|
|
|
The Naimisha Journal UNDERSTANDING JIHADJihad
is nothing but terrorism in the name of God and Islamic history is a catalog of
Jihads. Attempts to separate terrorism from Jihad are contradicted by both
history and scriptural authority. N.S.
Rajaram Background:
Jihad as Threat to Civilization
From being a relatively obscure term in a little understood religion, the
word Jihad (or Jehad)
has come to occupy the center stage in world affairs. Recently, the dreaded
terrorist Osama bin Laden has called for a Jihad
against Jews and Christians. Earlier he had called for a Jihad
against Hindus. This does not leave
many people in the world free from the threat of Jihad.
During his recent trip to India, President Clinton told the Indian Prime
Minister Vajpayee that he would raise the issue of Jihad with General Musharaf of Pakistan who has called the
Pakistani assault on Kashmir waged in Kargil last year a Jihad. So it is
obviously a subject of great concern to world leaders at the highest level.
People all over the world realize that the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan,
where Osama bin Laden lives, is the hotbed of Jihad. And yet there is a good deal of confusion about the meaning
of Jihad, which is not helped by the
fact that leaders like General Musharaf claim that Jihad is actually a tolerant and even a humanitarian concept. This
suggests that the advocates of Jihad are
not being truthful about its meaning.
What we propose in this essay is to explain in simple terms the meaning
of Jihad— both its theoretical or
doctrinal basis and the method by which it is put in practice. This is best done
by the manner in which Pakistan views it and has put it into practice. This is
so for two reasons: first, following the failure of its Two-Nation Theory,
Pakistan has come to define itself as a Jihad
state. Second, we have authoritative sources that allow us to understand
both its thinking and its implementation of Jihad.
To follow this evolution however, one must first visit two historic
episodes: the formation of Pakistan in 1947 based on the so-called ‘Two-Nation
Theory’ of its founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and the transformation of Pakistan
into a state defined by Jihad, following its massive defeat in the 1971-72
Bangladesh War. Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory held that Hindus and Muslims formed
two separate nations that could never live together in peace. So they demanded
and obtained a separate country for Muslims called Pakistan. The ‘Two-Nation
Theory’ went up in smoke in 1971 when East Pakistan broke away to become the
state of Bangladesh. This led to the gradual ‘Talibanization’ of Pakistan.
Talibanism is nothing but the ideology of Jihad
in action. The
Jihad Manifesto
Therefore it is of great importance for the world to understand what
Taliban terror — or Jihad really represents in both political and military terms.
Fortunately, we have a lucid manual on Talibanism written by one of its own.
It is a book called The Quranic Concept of War. Its author is one S.K. Malik, a
brigadier in the Pakistani Army. His patron was none other than General
Zia-ul-Haq, late President of Pakistan, who may truly be called the Father of
Talibanism. He wrote a laudatory Foreword to his protégé's book. It is
essentially a manifesto of religious terror— the Taliban version of Hitler's Mein
Kampf. (The Quranic Concept of War is published by The English Book Store,
New Delhi.)
According to this manifesto, the impoverished state of Pakistan sees
itself as a theocratic imperial power driven by a mission to end oppression and
bring its version of justice to the people of the world. To achieve this, it
prescribes an ideology that is intended to turn Pakistan into an Islamic
military machine drawing its inspiration from the Quran
and early Islamic history. This was President Zia's program, continued by his
successors including General Musharaf. (This also explains why Pakistan does not
long tolerate a civilian government.) It has reached such a point that there is
now no difference between Talibanism and Pakistan: Talibanism is to Pakistan
what Nazism was to Hitler's Germany.
General Zia commends the book The
Quranic Concept of War to "both soldier and civilian alike."
According to him, "JIHAD FI-SABILILLAH 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 JEHAD." In other words, all the resources of the state
must be subordinate to the Islamic military machine in pursuit of its cause. A
careful study of the book reveals how closely Pakistan has been following the
guidelines laid down by it, both military and diplomatic, down to the use of
terrorism as an instrument of policy. Its present policy of sponsoring terrorist
groups and activities will come as no surprise.
The source of this ideology is the Quran,
and the doctrine of total war that Brigadier Malik sees in his study of the
military campaigns of the Prophet. "More than mere military campaigns and
battles, the Holy Prophet's operations against the Pagans [pre-Islamic Arabs]
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." Here is
Pakistan's grand strategy: to duplicate in India the Prophet's successes against
the Pagan (pre-Islamic) Arabs in his time by adopting similar tactics.
