Is
Jihad Terrorism? Fighting - A Human Reality And The Cause
of Terrorism
Writers Articles And Opinions
23 October 2009
By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis
Fighting: A Human Reality
There have been many anthropological studies on war
and fighting, and the conclusions are very similar.
Not only have humans been fighting and killing for
millennia, the act of fighting and killing is a human
reality. The reasons for fighting and war differ. Some
of these reasons include land, fame, fortune,
religion, independence and resources. Humans have also
fought to defend themselves and others, or to attack
their enemies. In summary, war and fighting are human
phenomena that are not specific to any particular
race, ideology or religion.
In the modern world there are many wars, and they are
mostly over resources. An example is the US and UK
fighting for oil and strategic dominance in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Fighting & Islam
Islam, being a practical way of life, realises that
humans fight and engage in war. Islam sets down rules
for war, which are to be followed if Muslims go to
war, examples include fighting for just reasons, no
killing of innocent people, no killing of women and
children, no burning of crops or trees, only fight
those that fight you, and no wanton destruction. Abu
Bakr who was the Prophet Muhammad's first successor
and is considered to have been his closest companion
said:
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for
your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit
treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not
mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a
woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees,
nor burn them with fire, especially those which are
fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for
your food. You are likely to pass by people who have
devoted their lives to monastic (or humanitarian)
services; leave them alone.”
Many would argue that this is in contrast to certain
Western nations when they invade countries; they tend
to destroy the infrastructure of the countries causing
more deaths than bullets and bombs (even the BBC
reports that so called ‘smart bombs’ are not so smart,
with only 40% hitting targets. Civilian deaths in the
US/UK invasions are evidence of this). Then
contractual awards are given to western companies to
rebuild the infrastructure, making the invaded country
pay for it - Iraq is a striking example.
Whilst certain western powers wage war and invade for
what everyone knows to be for resources and places of
strategic value, in Islam war is not waged for these
reasons; it does not invade to rob, steal and make
lands poor - quite the opposite.
Jihad
The term most commonly used to describe Muslims
fighting is Jihad, but it has been used politically to
create fear of Islam and Muslims. Jihad has been
linked to terrorism, however when the corpus of
Islamic reference material is analysed, this cannot be
further from the truth.
Jihad is when Muslims go to war, and it has its rules
relating to it. Primarily there are two types of
Jihad, defensive and progressive. Defensive is when
Muslims rally to fight and expel armies from their
lands which have been invaded. This concept is similar
to article 51 of the UN Charter which states:
“Nothing in the present charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defence
if an armed attack occurs….”
Examples include when the Crusaders invaded Palestine
in 11th/12th century, and when the Mongols invaded
Central Asia, Persia, Iraq and Syria in the 13th
century. This defensive Jihad is to push the occupiers
out and has nothing to do with terrorism; in reality
it is a basic human right.
Progressive Jihad is practically undertaken by a
legitimate Islamic State (no such state exists today)
and is initiated for three main reasons. The reasons
include removing oppression, defending the weak and
implementing the justice of Islam. This is evident in
Islamic history, John of Nikiou in 690 CE, who was a
Coptic Bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), states,
“When Muslims saw the…hostility of the people to
the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution
wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt…people
began to help the Muslims.”
Additionally, the oppression and all forms of genocide
would justify progressive Jihad.
Progressive Jihad has three parts to it. It first
invites the people to accept Islam by explaining the
Islamic belief and what Islam has to offer people.
This is done by dialogue and discussion and can take
some time. After this, the Islamic State then invites
the people to live within the state and enjoy peace,
justice, security and protection. Historically many
non-Muslim peoples have opted for this option. This is
in exchange for a small yearly tax. The famous letter
from a Rabbi, after Europe’s persecution of the Jews,
found in Phillip Mansel’s book “Constantinople ”,
reflect this reality,
“Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to
complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and
silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with
heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered.
Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap
and every one of us lives in peace and freedom...”
