed. As opposed to this erroneous interpretation, the true values of Islam, based on peace, brotherhood and well-wishing should be presented to the public. If this correct interpretation of Islam could be brought to people’s attention, I should have high hopes that the majority of the people who have been misguided would abandon the path of hatred and violence and come back to Islam—“to the home of peace” to which God calls us in the Quran.

It is true that in these violent activities only a small group is involved. But this small group has the indirect support of the majority, who are no less swayed by the political interpretation of Islam. According to Khalil Gibran:

“not a single leaf falls from the tree without the silent consent of the whole tree.”

If then the majority were to withdraw its indirect support and condemn Islamic militancy, these fringe groups would lose their moral courage. That would be the first step. Then the time would come when the fundamentalists who are directly involved in violent activities would abandon the path of violence altogether.

 

[Srinivas]

The Challenge of Islamic Fundamentalism
CPS International, the Centre for Peace and Spirituality founded by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
The Challenge of Islamic Fundamentalism | CPS International

With reference to the Muslims of the present day, the news most highlighted in the media relates to Muslim fundamentalism. Experience has shown that there is nothing more destructive than fanaticism—the driving force of Muslim fundamentalism. However, it is not generally appreciated that Islamic fundamentalism, launched in the name of Islam,has been dealing a death blow to the image of Islam as a religion of peace and mercy.

For it is this Muslim fundamentalism which, today, has converted the image of Islam into one tarnished by violence.

Let us place this form of extremism in a historical perspective. At the time of the emergence of modern western civilization, the greater part of the world was politically dominated by Muslims. The Ottoman Empire at the western extremity and the Mughal Empire on the eastern border had become symbols of glory for the Muslim ummah. These Muslim empires came into direct conflict with the western empires and, in the long run, the Muslim empires were vanquished. This brought to an end 1000 years of their political supremacy. People in general tend to accept what they see on the surface, so that Muslims all over the world came to hold that, in the break-up of their empires, the upholders of western civilization were the oppressors, while the Muslims were the oppressed.

However, in actual fact, the internal degeneration of these Muslim empires had reduced them to the state of wood infested with white ants. It would only have been a matter of time before they collapsed on their own. It was only by a fortuitous concatenation of events that the military might of western civilization was ostensibly the cause of their fall.

Be that as it may, the upshot of this was that the entire Muslim world became averse to western nations. At an earlier period this aversion had already manifested itself towards the British and the French, and then somewhat later towards the U.S.A., for, in actuality, it is the Americans who have been leading the western nations since the end of the Second World War.

Now, I should like to identify and analyze the origin of the present extremist aspect of Islamic fundamentalism, which has made such a rapid descent into violence. The principal reason for it having come into being in this virulent form has its roots in a certain defeatist mentality which has, unfortunately, been developing in the Muslims since the loss of their empires. A defeatist, or a besieged mentality inevitably opts for a negative course of action. The possessors of such a mentality consider themselves as the oppressed, and those whom they see as setting themselves up against them as the oppressors. With this bent of mind, they are willing to engage themselves in any activity whatsoever, no matter how damaging to humanity or contrary to religion it might be.

What made matters worse—as a direct result of this negative psychology—was the emergence of certain Muslim leaders in the first half of the twentieth century, who expounded their own political interpretation of Islam, according to which Islam was a complete system of State and Muslims had been appointed by God to fulfill the mission of establishing this Islamic state throughout the world. Some well-known names associated with this interpretation are the following: Syed Qutub in Egypt, Ayatullah Khomeini in Iran and Syed Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan.

This political view of Islam, in spite of being a grave misinterpretation, spread rapidly among Muslims. The only reason for this was that Muslims, owing to their defeatist mentality, saw nothing incongruous in its negativity. Given the circumstances of their past history, this political interpretation was in total consonance with their psychological condition. Thus, due to their negative mindset and not due to Islamic reasoning, this false interpretation soon gained currency among them, and the activities which were an offshoot from this—paradoxical as this may seem—were backed by funding from America in a bid to stem the rising tide of Communism.

Prior to 1991, when the Soviet Union had assumed the position of a super power, and posed a continuing threat to America, one of the strategies adopted by America was to set off the Muslim fundamentalists against the Communists, because these fundamentalists were persistently writing and speaking against Communism as being the enemy of Islam. America also gave all kinds of help, to the fundamentalists. It provided them with weapons to set themselves up against the Soviet Union and assisted in the dissemination of their literature all over the world. But this enemy-of-my-enemy-is-a-friend formula ultimately proved counter-productive, in that it virtually amounted to replacing one enemy with another. The waging of this proxy war turned out to be only very temporary in its benefits.

