Beware of Extremists by Hamza Yusuf
The Afghans tell a humorous tale of an
American who sought enlightenment in their land. When he arrived he asked
the first Afghan he saw, ” who is the most enlightened man in your
land?” The Afghan who knew no English replied “namai safman” which
in their language means, I don’t know what you’re talking about. The
American set out looking for this fellow named Namai Fafman. He soon came
upon a funeral procession and out of curiosity asked an onlooker who it
was who had died. The Afghan not knowing English replied “Namai Safman.”
Again, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The American
cried; “And to think, I just missed him.”
The moral of this story is that we must
understand a people before we can benefit from them. In the current
crisis, all sides are shouting but no-one seems to be understanding.
Unfortunately in the absence of real discourse extremism has produced its
own language that the mob do understand. If you’re not with us, you’re
against us, has become the mantra uttered by both extremes which
oversimplifies a complex matter and only serves to further polarize and
incite. Reason and truth have always resided in the difficult middle
ground between black and white, good and evil. Indeed life seems anything
but black and white and good and evil battle it out daily within our own
souls. Adhering to this middle ground enables us all to see our common
humanity and its shared core values whether sacred or secular.
The terror inflicted on September 11th
was indeed evil. However, we should ask ourselves, are the retaliatory
strikes presently terrifying and killing mostly innocent civilians a good
response or are they a betrayal of the very core values we all share? The
prophet Mohammed over fourteen hundred years ago said “beware of
extremism, for it is that which destroyed the peoples before you.”
In the light of the present situation it is indeed wise advice. He also
said, “My way is the middle way.” Moderation is in fact the way of
thinking people everywhere. The vast majority of humanity is not extremist
but in key times can easily be driven so.
To attack the seemingly intractable
problem of terrorism at its roots we must address the condition that
produced it and not just its ugly branches or bitter fruit. In our meeting
with President Bush he said to American faith leaders twice, “I see
opportunity through the tears.” My fear is that if we continue to bomb
an already war-ravaged and defeated nation while telling them that we are
not at war with them or their religion, they will only reply “namai
safman” I don’t know what you’re talking about. ~ Hamza Yusuf
Bin
Laden’s violence is a heresy against Islam
In what sense were the World Trade Centre
bombers members of Islam? This question has been sidelined by many Western
analysts impatient with the niceties of theology; but it may be the key to
understanding the recent attacks, and assessing the long-term prospects
for peace in the Muslim world.
Certainly, neither bin Laden nor his
principal associate, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are graduates of Islamic
universities or seminaries. And so their proclamations ignore 14 centuries
of Muslim scholarship, and instead take the form of lists of anti-American
grievances and of Koranic quotations referring to early Muslim wars
against Arab idolators. These are followed by the conclusion that all
Americans, civilian and military, are to be wiped off the face of the
Earth.
All this amounts to an odd and extreme
violation of the normal methods of Islamic scholarship. Had the authors of
such fatwas followed the norms of their religion, they would have had to
acknowledge that no school of traditional Islam allows the targeting of
civilians. An insurrectionist who kills non-combatants is guilty of baghy,
“armed transgression”, a capital offence in Islamic law. A jihad can
be proclaimed only by a properly constituted state; anything else is pure
vigilantism.
Defining orthodoxy in the mainstream
Sunni version of Islam is difficult because the tradition has an
egalitarian streak which makes it reluctant to produce hierarchies.
Theologians and muftis emerge through the careful approval of their
teachers, not because a formal teaching licence has been given them by a
church-like institution.
Despite this apparent informality, there
is such a thing as normal Sunni Muslim doctrine. It has been expressed
fairly consistently down the centuries as a belief system derived from the
Muslim scriptures by generations of learned comment. Until a few decades
ago, a Koranic commentary containing the author’s personal views would
have been dismissed as outrageous. In the 19th century, the Iranian
reformer known as “the Bab” was declared to be outside the pale of
Islam because he ignored the accumulated discussions of centuries, and
wrote a Koranic commentary based on his own direct understanding of
scripture.