The third and final course of action after the first
two have been followed is war. This war is called
Jihad and in cases of genocide and extreme oppression
it may be the first and only part of the process. It
is the final part of a foreign policy used by the
Islamic State, and as mentioned it has its rules, like
no wanton destruction and killing of innocents. When
an Islamic State goes to war, it is not for money,
land, or riches, but to show people the justice and
security of Islam. Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century
Jewish historian expressed the ‘favourable
circumstances’ under Islamic rule,
“It was in these favourable circumstances that the
Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as
whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of
their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia. They
were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of
which they had so long been deprived, were permitted
to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists…”
This is unlike some western states, where Politicians
claim they are fighting for so-called universal
values, but in reality are fighting for resources and
areas of strategic value. For example David Milliband,
the British Foreign Secretary, said,
“Our party was created to fight for democracy and
equal rights in our own country. We know we have
further to go. But if we want to protect ourselves
from terrorism at home, we need to defend and advance
democracy and human rights abroad.”
Judging by the current reality of the invasions of
Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing can be further from the
truth. Islamic foreign policy however is truthful
about its goals and history bears testimony to this.
This is why Jews fled Spain in the Inquisition and ran
to the Muslims of Istanbul who welcomed them, because
they knew justice lived in Islamic lands. Zion Zohar,
a Jewish Historian, expressed similar sentiments in
his book ‘Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry’:
“Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of
Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the
Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators
from Christian Persecution.”
Jihad is seen by western peoples and nations as
barbaric and this is propagated to the masses, by
politicians and the media, to portray Muslims as
bloodthirsty killers. An Islamic State would commit to
progressive Jihad, and will use war as a last resort -
when diplomacy fails - to really liberate people from
oppression. In addition to remove the tyranny of
injustice and to show the people what Islam really is
and how Islam can truly make their lives and society
better - even if they do not become Muslim.
The Islamic belief is not forced upon people once land
is taken, 1400 years of history bears testament to
this. This is evident in the early testimonies of
Christian leadership. Ishoyabth who was patriarch from
AD 647 to 657, writes,
“The Arabs, to who God gave the dominion over the
world, behave to us as you know. They are not hostile
to Christianity, but praise our religion, honour
priests and saints, and help the Churches and
Monastries.”
The Qur’an & Fighting
The Qur’an discusses fighting and Jihad, the language
used is emotive and can be seen as aggressive.
However, the intended effect of these verses in the
Qur’an are meant to evoke action, therefore in the
context of fighting and war, the Qur’an would not say
“Tickle their toes” or “Give them
flowers”. What must also be realised is that the
language is couched in restraining expressions such as
“…and God does not love the transgressors” and
“…be mindful of God” thus instilling an
awareness of God in such actions and to remind that
the essence of Jihad is to remove oppression.
In the Qur’an, Jihad is a noble concept that is
considered as a mercy from God. Without it there would
be no mechanism to protect Muslims and Non-Muslims,
remove oppression and implement justice. In today’s
reality of death and destruction, due to oppressive
western foreign policy, some people argue that this
concept needs to be revived to today.
The Results of Jihad
U.S. Brig. General William Looney’s following
statement is an apt description of Western foreign
policy,
“If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up
their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles).They know
we own their country. We own their airspace... We
dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's
great about America right now. It's a good thing,
especially when there's a lot of oil out there we
need.”
Whereas the Islamic view describes another paradigm,
“And what is the matter with you that you fight
not in the cause of Allah and for the oppressed among
men, women and children who say, ‘Our Lord,
take us out of this city of oppressive people and
appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint
for us from Yourself a helper’?”
Everyone wants to remove oppression and injustice.
Islam does exactly that via Jihad and this can be seen
in Islamic history. Contemporary pseudo-Islamic
nations can not be used as a reference for Jihad and
Islam as they do not implement and manifest the
Islamic system. This is evident when their
constitutions are analysed. It can only be concluded
that Muslim world Governments implement and promote a
system that is antithetical to Islam.
What, then, are the results of the Islamic foreign
policy?
Reinhart Dozy, an authority on early Islamic Spain,
explained the results of Jihad in Islamic Spain,
“…the unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also
be taken into account. In religious matters they put
pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to
that of the Franks.”
Thomas Arnold, commenting on an Islamic source, states
that,
“…the Christians called down blessings on the
heads of the Muslims, saying, ‘May God give
you rule over us again and make you victorious over
the Romans; had it been they, they would not have
given us back anything, but would have taken all that
remained with us.’”
Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in
the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion,
"Christians did not suffer in any way, on account
of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only
perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule
of the Arabs in Spain."
