Islamophobia and Terror in the Name of Islam Feed on Each Other

What is called ‘Islamophobia’ has become an almost universal phenomenon today. The media is awash with stories of hate-crimes and prejudice directed against Muslims. In this regard, Muslims must ask themselves, ‘What is it that makes so many people fear Islam and think of Muslims as monsters? How far are Muslims themselves responsible for this?’

If we approach the issue dispassionately, in a spirit of genuine introspection, Muslims are bound to realize their own culpability in creating and sustaining Islamopbhobia. This stems from our wrong religious and political views and actions based on them. We will be forced to recognize that many aspects of traditional Muslim thought that are based on human ijtihad or independent reasoning have lost their significance in today’s context and that they require fresh thinking. However, a large and influential section of Muslims continues to refuse to consider rethinking these issues in the light of changing contexts and demands, in the process creating ever more problems for Muslims themselves.

In this regard, one central issue that needs to be urgently addressed are some dominant and conventional understandings of jihad, which some self-styled Islam ideologues deploy to give sanction to almost every sort of violence. Because of the unbridled violence in the name of Islam unleashed by some so-called Islamic groups in various countries, many people have come to think of Islam as an inherently violent and cruel religion. This is definitely one of the major factors for contemporary Islamophobia.

In seeking to understand and counter growing Islamophobia, Muslims bear in mind that the misinterpretation of the concept of jihad by some self-styled Islamic groups is definitely one of the major causes of anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim sentiments. The fact of the matter is that in traditional Muslim jurisprudence or fiqh, as developed by Muslim scholars down the centuries, the concept of jihad has not been fully or satisfactorily clarified and continues to be characterized by several weaknesses and limitations. Many Muslim scholars today acutely feel this problem. Certain conventional notions of jihad are rooted in the fiqh tradition that goes back to the period of Muslim political dominance, which impacted on all aspects of Muslim political jurisprudence. With the passage of time, the fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence, could not give the same sort of focus to Islamic politics as they did to other branches of Muslim jurisprudence. Consequently, many aspects of Islamic political jurisprudence that were in need of rethinking in the light of changes in the spatio-temporal context, were not rethought. This is one reason why some of these conventional understandings of jihad failed to be re-thought in the light of changing contexts.

The term ‘jihad’ has a very wide connotation. The noted scholar, Imam Raghib, explains in his Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran, that jihad relates to making strenuous efforts in any matter. He outlines three types of jihad: jihad against external enemies; jihad against Satan; and jihad with one’s nafs or baser self. It is crucial to note that in present times, the notion of jihad has wrongly come to be seen exclusively in the sense of qital, or physical jihad against external opponents, although qital is actually just an exceptional form of jihad. Furthermore, qital is permitted only in defence, and, that too in last resort, when there is no option left.

It must be remembered that jihad in the sense of qital is allowed only in defence, and not in offence or aggression. Further, there does not seem to be any justification—from the point of view of reason, religious belief and the Shariah—to engage in jihad in the sense of qital just to end kufr or denial of Truth. The Quran (2:190) says:

And fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression—for surely, God does not love aggressors.

However, despite this, the notion of offensive jihad emerged as Muslims became politically dominant, reflecting the mind-set of the medieval period as well as certain political interests. It soon became deeply-entrenched, so much so that it became such a seemingly inseparable part of Muslim jurisprudence that, sadly, Muslim scholars ignored the need to review or rethink it. Needless to say, those Muslims who wrongly consider the concept of offensive jihad in traditional fiqh to be legitimate and regard that even in the absence of any aggression on its part, a non-Muslim government can be targetted in order to expand the domain of an ‘Islamic’ government, and to bring lands ruled by others under the sway of an Islamic polity are a major cause of horrific violence that the world is today witnessing and a major threat to the possibility of Muslims living together peacefully with people of other faiths.

It can hardly be denied that in order to address the problem of Islamophobia, there is an urgent need for rethinking certain aspects of conventional Muslim religious and political thought. Without the terror and turmoil unleashed in the name of jihad by self-styled Islamic groups being clearly condemned by the ulema and other Muslim intellectuals, it is simply not possible for Islamophobia to be effectively countered. After all, Islamophobia, based on hatred for Muslims, and the violent, terror-driven activities in the name of jihad in many countries, which are a complete violation of Islamic principles, feed on each other. The one cannot exist without the other.