INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH PAPER

7th MID CAREER MANAGEMENT COURSE

By

MUHAMMAD AMIR USMAN

(Pakistan Audit and Accounts Service)

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the National Institute of Management, Peshawar, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the 7th National Management Course.
The contents of this paper are the end product of my own efforts and research and reflect my
own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the College.

Signature:____________________
Date:________________________

Paper supervised by:

Mr. Habibullah Khattak
Additional Directing Staff, NIM, Peshawar.
 PREFACE

This paper is written in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the 7th Mid Career Management
Course. The topic ‘Jihad and Terrorism’ was chosen in the context of current wave of terrorism
in the country, apparently perpetrated by so called Mujahidins. The phenomenon has given birth
to many pestering questions. Muslims who only have superficial knowledge of Islam are
bewildered in defending Islam as a religion of peace and that it is against all kinds of terrorism.

This paper is an effort to dispel the aforementioned confusion and differentiate between Jihad
and terrorism. The two are analyzed in the light of Islamic injunctions, objectives and historical
perspective. Causes of relating Islam with terrorism are also explored and are contextualized in
clash of two competing ideologies prevalent in the contemporary world.

The task would not have been successfully completed without the help of my research supervisor
Mr. Habibullah Khattak to whom I express my deep gratitude. I am in debt for his able guidance,
stimulating suggestions and encouragement. My thanks also go to all Muslim scholars whose
writings have helped me a lot in understanding the complex dynamics of Jihad, terrorism and
war on terror.

I am also grateful to the Rector, Dean, Director General, Chief Instructor, other members of the
Faculty and Library Staff for making this training useful and enjoyable.

Muhammad Amir Usman,

December, 2009

i
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rise of terrorism and its perceived linkage with Jihad has become a cause of great concern for
Pakistan and Muslim world as a whole. While terrorists are bleeding innocent civilians and
targeting security agencies of the country in the name of Jihad the moderate segment of the
population is getting alienated with the ideology of the state and some quarters are even
questioning the rationale of creating a separate homeland for the Muslims of subcontinent.

This research work is carried out with the objectives of identifying true relationship between
Jihad and terrorism, disinterring underlying cause of Islamic militancy in the name of Jihad and
recommending corrective measures. Keeping in view the complexity of the issue and
involvement of international players the study is not intended to focus on local issues and short
term solutions.

The paper establishes that relating contemporary terrorism with Islamic Jihad is a fallacy. It
transpires from comparing the origin, objectives, history and modalities of Jihad and terrorism
that the two are antithetical. Terrorism is being perpetrated by militants because of their
frustration with the injustice and atrocities of the West coupled with their incorrect
understanding of Islam which clearly forbids killing of noncombatants. On the other hand,
Western analysts and policy makers linked terrorism with Islam because they perceive Islam as
the only competing ideology against their value systems.

The West portrays Islam as a violent and intolerant ideology whose followers are savages and
are bent upon destroying their freedom and liberties. With this manufactured perception,
Muslims are asked either to forsake their Islamic value system altogether and get assimilated in
the modern world or face the charge and consequence of being terrorists and followers of an
antiquated and violent ideology. So Muslims are left with Hobson’s choice. To give up a religion
on the basis of false perception and wrong propaganda is highly improbable and this opens door
to the conflict.

Response of the Muslims has been multifaceted. Muslims living in Islamic states remain more or
less indifferent as the conflict is not affecting them directly. Western Muslim scholars start
writing on various forums to dispel antagonism against Islam. Militancy is spurred by events

ii
like, injustice with the Muslims of Palestine and Kashmir, invasion on Iraq and genocide in
Balkan states. However, militancy could not be restrained to targeting combatants only.

Killing of Muslim civilians and occupation of their land led to targeting Western civilians as
well. Although it is prohibited in Islam, these attacks on civilians were exploited to malign Islam.
Western powers thereby harnessed domestic support as well as high moral ground in comity of
nations to keep on with their military operations. The very nature of this conflict forebodes that
this is not going to end in the near future and in an easy way.