This doctrine of total war is what Pakistan has been trying to put into
practice in India through the ISI and its infiltrators— and now the army. As a
result, the Pakistani armed forces are no longer a professional military force,
but a religious army in pursuit of a theocratic goal. It was General Zia who
presided over this transformation. This was part of his program of 'Talibanization'—
that is to say, of making Jihad the
main instrument of policy. It is this policy that General Musharaf is trying to
pass off as ‘tolerant’ and even ‘humanitarian’. He and his followers
hope that the world will be fooled by his claim that Jihad
is not the same as terrorism.
The main instrument of this policy is Jihad—
"the most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam", which both the
author and President Zia describe as total war. "Jehad is a continuous and
never-ending struggle waged on all fronts," they tell us. Another point
that Brigadier Malik makes is that the war
should be carried out in the opponent's territory. "The aggressor was
always met and destroyed in his own territory," he tells us. It is puzzling
that he should call this a 'defensive war', until one recognizes the Orwellian
sense in which it is used to mean aggression. And what is the goal of this
aggression— or of 'defense' as the book calls it? In explaining it the author
leaves no room for doubt: he tells us plainly that by ‘defensive war’ he
means aggression to spread the word of Allah. In his words:
"The central theme behind the causes of war as spelt out by the Holy
Quran, was the cause of Allah... In
the pursuit of this cause, the Muslims were first permitted
to fight but were later commanded to
fight the Way of God as a matter of religious obligation and duty." As a
result, those who resist it are the aggressors, and it becomes necessary to
fight a defensive war to overcome them in their own territory!
But this Jihad doctrine does not stop here; it goes on to encompass the whole
world: "It was the cause of humanity in general and not just the Muslim
community in particular," informs Brigadier Malik. It is a universal
doctrine, to be applied to all of us, and not just the believers. So India is
only a stepping stone in taking its campaign of 'justice and freedom from
oppression' (the Taliban version) to the whole world. Terror: Both Means and End
The principal tactical tool to be used in achieving this divinely
ordained mission is terror. "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, while guarding ourselves from being
terror-stricken by the enemy." It is not hard to see that Pakistan has put
this terror doctrine into practice in its proxy war in Kashmir, as it did in
Punjab earlier and in Afghanistan recently. Its atrocity during the Kargil War
of returning the mutilated bodies of captured soldiers is part of the same
strategy— of striking terror in the heart of the enemy.
But the terror doctrine does not stop here, for Brigadier Malik tells 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.” That is to say, the enemy is to
live in a state of perpetual terror. This is necessary in order to bring
'justice and freedom from oppression'— the Taliban version. Diplomatic Duplicity
Just as aggression is carried out in the name of defense, in the field of
diplomacy also treaties and agreements are broken in the name of observance.
Brigadier Malik begins with the solemn assertion that treaty obligations must be
respected, but can be broken under certain circumstances. Under which
circumstances? When one suspects possible treachery on the part of the other party;
suspicion will do, no evidence is needed. In other words, a treaty may be broken
at will. So the Lahore Declaration with Prime Minister Vajpayee, and the later
Washington Accord with President Clinton can be violated under this doctrine—
as indeed they were. So the main object in signing any treaty or agreement is to
gain time so that it can be broken at an advantageous time. Kashmir:
A Case Study
This being the case, it is worth examining the situation on the ground
under the changed circumstances resulting from the Talibanization of Pakistan.
The Line of Control — or the LOC — was first established as a cease fire
line between two warring states in 1949. They were overrun twice — in 1965 and
again in 1971 — but re-established in 1972 under the Shimla Agreement. But
then, some ten years ago, the situation changed. Pakistan established a
mechanism whereby it carried out a systematic campaign of terror that
essentially obliterated the LOC along with its relevance. It was breached at
will by irregular forces calling themselves Mujahadeen, until it culminated in
the massive armed intrusion that we call the Kargil Conflict. Pakistan tried to
maintain the pretense that it still honored the LOC but the Talibanized 'freedom
fighters' did not. This way, Pakistan could have it both ways: violate the
agreement at will while protesting that it is honoring it. More significantly it
shows how its doctrine allows it to violate agreements and still claim
compliance.
