0
0
The Worldview Of Radical Islam
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.ggqbb1w z1;The centrality of the duty of jihad is not an innovation of modern radical Islam. XXXX. and implemented it. But the Kharijite doctrine was rejected as a heresy by yynm*medieval Islam. The novelty is the tacit acceptance by mainstream Islam of the basic building blocks of this “nco-Kharijite” school.The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the subse- TERRORISM — even in the form of suicide attacks — is not an Islamic phenomenon . It m>>cannot be ignored that the lion’s share of terrorist acts and the most devastating of them in recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. fall of the Soviet Union were perceived as an eschatological sign, adumbrating the renewal of the jihad against the infidel world at large and the apoc- alyptical war between Islam and heresy which will result in the rule of Islam in the world. Along with the renewal of the jihad, the Islamist Weltanschauung, which emerged from the Afghani crucible, developed a Thanatophi le ideology2 in which death is idealized as a desired goal and not a necessary evil in war. XXXXX. any Muslim in a certain perimeter from that land to join the jihad and so forth. Accordingly, given the number of Muslim lands under “infidel occu- pation” and the length of time of those occupations, it is argued that it has become a personal duty for all Muslims to join the jihad. This duty — if taken seriously — is no less a religious imperative than the other five pillars of Islam (the statement of belief or shahadah, prayer, fasting, charity, and XXXXX. haj). It becomes a de facto (and in the eyes of some a de jure) sixth pillar; a Muslim who does not perform it will inherit hell. XXXXX. Such a philosophy attributing centrality to the duty of jihad is not an innovation of modern radical Islam. The seventh-century Kharijite sect, infa- mous in Islamic history as a cause of Muslim civil war, took this position. XXXXX. An offshoot of this philosophy poses a dilemma for theories of deterrence. The Islamic traditions of war allow the Muslim forces to retreat if their numerical strength is less than half that of the enemy. Other traditions go further and allow retreat only in the face of a tenfold superiority of the enemy. The reasoning is that the act of jihad is, by definition, an act of faith in Allah. By fighting a weaker or equal enemy, the Muslim is relying on his own strength and not on Allah; by entering the fray against all odds, the mujahed is proving his utter faith in Allah and will be rewarded accordingly. XXXXX. The politics of Islamist radicalism has also bred a mentality of hello ergo sum (I fight, therefore I exist) — Islamic leaders are in constant need of pop- ular jihads to boost their leadership status. Nothing succeeds like success: The attacks in the United States gave birth to a second wave of mujahidin who want to emulate their heroes. The perception of resolve on the part of the West is a critical factor in shaping the mood of the Muslim population toward radical ideas. Therefore, the manner by which the United States. This is characterized by the emphasis on verses in the Koran and stories extolling martyrdom (“Why do you cling to this world when the next world is better?”) and praising the virtues of paradise as a real and even sensual existence. XXXX. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission deals with the present crisis in Iraq is not unconnected to the future of the radical Islamic movement. In these circles, the American occupation of Iraq is likened to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; a sense of American failure would feed the apocalyptical ideology of jihad. XXXXX. The legality of jihad. XXXXX. THESE BELIEFS A RE commonly viewed as typical of radical Islamic ideology, but few orthodox Islamic scholars would deny that they are deeply rooted in orthodox Islam or would dismiss the very ideology of jihad as a military struggle as foreign to the basic tenets of -Islam. Hence, much of the debate between radicals and nonradicals is not over the religious principles themselves, but over their implication for actual behavior as based on the detailed legal interpretation of those principles. This legal interpretation is the soul of the debate. Even among moderate Islamic scholars who condemn acts of terrorism (albeit with reservation so as not to include acts perpetrated against Israel in such a category), there is no agreement on why they should be condemned: Many modernists acknowledge the existence of a duty of jihad in Islam but call for an “Islamic Protestantism” that would divest Islam of vestiges of anachronistic beliefs; conservative moderates find in traditional Islamic jurisprudence (shari’ah) legal justification to put the imperative of jihad in abeyance; others use lin- guistic analysis to point out that the etymology of the word jihad (jahada) actually means “to strive,” does not mean “holy war,” and does not necessarily have a military connotation.