Creation of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and attacks on both military and civil targets in Pakistan
adds a new dimension to this reactionary militancy – attacking Muslim army and civilian on the
pretext of implementing Shari’ah. This implies that if the phenomenon is not checked
objectively this menace would endanger the peace and security of many Muslim states and it
would contribute towards ‘fitna’ (anarchy).

Issuance of fatwa against terrorism by leading Muslims scholars has slowed down fresh
recruitment of militants considerably. However, long term measures are required to address
challenges both from the misguided militants and ideological inroads from the West. This paper
suggests following measures:

1. It is the ignorance of Islamic injunctions of ‘Jihad’ that is breeding this ‘Khawarij’ like
militants who are blindly killing Muslims and non-Muslims, combatants and non-
combatants in the name of Shari’ah. Correct and comprehensive understanding of Islam
should be introduced through educational institutions and media to prevent the
exploitation of religious sentiments of Muslims for pseudo Jihad.

2. Institutions of good governance be strengthened on the basis of Islamic injunctions to

evolve a just, strong, progressive and tolerant Islamic society. This will reduce the
disgruntlement in the society in general and would counter the argument of militants that
they want to wage Jihad on Muslims lands to impose Shari’ah. Further such tolerant and
just Islamic society would provide evidence to the Western population that Islamic way
of life is different from what is being portrayed by the Western media and academicians.

3. Muslim scholars should bring to the forth the liberties and protections offered by
Shari’ah to dispel the fear of its being antiquated and oppressive law system.
iii
These arrangements would go a long way towards diffusing the international ideological conflict
and would pave way for creating an environment for peaceful coexistence of the two
contemporary ideologies and making world a safer place to live with more religious and secular
liberties.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ................................................................................................... 1
SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................. 1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................ 2
ORGANIZATION OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................. 2
1 JIHAD – STRUGGLE IN THE WAY OF ALLAH ............................................................4
1.1. DEFINING JIHAD .......................................................................................................... 4
1.2. TYPES OF JIHAD ........................................................................................................... 4
1.3. JIHAD-BIL-QITAAL ...................................................................................................... 5
1.4. JIHAD-E-AKBAR AND JIHAD-E-ASGHAR ............................................................... 6
1.5. CONDITIONALITIES ATTACHED WITH JIHAD ...................................................... 7
1.6. WAR, HOLY WAR AND JIHAD ................................................................................. 11
2 TERRORISM – AN AGE OLD WAR TACTIC ...............................................................14
2.1. ETYMOLOGY............................................................................................................... 14
2.2. REASONS FOR CONTROVERSY .............................................................................. 14
2.3. DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM ................................................................................. 15
2.4. HISTORY OF TERRORISM ........................................................................................ 18
2.5. DIFFERENTIATING THE LEGITIMATE................................................................... 21
3 ISLAMIZATION OF TERROR .........................................................................................25
3.1. ISLAM AND THE WEST ............................................................................................. 25
3.2. CONFLICTING WORLDVIEW ................................................................................... 26
3.3. THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................ 30
3.4. DIVIDING THE WORLD ............................................................................................. 31
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................36
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................38
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................40

v
 1

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

The words ‘Jihad’ and ‘Terrorism’ are being used synonymously – at least by the terrorism
propagating agents in Pakistan and the Western media. This is having deep effects on the society
of this country. At one hand this is providing a vast bank of potential suicide bombers who are
made to believe that by attacking against security forces and law enforcing agencies of Pakistan
they would be acting against ‘murtids/mushriks’ and thereby finding their way to Jannah. While
on the other hand, this has positioned even moderate Muslims, not to talk of seculars, against the
traditional Jihad which is an essential part of Islamic beliefs and thereby has eroded their faith in
the righteousness of Islam.

This research aims at differentiating Jihad from terrorism on the basis of Islamic injunctions,
their objectives and historical perspective and to prove that the two are antithetical.

