Commentaries about MUSLIM-TERROR from Aljazeera >http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201342894844652561.html

[middle-east-people-welcome]

> http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201342894844652561.html

The irony of Muslim terrorism
Terrorism is the vilest crime because it robs people not only of their
lives, but also of their safety and freedom.
Last Modified: 29 Apr 2013 15:09

Mohamed Ghilan is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of
Victoria, Canada, and a student of Islamic jurisprudence.
RSS
"Unfortunately for Muslims, bigots who take on all opportunities to
demonise Islam and Muslims always utilise dreadful events as proof for
how evil Islam is," writes Ghilan [Reuters]
It is truly a sad state when the group affected the most by the
current climate following the Boston marathon bombings have to wait
for an outsider to speak some sense on their behalf. It is not that
Muslims lack the capacity to express themselves and engage in an
intellectual dialogue. But when the rhetoric all over the media
continues to assert the label "radical Islam" whenever these events
and their like are discussed, being a Muslim is equated with at the
very least being suspicious.

What makes it worse is that radical comes from the Late Latin, meaning
"roots". According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term radical
means, "of, relating to, or proceeding from a root; of or relating to
the origin". In other words, what is being said is that the Tsarnaev
brothers and anyone else who allegedly gets involved in terrorist
activities are the ones who are properly practising the root teachings
of Islam. This makes it highly problematic that Muslims have embraced
such terminology as they try to defend their faith and community from
being stigmatised and defined by these acts.

Moreover, the manner in which Tamarlan Tsarnaev has been supposedly
"radicalised" into an "extremist" form of Islam gives the impression
that he was really being a practising Muslim in the extreme sense.
Thus further embedding the idea that Islam is the problem, which is a
simpleton's conclusion.

The problem Muslims have in this circumstance is that any attempt at
clearing Islam from such a tainting by the media is immediately met
with scepticism. After all, these are not good odds to be up against.
The suspects are Muslim, they speak in religious rhetoric, and the
media puts all it can into making sure that every time they speak of
tragic events like the one in Boston, Islam must be part of the red-
coloured capital-lettered headline.

It is possibly the largest mass scale Pavlovian conditioning
experiment ever conducted, because the public is the subject. Of
course, Muslims cannot even dream of attempting to engage in an
inquiry on the non-religious reasons why these attackers have
allegedly done what they had done. Such an attempt will seem like a
form of justification or at least a siding with the alleged
terrorists. Somehow explanation is confused for justification.

Muslim responses

It must be made clear: the taking of innocent lives of people who
happen to be going about their day with their families is a capital
crime in Islam. But to assume that politics has no role to play in
what has happened is delusional. As brilliantly articulated by Glenn
Greenwald in his article in the Guardian, every single time a
terrorist was apprehended before or after they carried their attack,
their motives were always and without a single exception political.

It would not come as a surprise to know that most Muslims are probably
glad it was Glenn who wrote that article. Not because it was well
written or well referenced or anything of that sort. It is because
Glenn is an American, white, liberal, gay and not Muslim. It is like
the jackpot for having an advocate who is most likely to be heard,
because the truth of the matter is most of the public are not swayed
by rational arguments. So this rationality must be packaged just right
in order for it to be taken seriously.

Now that Glenn dealt with the motives side of things to try and
separate Islam from the bombing, Muslims can focus on the same old
song and dance about how Islam is peace and it is all about love and
quote the same verses as every Muslim does about the sanctity of human
life. Imam Suhaib Webb of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural
Center has been quite active in his efforts to distance Islam and
Muslims from the Tsarnaev brothers and the bombing they allegedly
carried out in his own city.


Listening Post - Boston: When the media gets it wrong

Webb's recent article with Scott Korb in the New York Times was a
combination of denunciation of the act and its perpetrators, and an
invitation for Americans to visit their local Islamic mosques and
community centres and find out what "true" Islam is all about. On the
other hand Asra Nomani insists that such responses are growing stale
and Muslims must take ownership of the fact that a minority of Muslims
are finding religious justification for their acts and somehow they
must be rooted out.

