The ‘Islamisation’
of Violence
The Quran mentions that Cain, son of Adam, the first man, killed his own brother, Abel, because of some personal issue. After this, the Quran declares:
That was why We laid it down for the Children of Israel that whoever killed a human being—except as a punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land—shall be regarded as having killed all mankind, and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (5:32)
From this Quranic verse we learn that killing human beings has always been considered a heinous crime according to the Divine law, although, owing to their disobedience, in every age human beings have violated this law. There is, however, a distinction as far as this is concerned between the past and the present. In the past, people would kill others generally for their own personal interests or in revenge. That is why at that time such killings were limited. They did not go to the extent of unlimited slaughter.
In present times, in contrast, the killing of fellow human beings has assumed a new form. This is what can be called ‘ideological murder’. That is to say, killing people on the basis of a particular ideology, or shedding human blood on the basis of some ideological justification. This notion of ideologically-justified violence has made it possible for people to blindly and indiscriminately kill others, ignoring the distinction between culprits and innocents. And this does not prick their conscience at all, because, based on their misconceptions, they think that they are killing people for the sake of the Truth.
Ideological justification of violence was invented in the first half of the 20th century by the Communists. They believed in the theory of ‘Dialectical Materialism’. According to this belief, the only way that ‘Revolution’ could come about was by one class violently wiping out another. This belief led these people to massacre some 50 million people in different parts of the world.
A second, even more frightening, example of ‘ideological violence’ was that which emerged in the Muslim world. This extremist ideology got a major boost in the first half of the 20th century. Two present-day Muslim parties in particular were responsible for developing and spreading this ideology—the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimoon or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in the Arab world, and the Jamaat-e-Islami in the non-Arab world.
Based on its ideology, the Ikhwan adopted the following slogan: al-Quran dasturuna wal jihad manhajuna, or ‘The Quran is our Constitution, and Jihad is Our Method.’ ‘Through jihad [in the sense of violent method]’, they insisted, ‘We have to enforce the Quran throughout the whole world.’ This slogan became so popular in the Arab world that people began singing on the streets:
Halumma nuqatil! Halumma nuqatil!
Fa innal qitala sabilar rashadi!
Come, let us wage war! Come, let us wage war!
Because war is the path to success!
From Palestine to Afghanistan, and from Chechnya to Bosnia, wherever violence was resorted to in the name of ‘Islamic Jihad’, it was all a product of this ideology.
In the same way, the Jamaat-e-Islami developed the idea that all the systems prevailing throughout the world today are ‘false systems’, or taghuti nizams. It claimed that it was the duty of every Muslim to eliminate these ‘false systems’ and to enforce the ‘Islamic system’ in their place. It contended that this work was so very necessary that if it did not succeed through admonishment, the followers of Islam should use violence and snatch the keys of power from the upholders of falsehood and enforce a Government based on Islamic law over the entire world. The violence that is happening in the name of Islam in places like Pakistan and Kashmir is entirely a result of this self-created ideology.
The horrific violence in the name of Islam, both before and after 9/11 in different parts of the world, is, directly or indirectly, a result of these two self-proclaimed ‘revolutionary’ movements.
The starting-point of the intellectual deviance of the founders of these two parties is their failure to understand the difference between a party (jama‘at) and the state. Something which was only the responsibility of an established state came to be regarded by them as the responsibility of the party that they had formed. According to Islamic teachings, actions such as jihad, in the sense of qital or physical warfare, and the enforcement of Islamic laws related to collective affairs, are entirely the responsibility of a government. It is completely forbidden in Islam for non-state actors to form parties for political agitation for these purposes.
What the limits of the sphere of activity of a jama‘at, or party, in Islam are is indicated in the following Quranic verse:
Let there be a group among you who call others to good, and enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong: those who do this shall be successful. (3:104)
According to this Quranic commandment, it is legitimate for non-state actors to establish a jama‘at or party only for two purposes. One, for peacefully inviting people to what is good, or dawat-e khair, and, two, for peacefully preaching the message of God to people. The former refers to conveying the message of Islam to non-Muslims. And by enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong is meant the fulfilling of the responsibility of exhorting and advising Muslims. Besides this, forming organizations for political agitation is entirely an innovation or bid‘ah and deviation (zalalat) from the right path that has no sanction in Islam. It must be made clear here that in the Quran the term jama‘at refers to a group, and not to a political party.
The ideology invented by the founders of the Ikhwan ul-Muslimoon and the Jamaat-e-Islami was against the Islamic shariah as well as against nature. Such a self-styled ideological interpretation always starts with violence and ends in hypocrisy. As long as people are obsessed by their romantic notions they are so mesmerized by their imaginary ‘revolution’ that they can go to the extent of declaring legitimate even suicide-bombing in the name of seeking martyrdom. But when the hard rock of reality forces their fervour to cool down, they resort to sheer hypocrisy: that is, at the intellectual level and in terms of belief they continue to cling to their ideology, but in practical terms, they fully adjust to reality in order to protect their worldly interests.