The strangeness as well as the extremity
of the New York attacks has been reflected in the strenuous denunciations
we have heard from Muslim leaders around the world. For them, this has
been a rare moment of unity. Mohammed Tantawi, rector of Cairo’s Al-Azhar
University, the highest institution of learning in the Sunni world, has
bitterly condemned the outrages. In Shi’ite Iran, Ayatollah Kashani
called the attacks “catastrophic”, and demanded a global mobilisation
against the culprits. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, normally
well known for its indecision, unanimously condemned “these savage and
criminal acts”.
Why should apparently devout Muslims have
defied the unanimous verdict of Islamic law? The reasons - and the blame -
are to be found on both sides of the divide which, according to bin Laden,
utterly separates the West from Islam.
On the Western side, a reluctance to
challenge the Israeli occupation of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem has
unquestionably contributed to the sidelining of mainstream Muslim voices
in the Middle East. Those voices, speaking cautiously from ancient
religious universities and venerable mosques, have been reluctant to
exploit, rather than calm, the hatred of the masses for Israeli policy,
and thus for the United States. This perceived failure to make a
difference has allowed wilder, more intransigent voices to gain
credibility in a way that would have been unimaginable before the capture
of Arab Jerusalem in 1967.
It is unfair and simplistic, however, to
claim that it is Western policy that lit the fuse for last month’s
events. Without a theological position justifying the rejection of the
mainstream position, the frustration with orthodoxy would have led to a
frustration with religion - and then to a search for secular responses.
That alternative theology does, however,
exist. While Saudi Arabia itself has been consistent in its opposition to
terrorism, it has also on occasion unwittingly nurtured revolutionary
religious views. Before the explosion of oil wealth in the 1960s, its
Wahhabi creed was largely unnoticed by the wider Islamic world. Those
erudite Muslims who did know about Wahhabism typically dismissed it as
simple-minded Bedouin puritanism with nothing to add to their central
activity - exploring Muslim strategies of accommodation with the modern
world.
When I myself studied theology at Al-Azhar,
we were told that Wahhabism was heretical - not only because of issues
such as its insistence that the Koranic talk of God’s likeness to
humanity was to be taken literally, but also because it implied a radical
rejection of all Muslim scholarship. Grey-bearded sheikhs departed from
their usual imperturbability to denounce the tragic consequences for Islam
of the claim that every believer should interpret the scriptures according
to his own lights.
This sort of radical move leads to
liberal re-readings of the Koran, as in the case of the South African
theologian Farid Esack, who has horrified traditionalists by advocating
homosexual rights among Muslims. Much more commonly, however, it allows
young men whose anger has been aroused by American policy in the Middle
East to ignore the scholarly consensus about the meaning of the Koran, and
read their own frustrations into the text.
Another result of this rejection of
traditional Islam has been the notion that political power should be in
the hands of men of religion. When he came to power in 1979, Ayatollah
Khomeini remarked that he had achieved something utterly without precedent
in Islamic history. The Taliban, by ruling directly rather than advising
hereditary rulers, have similarly combined the “sword” and the “pen”.
Far from being a traditionalist move, this is a new departure for Islam,
and mainstream scholarship regards it with deep suspicion.
Islamic civilisation has in the past
proved capable of, for the times, extraordinary feats of toleration. Under
the Muslims, medieval Spain became a haven for diverse religions and
sects. Following the Christian reconquest, the Inquisition eliminated all
dissent. The notion that Islamic civilisation is inherently less capable
of tolerance and compassion than any other is hard to square with the
facts.
Muslims none the less have to face the
challenge posed by the new heresies. The Muslim world can ill afford to
lapse into bigotry at a point in history when dialogue and conviviality
have never been more important.
It is a relief that the mainstream
theologians have come out so unanimously against the terrorists. What we
must now ask them is to campaign more strongly against the aberrant
doctrines that underpin them.
Both “sides”, therefore, have a
responsibility to act. The West must drain the swamp of rage by securing a
fair resolution of the Palestinian tragedy. But it is the responsibility
of the Islamic world to de- feat the terrorist aberration theologically.