Unfortunately for Muslims, bigots who take on all opportunities to
demonise Islam and Muslims always utilise dreadful events as proof for
how evil Islam is. They play on the public's lack of familiarity with
the actual body counts garnered by different religious groups. As Juan
Cole clearly showed in his recent analysis, when it comes to mass
killing, nobody did it better than Christian Europe.

But to blame religion for horrific acts, as if it has some compelling
force, we are unable to resist if we believe in it is the explanation
provided by those who are in denial about human nature. As John Stuart
Mill noted about the overarching power of the Church when it had it
that even it "could not make men fight less with one another, nor
tyrannise less cruelly over the serfs, and when they were able, over
burgesses".

Terrorism is anti-Islam

The idea that terrorism can be justified through Islam relies on
nothing else but fear-mongering and rhetoric to sway emotions. It has
no leg to stand on if one studies Islamic Law at the most rudimentary
level. Hence, it might serve us to discuss this issue from the Islamic
legal perspective.

One of the most well-transmitted statements of Prophet Muhammad
regarding conduct during war is what many of the companions have
related and can be found in all the major Hadith (Prophetic statements
and actions) collections, which is that "the Messenger of God has
forbidden the killing of women, children and the elderly". This
prohibition has such a degree of severity that many scholars have
declared that even in active battle one must avoid female combatants
at all costs and only engage with them if it becomes a matter of life
and death for you.

In other narrations, Prophet Muhammad is reported to have prohibited
the killing of religious figures, monks, animals and even the cutting
of trees in the event a city is conquered.

As for the foremost authority in Islam, the Quran, it is continually
quoted out of context to serve the purposes of those who wish to
achieve some end in mind. This is not about having a bad translation
from Arabic. All the verses dealing with fighting are highly
restricted and cannot be excerpted in the fashion fanatics, Muslim or
otherwise, like to do with them.

In fact, according to the Quran, if a combatant puts down his weapon
and stops fighting, it is binding upon a Muslim to also stop [Quran
4:90]. It is a limit that a Muslim cannot transgress. It goes without
saying here that non-combatants, regardless of who they are and what
their religious or non-religious affiliation is, are not to be harmed
a priori. This is not a matter of opinion or following "moderate
Islam", whatever that means. It is clear-cut Islamic Law.

Where misinterpretations come from

Looking at the Islamic legal tradition and what it says about
indiscriminate violence against non-combatants is sure to generate a
case of cognitive dissonance for many people. It is difficult to
reconcile the violence that is purportedly carried out by extremist
Muslims quoting the Quran and screaming "Allahu Akbar", with the
opposing message that such acts are not in fact Islamically
justifiable in the slightest sense.

If we are to grant that Islam does not sanction these terrorist acts,
where are these terrorists getting their ideology? This issue goes
back to the current state of Islamic education, the roots of which lie
in the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and creation of the modern
Arab states that began as colonies for different European countries.

The "modernisation" of the Muslim world during the colonial period
took over many aspects of life. One important consequence was the
secularisation of the education system, which began in Istanbul,
followed by Egypt, and then the rest of the Muslim world. This meant
the divorcing of traditional Islamic education from the overall
curriculum. Interestingly, the aim of the newly introduced education
system by the colonialists was military (a bit ironic given the
current circumstances) and not educational. The method of
implementation for this new system of education was not to modify the
Islamic traditional system, but to create a new parallel system that
can eventually undermine the Islamic one.

Changing the education system is but one aspect of what took place in
the Muslim world when the European colonialists were present. It was a
systemic dismantling of everything that was thought to pose a future
threat to the imperialistic tendencies of the West. However, what was
not taken into account was the fact that Islam as a religion deals
with not only theological and metaphysical matters, but also with
worldly affairs as well. Although it is unjustifiable, it is not
surprising that some young Muslims can have their political and
economic plights addressed in a religious context.