Significance and Scope of Study

The precarious situation of Pakistan, entwined within struggle between the West and militants,
calls for pragmatic analysis of the situation. The real cause of this terrorism phenomenon needs
to be traced out to device ways for wriggling out from this quagmire. The broad aim of this
research is to analyse the situation at international level identifying varying stances of the parties
involved and suggesting recommendations for responding to the situation in positive manner.
This research work focuses on;

1. Genesis of the words ‘Jihad’ and ‘terrorism’ and relating them to other militant activities
like wars and freedom fighting.

2. Contouring differences between the two concepts.

3. Analyzing the circumstances which have led to using these as synonyms.

4. Assessing the impact of labeling terrorism as Jihad.

5. Developing pertinent recommendations.

 2

Research Methodology

The work mostly remained confined to desk research involving extensive literature review which
is embedded into relevant sections. The quest primarily involves exploring the origin, objective,
history and modalities of Jihad and terrorism. Books and internet articles written by authentic
Muslim scholars and Western researchers were perused to this end. Their comparison was used
to evaluate the reality of existence of relationship between the two. In addition to books and
articles futuristic analysis reports and news items were also considered for identifying causes and
impact of islamization of terrorism. In the end conclusions were drawn on the basis of identified
and documented facts. Recommendations emanated from this conclusion.

Organization of the Research

The main body of research is organized in three sections. Section I relates with exploring true
nature and types of Jihad. Conditions under which Jihad can be waged and terms and conditions
of warfare in Islam are also dilated upon. Comparison is also made with other wars and holy
wars. Section II focuses on definition, history and objectives of terrorism. Section III attempts to
evaluate the fallacy of relating Jihad with terrorism in the light of preceding sections. The paper
then concludes on the findings and makes recommendations for facilitating positive engagement
between the competing ideologies of the world.
 3

SECTION – 1: JIHAD
 4

1 JIHAD – STRUGGLE IN THE WAY OF ALLAH

1.1. Defining Jihad

Derived from the root j-h-d, "Jihad" means moving toward an objective with all one's power and
strength and resisting every difficulty.

In Islamic context ‘Jihad’ has the meaning of exerting oneself for the sake of Allah. This can be
in several ways, from giving charity to concentrating in one’s prayers, to controlling oneself and
showing patience and forgiveness in the face of offenses, to gain authentic knowledge, to
physical fighting for stopping oppression and injustice.1 The exact term for physical fighting for
the sake of Allah is 'Qitaal'. So every Jihad is not Qitaal, rather Qitaal is a type of Jihad.2

1.2. Types of Jihad

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, divides Jihad in four types and thirteen ranks ‘Darja’ah’3:

1. Ranks of ‘Jihad Against the Self’

i. Struggling against the self to learn the path of guidance and the religion of truth,
without which the self would never be successful or happy in this life or in the
hereafter.

ii. Struggling against the self in order to act upon what is learned, as mere knowledge
with no ensuing action yields no benefit, even if it does not cause any harm.

iii. Struggling against the self to call others to Allah's guidance (right path) and to teach
those who do not know it.

iv. Struggling to be patient for the sake of Allah, to endure the hardships faced during
one's call for Allah's path, and to stand the harm inflicted by others.

1
Joseph E.B. Lumbard, Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition (New Delhi: Pentagon Press, 2005), 3.
2
Ehsaan B. A., Rasul Ullah Medan e Jihad Mein (Lahore: Brothers Publishers, 1993), 9.
3
Al-Qaradawi’s Fiqh of Jihad. Islam Online. [Updated 29 October 2009; cited 22 November 2009]. Available from
http://www.islamonline.net/
 5

Once one achieves these four levels, one becomes Allah's close servant (Wali Allah). The Salaf
(righteous predecessors) unanimously agree that a scholar does not deserve to be called of
Allah's Wali until he or she knows the right path, acts upon this knowledge, and teaches it.