This places the LOC in a different light. It has now become a protective
shield for Pakistan’s Jihad
establishment to export terror. This means: the
LOC is now a line of terror. This calls for a redefinition of the LOC to
reflect this changed reality. Any such redefinition has to be both strategic and
ideological. Strategically, any LOC must be seen as the Line of Containment, a
line that offers the best possible defense against terrorist expansion from a
military point of view. Ideologically, it should be seen as the dividing line
between terrorism and civilization. Since Pakistan sees itself as the instrument
of God, whose mission is to spread its ideology through terror, this ideological
frontier is now the first line of defense against barbarism. This is entirely a
consequence of Jihad as the main
instrument of policy. The Role
of Madrasas
as Jihad Academies
The
Kashmir experience demonstrates that Jihad
is quite different from ordinary warfare. It begins with the establishment
of a training network for indoctrinating young men in Jihad ideology. This consists of a network of Islamic seminaries
called madrasas. This is an integral
part of what we now call ‘Talibanization’. The Talibanization of Pakistan
began as a student movement and has now taken on the aspect of a network of
military schools steeped in Jihad
ideology. The word 'Taliban' is the plural of Talib(-i-Ilm) or student. Here it
means 'students' in a special sense, namely, students educated in madrasas— or Muslim seminaries. The verses on Jihad lie scattered in the Quran.
But all Hadis collections carry
detailed chapters based on Traditions of the Prophet who is supposed to have
given practical shape to basic principles laid down in the Quran. The lessons learnt from the wars waged by the Prophet have
also been included. These are part and
parcel of prescribed textbooks in all madrasas, including those in India, so
that a student is fully equipped with the theory of Jihad. What he needs is
practical training in handling arms and waging Jihad, which also is now being provided by madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So many madrasas have become virtually military academies passing out cadets
equipped with the theory and practice of waging religious wars. It
is worth noting that these madrasas have
no educational function beyond imparting religious indoctrination and Jihad.
Essentially they turn out religious warriors with a medieval mindset,
capable of committing any atrocity in the name of God. Their only interest
outside religion is acquisition and use of weapons of destruction. At this time,
their armory consists mainly of small arms and shoulder-fired rockets— thanks
to the US largesse during the Afghanistan War. But this could easily expand to
include nuclear and biological weapons, as they slip of control of the crumbling
Pakistan. Then, in addition to India, vital US installations in the Middle East,
and ultimately, the US itself, would be vulnerable. Islamic warriors like bin
Laden have made no secret of the fact that they see the US as their ultimate
enemy. Madrasas
have multiplied very fast in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh with
the help of petro-dollars, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Kashmir had a
network of them before the uprising in 1989, which drove out the Pandits and
almost snatched away the Valley from India. The lesson of this is that the
spread of madrasas is soon followed by Jihad. Armies of the
free world, especially the Indian Army, need to be equipped with this knowledge
of Jihad as well as the functioning of madrasas
in countries targeted for Jihad,
particularly the brainwashing of youngsters by presenting Islam as the only true
religion which is bound to triumph in the near future. Hindu scholars, who can
draw on a wealth of historical experience on Jihad, have to come forward to tell their misinformed people that Jihad
is the doctrine of permanent and total war to be waged, if need be, till
the end of time. Hindus — or other victims of Jihad — should not treat it as an ordinary war. The example of
Kashmir, where a network of madrasas preceded
the Jihad that led to the religious
cleansing of the Valley, serves as an object lesson in the implementation of Jihad
as a military operation. 'Clash of Civilizations'
Seen in this light, the Kashmir conflict is both a case study and a
prototype for the implementation of Jihad.
In this context, it is helpful to look at the ideas put forward by Professor
Samuel Huntington in his well-known book Clash
of Civilizations. His main contribution is the thesis that future struggles
will be between civilizations, and not necessarily between political and
national entities as in the past. He divides the world into several
civilizations of which three are of particular interest: Western
(secular-humanistic), Hindu and Islamic. And he sees the expansion of Islam,
with its accompanying violence as a major threat to freedom in the world. He
speaks candidly of "Islam's bloody frontiers". While he recognized
Islam as a threat to civilization, he seems not to have seen Jihad
as the main instrument of Islamic expansion. He saw the Islamic threat
mainly in demographic terms.
It is unlikely that there will ever be an ideological conflict between
the West and India — the former rooted in secular humanism, the latter in a
non-dogmatic spirituality. Both value freedom and tolerate pluralism. The real
conflict is and will always be between freedom and terror — between
civilization and barbarism. And the epitome of barbarism in our time is
Talibanism — now in control of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the part of Kashmir
under its illegal occupation — trying to extend its reach into the Indian part
of Kashmir. Once it achieves its goal of Talibanizing all of Kashmir, it will
try to spread into India and Central Asia. Its ideology makes it see the whole
world as its domain. In all this, Jihad will be the main instrument.
