08-23-2008, 11:27 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Deoband's bogus fatwa on terror </b>
Pioneer.com
Walid Phares
Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa condemning terrorism by one of the leading religious centres in the Muslim world, the Darul-Uloom Deoband. <b>An Islamic seminary said to have 'inspired' the Taliban has, according to the said document, denounced 'terrorism' as against Islam, calling it an "unpardonable sin".</b>
Hoping for a major change in ideology, international counter-terrorism authorities and policy-makers have been asking experts to determine if the Deobandi declaration will help counter the calls for violent jihad by Al Qaeda and its ilk around the world. In the war of ideas with the jihadis, many Western architects of strategic communications look for any sign that hearts and minds may be changing course and sympathies. From Washington, DC to Brussels and beyond, bureaucrats tasked with exploring the Muslim world for new trends, shop around for what they call "counter-narrative against extremism".
<b>The Deobandi school, a classical third branch of Salaafi Islamism (along with Wahaabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia theatre. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban.
"If they change course, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished," I heard in Europe and the United States. So the question now is, have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence? I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.</b>
Thousands of clerics and students from around India attended a meeting at the 150-year-old Deoband, and declared that they stand "against acts of terrorism". Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the older rector of Deoband, told Reuters, "There is no place for terrorism in Islam. Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence." Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for Governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.
"There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?" said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband. The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a Government.
These statements could be seen as impressive when quoted by news agencies rushing to break the good news, but to the seasoned analysts of Salaafism, the solid doctrinal roots of jihadism were kept untouched. Here is why.
From the fatwa itself and the statements made as it was issued, the following political goals likely motivated the gathering and the fatwa.
Create a separation in the eyes of the public discourse between Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as an illegal violent activity.
Such a move is legitimate and to be encouraged as it diminishes the tensions towards Muslims in non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West, as some are claiming that the Islamic religion is theologically linked to the acts and statements of the jihadis. The logic of "we are Muslims and we are against terrorism" helps significantly the disassociation between the community and the acts of violence.
However, without criticising the ideological roots of this violence, the fatwa seems to state a wishful thinking, not an injunction. A more powerful fatwa should have openly and expressly said: "We reject the calls for violent jihad regardless of the motives." For the followers of jihadism do not consider their jihad as 'terrorism'. Their answer has always been - to these types of fatwas -- "but we aren't performing terrorism, we are conducting jihad". Thus, at this crucial level, the Deobandi fatwa missed the crux of the problem.
<b>Deny Governments the ability to use the accusation that Islam condones terrorism to oppress Muslims.</b>
<b>The fatwa is concerned with geopolitics more than theological reform. Concern for the safety of one's co-religionists is of course legitimate and should be addressed. But jihad, the legitimising root of political violence, cannot be ignored in any effort to protect the lives of Muslims. </b>
There is no evidence that modern day Governments have expressly linked religion to terrorism; quite the opposite. Almost all national leaders involved in the confrontation with jihadi forces since 9/11 have clearly made a clear distinction between religion and terrorism.
Some even went further by negating any link whatsoever between theological texts and jihadism, which of course is not accurate. For in the texts, there are passages used by the terrorists in their indoctrination. Hence, the Deobandi fatwa should have instead asked clearly the jihadis not to use these citations or else they would be considered as sinners.
<b>But instead of using their religious prominence to remove the theological weapon from the hands of the jihadis, the Deobandi clerics are attempting to shield the jihadis from the actions of Governments by denying that these extremists are indeed using -- and abusing -- religion. </b>
Some may argue that the fatwa's open goal is to defend Muslims from being unjustly targeted by non-Muslim Governments (a positive move) but a thorough analysis of the text used shows that the main intention of the declaration is to defend the Islamists from being contained by both Muslim and non-Muslim Governments.
In other words, by denying that jihadism is the root cause of many acts of terror in Europe, the US, Africa, the Greater West Asia and Asia, the Deobandi fatwa in fact is shielding the jihadis from the accusation of terrorism, thus protecting them.
The fatwa defined terrorism as violence "targeting innocent people". Such a definition is not new and doesn't set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does 'innocent' mean? On several Websites and on many shows on Al Jazeera television, jihad's apologists often use the Arabic term 'bare'e' for 'innocent' and assure the audience that jihad cannot target the latter.
<b>The concept of 'innocent' isn't that innocent in jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups 'bare'e' or not 'bare'e' at their discretion. The status of 'innocence' doesn't overlap fully with the status of 'civilians'. Hence, to claim that terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to jihadi violence</b>.
Moreover, the fatwa doesn't identify Al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as terrorist organisations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator. This text simply doesn't bring novelty to the debate about jihadi-rooted terrorism.
