Islamic distress and reality

Islamic distress and reality
Sultan Shahin

JANUARY 12: The Jamaat-e-Islami seems to have finally woken up. Its shoora (central executive) has deno-unced terrorism. Islam and terrorism are two different paths and have nothing to do with each other, it said. Its leader Maulana Shafi Moonis joined other Muslim leaders and ulema in denouncing the recent hijacking of Indian Airlines plane from Kathmandu.

These are welcome trends and must be taken note of. But if the Jamaat is serious and sincere, it will have to do more than that. First of all, it will have to introspect on the role of its own ideology in encouraging terrorism. Yes, the Indian Jamaat cannot be accused of having played any such role directly. But its sister organisations in Pakistan and the Kashmir Valley as well as its ideological kin the world over, particularly in Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, Afghanistan and Central Asia, have been the worst offenders. And as far as we know the Jamaat has not denounced them unequivocally as it should if it is really keen that Islam and terrorism are not regarded as two sides of the same coin.

It is not yet too late. There are sensible people in the world who are denouncing the trend of equating Islam with terrorism. The US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for instance, pointed out at her recent Iftar party: ``Nobody should suppose there is any relation in our consideration, in our planning, in our views, in our assessments, ... between Islam and terrorism. There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world. They are of many nationalities and live in virtually every corner of every continent.

How can any one apply a stereotype to a quarter of the globe's people?''But time is running out. If people claiming to be Muslim keep carrying out spectacular acts of terror in the name of Islam, the time is not far when no one would take seriously the Muslim claim that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, that it is a religion of peace and so on. When Afghan terrorist Mast Gul went to Pakistan following the destruction of Charar-e-Sharif, the Pakistan Jammat-e-Islami welcomed him. He toured the country in the company of Pakistani Jamaat Chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad.

The role of Jamaat-e-Islami and outfits like Hizbul Mujahideen, in spreading terror does not need any elaboration. Does the Indian Jammet denounce them? We have no idea. In any case, the question will remain: how can the fruits of the same tree be any different? Is the Jamaat in India talking peace only because it cannot talk war in the Indian situation. The Jamaat had said earlier: the term Islamic terrorism damages and inhibits the spread of Islamic movements. Is its denunciation of terrorism then an article of faith or merely a part of its strategy?

Several Urdu newspapers are debating the meaning of jihad. Writing in Qa-umi Awaz, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan said jihad denotes a fierce struggle aga-inst nafs (negative ego). Another Mau-lana opines that jihad has to be waged against authoritarian governments like those in Russia. He is an admirer of Muslims in the UK who are training to fight on behalf of Muslims in Chechnya.What exactly is jihad in Islam? Can movements for political autonomy or independence waged by Muslims, no matter how legitimate, be termed Islamic jihad? Would the Jamaat-e-Islami come forward and explain? As an Islamic movement it is its duty to do so.

The views it has expressed on terrorism being un-Islamic are unexceptionable. Islam had indeed allowed armed defence reluctantly 13 years after its advent, that too only when the survival of the small band of 313 Muslims and their families was truly in danger. Then at the first opportunity for peace, the Prophet signed a peace treaty at Hundaibiya on terms that were considered by all Muslims as humiliating. Then when Mecca fell to his feet, the Prophet announced a general amnesty even for those who had mutilated the dead bodies of his relatives in previous wars. But the history of Islam is full of bloodshed. The Muslims revealed a remarkable capacity for fighting expansionist wars. These were all called jihad. Thus there is confusion galore in the minds of both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Unless the Jamaat-e-Islami takes a clear stand on jihadism being un-Islamic, its expression of distress over the world media equating Islam with terrorism will have no meaning.

The writer specialises in Muslim politics and culture