The rise of ISIS and their macabre and senseless acts of terrorism, bloodshed, bigotry, and barbarism have alarmed the world, and a new wave of discourse about Islam as a faith and the Muslims as a community has begun. I believe taking part in such discourses to defend one’s own religion is not a sustainable technique.
It is often seen that the hypothesis “Islam promotes violence” is sited with references to the verses of the Holy Qur’an. One may argue for and against this for endless hours -- and no one will actually concede. While the militants, to justify their misdeeds, use the same sets of verses, the Islamophobes use the same to malign Islam and its followers.
However, with views and perceptions adjusted, the same set of verses may be explained or interpreted in a different way to nullify the claims of both the militants and the Islamophobes. It’s not about the literal meaning or translation of the verses -- rather, it must be contextual.
Due to allegiance towards their own religion, some Muslims across the world seem to consider violence to be a justified means of retaliation against the perceived injustice towards their religion and community. We have failed to draw any distinct line between religious Islam and political Islam.
As a result, a peculiar mix of religion and politics influences our moral and political orientations. Such a plight existed in medieval Europe as well. Though the Protestant movement of Martin Luther in 16th century Germany could influence many European nations, a major metamorphosis in the realm of political and spiritual perception of the people and the states took place during the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.
This in turn brought about the 19th century concept of laïcité and secularism across the Western world. However, it must be kept in mind that any policy, however good it may be, may backfire.
Kamal Ataturk enforced Westernisation and modernisation over Turkey. Today, many decades after the demise of Ataturk, Turkey has started to go in the reverse direction. Ba’athist rules in Iraq and Syria gave nothing substantial but long-lasting and self-destructive autocracies.
ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Jihad, Al-Shabaab, and Hamas are nothing but representations of Wahhabism/Salafism. All these outfits believe in Takfirism, which means they are in a puritan struggle and are often poised to declare anyone a Kafir (infidel) if they possess an ideology different to or conflicting theirs.
They are simply playing with the faith, emotions, and religious obligation of fellow Muslims. Social and economic backwardness and ignorance are their breeding agents.
On the other hand, in Europe and North America, educated and young Muslims are surprisingly found to be vulnerable to such extremism.
It may be the stereotyped Western attitude towards the immigrants and Islam that creates a sense of disowning and disintegration among the Muslim youth in the West. Lonely impulse of adventurism surging through the ethnic and religious bonhomie across the Pan-Islamic community might be one more option that should be looked into.
In the early days of the 19th century, Wahhabism rose in Hejaj, which is now the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, allegedly under the direct patronisation of the British Empire. The British thought Wahhabism as an Ideology would serve their purpose to weaken and eventually defeat their long-term enemy, the Ottomans of Turkey. Though the initial movement was purely a theological one, it ultimately turned out to be a tool to put Saudis in power and create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
They began with the persecution of the Shias of Basra and vowed to drive out the Turks from the holy cities of Islam. That is where religion and politics started to mingle, and the line between political Islam and religious Islam started to dilute into each other.
The Wahhabis made Wahhabism as their credential and trademark to rule the Kingdom while the Salafists took it out of the Arabian Peninsula to the international arena and have presented it as the true brand of Islam where politics and religion are inseparably attached.
Today, Muslims are a vulnerable group of people in the world. Especially the young lot, as the poor and illiterate are very much susceptible to the indoctrination and the motivation of extremist groups. They think the West is responsible for their hopeless plight. Their blind anger and marginalised lives are the ideal ingredients to turn them into extremist militants.
Takfiris/Khariji/Salafists, whatever may be their denomination, have been preaching hate and violence since the very early days of Islam. They are the ones who quit both Ali and Muawiyah after the Battle of Siffin and later launched a three-pronged coordinated attack to assassinate Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As and Ali ibn Abi Talib. However, Muawiyah and Amr survived while Ali was killed.
The concluding part of this long form will be published tomorrow.