Abdul Hakim Murad, a Muslim, is lecturer
in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge
Islamic
Radicalism: It's Wahabi Roots and Current Representation
Radicalism, in various forms, has made
significant inroads in several countries of Central Asia and in the
Caucasus - in particular the three countries that share the Ferghana
Valley, namely Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan, Chechnya, and the
Russian Republic of Daghestan. Known as fundamentalism or "Wahhabism,"
it poses a direct challenge to the ideal vision of a state that the newly
founded nations of the region have embraced.
In addition, the broader ideology name "Wahhabism" represents a
serious challenge to the theology and practice of the mainstream Sunni
Islam to which most of these nations' populations adhere. Should this
radicalized understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked, radical
interpretations could threaten social stability at the local, national,
and regional levels and create serious geopolitical dangers to which
neighboring powers, as well as the US and Europe, would have to react.
Today, throughout the world, there has been a wave of radical movements,
which sometimes turn militant, whose source can be traced to the Wahhabi
movement. What is this movement and how did it spread throughout the
Muslim world, and now the Western world? What are its ideological
differences with traditional Islam and how are these differences
influencing and supporting modern day radical movements? What can be done
to diminish the power of these movements in vulnerable states such as
those in Central Asia and the Caucasus?
Traditional Islam views religion as a pact between man and God and
therefore the domain of spirituality. In this belief, there can be no
compulsion or force used in religion. From the time of the Prophet
Muhammad (s), peace and tolerance were practiced between different
religious groups, with respect to distinctions in belief. Contrary to
this, the "Wahhabi" ideology is built on the concept of
political enforcement of religious beliefs, thus permitting no differences
in faith whatsoever. In "Wahhabi" belief, faith is not
necessarily an option; it is sometimes mandated by force.
Origins of the Wahhabi Movement
The origins of nearly all of the 20th century's Islamic extremist
movements lie in a new Islamic theology and ideology developed in the 18th
and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the eastern Arabian Peninsula. The
source of this new stream of thought was a Muslim scholar named Muhammad
ibn Abd-al Wahhab, hence the name "Wahhabism."
The premise of this new, narrow ideology was to reject traditional
scholars, scholarship and practices under the guise of "reviving the
true tenets of Islam" and protecting the concept of monotheism. Ibn
Abd al-Wahhab's brand of "purification" of Islam consisted of
prohibiting many traditionally accepted acts of worship, reverence of the
person of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the pious saints,
and burning books containing traditional prayers, interpretations of law
and commentaries on the Qur'an and Hadith. He encouraged his followers to
interpret the holy books for themselves and to act on their
interpretations in light of their own understanding, regardless of their
understanding of fundamental principles or lack thereof. Anyone who did
not profess to this new ideology was considered outside of the realm of
Islam - an apostate, disbeliever or idolater, thus making the shedding of
their blood and confiscation of their wealth permitted. In this way, he
was able to secure a significant following whose legacy continues in one
form or another until today.
Over time, Ibn Wahhab's ideas spread far and wide, being debated, called
into question and sometimes supported. A struggle ensued between the
staunchly orthodox Ottoman Empire and the "Wahhabi" tribes. The
Wahhabis were put down until the eventual dismantling of the Ottoman
Empire in the 1920s and the dissolution of its influence. Finding a new
opportunity among the tribes, Wahhabis were able to reinstate their
beliefs and assert their influence on Muslims of the Peninsula.
Gradually from 1920 until today, they were very successful in establishing
an "accepted" new ideology in Islam whose essential
characteristic is extreme views and interpretations, as contrasted with
traditional Sunni Islam. Coming under the guise of reform of the religion,
the movement gathered momentum in the last three decades with support from
a number of wealthy individuals. As it has grown, the movement mutated and
splintered, with the eventual outcome that some groups went to the extreme
in radicalization of their beliefs.
Influence of Wahhabism Today
The Wahhabi ideology is antagonistic to non-Muslims and to traditional
practices including seeking intercession by means of the pious saints in
Islam, accepted by traditional Sunni Islam for over 1400 years. By
rejecting any form of hierarchy such as that followed by traditional Sunni
schools, the Wahhabis rejected traditional rulings on a wide range of
subjects, invalidated the four schools of thought and its accepted
interpretations of law, as well as issued declarations of unbelief for
those who disagreed.