People have the right to be safe and not worry about themselves or
their loved ones when they go out in public.

Mohamed Ghilan


Without going through proper education with qualified teachers, it is
an easy one-two step into fanatic extremism that can be clothed with
Islamic concepts like Jihad. For example, the central fatwa (religious
decree) that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda base their whole
ideology on was discovered to be a corrupted text that has been widely
circulated through the printing presses. Eminent Muslim scholars
gathered at the Mardin Conference in 2010 to discuss this fatwa and
assess its validity. Upon examination of the text from a linguistic
standpoint, it was evident that it was corrupted.

Examining the earliest manuscripts of the text confirmed that what was
in circulation was indeed a corrupted version of the original
manuscript, which changed the meaning of the text. This discovery was
not through anything but the discerning eyes and intellects of
traditionally educated Muslim scholars. So when a few intellectual
invalids who could not even conjugate an Arabic sentence properly, let
alone interpret the Quran and derive rulings from it, claim that they
are acting based on Islamic injunctions, it should give reason for
pause.

Islamic ruling on terrorism

The matter is not about Islam. A closer investigation of Islam through
proper methods of study and proper contextualisation will reveal that
it is impossible for anyone to conclude any room for justifying, let
alone do it in the name of Islam, the indiscriminate killing of
innocent people on the streets. What we are dealing with are the
repercussions of political decisions and historical forces that gave
rise to insane acts by misguided Muslims who think they are serving
Islam and Muslims.

What they do not realise is the greater harm they inflict upon their
fellow Muslims who experience the negative long-term socio-political
consequences of their actions. They have increasingly allowed numerous
opportunities for anti-Islam bigots to contribute to the rise of
Islamophobia among the general public by providing them with material
to perform their sleight of hand tricks - see those terrorist attacks?
It is Islam, not our drone attacks, illegal invasions, stealing their
resources, putting up puppet dictatorships to serve us, inhumane
sanctions, kidnappings and incarcerations without charges!

Here is the kicker when it comes to terrorists. According to Islamic
Law, if a terrorist is captured in the act, and in fact convicted
after due process, they will receive the death penalty. People have
the right to be safe and not worry about themselves or their loved
ones when they go out in public. Terrorism is the vilest crime because
it robs people not only of their lives, but also of their safety and
freedom. It receives the most severe punishment because of its severe
effect upon society. The proof of that today is evident not only for
non-Muslims, but also for Muslims.

As Murtaza Hussain articulated succinctly, Muslims do not just have to
share the worry about some misguided fool looking to make a political
statement by harming us; they also have to worry about how they are
perceived by their own fellow citizens who are misguided by the
radical representation the media is giving them about Muslims. What is
ironic about all of this is that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair
trial, is convicted, and gets issued the death penalty; Islamic Law
would have taken its course within the US justice system in the midst
of all this anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Mohamed Ghilan is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of
Victoria, Canada, and a student of Islamic jurisprudence. He blogs
here and has an active self-titled podcast on iTunes.

Follow him on Twitter: @mohamedghilan

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera








TOPICS IN THIS ARTICLE
People
Glenn Greenwald
Mohamed Ghilan
Imam Suhaib Webb
John Stuart Mill
Juan Cole
Asra Nomani
Scott Korb
Country
Egypt
United States
Canada
City
Boston
Istanbul
Organisation
al-Qaeda
University of Victoria
Boston Cultural Center
Islamic Society
FEATURED ON AL JAZEERA

Revised Guantanamo force-feed policy exposed
Al Jazeera's exclusive publishing of a key Guantanamo prison military
document lays bare the brutality of force-feeding.

Report: Canada could see indigenous uprising
Former military official says poverty and anger in indigenous
communities mean conditions for an "insurgency" are ripe.

China Rising
A four-part series that gives a rare insight into the country on the
move, with history in tow.

Al-Nakba
Series on the Palestinian 'catastrophe' of 1948 that led to
dispossession and conflict that still endures.