-; XXXXX. The legalistic approach is not a barren preoccupation of scholars. The ideal Islamic regime is a nomocracy: The law is given and immutable, and it remains for the leaders of the ummah (the Islamic nation) to apply it on a day-to-day basis. Islam is not indifferent to any facet of human behavior; all possible acts potentially have a religious standing, ranging between “duty” XXXX. „ (lard, pl. fara’id); “recommended” (mandub); “optional” (jaiz); “permitted (mubah); “reprehensible” (makruh); and “forbidden” (harain). This taxono- my of human behavior has far-reaching importance for the believer: By per- forming all his religious duties, he will inherit paradise; by failing to do so (“sins of omission”) or doing that which is forbidden (“sins of commis- sion”), he will be condemned to hell. Therefore, such issues as the legitimacy of jihad ostensibly deriving from the roots of Islam cannot be decided by abstract morality4or by politics, but by meticulous legal analysis and nil- XXXXX. This is a rather specious argument. In all occurrences of the concept in traditional Islamic texts — and more significantly in the accepted meaning for the great- majority of modern Muslims — the term means a divinely-ordained war. XXXXX. A frequently quoted verse “proving” the inadequacy of human conscience in regard to nuttier; of jihad is Koran 2:2i 6: “Fighting is ordered for you even though you dislike it and it may he that you dislike a thing that is good for you and like itthing that is had for yon. Allah knows but yon do not know.” XXXXX. The use of fatwas to call for violent action first became known in the West as a result of Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and again after Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa against the United States and Israel. But as a genuine instrument of religious deliberation, it has not received the attention it deserves. Analysts have frequently interpreted fat- was as no more than the cynical use of religious terminology in political pro- paganda. This interpretation does not do justice to the painstaking process of legal reasoning invested in these documents and the importance that their authors and their target audience genuinely accord to the religious truthful- ness of their rulings. XXXXXThe political strength of these fatwas has been time-tested in Muslim political society by rebels and insurgents from the Arabian peninsula to Sudan, India, and Indonesia. At the same time, they have been used by Muslim regimes to bolster their Islamic credentials against external and domestic enemies and to legitimize their policies. This was done by the Sudanese mandi in his rebellion against the British (“88 I -85); by the Ottoman caliphate (December 1914) in World War I; by the Syrian regime against the rebellion in northern Syria (“98 ); and, mutatis mutandis, by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to legitimize his peace policies toward Israel. Xxxxx. QaaaaaaaThe fatwas promulgated by sheikhs and ‘ulama who stipulate that jihad is a “personal duty” play, therefore, a pivotal role in encouraging radicalism and in building the support infrastructure for radicals within the traditional Islamic community. While one may find many fatwas which advocate vari- ous manifestations of terrorism, fatwas which rule that those who perform these acts do not go to paradise but inherit hell are few and far between. XXXXX. The questions relating to jihad which arc referred to the religious scholars5relate to a number of issues:XXXXX. The very definition, current existence, and area of application of the state of jihad. Is jihad one of the “pillars” (arkan) or “roots” (usul) of Islam? Does it necessarily imply military war or can it be perceived as a duty to spread Islam through preaching or even the moral struggle between one’s soul and Satan?6if the former, then what are the necessary conditions for jihad? Does a state of jihad currently exist between Dar al-Islam and Dar al- Harh? And how can one define Dar al-Islam today, in the absence of a. XXXXX ‘sThe following list of questions has been gleaned from a large corpus of fatwas collected by the author over recent years. ‘the fatwas represent the questions of lay Muslims and responses of scholars from dif- ferent countries. Some of the fatwas were written and published in mosques, others in the open press, and others in dedicated sites on the inierneL. XXXXX. °This claim, a favorite of modernists and moderates, comes from a unique and unconfirmed hadith which states: “The Prophet returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, ‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser jihad to the Greater jihad — the striving of a servant lof Allah! against his desires.”XXXXX Policy Review XXXXX. caliphate? Is the rest of the world automatically defined as Dar al-Harb with which a state of jihad exists, or do the treaties and diplomatic relations which exist between Muslim countries and “infidel” countries (including the charter of the United Nations) change this?’ XXXXX. Who must participate in jihad, and how? Is jihad a personal duty (lard ‘ein) for each and every Muslim under all circumstances or a collective duty (fard kiffaya) that can be performed only under the leadership of a leader of all Muslims (imam, khalifa, anur al-inu’aminin)? Is it incumbent on women? On minors? (According to Islamic law, in the case of a defensive jihad for the liberation of Islamic territory from infidel occupation, “a woman need not ask permission of her husband nor a child of his parents nor a slave of his master.”) May a Muslim refrain from supporting his attacked brethren or obey a non-Muslim secular law which prohibits him from supporting other Muslims in their struggle? XXXXX. How should the jihad be fought (jus in helium)? The questions in this area relate, inter alia, to: (A) Is jihad by definition an act of conflict against the actual “infidels” or can it be defined as a spiritual struggle against the “evil inclination”? If it is the former, must it take the form of war (jihad fi- sabil Allah) or can it be performed by way of preaching and proselytization (da’awah)? (11) Who is a legitimate target? Is it permissible to kill noncom- batant civilians women, children, elderly, and clerics; “protected” non- Muslims in Muslim countries — local non-Muslims or tourists whose visas may be interpreted as Islamic guarantees of passage (al/1(m); Muslim bystanders? (c) The legitimacy of suicide attacks (istishhad) as a form of jihad in the light of the severe prohibition on a Muslim taking his own life, on one hand, and the promise of rewards in the afterlife for the shahid who falls in a jihad on the other hand!’ (n) The weapons which may be used. For example, may a hijacked plane be used as a weapon as in the attacks of September t i in the light of Islamic prohibitions on killing prisoners? (e) The status of a Muslim who aids the “infidels” against other Muslims. (n) The authority to implement capital punishment in the absence of a caliph.XXXXX. How should jihad be funded? “Pocketbook jihad” is deeply entrenched in Islamic tradition. It is based on the injunction that one must fight jihad with his soul or with his tongue (jihad ahlissan or da’awah) or with his money (jihad fi-mal). Therefore, financial support of jihad is politically correct and. XXXXX. 7Some Islamic judicial schools add to the Dar al-I slamll)ae al-11arb dichotomy a third category: Dar al- ‘Ahad, countries which have peace treaties with Muslims and therefore arc not to be attacked. The basis for discerning whether or not a country belongs to Dar al-Islam is not agreed upon. Some scholars claim that as long as a Muslim can practice his faith openly, the country is not !Jai hub. XXXXX. 81t should he nutted that in the historic paradigms of “suicide” terror, which are used us authority for jus- tification of such attacks, the Martyr did nor kill himself but rather placed himself in a situation in which he would most likely be killed. Technically, therefore, he did not violate the Koranic prohibition on a Muslim taking his own targets of the suicide terrorist of ancient nines were also quite different — officials of the ruling class and armed (Muslim) enemies. The modern paradigm of suicide bombing called for renewed consideration of this aspect. XXXXX. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission even good for business for the wealthy supporter. The transfer of zakat (almsgiving) raised in a community for jihad ft-sabil Allah (i.e., jihad on Allah’s path or military jihad) has wide religious and social legitimacy.9The precepts of “war booty” (ghaneema or tdy’) call for a fifth (khoms) to be rendered to the mujahidin. Acts that would otherwise be considered reli- giously prohibited are thus legitimized by the payment of such a “tax” for the sake of jihad. While there have been attempts to bring Muslim clerics to denounce acts of terrorism, none, to date, have condemned the donation of money for jihad. XXXXX. The dilemma of the moderate Muslim CAN on safely assumed that the great majority of Muslims in the world have no desire to join a jihad or to politicize their religion. However, it is also true that insofar as religious establishments in most of the Arabian peninsula, in Iran, and in much of Egypt and North Africa are concerned, the radical ideology does not represent a marginal and extremist perversion of Islam but rather a genuine and increasingly main- stream interpretation. Even after 9-i 1, the sermons broadcast from Mecca cannot be easily distinguished froth those of al Qacda. XXXX. Facing the radical Weltanschauung, the moderate but orthodox Muslim has to grapple with two main dilemmas: the difficulty of refuting the legal- religious arguments of the radical interpretation and the aversion to — or even prohibition of — inciting an Islamic Kulturkampf which would split the ranks of the ununah. XXXXX. The first dilemma is not uniquely Islamic. It is characteristic of revelation- based religions that the less observant or less orthodox will hesitate to chal- lenge fundamental dogmas out of fear of being branded slack or lapsed in their faith. They will prefer to pay their dues to the religious establishment, hoping that by doing so they are also buying their own freedom from coer- cion. On a deeper level, many believers who arc not strict in observance may see their own lifestyle as a matter of convenience and not principle, while the extreme orthodox is the true believer to whom they defer. XXXXX This phenomenon is compounded in Islam by the fact that “Arab” Sunni Islam never went though a reform.m Since the tenth century, Islam has lacked an accepted