Adam Smith, the 18th century founding father of the
modern capitalism, explains the impact of Islamic
rule,
“The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along
with it the subversion of all law and order, which
happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the
entire neglect of that study of the connecting
principles of nature, to which leisure and security
can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great
conquerors and the civilizers of mankind, the empire
of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state
under which the world enjoyed that degree of
tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences
requires. It was under the protection of those
generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient
philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored
and established in the East; that tranquility, which
their mild, just and religious government diffused
over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of
mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of
nature.”
Bernard the Wise, a pilgrim monk, visited Egypt and
Palestine in the reign of Caliph al-Mu’tazz (866-9
CE). He stated that,
“…the Christians and the Pagans [i.e. Muslims]
have this kind of peace between them there that if I
was going on a journey, and on the way the camel or
donkey which bore my poor luggage were to die, and I
was to abandon all my goods without any guardian, and
go to the city for another pack animal, when I came
back, I would find all my property uninjured: such is
the peace there.”
Reading the above, the reader must now ask “Does
this sound like terrorism?”
The Cause of Terrorism
The history of terrorism and political violence
demonstrates that it is cross-cultural, cross religion
and is driven by a number of factors often born out of
a sense of political injustice, occupation or
invasion. An academic study by Professor Robert Pape,
an Associate Professor at Chicago University,
published in his book 'Dying to Win: The Logic of
Suicide Terrorism', demonstrates that the advent
of 'suicide bombing' is not unique to Muslims but is
rather a generic human issue driven by a number of
political factors rather than theological beliefs.
The study included the first complete database of
every suicide attack around the world from 1980 to
early 2004. The study found that:
• The world leader in suicide attacks was the Tamil
Tigers of Sri Lanka – a Marxist, secular group.
• Two thirds of Muslim 'suicide bombers' have been
from countries where US forces have or are still
maintaining military forces.
• The presence of US forces is creating 'suicide
attackers' in Iraq which was a country that had never
previously had a suicide attack in its history prior
to the 2003 invasion.
According to the study, political injustice provides a
possible reason for the proponents of such attacks to
justify such actions. It is therefore crucial that
acts of political violence are analysed as a separate
issue based upon the individuals who choose to engage
in them.
The Professor states,
“The data show that there is little connection
between 'suicide terrorism' and 'Islamic
fundamentalism', or any one of the world’s religions.
. . . Rather, what nearly all 'suicide terrorist'
attacks have in common is a specific secular and
strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to
withdraw military forces from territory that the
terrorists consider to be their homeland.”
Regarding the July 2005 bombings in London, the
British government was forewarned that its involvement
in the catastrophic US invasion of Iraq had increased
Britain's vulnerability to the threat of retaliation.
The leaked report from the UK's Joint Terrorism
Analysis Centre (JTAC), which predated the attacks,
warned:
"Events in Iraq are continuing to act as
motivation and a focus of a range of 'terrorist'
related activity in the UK".
In April 2005, a report drawn up by the Joint
Intelligence Committee (JIC) entitled
"International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq" was
even more explicit, stating:
"We judge that the conflict in Iraq has
exacerbated the threat from international terrorism
and will continue to have an impact in the long term.
It has reinforced the determination of 'terrorists'
who were already committed to attacking the West and
motivated others who were not."
It is essential to understand what role Western
foreign policy has played in exacerbating the sense of
political injustice and in driving individuals to
undertake acts of political violence against those
they perceive as aggressors. This is not a
justification, but it does set a context for a
discussion to find answers to contemporary political
problems.
Rather than blame a whole community or its leanings
towards Islam and its concept of Jihad, it is
important to understand the political nature of the
factors that drive such acts as opposed to solely
attributing them to Jihad, which does not take account
of the history of political violence across cultures,
religions and ways of life.
Final Remarks
It has to be noted, that Muslims are simply human
beings that believe in Islam, which is a comprehensive
way of life that seeks to promote religious tolerance
and social cohesion. The Islamic concept of Jihad is
not indiscriminate terrorism, rather it is a mechanism
that seeks to remove oppression and protect the
innocent. In line with the teachings of classical
Islam, Muslims do not – and should not – seek to
violently attack non-combatants.
Muslims want to facilitate understanding and promote
mutual peaceful coexistence. This however cannot be
achieved without engaging in an open and honest
discussion on what Islam really is. Outdated clichés
of ‘Jihadi Terrorist’ can no longer quench
the public’s intellectual thirst and a more nuanced
and comprehensive discussion is now needed.
It was intended that this article would achieve just
that
Save
Add Comments To This Story