While this new ideology prohibited many traditional Islamic forms of
worship, its followers did not become overtly militant until recently. Now
"Wahhabi" followers have taken up an increasingly
confrontational standpoint attempting to impose their ideology in many
regions around the world. The Wahhabi mentality asserts that Islam may be
reformed by means of the sword. Thus the movement has manifested itself as
armed insurrections throughout the world, especially where governments are
weak and unable to resist aggression effectively.
Unfortunately, this narrow ideology has appeared and flourished in Islam,
but not because of Islam. Previously, Islam was always presented in a
peaceful, tolerant manner. The Prophet Muhammad (s) used to present his
neighbors or friends that were not Muslim with gifts and flowers, never
holding a sword against them, or ever instigating a struggle or a fight.
There are many events in Muslim history where the Prophet made peace
treaties with non-Muslims. Islam, despite its rapid spread in its first
three centuries, never imposed its beliefs on anyone, as attested by the
scrolls of history.
Under this modern ideological extremism, Islam's essential principle of
tolerance has been abolished. The Holy Qur'an mentions repeatedly that
there is no compulsion in religion and that all people are free to
practice any religion they like. Those of the Wahhabi ideology selectively
apply verses of the Holy Qur'an to support their ideology, whose basis is
to impose its beliefs upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Theory in Practice: Declaration of War
against Governments
Just as the spread of Wahhabism flourished outside of the Arabian
Peninsula after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it now poses a significant
challenge to the region of the former Soviet Union. While these countries
were "protected" from all types of religious influence under
Soviet rule, the fall of the Soviet Empire and the vacuum of religious
teaching made this area fertile ground for the spread of this new
ideology.
Wahhabi belief provides the religious and ideological underpinnings to
enable militant movements to take up arms against existing governments if
they deem the need arises. Though these movements are ideological in
nature, they easily resort to armed struggle. While most governments are
able to reconcile and reach compromises -- as one may easily compromise
with a moderate Muslim -- extremists reject any kind of compromise,
insisting on their way and no other. They have tunnel vision, believing in
a duty and message to deliver.
The extremists who have turned militant declare war against anyone with
viewpoints contrary to theirs; thus, declaration of war against a
government is commonplace. In Egypt, they oppose their government.
Similarly in Jordan, they oppose their government. In Syria, Pakistan,
Algeria, and many other countries "Wahhabi-minded" groups oppose
their governments as they have begun to do in the Caucasus and Central
Asia. The approach of these movements is to infiltrate mosques, Islamic
teaching centers, and charitable organizations from where they
indoctrinate religiously oriented people with their ideas and methods.
They forcefully impose their views on weak societies, in hopes of
conquering one and establishing a base for further control. They justify
their militant acts and illegal means of financing their cause by claiming
to wage a "jihad" for the preservation of Islam.
Today, we have many examples of this phenomenon, whether it is individuals
declaring war on America, or vigilante groups coming against their
governments in Central Asia. This contradicts the explicit teaching of the
Prophet Muhammad, not to oppose a ruler as long as he does not prevent the
performance of prayer, even if he commits injustice. Thus, those of the
Wahhabi mentality use Islam when it suits them and likewise, contravene it
at their convenience.
Using Islam to Justify Prohibited Actions
The term "Islamic" is grossly abused by extremists who attribute
to the religion all kinds of rulings, which in fact contradict the essence
of the religion in spirit and in particulars. Among them is the fatwa that
justifies the use of terror tactics such as suicide bombings of civilians
and attacks against non-combatants in marketplaces, schools, offices, and
places of worship. Similarly they have issued a fatwa legitimizing the use
of drug money to finance their campaign, despite the fact that narcotics
are strictly forbidden in Islam.
Islamic extremists have ruled permissible and recommended the production
of drugs and their sale on the streets of Muslim and non-Muslim nations.
With such illicit monies, these extremist groups finance the development
of their global network, purchase weapons and supplies, and build their
front organizations, which represent them under the guise of Islamic
activism.
