Submitted By Mirza Ashraf
ABSTRACT: History does not account top-down oppression as terrorism while retaliation to such oppression from bottom-up is described as violence and terrorism. Though religion-inspired terrorism has appeared on the fringes of all major and minor religions, today it is more frequent than other religions among Islamic groups from West Africa to Central Asia and Philippines. Is this mere accident or could a pattern be detected? In this article I have attempted to break the stranglehold from within illustrating that in Islam, though there is no such term as terrorism but the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by some non-state Muslim actors. … Terrorism seems to be in the interest of the Western powers helping them to turn the Islamic ideology against itself. It derives its impetus from the flaws of previous century’s nation-state system in the Middle East. The fate of its course depends upon the response of Western Powers. The West is viewed by the Arabs responsible for dividing the Arab world into small nation states, and appointing or supporting corrupt rulers as its agents. Therefore, for some zealous Muslims, targeting and charging mortal threats to the Western world and their agent rulers, is a freedom seeking tactic of the followers of Islam. Whereas they believe Islam is a faith of peace, a bottom-up struggle, even by raising arms for freedom and justice, is a rational crux in pursuit of their just objectives. . . . For the revolutionists, terrorism prompts justice for those who are oppressed and is an emanation of virtue. Since the concept of prompt and ready justice is at the core of Islamic Shari’ah, such justifications further embolden the religiously zealous jihadists. They are further inspired by the argument of Sergius Stepniak, a Russian-born fighter for democracy that “the terrorist … is noble, terrible, irresistibly fascinating, for he combines in himself the two sublimities of human grandeur: the martyr and the hero.” Within this context as the revolutionary Europeans justified or authenticated the use of terrorism as a struggle for the restoration of human liberties, it also provided a justification to the Muslims parallel to just war theory. Muslims under colonial rules adopted it as a form of new technique of revolutionary struggle wherever a dysfunctional relation showed up between the state and society. Just as the political sensibility of the French Revolution justified violence and terrorism as an important avenue leading towards a political progression, Muslims maintain that violence today, whether conducted with a religious commitment or an ideological determination, is “a politics by other means.” . . . Terrorist tactics, thus, have been learned by the Muslims from the Europeans, not from the Qur’an, which does not contain any injunction promoting terrorism. In Islam the term “terrorist” or an act defined as “terrorism,” has never been adopted by an individual or a group. It has always been applied to them by others, either by the governments of the states they target or by the societies practicing oppression. . . . The problem can be overcome, only if the Muslims think rationally and instead of presenting terrorism as a misinterpretation of Islam they need to view it as a mortal danger to Islamic civilization. It is time that Muslims need to accept the truth that we all live in a common and increasingly mixed global community where we share a common global history. Today, modern technology has connected us with each other irrespective of our faiths and beliefs. Because of scientific-enlightenment, day by day nonviolent forms of social and political changes are overtaking violent forms and actions.
For complete article please click at: https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf
It is fascinating and great article, especially the concluding paragraph.
“But Muslims need to understand that Political Islam, whatever it may have been in the past, is impracticable today. It is important to note that even in the secular philosophies, no commanding work of political philosophy has appeared in the twentieth century. This principal symptom supports the fact that political philosophy today is dead or dying and after Marxism there is no other social or political ideology Modern internet technology is rapidly facilitating globalization, making way for new disciplines. On political spectrum there is no room for the past political disciplines.”
Does this mean that political Islam which is not practical, is dead today like Marxism? Although there may not have been new commanding work in Secular philosophy, but it is not only thriving and expanding but has greatly evolved in the areas of human and individual rights. The current modernity and technology is actually re-enforcing the Secularism and making religion, or no religion ( atheism) a personal matter.
The current turmoil in Muslim lands, which on the surface seems like fight for conservative Islam, at the end will also end up in the lap of Secular political system because political Islam is not practical, as argued in the article. It seems that when all the dust settles, capitalism and secularism will be the only game in town. Islamic Civilization and religion will be a personal and regional societal matter with no political involvement.
The link
https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf
does not open from here. Please check it. . . . Mirza Ashraf
First to clarify that I have said, “Political Islam, whatever it may have been in the past, is impracticable today.” Whereas Dr. Fayyaz Sahib mentions “political Islam is not practical” which is different from what I have said. Political Islam is practical, but in modern times it is not practicable.