Those who at a later stage felt the impact of extremist fundamentalism, took this to be a case of violence against them. So they opted for a policy of gun versus gun. But subsequent events proved this policy to be a total failure, the reason being that the issue was not that of conducting a purely physical struggle, but of exposing and scotching the fallacies of a flawed ideology. You can win a fight with arms, but to defeat an ideology, a counter-ideology is a sine qua non. Without that nothing can be achieved.

There is no doubt about it that Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to peace, for, due to their fanaticism, its proponents do not stop short of resorting to destructive activity, even if it should prove suicidal. Now the task we must undertake is to make use of the media on all fronts in order to make people aware of the fact that this political interpretation of Islam is totally without basis either in the Quran or in the examples set by the Prophet in thought, word and deed. As opposed to this erroneous interpretation, the true values of Islam, based on peace, brotherhood and well-wishing should be presented to the public. If this correct interpretation of Islam could be brought to people’s attention, I should have high hopes that the majority of the people who have been misguided would abandon the path of hatred and violence and come back to Islam—“to the home of peace” to which God calls us in the Quran.

It is true that in these violent activities only a small group is involved. But this small group has the indirect support of the majority, who are no less swayed by the political interpretation of Islam. According to Khalil Gibran:

“not a single leaf falls from the tree without the silent consent of the whole tree.”

If then the majority were to withdraw its indirect support and condemn Islamic militancy, these fringe groups would lose their moral courage. That would be the first step. Then the time would come when the fundamentalists who are directly involved in violent activities would abandon the path of violence altogether.

A very good and informative post

 

[EjazR]

An emerging generation of socially-engaged Ulema | TwoCircles.net

By Yoginder Sikand

Reforms in India’s madrasas are a much talked-about subject today. In discussing the issue, the media tends to give inordinate attention to the views of the older generation of ulema, particularly those who are associated with certain large madrasas or Jamias, especially those that are known to be particularly conservative. Consequently, the voices of younger-generation ulema, particularly those who have also had a university education, tend to be completely silenced.

But, given that these men will, in due course, form a significant section of the Muslim religious leadership, it is crucial to listen to what they, too, have to say. Their views can be quite surprising for those who imagine that the ulema are wholly opposed to reform or ‘modernisation’ of madrasa education and to reviewing some deeply-entrenched and controversial understandings on certain religious matters. In fact, these young ulema are among the most passionate advocates for madrasa reform and for more relevant and socially-engaged understandings of Islam in the contemporary Indian context.

Recently, I had the good fortune to meet one such young Islamic scholar, the Lucknow-based Maulana Yahya Nomani. I had been in touch with him for almost a year through email after I had translated a fascinating book that he had penned in Urdu on the subject of jihad. Although I had read numerous books on jihad before, I had not come across such a penetrating and deeply-satisfying analysis. Maulana Yahya was kind enough to let me translate the book for the benefit of those who cannot read Urdu.

The book, simply titled al-Jihad, provides an incisive critique of the arguments about the Islamic concept of jihad put forward by both hardened Islamophobes and radical Islamists alike. ‘Jihad is often seen by non-Muslims as anti-human, as akin to terrorism, and as a cover-up for imperialist conquest. I wanted to critique that impression’, Maulana Yahya explains. ‘At the same time’, he adds, ‘many Muslims are opposed to ijtihad, to reviewing some of the rules of classical fiqh that were developed in a totally different historical context, including in matters related to jihad, some of which are not in accordance with the Quran. Consequently, Muslim youth in many countries, inflamed by the oppression suffered by Muslims, have taken to indiscriminate violence, wrongly claiming it to be jihad. I wanted to counter their arguments, too’. ‘I wanted the book to appeal to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike’, he explains.

Some of the salient arguments that the book makes is that terrorism, proxy war and the targeting of non-combatants is un-Islamic, as is launching war by any entity other than by an established state or government. Likewise, war for the sake of worldly conquest and power cannot be termed a jihad. That is to say, a war does not become a jihad simply because those who engage in it claim it to be so. Furthermore, the book argues while denouncing the claims of some extremists, Muslims can, indeed must, befriend people of goodwill belonging to other faiths and deal kindly with them.

‘Some radical ideologues claim that armed jihad is a struggle to end rule of kufr or infidelity, and insist that Muslims must always engage in such a struggle if they are in a position to do so. By this they also mean that even if a non-Muslim government allows Muslims religious freedom they still must engage in violent jihad against it. What they believe is that non-Muslims have no right to rule any bit of God’s earth’, Maulana Yahya explains. But he does not agree with this formulation at all, which he terms ‘bizarre’, ‘extremist’, and as not warranted by his reading of the Quran. ‘The real purpose of jihad’, he points out, ‘is defence or establishing justice, and not to end non-Muslim rule in any country. If a non-Muslim government is just and does not oppress Muslims or suppress Islam, there is no justification to launch armed jihad against it.’