Containing the Spread and Growth of
Extremism
It is very well known that certain networks have flourished in many
countries throughout the world. Small but well-financed militant movements
arise, coming against their government and the common people, instigating
conflict. The danger lies when an outside government supports such
extremist movements under the false impression that this constitutes
preserving religious freedom.
In Uzbekistan, for example, rather than legitimize these vigilante groups
as part of the religious fabric of the society, there should be system of
checks to insure the government is not fostering the growth and spread of
radical movements, whose stated goal is elimination of the legitimate
government by any means, including armed struggle. There are known groups
who are not permitted in many of the Middle Eastern countries, thus, it is
unreasonable to single out Uzbekistan as being required to recognize these
same groups as a legitimate religious party. There must be some type of
code of ethics devised to differentiate legitimate religious groups from
those who use the threat of force to impose their ideology.
The problem of extremism exists not only in far distant countries, but in
the US as well. It can be dealt with more effectively if the West better
understands Islam and builds bridges with moderate Muslim individuals and
nations. To support "religious freedom" abroad without having
knowledge of whom one is supporting (i.e., an extremist movement) is an
irrational misuse of the laws protecting the religious rights of
individuals.
To understand such movements, one must understand the scope of Islam and
the psychology of Muslims, since what we are seeing today is an
ideological movement turned militant. It is important to note that the
Wahhabi ideology itself is extreme in its interpretation and can turn
militant over time. Why is this form of thinking attractive to some
Muslims? What are the political agendas behind "religious"
movements? How are holy books used to justify illegal actions performed in
the name of the religion? Education is a key factor in containing and
countering the spread of this type of extremism and its associated
movements.
It would be highly beneficial if a think tank or research institute were
to be formed in order that government officials, researchers, and media
understand Islam on a deeper level, rather than making rash
generalizations based on superficial understandings. To truly understand
the world Islamist extremist movement, one must realize it is not just a
social phenomenon as so many theorists mistakenly assume, but is a
full-fledged ideological war of words and weapons alike.
ISLAMIC RADICALISM: ITS
WAHHABI ROOTS AND CURRENT REPRESENTATION
Radicalism, in various forms, has made
significant inroads in several countries of Central Asia and in the
Caucasus - in particular the three countries that share the Ferghana
Valley, namely Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan, Chechnya, and the
Russian Republic of Daghestan. Known as fundamentalism or "Wahhabism,"
it poses a direct challenge to the ideal vision of a state that the newly
founded nations of the region have embraced.
In addition, the broader ideology name "Wahhabism" represents a
serious challenge to the theology and practice of the mainstream Sunni
Islam to which most of these nations' populations adhere. Should this
radicalized understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked, radical
interpretations could threaten social stability at the local, national,
and regional levels and create serious geopolitical dangers to which
neighboring powers, as well as the US and Europe, would have to react.
Today, throughout the world, there has been a wave of radical movements,
which sometimes turn militant, whose source can be traced to the Wahhabi
movement. What is this movement and how did it spread throughout the
Muslim world, and now the Western world? What are its ideological
differences with traditional Islam and how are these differences
influencing and supporting modern day radical movements? What can be done
to diminish the power of these movements in vulnerable states such as
those in Central Asia and the Caucasus?
Traditional Islam views religion as a pact between man and God and
therefore the domain of spirituality. In this belief, there can be no
compulsion or force used in religion. From the time of the Prophet
Muhammad (s), peace and tolerance were practiced between different
religious groups, with respect to distinctions in belief. Contrary to
this, the "Wahhabi" ideology is built on the concept of
political enforcement of religious beliefs, thus permitting no differences
in faith whatsoever. In "Wahhabi" belief, faith is not
necessarily an option; it is sometimes mandated by force.
Origins of the Wahhabi Movement
The origins of nearly all of the 20th century's Islamic extremist
movements lie in a new Islamic theology and ideology developed in the 18th
and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the eastern Arabian Peninsula. The
source of this new stream of thought was a Muslim scholar named Muhammad
ibn Abd-al Wahhab, hence the name "Wahhabism."
