The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (29 page)

As classical Muslim jurists debated the complicated issue of abodes, they also debated what would constitute a sufficient and just cause for fighting non-Muslims. The classical debates focused on the question of whether non-Muslims were fought because of their act of disbelief or only because they posed a physical threat to Muslims. Most classical jurists concluded that the justification for fighting non-Muslims was directly proportional to the physical threat they posed to Muslims. If non-Muslims did not threaten or seek to harm Muslims, then there was no justification for acts of belligerence or warfare against them. According to most Muslim jurists, the act of dis- belief or the failure to believe (
kufr
) was not a sufficient cause for war because by itself, it did not justify the termination of life.

This is why, according to the classical tradition, the lives of noncombatants are sacrosanct. Although noncombatants

might be unbelievers, they do not inherently pose a threat and therefore they may not be targeted. Relying on a precedent set by the Prophet, classical Muslim jurists held that noncombat- ants like children, women, people of advanced age, monks, hermits, priests, or anyone else who does not seek to or can- not fight Muslims, is inviolable and may not be targeted even during ongoing hostilities. Before any military campaign, the Prophet used to instruct his armies not to hurt noncombatants or needlessly destroy property or vegetation, but to treat the wounded and feed the needy, including prisoners of war. In a well-known report, it was widely recorded that after a battle, upon finding the corpse of a woman, the Prophet became very upset and reproached his army for killing a noncombatant.
4
This is the basic legacy that modern-day Muslims inherited, and the one that puritans and moderates have had to accept, reject, or modify. As can be observed, the legacy is not straightforward or simple; there are various voices and trends in this legacy, and what remains for Muslims to decide is how they want to handle the novel conditions and new challenges of the modern age. Some of this legacy came directly from the Qur’an—for instance, the prohibition against harming prison- ers of war or against violating treaties and pacts. Some of the past legacy had a very tenuous connection with the Qur’an, like the division of the world into two abodes. As noted ear- lier, the Qur’an speaks about Muslims as a single nation be- fore God, but does not bifurcate the world into two or more

abodes.

Despite its tenuous connection to Islamic theology, the di- chotomous view has played a major role in shaping contem- porary Western stereotypes of Islam. Many of the books written by non-Muslim scholars in the West perpetuate the myth that Islamic law invariably dictates that the world should be divided into two abodes forever locked in conflict.

Often the same books falsely assume that most Muslims today adhere to the same bipolar view of the world. This, of course, is not an accurate description of Islamic legal doctrine; more- over, it does not accurately describe the beliefs of the over- whelming majority of Muslims today. It does, however, accurately describe the convictions and ideology of contempo- rary puritan thinkers and activists. The puritans latched onto the idea of the two-abode division, with its state of permanent conflict, because it served their bipolar view of the world quite well. Although the whole idea of the lands of Islamdom—or Christendom, for that matter, versus any other territory—was thoroughly a product of historical circumstance, all puritans treated this idea as if it were a tenet of the Islamic faith. Whether a particular puritan group believes that the abode of Islam is currently engaged in a state of active hostilities with the abode of war or believes that, for one reason or another, there is a temporary respite in the hostilities, the end result is the same.

The idea of battling abodes might have served a purpose at a certain point in history, but if applied today it leads to disas- trous consequences. As far as the puritans are concerned, this medieval paradigm is particularly convenient because it per- mits puritans to attack their enemies without giving them no- tice or a declaration of war. If all non-Muslim countries may be presumed to be the enemies of Islam and Muslims, puritans contend that they are not legally obligated to give notice to non-Muslim states of this ongoing state of war, and therefore, puritans feel justified in attacking non-Muslims anytime and anywhere. The presumption of ongoing hostilities, according to puritans, permits them to attack at will either non-Muslims in their own countries or non-Muslim interests in Muslim countries. In their writings, puritans also adopt the oppor- tunistic logic that Muslims might need to enter into peace

treaties with non-Muslim countries for a while, but only if Muslims are weak and need to build up their power. But in principle as soon as Muslims possess the requisite power, Muslims would need to reassert their supremacy over unbe- lievers by giving them the draconian three choices: convert to Islam, pay the poll tax, or fight.