Capitalism and secularism is not one, rather religion and capitalism are part and parcel of each other. That is why USA prints on the dollar bill “In God we Trust.” It is my belief that mankind is naturally religious, only the approach is different. Day-by-day atheism is evolving into a form of faith which is a religion minus spirituality. For example Sam’s approach is based on scientific secularism minus spirituality, while Chomsky, also an atheist, is still depending on his intellectual creative capabilities and emotional or spiritual connection with humanity. Today, unmanned drones are killing humans, and as materialists we get an impression that man is not responsible for this. Sam has no emotional concern with non-atheist humans.
Atheism is giving rise to gay marriages and with no natural human generation, thus, mechanical humans as robots is the alternate. In the same way robot soldiers will fight to kill spiritual humans, which will bring a horrible end to humanity! With the invention of AI (artificial intelligence), our natural way of feeling and thinking is being impaired. AI is going to bring death to spirituality and in future we will have a “scientific religion” and a scientific concept of God. Can we get rid of God, I would say no never. . . . Mirza Ashraf
In response to Mirza Sahib.
Thanks for the important clarification. My comments are related to current and modern times, which I should have specified.
I do not think gay marriages and atheism has any relationship. One may not agree with their life style, and many do not, but gay and lesbians come from all aspects of life including religious, non-religious, rich, poor, conservatives, liberals, ordinary citizens to famous.
All the scientific evidence supports that, in vast majority, it is not a learned behavior either, but a born predilection, which is no different than someone born as transgender.
Fayyaz Sahib, it is true that gays and lesbians come from all walks of life. But the concept of Gay Marriage is new one. It is a social invocation and is based on the theory of existentialism. Same sex marriage (not having sex) is unprecedented in human evolution and social history. It used to be immoral act in the past, but today it is morally and ethically justified. It is a kind of marriage that is non-productive and is a revolt against nature. . . . Mirza Ashraf
Right from the heading,” Whereas Islam is a Faith of Peace… ” the contents of Mirza Sahib’s article are of an apologist. More than once it has been stated that due to oppression Muslims are left with no other means to address the situation which is a very lame apology. As mentioned by Mirza Sahib also, not only Muslims but French and American revolutions, Zionist violence against British to form the state of Israel were acts of terror and rightly pointed out that some heroes (like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro) were no angels. Nevertheless an act of terrorism is terrorism and cowardice – no goal is noble enough to justify killing innocent people. When others committed acts of terrorism they were monsters and now if Muslims are committing these terrorist acts they should be called terrorists and no apology forwarded on their behalf. My objection to “Islam a Faith of Peace” is based on the fact that Islam did use ruthless violence to expand – yes, Meccans persecuted Muslims and followed them in Medina but did they (Muslims) stop at Mecca in their retaliation, certainly not, because Damascus and Baghdad are definitely not on the route to Mecca from Medina and Spain was most certainly out of the way. Why are Muslims left with only hope of revival of Khilafat (so called glorious past), why can’t Muslims educate themselves, use the leverage of their wealth of oil, and make themselves economical powers like China so that every other nation gets in line to be friends with them?
I am left confused with the last paragraph of Mirza Sahib’s article summing up the situation contrary to the lengthy apology preceding ….”The problem can be overcome only if the Muslims think rationally….”!!!!
Babar
Babar Sahib, I am sorry to say you have not read the whole 11 page article, because the word ISLAM and the name Prophet Muhammad, suddenly change your attitude and you assume what is there is just religious dogma. Please go through the whole article with an open mind. There is no apology, rather clear facts supported by great western thinkers and journalists. It is an eye opening war going on between the western civilization and the Islamic civilization. My last paragraph tells that Muslims need to think rationally and solve it in a better way, not by being divided the way west is playing with them
Now, let us suppose if there was no Islam, do you think there would have been no Huns, no Mongols, no Taimur, no Hitler, no Stalin, no Mussolini, no Mao and many more non-Islamic great men like them; above all there would have been no great America President who threw 2-nueclear bombs on the citizens of Japan and in this century no Bush and no Cheney. May be all these godless but saint like figures in the world would have made this planet a paradise and a utopia of love and peace. . . . Mirza Ashraf
The cancer of the Shia-Sunni divide that afflicts the mideast and spreading throughout the Muslim world is not a western ploy but a very real moral crisis. The barbarity is infused with a religious fervor that is unique in history. Entire cities are being razed to the ground and people decimated in the name of the same Allah and his prophet by the Saudi and Irani inspired theological subversives. It is a madness of the old schism with modern weapons where the two main branches of Islam are bent upon the annihilation of each other. Islam has been hijacked by the nihilistic fundamentalists. Tragically, it will take a long and bloody struggle for sanity to prevail.