Posted on 07/22/2005 9:02:14 AM PDT by CHARLITE
Jihad is the ‘evil ideology’ that is driving terrorism. Muslims should take the lead in rooting out this barbarism.
Early reports indicate that there were no fatalities from four coordinated explosions that again targeted Londons’ transit system yesterday, July 21, 2005, exactly two weeks after the Islamikaze carnage of July 7, 2005 that killed over 50 persons. Perhaps we will also be spared the surreal drama that is enacted each time there is a major Islamikaze terrorist attack: politicians and various other “experts”—non-Muslim and Muslim alike—start praising Islam. They tell us that Islam is a noble religion that stands for peace and compassion and abhors violence. This is what Mr. Tony Blair did immediately following the London bombings of 7/7/05. It is now all but an obligatory ritual.
The major players in this post-attack drama are Muslim leaders and academics. They voice apprehensions about the possible ‘backlash’ against innocent Muslims, resulting from the terrorist acts of a minority. They assure us that the terrorists are acting against the teachings of Islam. This is soon followed by a third act, an airing of Muslim grievances— the war in Iraq, the Palestinian problem, and of course the oppression of Muslims in non-Muslim countries like Britain. The talk is always about backlash and grievances, rarely about their own responsibility in allowing fanaticism to flourish in their midst.
In all this there is an unstated assumption that the root causes of terrorism lie outside the teachings of Islam. If that is the case, how are we to explain the fact all the terrorist attacks—from New York to London to Bali—have one thing in common: that they were perpetrated by groups acting in the name of Islam? It is hard to believe that the Bali bombings had anything to do with Iraq or Palestine.
In this drama of denial and diversion, there is always a reluctance to mention the one word that goes a long way towards explaining terrorism: Jihad. While Mr. Blair talked about an evil ideology of hate, he did not mention Jihad. Neither did the British Muslim leaders who promised full cooperation. All spoke in vague terms— about fighting ‘extremism and fundamentalism’ without telling us how.
At this moment of crisis, what the world needs is clarity, not obfuscation. Fortunately, we have a lucid explanation of Jihad and terrorism by one of the founding fathers of modern terrorism, the late General Zia-ul-Haq, former president of Pakistan. He sponsored one Brigadier Malik to produce an authoritative military manual on Jihad called The Quranic Concept of War.
In his laudatory foreword to the book, General Zia wrote:
“JIHAD FI-SABILILLAH (Jihad in the path of Allah) is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone. The book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of the military force, within the context of the totality that is JIHAD.”
Indeed it does. Brigadier Malik writes,
“the Holy Prophet’s operations …are an integral and inseparable part of the divine message revealed to us in the Holy Quran. … The war he planned and carried out was total to the infinite degree. It was waged on all fronts: internal and external, political and diplomatic, spiritual and psychological, economic and military.”
Another point made by the author is that the war should be carried out in the opponent’s territory. “The aggressor was always met and destroyed in his own territory.” The ‘aggressor’ is anyone who stands in the way of Jihad.
Where does terrorism come in the picture?
“The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemy, known or hidden…”
It doesn’t stop here, for Brigadier Malik assures us:
“Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved… Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.” (Original emphasis.)
That is to say, the enemy should be made to live in a state of perpetual terror. We should be grateful to Brigadier Malik and the late General Zia for spelling it out with such clarity. We no longer need to grope in the dark to identify this “evil ideology of hate” in Mr. Blair’s picturesque phrase.
Though little known in the West, The Quranic Concept of War is widely studied in Islamic countries. It has been translated into several languages including Arabic and Urdu (the official language of Pakistan). Indian soldiers have recovered Urdu versions of the book from the bodies of slain militants in Kashmir.
It is no coincidence that the trail of terrorism today should lead to General Zia. By making Jihad the centerpiece of Pakistan’s politics he ensured that Jihadist thinking would dominate all aspects of Pakistani politics in both domestic and foreign affairs. And now British investigators have determined that three of the four suicide bombers responsible for the carnage in London on 7/7/05 were Muslims of Pakistani descent, who had recently flown to Karachi and attended Pakistani madrassas known to be run by terrorist organizations.
That this barbarous act of terrorism has indelible links to Pakistan is hardly surprising—for at least a quarter century, Pakistan has been a fountainhead of jihadist ideology—embodied in the The Qur’anic Concept of War—and a tactical training center for jihad terrorists. Indeed, even during the current Musharaf administration’s purported crackdown on Al Qaeda networks, as terrorism expert Con Coughlin observed,
“…the inescapable conclusion is that Pakistan forms the epicentre of Osama bin Laden's unremitting campaign of terror against the West.”
In the face of this, Mr. Blair’s actions in the days following the London blasts are not reassuring. Plans to deport all known Muslim fanatics allowed into Britain may accomplish little. Islamic terror is increasingly becoming home grown and will be more so in the future. What is needed is a method of combating indoctrination of young Muslim minds on English soil.