Maulana Yahya is also critical of some aspects of the received juridical or fiqh tradition with regard to rules governing jihad that were formulated by the medieval jurists or fuqaha. ‘For instance, there is no concept of permanent peace with non-Muslims in the corpus of medieval fiqh’, he notes. Since that position corresponded to the then-prevailing historical conditions, he says, there is an urgent need to revise and change this understanding in today’s context, where permanent peace is something that is not just a widely-accepted concept but is something that Muslims, along with others, should actively strive for.

In his early 40s, Maulana Yahya is the grandson of the well-known (and, for some, controversial) scholar Maulana Manzoor Nomani. His father, Maulana Muhammad Zakariya, was a teacher of Hadith at Lucknow’s renowned Nadwat ul-Ulema madrasa. Having completed the fazil course at Nadwa in 1993, Maulana Yahya did a Bachelor’s course in Islamic History at Madinah University, after which he joined the monthly al-Furqan, an Urdu religious magazine based in Lucknow founded by his grand-father. Besides working as associate editor of this magazine, he holds regular Quranic classes in mosques and dawah camps for youth. Recently, he set up al-Mahad al-Ali lil Dirasat al-Islamiya (‘Institute for Higher Islamic Studies’) in Lucknow, which provides a two-year course to madrasa graduates to, as he puts it, ‘make them aware of modern issues, concerns and challenges'.

The Institute seeks to familiarize madrasa graduates with subjects that they have had little or no exposure to in the course of spending several years studying in madrasas. These include research methodology, English, computer applications, and basic sociology, political science, law and economics. Till date, almost fifty students have completed the course. Some of these have gone back to teaching in madrasas, where they are expected to impart their new knowledge and thereby promote change in the madrasas from within. Others have enrolled in universities for higher education.

Maulana Yahya argues that the ulema must have a good grasp of contemporary issues and conditions in order to express Islam in a relevant manner, to provide the community with a socially-engaged leadership, and to come up with contextually-appropriate Islamic responses to various questions and challenges. This is why his Institute places particular focus on developing its students’ research skills, something that is left ignored in most madrasas. Students are expected to do research not just on theological or legal or fiqhi matters but also on issues related to Muslims’ social, economic and educational conditions and problems.

The Institute, Maulana Yahya tells me, has set for itself an ambitious publishing programme. It plans to assign particular topics of contemporary concern on which there is paucity or complete lack of well-grounded published works to its students to work on as projects, which would later be brought out in the form of books. So far, the Institute has published two books, one Maulana Yahya’s book on jihad, and the other a classic historical treatise by the late Maulana Abdul Majid Dariyabadi. A third book is due to be out soon—on women and Islam, critiquing the views of both some ultra-conservatives, who completely rule out any public role for women outside their homes, as well as ultra-liberals, who argue for complete sameness between men and women.

Like Maulana Yahya, I have met scores of other young ulema over the years who are engaged, in their own ways, in promoting inter-communal harmony, in articulating more relevant understandings of Islam (including on a host of controversial issues such as jihad and women’s rights), and in facilitating reforms in the madrasas. Their voices cry out to be heard. They can no longer continue to be ignored.

 

[EjazR]

A very deep message and something to think about especially for muslims.
Maulana Wahiduddin's Anti-Terror Solidarity Statement on the 26/11 Anniversary Eve
One year after the November 26-29, 2008 terrorist attacks, the leaders of different faiths met in Mumbai on Tuesday, 17th November 2009 at an anti-terror solidarity meeting co-sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Art of Living. The following is an excerpt from Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's statement:

What happened on November twenty-six, 2008 at some prominent buildings in Bombay was a sheer act of Terrorism. According to the International Law as well as Islamic Law it was a heinous crime. In every aspect it is highly condemnable, nothing can justify it.

What is Terrorism? According to the Islamic definition, terrorism is an act of violence by any agency or organization other than state. Islam allows only an established state to use arms only in a situation when there is a clear attack from outside. According to the Islamic Sharia only one kind of war is permissible, that is, defensive war. According to this definition guerrilla war, proxy war, and undeclared war are unislamic.

Islam gives great respect to all human beings. There is a verse in the Quran:

Whoever killed a human being – except as a punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land – shall be regarded as having killed all mankind. (5:32)

It means, according to Islam, killing of an innocent person is so bad that it is like killing all mankind.

According to Islam violence is not only a moral crime, it also does not yield any positive result. According to the law of nature, one cannot achieve anything through the violent method. The prophet of Islam has said: “God grants to non-violence what He does not grant to violence.”

Islam tries to root out all kinds of violence. According to the Islamic teaching, negative reaction is completely prohibited.

One person came to the Prophet and asked: “O Prophet, give me a master advice by which I may be able to manage all the affairs of my life.”

The Prophet replied: “Don’t be angry.”

