Dr. Ja’afar Sheikh Idrees, Rector of the Open American University, to Al-Daawah:
ISLAM
Does not only condemn terrorism but also provides remedies
Interviewed by AI-Daawah Magazine Representative, Makkah
Through incessant dialogue on terrorism and with our guest, the renowned Muslim thinker Dr. Ja’afar Sheikh Idrees, we can establish grounds for the revitalization of clear concepts that have been kept under heavy layers of dust for years and under the pretext of which sovereignty of many states has been transgressed against, civilians have been terrified and the aspirations and dreams for a better future of understanding have been buried alive.
* As a start, what can Dr. Ja’afar say about terrorism?
- Some Western writers and intellectuals were neither satisfied with the efforts their governments have been exerting to find and punish the perpetrators of September 11 attacks, nor their thirst was quenched with the fierce assault waged against Afghanistan, and in an attempt to step up war against Islam, they began searching for alleged radical intellectual reasons behind such events which they termed as “terrorism”. Some of them claimed that these acts have their secret seat in Islamic education. However, this allegation can be rebutted by two things: First, the statements voiced by some fair Western writers that hatred for the West is not only limited to some Muslim groups, but also shared by the members of other civilizations. In a newspaper article, one of them said: “The type of violent and daring attack, which we associate with Islamists, has for centuries been associated with territories like Japan, Korea and China.” Muslims have no monopoly over suicidal tactics,” he added. Some other writers reminded that some American fundamental Christian bands were the ones who committed the first major terrorist attack against the United States. Second, when terrorism is correctly defined as constituting injustice, aggression and criminality, Islam would prove to be mostly alienated with it.
* However, there is a problem in the term and context of “terrorism”!
- Indeed, the problem is that the term `terrorism’ as presently used is so ambiguous that people do not agree on a specific meaning for it. As far as the definition of terrorism is concerned, an American society concerned with the study of terrorism stated that “the nature of terrorism makes it difficult to define it. Even the US Administration could not reach a unified definition. The popular saying goes that the terrorist according to someone is a freedom fighter according to someone else.”
The American Electronic Encarta defines terrorism as “the use of violence or threat to use violence to create an atmosphere of terror among certain people. Terrorist violence targets polytheist, religious, governments, political parties, companies or information institutions.”
The US Congress, on the other hand, defines terrorism as “deliberate and on purpose violence with political motives by which small national organizations or secret agents target civilian groups with the likely purpose of influencing spectators or viewers.”
The FBI says about terrorism: “it is the illegitimate use or threat to use violence against persons or properties to intimidate or force a government or all or some civilians to realize political or social objectives.”
All above definitions are basically fallible because they omit to mention the original linguistic meaning of the word agreed to by both Arabic and English languages. According to an English lexicon, the word `terror’ means: “use of violence to attain political purposes.” It gives an example to this definition saying: “The resistance movement started a campaign of terror against occupation forces.” Hence, resistance is a legitimate act. The same meaning is used by the Qur’an purporting a means of resistance and protection of life and religion. Allah says: “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds or war, to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.” (Al-Anfal: 60)
The term `resistance’ may signify self, homeland, honor or property defense, which is legitimate according to all legislations and laws. However, if resistance transgresses to aggression, the word will then have a bad meaning as per kind of terror, murder or war. Therefore, for the word to signify the bad meaning currently used, we should restrict it to an adjective like aggressive or unfair. This is essential especially for Muslims.
I would hence reiterate that we should restrict the bad meaning of terror as the aggressive one which would make the basic meaning clear; additions that make the definition a terminological one. It seems that it is not difficult to agree to such addition, especially if we agree with those who study terrorism in the United States. Terminological definitions have different purposes. The definition set forth by the Congress is meant to give an inventory of terrorist operations in the world while the definition set forth by FBI is meant to track down aggressors against the United States.
There will remain a difference in viewpoints in this regard, because it is something relevant to different cultures, religions and philosophies. However, these things may evolve a rational dialogue. Our mission, as Muslims, is to explain to the world what we consider as aggressive terror and how to protect people against such aggression.
The elements that should be added to the linguistic meaning to conclude a terminological definition include War according to Islam is the responsibility of the Muslim State which decides on timing and place specifying the type of terrorists. Although people sometimes speak about the state-terror, there is semi-consensus that the terminological meaning of terror is that it is the one committed by organizations and groups rather than governments. The other element is specifying those targeted by violence. While some people try to limit the meaning of terror to violence aimed at unmilitary targets or groups, others are of the opinion that it should include all the above. The third element is specifying the purpose of terror, i.e. a mean to attain political or social objectives. Now, in the light of this explanation of the concept of terror, we can have an idea about the position of Islam toward it.