The so-called “blasphemy law” recently passed by the House of Commons is a knee-jerk reaction to pressure from Muslim groups. It will only shield Islam from honest review and criticism that the situation now demands. It is just a step removed from allowing Islamic courts and an Islamic thought police to function. This is what one expects in countries like Saudi Arabia, not Britain.
What is needed now is the exact opposite of such censorship: a free debate over all aspects of Islamic teachings and practices, especially Jihad. After all, Christianity and Hinduism, the other two major religions of Britain enjoy no such immunity. Nor have they asked for it.
Muslim leaders need to go beyond condemning violence and voicing grievances. They need to root out this evil from within their ranks. If they are really sincere about fighting terrorism, they should come out openly against the barbarism that is Jihad, and not hide behind vague statements about extremism and fanaticism. Mere lip service will not do.
Dr. N.S. Rajaram is a mathematician and historian of science. He lives in Oklahoma City and Bangalore, India
Char
Zia's Legacy.
Book sounds it's worth reading.
At least members of the USG should.
This still does not address the catch 22 of Islam. Muhammad's prime directive was to wage war on infidels until they all surrender.
There is no Islam without Muhammad, so how can anyone say that jihad against infidels is not true Islam?
Good article.What's it going to take to get past the pc rhetoric?What happens if terrorists(in the US)start blowing up schools,packed stadiums,or malls on a busy weekend?While islamonuts are blowing themselves up(and MURDERING innocent civilians),the msm,academians,and polititians are still beating the appeasement drum.Sickening.
ping
Second, I really don't know where the whole suicide bombing thing began, maybe invented by some fanatical, egotistic mullah with a God (Allah?) complex and political power goals. Mohammad preferred all-out open war on the battlefield during his jihad. The ones who went to heaven, the "martyrs," were the ones who fought on the battlefield with honor against a like opponent. From my understanding of the Quran, these suicide bombers are going to Muslim hell for the murder of innocents.
One of the most important and clarifying works I've read. And from a mathematician, too. Imagine that...
You don't know what you're talking about.
BTTT
Really? Explain.
Subterfuge and dissembling are good in wartime. Only an inept commander wouldn't use both. If you look at the context, I was talking about how the concept of suicide bombers didn't exist. It is a recent fabrication.
Lastly, Islam is a highly decentralized cult, there is no clear authority or titular leader of any sort.
Not anymore. Decentralization does cause problems with religions. Christianity has the same problem, from churches that support homosexuals to "God Hates Fags," from peaceful groups to ones that advocate the murder of doctors, and long ago the same inter-sect warfare that you see in Islam today.
We have the basic problem that weak people will get drawn to the fanatical demagogues of any religion. There are a lot of weak people in the world, and they will do the leader's bidding.
The author fails to note that Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam and no Muslim can edit Jihad out of the religion unless he wants his head separated from his body.
You just said that Islam is decentralized. These are one of the decentralized factions. There are Muslims all over who want peace, but there are two problems with them. One problem is shown in this story, the other is that what they do never makes the news. Terrorists are news, people just living their lives are not. That is why so many people don't believe they exist.
There haven't been any meaningful religious wars in Christendom for centuries
And Islam is over 600 years younger than Christianity. In the middle ages, those of the then 1,500 year-old Buddhist religion were probably wondering why Christians were running around killing people so much.
Muslims have less of an excuse though. Today's technology should allow pretty much everyone to get the message that religious wars are not a good thing. Unfortunately, most of the terrorists get their news from only one source: their demagogue Mullahs.
Oops, in my post referred to an article about how moderate Muslims should speak up and turn in the terrorists.
BTW, you're harping on how the religion is now. This article is about the Quranic concepts behind terrorism. I merely pointed out that I found nothing in the Quran supporting suicide bombers, and those murderers going to heaven.
Again, you're going on contemporary Islam, not the Quran. As you said, what these people believe is what their governments and mullahs want them to believe. And that is usually not friendly to the West.
The religious leaders are powerful because the people make them so is more accurate than the idea that the people would be tolerant and secular if the religious leaders weren't stirring them up
Ah, the chicken and the egg. In Iraq, it's really about power. The minority Sunnis are used to running things, and don't want it to stop. The Shiites are actually showing great restraint, with their leaders pleading for the people not to retaliate for Sunni violence, thus continuing the cycle.
You know people don't want to admit that they are the source of their own problems. These religious leaders point to the West as the source and the people gather around them secure in the knowledge that their situation isn't their fault. Claiming an outside enemy is a great way to get people to rally around you, whether the enemy exists (as in the terrorists helping Bush win his second term), or doesn't (as in the mullahs telling their people that we are the reason for their desperate situation).
Frankly, it is my hope that the West begins the process of radically critiquing Islam and subjecting it's central texts to both scrutiny and open mockery
If you've read about any of the Bible inerrantists, you know that there will still be holdouts when all errors are laid open. But for the Quran that process already started years ago, and the authors are not yet dead. Of course, they don't dare study in any of the Muslim theocracies. They are not all as brave as Martin Luther, nor do they have the powerful protection of a Prince Frederick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.