What is anger? Anger is a negative reaction to a situation. Anger is the source of all kinds of evil. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to enmity, and enmity leads to revenge and violence, and lastly to war.

Terrorism is a world-wide phenomenon, several states are involved in trying to eradicate terrorism, but as far as the result is concerned they have completely failed. We have to reassess the matter and find out an effective solution. We have to re-plan our strategy.

According to the dictum of UNESCO: “Violence begins from the mind.” So, we have to kill violence in human mind. If it is alive in the human mind, no effort can eradicate terrorism except the re-engineering of minds of individuals by taking them away from the culture of violence and bringing them closer to the culture of peace.

Those who are engaged in eradicating violence or terrorism, have taken it as a gun versus gun issue, so they are trying to eliminate violence with counter violence. But this method is not going to work. Present violence or terrorism is based on an ideology so we have to find out a counter ideology, otherwise all kinds of methods based on this theory adopted to eradicate violence will fail.

The ideology behind present day terrorism is that Islam is a political system and that it is the duty of all Muslims to establish the political rule of Islam in the world. This kind of thinking was not prevalent during the time of the Prophet Muhammad or his early companions. It is a later innovation. This was developed over the last few centuries by a handful of people and has become widespread in the Muslim world today. This has led to the present-day violence.

A large number of Muslims, and especially many easily influenced youth, have become obsessed with this ideology and are trying to establish the political rule of Islam, thinking it to be their ticket to paradise. Having failed to achieve this objective of establishing Islamic rule by the peaceful method, they have started resorting to suicide bombing, the idea being that if we cannot eliminate non-Islamic rule, then let us at least de-stabilize it and pave the way for Islamic rule.

I have studied Islam by making reference to its original sources—the Quran and Hadith—and I can say with certainty that the political interpretation of Islam is an innovation and the real Islam, as followed by Prophet Muhammad and his early followers, is based upon peace, compassion and tolerance.

People consider peace as the greatest good in the world. However, peace does not prevail in the world today. In my view, this is because people the world over are acting intolerantly and indulging in acts of violence, saying, “Give us justice and peace will ensue”. But when people, ostensibly seeking justice, stoop to violence, peace can never prevail. Peace is always desirable for its own sake, and every other desirable state comes after peace, not along with it. So, the maxim I follow, when peace is the desired state, is:

“Ignore the problems, and avail of the opportunities.”

Once people become tolerant and obtain peace for its own sake, what that actually does is open up opportunities—it creates favourable conditions, which enable people to strive for their ideals, eventually attaining justice and other constructive ends.

This happens due to the law of nature. When the individual refrains from making a controversial matter into one of prestige, this gives rise to serious thinking. This non-emotional thinking helps him to understand that if he were to walk out of the point of controversy he would find all other paths open to him.

To me, this ideology of peace can counter the ideology of violence and it is based on the original sources of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad provides a very clear historical example of this in his method of negotiating the Hudaybiyya peace treaty.

All religions condemn violence; all religions preach love, compassion, and tolerance. So, is the case of Islam. Islam gives us the formula of enmity management rather than fighting with the enemies. There is a verse in the Quran: “Good deeds and bad deeds are not equal. Do good deeds in return for enemy’s bad deeds. And you will see that your enemy has become your dearest friend.” (41:34)

According to this Quranic teaching, one’s enemy is his potential friend, so, turn this potential into actual.

Everyone wants to live in peace. In terms of result, peace is the summon bonum, it is a fact that violence or terrorism is not going to give a positive result to anyone. Violence can only lead to destruction rather than construction, so we have no option other than to choose peace at any cost. Violence is not an option, neither for an individual nor for a nation.

On the eve of the first anniversary of the 26/11, I join my voice with others against religion-based terrorism and express my solidarity with all victims, may they be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, or Jews. May God give peace to all.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

 

[Spring Onion]

Well, it does to a certain extent, thank you. But my point was a little different. I wanted to ask that whether a person born in a Muslim family has the freedom to search for truth himself and to decide his future and faith for himself?

Yes he he can and there is no bar on him or her as far as Islam is concerned.

Islam gives you the freedom if you wana leave it you can there is no punishment for that in Islam.

 

[SSGPA1]

Tamils are not Muslims but they have people with extremist views. What about the KKK and Hitlor?

How about Pope Urban? Modi and Thakery are extremists too.

Don't fall into the trap of Western media.

Terrorism and extremism has nothing to do with religious beliefs, you put Jews in Palestinians' situation and you will have the same outcome.

In Pakistan, Muslims overall are simple and peacful people, however, a minority of Muslims are involved in terrorists activities.

Changing to Salafi or Wahabi or Sufi is not the solution. Delivery of justice and prosperity are the solutions.

 

[EjazR]

^^^ I think you mean LTTE are not muslims. Tamil is an ethnic group and they are plenty of Tamil muslim both in India and Sri Lanka FYI