The premise of this new, narrow ideology was to reject traditional
scholars, scholarship and practices under the guise of "reviving the
true tenets of Islam" and protecting the concept of monotheism. Ibn
Abd al-Wahhab's brand of "purification" of Islam consisted of
prohibiting many traditionally accepted acts of worship, reverence of the
person of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the pious saints,
and burning books containing traditional prayers, interpretations of law
and commentaries on the Qur'an and Hadith. He encouraged his followers to
interpret the holy books for themselves and to act on their
interpretations in light of their own understanding, regardless of their
understanding of fundamental principles or lack thereof. Anyone who did
not profess to this new ideology was considered outside of the realm of
Islam - an apostate, disbeliever or idolater, thus making the shedding of
their blood and confiscation of their wealth permitted. In this way, he
was able to secure a significant following whose legacy continues in one
form or another until today.
Over time, Ibn Wahhab's ideas spread far and wide, being debated, called
into question and sometimes supported. A struggle ensued between the
staunchly orthodox Ottoman Empire and the "Wahhabi" tribes. The
Wahhabis were put down until the eventual dismantling of the Ottoman
Empire in the 1920s and the dissolution of its influence. Finding a new
opportunity among the tribes, Wahhabis were able to reinstate their
beliefs and assert their influence on Muslims of the Peninsula.
Gradually from 1920 until today, they were very successful in establishing
an "accepted" new ideology in Islam whose essential
characteristic is extreme views and interpretations, as contrasted with
traditional Sunni Islam. Coming under the guise of reform of the religion,
the movement gathered momentum in the last three decades with support from
a number of wealthy individuals. As it has grown, the movement mutated and
splintered, with the eventual outcome that some groups went to the extreme
in radicalization of their beliefs.
Influence of Wahhabism Today
The Wahhabi ideology is antagonistic to non-Muslims and to traditional
practices including seeking intercession by means of the pious saints in
Islam, accepted by traditional Sunni Islam for over 1400 years. By
rejecting any form of hierarchy such as that followed by traditional Sunni
schools, the Wahhabis rejected traditional rulings on a wide range of
subjects, invalidated the four schools of thought and its accepted
interpretations of law, as well as issued declarations of unbelief for
those who disagreed.
While this new ideology prohibited many traditional Islamic forms of
worship, its followers did not become overtly militant until recently. Now
"Wahhabi" followers have taken up an increasingly
confrontational standpoint attempting to impose their ideology in many
regions around the world. The Wahhabi mentality asserts that Islam may be
reformed by means of the sword. Thus the movement has manifested itself as
armed insurrections throughout the world, especially where governments are
weak and unable to resist aggression effectively.
Unfortunately, this narrow ideology has appeared and flourished in Islam,
but not because of Islam. Previously, Islam was always presented in a
peaceful, tolerant manner. The Prophet Muhammad (s) used to present his
neighbors or friends that were not Muslim with gifts and flowers, never
holding a sword against them, or ever instigating a struggle or a fight.
There are many events in Muslim history where the Prophet made peace
treaties with non-Muslims. Islam, despite its rapid spread in its first
three centuries, never imposed its beliefs on anyone, as attested by the
scrolls of history.
Under this modern ideological extremism, Islam's essential principle of
tolerance has been abolished. The Holy Qur'an mentions repeatedly that
there is no compulsion in religion and that all people are free to
practice any religion they like. Those of the Wahhabi ideology selectively
apply verses of the Holy Qur'an to support their ideology, whose basis is
to impose its beliefs upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Theory in Practice: Declaration of War
against Governments
Just as the spread of Wahhabism flourished outside of the Arabian
Peninsula after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it now poses a significant
challenge to the region of the former Soviet Union. While these countries
were "protected" from all types of religious influence under
Soviet rule, the fall of the Soviet Empire and the vacuum of religious
teaching made this area fertile ground for the spread of this new
ideology.
Wahhabi belief provides the religious and ideological underpinnings to
enable militant movements to take up arms against existing governments if
they deem the need arises. Though these movements are ideological in
nature, they easily resort to armed struggle. While most governments are
able to reconcile and reach compromises -- as one may easily compromise
with a moderate Muslim -- extremists reject any kind of compromise,
insisting on their way and no other. They have tunnel vision, believing in
a duty and message to deliver.