mechanism for relegating a tenet or text to ideological obsolescence. Until that time, such a mechanism — ijtihad — existed; ijtihad prominent-fundamentalist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, gave a //diva obliging Muslims lund jihad out of money collected For charity (‘aka[). I,taftuvi from April i i , 2 0 0 2 in Islamonline.)I °True, religions are naturally conservative and slow to change. Religious reforms are born and legit- imized through the authority of a supreme spiritual leader (a pope or imam), an accepted mechanism of scholarly consensus (LthIllid, the ii//7(C 01 the schools of Orisprudence in early Islam), internal revolution (Protestantism), or external force (the destruction of the Second Ilianple in Judaism). Islam canonized itself in the tenth century and therelore did not go through any of these.”reforms.” XXXX. Policy Review. XXXX. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission is the authorization of scholars to reach conclusions not only from existing interpretations and legal precedents, but from their own perusal of the texts. In the tenth century, the “gates of litihad” were closed for most of the Sunni world. It is still practiced in Shiite Islam and in Southeast Asia. Reformist traditions did appear in non-Arab Middle Eastern Muslim societies (Turkey, Iran) and in Southeast Asian Islam. Many Sufi (mystical) schools also have traditions of syncretism, reformism, and moderation. These traditions, how- ever, have always suffered from a lack of wide legitimacy due to their non- Arab origins and have never been able to offer themselves as an acceptable alternative to ideologies born in the heartland of Islam and expressed in the tongue of the Prophet. In recent years, these societies have undergone a transformation and have adopted much of the Middle Eastern brand of Islamic orthodoxy and have become, therefore, more susceptible to radical ideologies under the influence of Wahhabi missionaries, Iranian export of Islam, and the cross-pollination resulting from the globalization of ideas in the information age. XXXXX. The second dilemma — the disinclination of moderates to confront the radicals has frequently been attributed to violent intimidation (which, no doubt, exists), but it has an additional religious dimension. While the radicals are not averse to branding their adversaries as apostates, orthodox and mod- erate Muslims rarely resort to this weapon. Such an act (takfir — accusing another Muslim of heresy [kufrj by falsifying the roots of Islam, allowing that which is prohibited or forbidding that which is allowed) is not to be taken lightly; it contradicts the deep-rooted value that Islam places on unity among the believers and its aversion to fitna (communal discord). It is ironic that a religious mechanism which seems to have been created as a tool to preserve pluralism and prevent internal debates from deteriorating into civil war and mutual accusations of heresy (as occurred in Christian Europe) has become a tool in the hands of the radicals to drown out any criticism of them. XXXX. Consequently, even when pressure is put on Muslim communities, there exists a political asymmetry in favor of the radicals. Moderates are reluctant to come forward and to risk being accused of apostasy. For this very reason, many Muslim regimes in the Middle East and Asia are reluctant to crack down on the religious aspects of radical Islam and satisfy themselves with dealing with the political violence alone. By way of appeasement politics, they trade tolerance of jihad elsewhere for local calm. Thus, they lose ground to radicals in their societies. XXXXX. The Western dilemma. XXXXX. 3# T IS A TENDENCY in politically oriented Western society to assume that there is a rational pragmatic cause for acts of terrorism and that if the political grievance is addressed properly, the phenomenon will fade. XX.XXX. However, when the roots are not political, it is naive to expect political gestures to change the hearts of radicals. Attempts to deal with the terrorist threat as if it were divorced from its intellectual, cultural, and religious fountainheads are doomed to failure. Counterterrorism begins on the religious-ideological level and must adopt appropriate methods. The cultural and religious sources of radical Islamic ideology must be addressed in order to develop a long-range strategy for coping with the terrorist threat to which they give birth. XXXXX. However; in addressing this phenomenon, the West is at a severe disad- vantage. Western concepts of civil rights along with legal, political, and cul- tural constraints preclude government intervention in the internal matters of organized religions; they make it difficult to prohibit or punish inflammato- ry sermons of imams in mosques (as Muslim regimes used to do on a regular basis) or to punish clerics for fatwas justifying terrorism. Furthermore, the legacy of colonialism deters Western governments from taking steps that may be construed as anti-Muslim or as signs of lingering colonialist ideolo- gy. This exposes the Western country combating the terrorist threat to criti- cism from within. Even most of the new and stringent terrorism prevention legislation that has been enacted in some