2. Ranks of ‘Jihad against Satan’

i. Warding off all the suspicions and uncertainties Satan casts upon Allah's servants to
impinge on their faith.

ii. Warding off all that is cast upon oneself of corrupt whims and lusts.

3. Ranks of ‘Jihad against the Unjust and the Corrupt’

As regards Jihad against the unjust, the corrupt, and the proponents of heterodoxy and evils,
there are three ranks:

i. Jihad by hand if possible.

ii. Jihad by speech if the first rank is not possible.

iii. Jihad by heart if the second rank is not possible.

4. Ranks of ‘Jihad against Disbelievers and Hypocrites’

i. Jihad by heart.

ii. Jihad by speech.

iii. Jihad by spending one's wealth.

iv. Physical Jihad.

Generally, Physical Jihad is performed against the disbelievers while Jihad by speech is
performed against the hypocrites. This completes the thirteen ranks of jihad.

1.3. Jihad-bil-Qitaal

This is physical fighting (war) against non-Muslim enemies who are threatening life, property or
a state of Muslims. It can further be classified as:

i. Defensive (Defa’i) Jihad – if a non-Muslim state attacks a Muslim state, the latter would
put on defensive Jihad. In this case, it is obligatory upon the Muslims of that country, as
many as are required, to do Jihad; if that state alone does not possess enough power, the
 6

obligation of Jihad extends to neighboring countries. If even they do not posses enough
power, the obligation extends to their neighbors and this obligation can extend, if
required, to all the Muslim states.

ii. Pre-emptive (Iqdami) Jihad – is undertaken if a non-Muslim state threatens peaceful

existence of a Muslim state or Islamic lifestyle, for example, a non-Muslim state violates
the peace treaty, etc. It can also be undertaken if a non-Muslim state is forcibly trying to
convert Muslims to non-Muslims or stopping Muslims from preaching the teachings of
Islam peacefully (Daw'ah).4

1.4. Jihad-e-Akbar and Jihad-e-Asghar

As is evident from the foregoing Jihad occurs on two fronts: the internal and the external. The
internal struggle Jihad-e-Akbar (the Greater-Jihad) is the effort to attain perfection (Kamaal) in
the way of Allah; the external struggle Jihad-e-Asghar (the Lesser-Jihad) is the struggle for
creating an enabling environment for others to attain this perfection.

In Islam, Jihad is a balance of internal and external conquest. Reaching spiritual perfection and
helping others to do so are of the utmost importance. Attaining internal perfection is Jihad-e-
Akbar; helping others to attain this is Jihad-e-Asghar.

Jihad-e-Asghar is not restricted only to battlefronts, for this would narrow its horizon
considerably. In fact, Jihad-e-Asghar has a broad meaning and application. It includes saying a
word or a silence, a frown or a smile, leaving or entering an assembly, regulating actions
according to Allah’s approval — in short, anything done for Allah's sake. In this way, all efforts
made to reform society and people for Allah’s sake are part of Jihad.

In a sense, Jihad-e-Asghar is material. Jihad-e-Akbar, however, is conducted on the spiritual

front, for it is struggle with inner world and carnal soul. Jihad-e-Asghar is the active fulfillment
of Islam's commands and duties; Jihad-e-Akbar is proclaiming war on the ego's destructive and
negative emotions and thoughts (e.g., malice, hatred, envy, selfishness, pride, arrogance, and

4
Concept of Jihad in Quraan. Abdur Rehman’s Website. [Updated 10 October 2009; cited 22 November 2009].
Available from http://sites.google.com/site/jsmawais/
 7

pomp) and satanic provocations, which prevent people from attaining perfection. As this is a
very difficult and strenuous Jihad and continues throughout life it is called the Jihad-e-Akbar.

Those who succeed in Jihad-e-Akbar will succeed in Jihad-e-Asghar; those who fail in Jihad-e-
Akbar will fail in Jihad-e-Asghar. Even if such people obtain some degree of success, they
cannot obtain the full results. When both of these Jihads have been carried out successfully, the
desired balance is established. If one is missing, the balance is destroyed. When one is separated
from the other, the struggle is no longer a Jihad. Indolence is born from one and anarchy from
the other. Islam teaches that believers find peace and vitality in such a balanced Jihad.