The extremists who have turned militant declare war against anyone with
viewpoints contrary to theirs; thus, declaration of war against a
government is commonplace. In Egypt, they oppose their government.
Similarly in Jordan, they oppose their government. In Syria, Pakistan,
Algeria, and many other countries "Wahhabi-minded" groups oppose
their governments as they have begun to do in the Caucasus and Central
Asia. The approach of these movements is to infiltrate mosques, Islamic
teaching centers, and charitable organizations from where they
indoctrinate religiously oriented people with their ideas and methods.
They forcefully impose their views on weak societies, in hopes of
conquering one and establishing a base for further control. They justify
their militant acts and illegal means of financing their cause by claiming
to wage a "jihad" for the preservation of Islam.
Today, we have many examples of this phenomenon, whether it is individuals
declaring war on America, or vigilante groups coming against their
governments in Central Asia. This contradicts the explicit teaching of the
Prophet Muhammad, not to oppose a ruler as long as he does not prevent the
performance of prayer, even if he commits injustice. Thus, those of the
Wahhabi mentality use Islam when it suits them and likewise, contravene it
at their convenience.
Using Islam to Justify Prohibited Actions
The term "Islamic" is grossly abused by extremists who attribute
to the religion all kinds of rulings, which in fact contradict the essence
of the religion in spirit and in particulars. Among them is the fatwa that
justifies the use of terror tactics such as suicide bombings of civilians
and attacks against non-combatants in marketplaces, schools, offices, and
places of worship. Similarly they have issued a fatwa legitimizing the use
of drug money to finance their campaign, despite the fact that narcotics
are strictly forbidden in Islam.
Islamic extremists have ruled permissible and recommended the production
of drugs and their sale on the streets of Muslim and non-Muslim nations.
With such illicit monies, these extremist groups finance the development
of their global network, purchase weapons and supplies, and build their
front organizations, which represent them under the guise of Islamic
activism.
Containing the Spread and Growth of
Extremism
It is very well known that certain networks have flourished in many
countries throughout the world. Small but well-financed militant movements
arise, coming against their government and the common people, instigating
conflict. The danger lies when an outside government supports such
extremist movements under the false impression that this constitutes
preserving religious freedom.
In Uzbekistan, for example, rather than legitimize these vigilante groups
as part of the religious fabric of the society, there should be system of
checks to insure the government is not fostering the growth and spread of
radical movements, whose stated goal is elimination of the legitimate
government by any means, including armed struggle. There are known groups
who are not permitted in many of the Middle Eastern countries, thus, it is
unreasonable to single out Uzbekistan as being required to recognize these
same groups as a legitimate religious party. There must be some type of
code of ethics devised to differentiate legitimate religious groups from
those who use the threat of force to impose their ideology.
The problem of extremism exists not only in far distant countries, but in
the US as well. It can be dealt with more effectively if the West better
understands Islam and builds bridges with moderate Muslim individuals and
nations. To support "religious freedom" abroad without having
knowledge of whom one is supporting (i.e., an extremist movement) is an
irrational misuse of the laws protecting the religious rights of
individuals.
To understand such movements, one must understand the scope of Islam and
the psychology of Muslims, since what we are seeing today is an
ideological movement turned militant. It is important to note that the
Wahhabi ideology itself is extreme in its interpretation and can turn
militant over time. Why is this form of thinking attractive to some
Muslims? What are the political agendas behind "religious"
movements? How are holy books used to justify illegal actions performed in
the name of the religion? Education is a key factor in containing and
countering the spread of this type of extremism and its associated
movements.
It would be highly beneficial if a think tank or research institute were
to be formed in order that government officials, researchers, and media
understand Islam on a deeper level, rather than making rash
generalizations based on superficial understandings. To truly understand
the world Islamist extremist movement, one must realize it is not just a
social phenomenon as so many theorists mistakenly assume, but is a
full-fledged ideological war of words and weapons alike.
|