This places the LOC in its true perspective. It is no longer the
cease-fire line agreed to by two sovereign states but the Line of Containment,
which one side is trying desperately to breach to spread its doctrine of terror,
with the other trying to turn it back. In order to defeat the goal of
terrorists, it is clear that the LOC must not be an artificial line in the snow
as it is today, but an easily defensible border. On this rests the security not
just of India, but the world, of civilization itself. The 'Clash of
Civilizations' that Professor Huntington wrote about has taken a somewhat
different turn: it is now a struggle for civilization, with India trying to push back the forces
of barbarism intent on spreading terror in the name of God. Like it or not, the
whole world and not just India, now has a major stake in defeating the forces of
terror masquerading as religion. India is the pivot, the main battlefield where
the struggle for civilization will be won or lost.
This highlights the following fundamental fact: where
Huntington explained the facts behind the ‘Clash of Civilization’, Kashmir
illustrates the manner in which it is being put into practice. The world
must take serious notice of this. Ultimately this is what Jihad
really means. The Scriptural Basis of
Jihad There is much confusion all over the world regarding the scriptural authority for Jihad, whether the Islamic holy book Quran sanctions it at all. A widespread belief among non-Muslims is that Islam is a religion of peace but the Jihadists are acting against its teachings. This is further complicated by the fact that many ‘experts’ and academics — East and West — are the main spokesmen for this view. But a careful study of the Islamic scripture leaves no doubt that Jihad derives from the scripture of Islam itself. This is made clear by the important work The Calcutta Quran Petition written by a leading expert on Islam, Sita Ram Goel. (It is published by Voice of India, New Delhi.) The first point about the Quran is that it does not stand alone. The Suras (verses) of the Quran were created in specific situations arising out of specific military, political and sometimes personal needs. They invariably reflect the convenience of the Prophet who found it expedient to invoke Allah as authority to have his own way with his people. Seeing this, his favorite wife A’sha once observed, “I find that Allah is prompt to proclaim commandments in accordance with your desire.” This means that the context in which a Sura was created is all-important. Taking Quranic passages out of context can lead to outlandish interpretations like Sir Abdullah Suhrawardy’s Sayings of Muhammad, which Mahatma Gandhi hailed in his Foreword as among the “treasures of mankind.” The context for interpreting the Suras (verses) of the Quran is provided by the Hadis. They may be described as the record of the activities of the Prophet. They are so detailed, that it is possible to obtain a more or less complete picture of the private and public life of the Prophet. It may fairly be said that the Hadis rather than the Quran form the basis for Islam, for without them the Quran becomes virtually incoherent. As Goel makes clear (Chapter 3) there is practically no difference between Allah and the Prophet; Allah does at the Prophet’s bidding. As Goel explains, this makes the Quran (the ‘Word of Allah’) and the Hadis (‘Acts of Muhammad’) interchangeable. In other words, the Hadis describe the Quran in action, meaning the acts of the Prophet. (Talibanism, as previously explained is Jihad in action.) These in turn became the model of behavior to be emulated for every true Muslim from the highest to the lowest. As Goel observes: “It is this fixed and frozen image of the Prophet which is meant when a Muslim proclaims his Din (fundamental faith). In fact the Prophet produced a ‘revelation’ (33.21) presenting himself as the perfect model for those who look forward (with hope) for the Day of Judgement. For a pious Muslim, human life is best lived when it conforms to Muhammad’s conduct even in minor matters such as defecating… cutting one’s beard to a specific size and so on. Islam leaves no room at all for individual initiative or judgement... In case of doubt, a pious Muslim must go to a mufti (juri-consultant) and obtain a fatwa [ruling] about how the Prophet would have conducted himself in a situation which, according to all sources, the Prophet is not known to have faced.” Needless to say, this is not a climate conducive to progress or enlightenment in the modern world, whatever its effect might have been in medieval Arabia. This has led to a sinister development with far-reaching implications. Since the later part of the Prophet’s career is full of war and bloodshed in the name of Allah, religious war or Jihad is seen as the highest goal of Islam. What the world is faced with today — from Kashmir to Sudan — is Jihad (or religious war) to bring the whole world under the sway of Islam using terrorism as its main tool. This reality cannot be wished away as is done by liberal academics in East and West, by giving an abstract interpretation of Jihad. As Walter Laquer, an American expert on terrorism observed, “Both interpretations are true, but Islamic militants have rejected the spiritual explanation as dangerous heresy. …The Taliban in Afghanistan and many militants are not impressed …and this fact is what matters…” The fact of the matter is that most influential Muslim leaders see the violent version of Jihad as the only valid one. Jihad to them is “the most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam,” and by this they don’t mean striving for inner perfection. Goel explains this vital fact with clarity and thoroughness with profuse illustrations from the history and scripture of Islam. As he points out, the Quran studied alongside the Hadis is nothing but a manual on Jihad — or religious war. Just as the