* How do you view Islamic treatment of terrorism?
- Islam is, in principle, faraway from terrifying or murdering people. When it does this, it is a reaction to an aggression or a punishment for a crime. Islam does not only condemn aggressive terrorism, but also establishes remedies based on structured psychological, punitive and reformative grounds.
Psychological treatment is the main one as the acts of people, whether good or bad, are motivated by their conceptions, beliefs, values and knowledge. Islam treats all types of human injustice by guiding people to believe in Allah, the Almighty, which is the basis of every goodness and the most important component of natural disposition of human beings. When hearts taste the sweet nectar of belief, it would become easy for them to do good and avoid evil. Belief is followed by worship which is the strongest support to belief, especially prayer. Allah says: “… Verily the prayer prevents from doing vice and inequity, and the remembering of Allah is greater indeed. And Allah knows what you do.” [Al-Ankabut: 45] So, when the heart is ready to accept Allah’s injunctions and prohibitions, he would easily do good and reject evil.
* What are the roots behind the Islamic position that calls to justice and peace?
- The Islamic position that calls to justice and deterring of aggression is not temporal. On the contrary, it is a position that stems out of the original teachings and nature of this religion. It , first, as any true religion revealed through Messengers, calls people to believe in Allah and guides them to worship Him and to live with this worship happy in this life and the life to come. Second, true guidance is something innate in the heart against which no terror or threat of harm or murder may yield fruits. What can yield fruits for such a case when ready to accept guidance is to know the truth brought by the Prophet (PBUH) and to be certain about it. Third, the foremost mission of all Allah’s Messengers, including our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his rightly guided followers, is to propagate truth in clear terms and to convince people with proofs that refute any suspicion. Hence, the foremost means of Jihad (fighting in the way of Allah) is the Qur’an. Allah says: “… but strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavour with it (the Qur’an).” [Al-Furqan:52] Fourth, the one who causes someone to follow the truth would receive a greater reward than that of the one who kills him even when such killing is legitimate. AI-Bukhari reported on the authority of Sahl bin Sa’ad that the Prophet (PBUH) said on the day when Khaibar was conquered: “Today, I will give the banner to a man who will be victorious for he likes Allah and the Prophet, and Allah and the Prophet like him. People spent the night waiting to see the man whom the Prophet will give the banner the next day. Every one of them aspired to be the one. The Prophet asked, `where is Ali?’ They told him that he has some problem in his eye. The Prophet spit in his eye and prayed for him. His eye healed as if it had never had any problem. The Prophet gave him the banner. Ali asked, `Shall I fight them until they say the same thing we say?’ The Prophet ordered him to march until he reaches their fortresses. He also said to him, `call them to Islam and tell them what is due from them. It is better for you to be the cause of guidance for one man than to have the best livestock.’ Ibn Hajar commented on this Prophet’s saying: “It indicates that trying one’s best to guide a disbeliever is preferred over fighting him.” Fifth, the Muslim is urged to wisely call others to Islam and to prefer peace to war. Allah says: “But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah.” [AIAnfal: 61 ] Allah also called the Hudaibiyah Treaty as victory. AI-Zuhri commented on this word saying: “It was the greatest victory attained by Islam. Fighting was the case when people met face to face. However, detente was achieved, war was over and the two sides met and entered into negotiations. At that time, all those who had an idea about Islam embraced it. The number of people who accepted Islam within those two years was equal to or more than the number of people who accepted it before that treaty.” Ibn Hajar confirmed this point by saying: “The peace and security that were established made them mix with each other and Muslims preached the Qur’an to the pagans and debated with them in public.” Ibn Hisham asserted the words of AlZuhri: “The evidence to this is that the Prophet (PBUH) left to Hudaibiyah with fourteen hundred Muslims but two years later he left Madinah to Makkah with ten thousand Muslims.” Hence, we conclude that the victory was in the rise of the number of Muslims as a result of the treaty.
* If peace, reconciliation and amity is the option adopted by Islam, why then should it call to prepare military power and why should it call to fighting and rewards fighters high ranks?
- Allah who has created human beings knows that some of them would not suffice to keep disbelief but would hate believers and do his best to stop truth from spreading. Therefore, the truth should have a material power to protect it and its followers against such aggression. Jihad was prescribed to fight aggressors and even to fight transgressors among Muslims.
Even such a legitimate fighting is morally disciplined by Islam to an extent that the Western morals stop short to realize for what they termed as the `fair war’. Islam ordered justice to be exercised even with enemies. They are not fought against because they are disbelievers but rather because of their aggression against the truth or the followers of the truth. Had disbelief been the reason for fighting them, they would not have been negotiated with, treaties would not have been concluded with them or it would not have been permissible to get married to their women.
- Edited by tryislam team