counties leans mainly on investiga- tory powers (such as allowing for unlimited administrative arrests, etc.) and does not deal with prohibition of religion-based “ideological crimes” (as opposed to anti-Nazi and anti-racism laws, which are in force in many countries in Europe). XXXXX. The regimes of the Middle East have proven their mettle in coercing reli- gious establishments and even radical sheikhs to rule in a way commensu- rate with their interests. However, most of them show no inclination to join a global (i.e., “infidel”) war against radical Islamic ideology. Hence, the prospect of enlisting Middle Eastern allies in the struggle against Islamic rad- icalism is bleak. Under these conditions, it will be difficult to curb the con- version of young Muslims in the West to the ideas of radicalism emanating from the safe houses of the Middle East. Even those who are not in direct contact with Middle Eastern sources of inspiration may absorb the ideology secondhand through interaction of Muslims from various origins in schools and on the internet. XXXXX. Fighting hellfire with hellfire XXXXX. Th-ING INTO ACCOUNT the above, is it possible — within the bounds of Western democratic values — to implement a compre- hensive strategy to combat Islamic terrorism at its ideological roots? XXXXX. First, such a strategy must be based on an acceptance of the fact that for the first time since the Crusades, Western civilization finds itself involved in a reli- gious war; the conflict has been defined by the attacking side as such with the eschatological goal of the destruction of Western civilization. The goal of the West cannot be defense alone or military offense or democratization of the Middle East as a panacea. It must include a religious-ideological dimension: XXXX 36 Policy Review. XXXXX. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XXXXX. active pressure for religious reform in the Muslim world and pressure on the orthodox Islamic establishment in the West and the Middle East not only to disengage itself clearly from any justification of violence, but also to pit itself against the radical camp in a clear demarcation of boundaries. XXXXX. Such disengagement cannot be accomplished by Western-style declara- tions of condemnation. It must include clear and binding legal rulings by religious authorities which contradict the axioms of the radical worldview and virtually “excommunicate” the radicals. In essence, the radical narra- tive, which promises paradise to those who perpetrate acts of terrorism, must be met by an equally legitimate religious force which guarantees hell- fire for the same acts. Some elements of such rulings should be, inter alia: XXXXX. A call for renewal of ijtihad as the basis to reform Islamic dogmas and to relegate old dogmas to historic contexts. XXXXX. That there exists no state of jihad between Islam and the rest of the world (hence, jihad is not a personal duty). XXXXX. That the violation of the physical safety of a non-Muslim in a Muslim country is prohibited (haram). XXXXX. That suicide bombings are clear acts of suicide, and therefore, their perpetrators are condemned to eternal hellfire. XXXXX. That moral or financial support of acts of terrorism is also haram. That a legal ruling claiming jihad is a duty derived from the roots of Islam is a falsification of the roots of Islam, and therefore, those who make such statements have performed acts of heresy. XXXXX. Only by setting up a clear demarcation between orthodox and radical Islam can the radical elements be exorcized. The priority of solidarity within the Islamic world plays into the hands of the radicals. Only an Islamic Kulturkampf can redraw the boundaries between radical and moderate in favor of the latter. Such a struggle must be based on an in-depth understand- ing of the religious sources for justification of Islamist terrorism and a plan for the creation of a legitimate moderate counterbalance to the radical nar- rative in Islam. Such an alternative narrative should have a sound base in Islamic teachings, and its proponents should be Islamic scholars and leaders with wide legitimacy and accepted credentials.11The “Middle- Easternization” of Asian Muslim communities should also be checked. XXXXX. A strategy to cope with radical Islamic ideology cannot take shape with- out a reinterpretation of Western concepts of the boundaries of the freedoms of religion and speech, definitions of religious incitement, and criminal cul- pability of religious leaders for the acts of their flock as a result of their spiri- tual influence. Such a reinterpretation impinges on basic principles of Western civilization and law. Under the circumstances, it is the lesser evil.w222 XXXXX. 11Here the pessimist may inject that, today, all the leading Islamic scholars in the Middle East who enjoy such prestige are in the radical camp. But there have been cases of “repentant” radicals (in Egypt) who have retracted (albeit in jail and after clue “convincing”) their declarations of takfir against the regime. In Indonesia, the moderate Nandlatul Ulama led by former President Abdurahman Wahid represents a gen- uine version of moderate Islam.XXXXX Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permissio.
ßsssxxx