-- The writer is Director of the Future Terrorism Project, Washington, DC, and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Walid Phares
Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa condemning terrorism by one of the leading religious centres in the Muslim world, the Darul-Uloom Deoband. <b>An Islamic seminary said to have 'inspired' the Taliban has, according to the said document, denounced 'terrorism' as against Islam, calling it an "unpardonable sin".</b>
Hoping for a major change in ideology, international counter-terrorism authorities and policy-makers have been asking experts to determine if the Deobandi declaration will help counter the calls for violent jihad by Al Qaeda and its ilk around the world. In the war of ideas with the jihadis, many Western architects of strategic communications look for any sign that hearts and minds may be changing course and sympathies. From Washington, DC to Brussels and beyond, bureaucrats tasked with exploring the Muslim world for new trends, shop around for what they call "counter-narrative against extremism".
<b>The Deobandi school, a classical third branch of Salaafi Islamism (along with Wahaabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia theatre. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban.
"If they change course, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished," I heard in Europe and the United States. So the question now is, have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence? I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.</b>
Thousands of clerics and students from around India attended a meeting at the 150-year-old Deoband, and declared that they stand "against acts of terrorism". Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the older rector of Deoband, told Reuters, "There is no place for terrorism in Islam. Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence." Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for Governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.
"There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?" said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband. The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a Government.
These statements could be seen as impressive when quoted by news agencies rushing to break the good news, but to the seasoned analysts of Salaafism, the solid doctrinal roots of jihadism were kept untouched. Here is why.
From the fatwa itself and the statements made as it was issued, the following political goals likely motivated the gathering and the fatwa.
Create a separation in the eyes of the public discourse between Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as an illegal violent activity.
Such a move is legitimate and to be encouraged as it diminishes the tensions towards Muslims in non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West, as some are claiming that the Islamic religion is theologically linked to the acts and statements of the jihadis. The logic of "we are Muslims and we are against terrorism" helps significantly the disassociation between the community and the acts of violence.
However, without criticising the ideological roots of this violence, the fatwa seems to state a wishful thinking, not an injunction. A more powerful fatwa should have openly and expressly said: "We reject the calls for violent jihad regardless of the motives." For the followers of jihadism do not consider their jihad as 'terrorism'. Their answer has always been - to these types of fatwas -- "but we aren't performing terrorism, we are conducting jihad". Thus, at this crucial level, the Deobandi fatwa missed the crux of the problem.
<b>Deny Governments the ability to use the accusation that Islam condones terrorism to oppress Muslims.</b>
<b>The fatwa is concerned with geopolitics more than theological reform. Concern for the safety of one's co-religionists is of course legitimate and should be addressed. But jihad, the legitimising root of political violence, cannot be ignored in any effort to protect the lives of Muslims. </b>
There is no evidence that modern day Governments have expressly linked religion to terrorism; quite the opposite. Almost all national leaders involved in the confrontation with jihadi forces since 9/11 have clearly made a clear distinction between religion and terrorism.
Some even went further by negating any link whatsoever between theological texts and jihadism, which of course is not accurate. For in the texts, there are passages used by the terrorists in their indoctrination. Hence, the Deobandi fatwa should have instead asked clearly the jihadis not to use these citations or else they would be considered as sinners.
<b>But instead of using their religious prominence to remove the theological weapon from the hands of the jihadis, the Deobandi clerics are attempting to shield the jihadis from the actions of Governments by denying that these extremists are indeed using -- and abusing -- religion. </b>
Some may argue that the fatwa's open goal is to defend Muslims from being unjustly targeted by non-Muslim Governments (a positive move) but a thorough analysis of the text used shows that the main intention of the declaration is to defend the Islamists from being contained by both Muslim and non-Muslim Governments.
In other words, by denying that jihadism is the root cause of many acts of terror in Europe, the US, Africa, the Greater West Asia and Asia, the Deobandi fatwa in fact is shielding the jihadis from the accusation of terrorism, thus protecting them.
The fatwa defined terrorism as violence "targeting innocent people". Such a definition is not new and doesn't set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does 'innocent' mean? On several Websites and on many shows on Al Jazeera television, jihad's apologists often use the Arabic term 'bare'e' for 'innocent' and assure the audience that jihad cannot target the latter.
<b>The concept of 'innocent' isn't that innocent in jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups 'bare'e' or not 'bare'e' at their discretion. The status of 'innocence' doesn't overlap fully with the status of 'civilians'. Hence, to claim that terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to jihadi violence</b>.
Moreover, the fatwa doesn't identify Al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as terrorist organisations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator. This text simply doesn't bring novelty to the debate about jihadi-rooted terrorism.
-- The writer is Director of the Future Terrorism Project, Washington, DC, and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