Prophet became the model for Muslim behavior, his blood soaked career became the
model for a succession of Muslim leaders down to the present. Goel produces
evidence from primary sources to demolish the claim of modern apologists that Jihad
has any necessary spiritual meaning. This ‘spiritual’ interpretation becomes
primary only when Muslims feel insecure — as in India today, or when faced
with powerful opponents like the United States — to be buried again when
conditions turn favorable. This means that the ‘spiritual meaning’ is little
more than a smokescreen for concealing the true meaning and intent of Jihad. The Jihad in Kashmir is not unique in history, but only a chapter in the continuing saga of Islamic history. Goel’s Chapter 6 (‘Jihad in India’s History’) may be read as a practical demonstration of Islam in action. It is to be hoped that every policymaker in India as well as the West will read this capsule account of the ‘bloodiest story in history’ — as Will Durant called it — and learn its lessons. Indians in particular must face this historical truth and not seek escape in fantasies written by soothsayers calling themselves historians. This chapter should be made required reading for students in India, if mistakes of the past are not to be repeated. It is also a lesson for the West, still groping to understand the true meaning and scope of Jihad. Jihad may be compared to the Christian Crusades and Inquisitions that the West had to eliminate in order to develop along secular and scientific lines. The problem is that the Islamic world is still in its Middle Ages and has not undergone the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment of the West. With the military defeat of Islam, terrorism, rather than overt war has become its main method of attack, whether in Israel, India or the Philippines. The pattern is clear. No one is taking up the so-called spiritual Jihad anywhere. It is meant only to deceive the gullible.
In summary, we have ample sources, of which I have presented two, that
allow us to see Jihad in its true colors. They shed light also on the nature of
Islam and its scripture. The most important lesson is that Islamic scripture
easily lends itself as a manual on Jihad.
Both history and scripture show that Jihad
is a mask for terrorism in the name of God such as medieval monotheism has been
prone to. No amount of sophistry can hide this basic truth. Conclusion: The World at a
Crossroads
As the previous chapter showed, the power of Islam is more through
subterfuge than through any real economic, military or intellectual strength.
What power it has today derives from its capacity to camouflage its true intent
and scope in religious language. In this chapter we have attempted to show it in
its true colors by highlighting both its scripture and history against the
background of Pakistan’s Jihad in
Kashmir. One
may now see the problem confronting the world today, and the greatest threat to
world peace, as Talibanism that uses Pakistan as its legitimate face. The state
of Pakistan has been mortgaging large parts of the territory under its control
to terrorist warlords like Osama Bin Laden. This includes the part of Kashmir
under Pakistani occupation or the POK. Various terrorist organizations —
including those controlled by Bin Laden — maintain bases in POK. They are
exporting terror into India across the porous line known as the LOC; they are
moving into Central Asia also.
So the first step in ensuring the defeat of Talibanism is to push the LOC
to a naturally defensible frontier — like the Indus River in the north. This
has the merit of confining the terrorists and their warlords to a smaller and
strategically less advantageous territory from which they can eventually be
eliminated. Simply striking at a few terrorist bases — as the US did in
Afghanistan — is unlikely to have any long-term results. The terrorists must
be denied any base to operate from. Today, the part of Kashmir under Pakistani
occupation, to which Pakistan has no legal claim, has become a springboard for
terrorists. They must be driven out of this territory. With India in control of
it, the terrorists will be denied any bases.
Even this can only be the first campaign in the war against the spread of
barbarism. India today has become the frontline state in the struggle for
civilization. Terror and freedom cannot co-exist. As Abraham Lincoln once said
(quoting the Bible): "A house divided against itself cannot stand. ... It
will become all of one thing, or all of the other."
The world now stands at a crossroads. It must decide, on which side, its
future lies. The future of civilization rests on its decision today. This means
eliminating Jihad root and branch. So
far the West has tolerated Jihad outside
the Middle East in order to divert it from vital oil resources. The West must
realize that it must eliminate terrorist Jihad
from the entire world or its threat must inevitably manifest in the Middle East,
if not in the West itself. For this the West should ally with India to contain
Jihad, whose central staging ground, by all accounts, is Pakistan and
Afghanistan. This is also in the best interests of the Soviet Union, which has
its own threat of Jihad that Chechnya so well demonstrates. Secular Islamic states,
like Turkey, should join in this battle, if they wish to control fundamentalist
Islam within their own borders; Iran too has a stake in eliminating this evil.
Islamic Jihad is the main force
pulling the world down today, starting with the Islamic countries themselves.
|