Does this explain the puritan violence being committed against the West today? Well, not quite. Puritans believe that they are engaging in a defensive war at the current time, not an offensive war. This has a rather odd result, because if it were an aggressive war (or what is called, in Islamic law, a preemptive war), at least the puritans could not commit vio- lence unless they first gave Westerners the option of becoming Muslim. Since, however, puritans believe that they are waging a defensive war, the need for such notice does not exist nor re- strain them.

As was noted in an earlier chapter, puritans believe that the vast majority of Muslim lands are still colonized by the West, but by proxy. The current rulers in most of the Muslim world act in proxy for their Western masters, and therefore, when Western forces arrive in the Middle East by invitation from the domestic governments in power, the invitation is immaterial. The Westerners are still the aggressors, because through their local agents (the rulers) they got themselves invited to occupy Muslim lands. This is why militant puritan groups since the 1980s and to this day continue attacking Americans and other Westerners in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, and other Muslim countries. In every one of these instances, the puritan militant groups in each of these countries firmly believed that the Mus- lim local rulers were nothing more than stooges of the West. Therefore, the guarantee of safe conduct offered by these Muslim governments to nationals of non-Muslim countries is considered invalid and void, and since these nationals are “un-

lawfully” present in Muslim territory, they can enjoy no im- munity.

But if puritans believe that Muslims continue to be colo- nized by proxy, and that the West occupies Muslim countries by manipulating their stooges (Muslim rulers), the real ques- tion is: Why don’t puritan militants simply wage attacks against the military forces found in their countries instead of waging terrorist attacks against Westerners all over the globe? The answer is entirely functional and opportunistic. For all their talk about literalism when interpreting God’s law, puri- tans rely on a blatant logic of necessity. Puritans reason that the West is strong and has armies with which to wage its de- structive wars. Muslims, puritans argue, are weak and would invariably be defeated in a conventional war. Thus, Muslims need to find an alternative method of fighting—they have to strike wherever they can and inflict enough damage on the enemy until the enemy gets the point and retreats from all Muslim lands. The logic of puritans is that they are justified in violating Islamic moral and legal prescriptions against the tar- geting of civilians because there is no other way to defeat their enemy. Since they are not strong enough to take on the West- ern armed military, they must achieve victory by any means necessary. And, according to puritans, waging attacks against the civilian nationals of countries that occupy Muslim lands will eventually bring these countries to their knees and teach them not to violate the sanctity of or attempt to dominate Muslim nations.

The disagreements between puritans and moderates are very deep and profound in all matters related to warfare, jihad, and terrorism. The disagreements relate to the sanctity and value placed on life and to what kind of example God wants Muslims to set before humanity. They relate to whether there is an open, never-ending state of war between Islam and

non-Muslims, and at what cost this war may be fought. Here, we get to basic and fundamental differences about how to read the text of the Qur’an about war. The issue in this case is one of moral attitude—the attitude about the desirability of violence and the price of war.

