Rethinking violent extremism through the Islamic lens (I)

Although terrorism is not an Islamic phenomenon, it is a fact 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.

This fact has sparked a fundamental debate across the globe regarding the connection between terrorism and the teachings of Islam. Many analysts are hesitant to identify such acts with the bona fide teachings of one of the world's great religions and prefer to view them as a perversion of a religion that is essentially peace-loving and tolerant.

The issue of whether Islam is a faith that endorses violent extremism, and more specifically terrorism, or is used and abused by extremist groups for notional objectives, is an important one. This query continues to be a recurrent theme at different levels in contemporary global politics. The debate about Islam and extremism has become more potent in the last two decades following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

The rise of various ideologically linked violent extremist networks has threatened the stability of many States and challenged the sanguinity of the international order. It has polarised world opinion between those who hold Islam as responsible for the violent activities of such groups and those who attribute their actions to certain international political situations and the lack of a comprehensive strategy on the part of the global community to counter them by addressing their root causes.

Hence, policy makers and opinion leaders of different ideological and political persuasions have come up with various descriptors to try to make sense of where Islam stands in relation to violent extremism.

They prominently include political Islam, radical Islam, extremist Islam, Salafist Islam, reformist Islam, moderate Islam or a combination of these.

But do these descriptors capture the essence of Islam as a communal faith and way of life, or do they indicate that the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) are open to a range of interpretations, including the ones that can justify violence and terrorism?

Islamists

Pages of some foreign newspapers have been flooded with articles about Islamists and responses to them. While such terms are overloaded and imply that Islam itself endorses terrorism, it’s important to distinguish between violent and non-violent Islamists.

There are many Muslim thinkers and activists who believe in Islam as an ideology of political and social transformation of their societies but reject violence as a means to achieving these objectives. In essence, Islam condemns any act of terror that takes innocent lives or damages peaceful and prosperous societal existence (Qur’an 2:190). It puts a very high premium on the sanctity of life and specifically forbids shedding blood in any form or shape (Qur’an 5:32).

In other words, a clear distinction needs to be made between the Jihadists or combative Islamists who justify their actions on the basis of a literary and self-centred interpretation of Islam, while regarding violence as a means to an end, and the Ijtihādists or reformist Islamists who base their understanding and application of the religion on independent human reasoning according to changing times and circumstances. This distinction is often overlooked as many pundits have often found it expedient to brand all forms of Islamists as threatening, which is unacceptable.

Definitions

Until quite recently, the international community had failed to agree on a unified definition of terrorism. This failure was not due to deficiency in legal jargons or terminologies, but due to the politicisation of the concept as it relates to conflictual political interests. What is seen by one State as terrorism is seen by another as a legitimate cause being carried out in accordance with existing international laws.

The United Nations’ laws have been clear in giving full right to nations under colonisation or some form of occupation to fight for their independence by any means, including armed struggle, until their goals are achieved. These laws differentiate very clearly between legitimate resistance and acts of terrorism.

The dilemma in defining terrorism, therefore, confronts both policy makers and academics. All those who write on the phenomenon are aware of the dilemma and, thus, finding a specific definition is nearly impossible. As a result, writers have no choice but to highlight the most important definitions that deal with their areas of interest.

According to the Arab Convention for Combating Terrorism (ACCoT) signed in Cairo on April 22, 1998, terrorism is “any act of violence or threats committed by an individual or a group regardless of the motives, with the aim of instilling fear in people or endangering their lives, freedom or security”.

However, just after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the USA, the Islamic Research Institute of al-Azhar University redefined terrorism as “intimidation of safety, destruction of interests, aggression on life, property, honour, freedom and dignity”.

At the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, a subsidiary of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, which held its 17th session in Jordan on June 28, 2006, terrorism was declared as “any form of material or psychological threat, aggression, intimidation originating from States, groups or individuals against a religious group, person, honour, intelligence, property committed wrongfully through various types of aggression and constitute a form of corruption on earth”.

At the gathering of the World Muslim League held in Mecca on May 28, 2018, where what came to be known as the “Meccan Declaration” was adopted, terrorism was defined as “any act of aggression exercised by individuals, groups or countries which frightens, harms and threatens human life, mind, property and honour”.

Sectarianism

It is not possible to understand the source of terrorism through the Islamic lens in isolation from the conflicts in the name of sectarian identity, around which the political and ideological dimensions overlap, and which has become the most important tributary of extremist thought, and the violence associated with it, that virtually all the Middle Eastern countries suffer from. The conflict over sectarian identity is one of the main reasons for the phenomenon of violent extremism and terrorism.

For years, the Middle East has witnessed the emergence of many sectarian conflicts, which revolve around religious identity. Prominent sectarian groups are behind these protracted conflicts which they aspire to consolidate for their political interests.

These groups refuse to integrate into the ‘official Islam’ of their countries, claiming it does not meet their understanding of the Islamic faith.

‘Official Islam’ is a particular Islamic sect recognised and proclaimed as the official religion of the State, although other sectarian groups are free to practise their brand.

There is no doubt that the discourse used by these opposing sectarian groups and movements is the main source of the spread of violent extremism, especially as they seek to monopolise speech in the name of Islam, by including in their discourse slogans such as the revival of the Islamic caliphate and the application of ‘Sharia law’.

These groups yearly churn out thousands of West Africans and other nationals from their unique sectarian missionary institutions who, upon returning to their various countries, join the sub-regional network of their sectarian alliance to propagate what they consider as the only ‘true Islam’ which must be followed by all who profess Islam at all costs.

Put differently, unlike the conventional educational institutions in the Middle East where students are given holistic training which broadens their horizons and widens their faculty of thoughts, the curricula used in the sectarian missionary institutions inure towards the ideals of the sect in question, thus producing graduates with very little (or only negative) knowledge about the other sects.

While acknowledging the rights of individuals to decide where they pursue their Islamic studies, the challenge is when many of these individuals constantly and continuously opine, freely and openly, that Muslim societies will never experience peace until all Muslims follow their brand of Islam.

To be continued next Friday.

The writer is the Founding President of the Centre for Islamic Thought and Civilisation. citcghana@gmail.com