Moderates and puritans will recognize that
salam
(peace and tranquility) is a core moral condition that is repeatedly emphasized both in ritualistic practices, such as prayer, and in virtually all Islamic social practices, such as greetings ex- changed between people. But the Qur’an is not talking about ritualistic expressions of wishes that are proclaimed as a polite way of ignoring and avoiding the other. The Qur’an associates the prayer of peace with forgiveness and mercy—it counsels Muslims to forgive and say, “Peace,” or it instructs Muslims to say, “Peace,” and then explains that God has decreed mercy upon God’s Self.
5
Both forgiveness and the merciful treatment of others—whether the others are non-Muslims or Muslims belonging to different sects—are necessary for the coexistence of human beings in a state of peace. Significantly, in Qur’anic discourses and Islamic theology,
salam,
or the ability to exist in a condition of peace and tranquility, is considered a pro- found Divine blessing to be cherished and vigilantly pursued by every Muslim. Classical theological treatises that summa- rize the quintessential nature of Islam often state that Islam is not only the faith of submission, but also the faith of peace. But according to the Qur’an, for a state of peace to exist, Muslims must therefore actively cultivate forgiveness and mercy. Therefore, the Qur’an is keen on warning Muslims against allowing the circumstances of rancor and hostility with one party or another from penetrating and corrupting their hearts. This is why the Qur’an instructs Muslims that the injustice committed by others should not be allowed to alter the attitude of Muslims toward their moral obligations to pro-

mote forgiveness and mercy. This point is emphasized time and again in the Qur’an. For instance, it states: “O you who believe, stand up as witnesses for God in justice, and do not let your hatred of a people lead you away from justice. Be just! This is closest to piety and be mindful of God in all you do for God is aware of all you do.”
6
Even when the collective Mus- lim ego had suffered a severe blow, it became particularly im- perative for Muslims to be extra vigilant in holding steadfast to their moral principles. The Qur’an is specific on this point and instructs Muslims in the following way: “And do not let your anger at those who barred you from the Holy Mosque [in Mecca] lead you to commit aggression. Help one another in goodness and piety and do not assist each other in commit- ting sin and aggression, and be mindful of God for God is se- vere in retribution.”
7

The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that God does not like aggression and does not love aggressors, and it warns Muslims that they must critically reflect upon the way they deal with others so that they do not find that they have unwittingly fallen into the position of the unjust.
8
It is clear that the Qur’an recognizes the law of retribution, and acknowledges that at times it might be necessary to act in a punitive fashion. If attacked, Muslims can respond in kind, but if the enemy de- sists, Muslims must refrain from further acts of violence. In this context, the Qur’an states: “So if you are transgressed against, deal with them as you have been dealt with and fear God, and know that God is with those who are pious.”
9
In this context, the Qur’an is referring to the right of self-defense—particularly to a situation in which the failure to respond effectively would constitute Muslims as “casting themselves onto ruin” by fail- ing to protect themselves.
10
In other words, at times the failure to defend oneself is effectively like allowing oneself to be de- stroyed or like committing suicide. But it should also be noted

that, at times, insisting on committing aggression and picking fights with others also constitutes “casting one’s self into ruin.”

Obviously, being forced to use force is not an ideal situation. The Qur’an is talking about situations when Muslims must re- sort to force because there is no other choice. The ideal and better situation is for Muslims to try to cultivate forgiveness and mercy. Therefore, the Qur’an states: “Good and evil are not equal [in status] to each other. Repel evil with goodness and then you will find that your erstwhile enemy has become like an affectionate close companion. This will not be attained ex- cept by those who forbear, and those who have been greatly blessed [by wisdom]. And if the Devil incites you to evil, seek refuge in God for God hears all and knows all.”
11
It is worth emphasizing that in the Qur’anic discourse, the higher moral existence—the way of those endowed with forbearance, forti- tude, and wisdom—is to repel evil with goodness.

The ideal and better condition is to spread forgiveness, not rancor and hate. This is why the Qur’an instructs Muslims to “Cultivate forgiveness, enjoin goodness, and turn away from the ignorant.”
12
This means that Muslims ought to cultivate and nurture an attitude of tolerance and forgiveness, and not seek confrontations with those who do not understand the moral worth of either value. Part of this process is to avoid es- calating conflict or intentionally inciting hatred and ill will. Thus the Qur’an explicitly commands Muslims not to use foul language or curse their opponents, even if these opponents ini- tiate the verbal abuse. The Qur’an justifies this prohibition by explaining that attempting to reciprocate verbal abuse leads to a dynamic that is essentially uncontrollable and that is bound to result in much ugliness.
13