From the foregoing it transpires that to wage a successful Jihad against a foreign oppressor the
pre-requisite is that the majority of Muslims have attained the perfection through internal Jihad
against their own evil side. Only then can they exhibit the desired level of human character that
would attract the non Muslims towards believing.

1.5. Conditionalities Attached with Jihad

Jihad-e-Akbar is to be carried out throughout one’s life. Similar is the case with non-militant
Jihad-e-Asghar. However, a militant Jihad (Qitaal) becomes obligatory when Muslims are
attacked. ‘Defensive Jihad’ would then be an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn), that is to say,
fighting the enemy becomes an obligation on every Muslim, and the permission of the ruler
would not be required.5

There has been difference of opinion on whether Jihad may be initiated against an enemy before
he attacks the Muslim state. According to some thinkers Jihad is lawful only when it is fought to
save the country from physical attack of an enemy. However, majority of scholars explain that
Jihad is not meant only when an Islamic state is actually attacked by an alien force, but it is
meant also as a pre-emptive action when the honor and freedom of Muslims is in danger from
any alien force. It is possible that despite allowing Islamic missionaries working on its soil, a
non-Muslim government is a political danger to the freedom and honor of an Islamic state, in

5
Is the permission of the ruler necessary for Jihad for the sake of Allaah? Islam QA. [Updated: 20 November 2009;
cited 22 November 2009]. Available from http://www.islam-qa.com/en/
 8

which case Jihad is not forbidden. This is what is meant by “Iqdami Jihad” which is wrongly
translated as “aggressive” or “offensive” Jihad.

The fact that Jihad is meant to defend Islam and protect the right of self determination does not
preclude initiation of Jihad. In the absence of clear and strong domination of Islamic power this
defense and protection of the right of self determination would be opposed by the competing
theologies and world powers. Such a situation calls for pre-emptive Jihad for protecting the
future which in spirit is meant for this defense and protection. It is for checking this resistance
against Islamic values and liberty for free choice that the preemptive Jihad is obligated. In short
the defense that provides a motive for Jihad is inclusive of defense against an existing situation
and against an anticipated future threat.6

Nevertheless, pre-emptive Jihad is to be ordained by a formal and regular Islamic state. It has no
relation to the individuals living in a non-Muslim country.

If there is no danger from non-Muslim states to the power, freedom and prestige of the Muslims,
it is not against the concept of Jihad to maintain peaceful relations with them by entering into
treaties of peaceful coexistence. This is what the Holy Qur’an says in the following words:

(i) “And if they tilt towards peace, you too should tilt towards it, and place your trust in
Allah. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.” (Surah Al-Anfal 8:61)

(ii) “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, and do not transgress. Verily,
Allah does not like the transgressors.” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 190)

(iii) “Allah does not forbid you as regards those who did not fight you on account of
faith, and did not expel you from your homes, that you do good to them, and deal justly
with them. Surely Allah loves those who maintain justice. (Surah Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8)7

This reflects that pre-emptive Jihad is meant only for creating and ensuring such circumstance as
are necessary for practicing and preaching the message of Allah, i.e., Islam and that this can only

6
Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Islam and Modernism (Karachi:Darul Ishaat, 1999), 125.
7
Hazrat Mufti Taqi Usmani Reply to Accusations by "Dick Morris & Eileen Mcgann" Authors of
"CATASTROPHE". Top Notch Web Portal. [Updated 22 November 2009;cited 22 November 2009]. Available
from http://tnwp.blogspot.com/2009/11/hazrat-mufti-taqi-usmani-reply-to.html
 9

be initiated by a regular Muslims state to prevent fitnah (anarchy). Following are some fatawas
from authentic sources:

i. “The matter of Jihad is in the hands of the ruler and his ijtihaad, and the people must obey
him in whatever he sees fit with regard to that.” Al-Mughni (10/368).
ii. “In order to make the word of Allah supreme and to protect the religion of Islam and make it
possible to convey it and spread it and protect its sanctity Jihad is an obligation on everyone
who is able to do that. But it is essential that the troops be organized and sent in an orderly
fashion, lest it lead to chaos and incidents that bring unfortunate consequences. Hence
initiation of and engagement in Jihad is the responsibility of the ruler of the Muslims. If he
initiates the Jihad and mobilizes the Muslims, then the one who is able to do so must respond
to the call, sincerely seeking the Countenance of Allah, and in the hope of supporting the
truth, and to protect Islam. The one, who stays behind when the call for Jihad is given and
has no excuse, is sinning.’ [Ibn Qudaamah (Rahmat Ullah Alleh), Fataawa al-Lajnah al-
Daa’imah (12/12)].
iii. “And Allaah has commanded us to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, which can
only be achieved from a position of strength and authority, and the same applies to all the
other things that He has enjoined, such as Jihad, justice, establishment of Hajj, Jumu’ah and
Eid, as well as supporting those who are wronged or oppressed, and carrying out hadd
punishments – it cannot be achieved except from a position of strength and authority. Hence
it was narrated that “the ruler is the shadow of Allaah on earth” and “Sixty years with
(even) an unjust ruler are better than one night without a ruler.” Experience proves that this
is so.” [Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (Rahmat Ullah Alleh); Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (28/390,
391]).
iv. “It is not permissible for the army to set out on a campaign without the permission of the
ruler, no matter what the situation, because the ones to whom the command to fight and
engage in Jihad is addressed are the rulers, not individuals. Individuals have to follow the
decision-makers. So it is not permissible for anyone to fight without the permission of the
Imam, except in the case of defense. If the enemy attacks them suddenly and they are afraid
of his evil, then they may defend themselves, because fighting becomes an individual
obligation in that case.
 10

The reason why it is not permitted is because the matter of Jihad is the ruler’s responsibility,
and fighting without his permission is a transgression against his rights and over stepping
the mark. If it were permissible for the people to fight without the permission of the ruler,
that would lead to chaos. Everyone would mount his horse and go fight on his whims, and if
the people were allowed to do that it would lead to many negative consequences. Some
people would equip themselves on the grounds that they want to fight the enemy but their real
aim would be to rebel against the ruler, or to spread evil by attacking another group of
people, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if two parties (or groups) among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between
them both” [al-Hujuraat 49:9]

For these three reasons and others it is not permissible to fight without the permission of the
ruler.” [Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (Rahmat Ullah Alleh) Al-Sharh al-Mumti’
(8/22)]. 8

Restrictions to be Observed during and after War

While details are given in the books of Islamic Fiqh following are the main restrictions;

i. It is impermissible to fight with or kill women, children, aged ones, disabled,

religious priest, etc., if they have not been involved in active war.
ii. It is impermissible to destroy crops, cut trees, houses, property and cattle etc.
iii. Doing un-Islamic acts like raping women or burning people or torturing them in any
way is haraam.
iv. Minor children, taken as prisoners of war, cannot be punished even if they had been
involved in active fight. However, during the battle actively fighting children can be
killed.

Dhimmis

8
Is the Permission of the Ruler Necessary for Jihad for the sake of Allaah? Islam QA. [Updated: 20 November
2009; cited 22 November 2009]. Available from http://www.islam-qa.com/en/
 11

If the land of the enemy is occupied by Muslim armies the property of local people is not
confiscated and they are allowed to live their lives as per their personal laws. However, they will
have to obey the general laws and pay a small tax (Jezyah) which is levied in lieu of protection
of their life, shelter, food, etc. which is provided to them by the Muslim state. Such people are
called Dhimmis.

Dhimmi literally means a person whose responsibility of protection has been taken by someone
else. In this case, a non-Muslim is a dhimmi in a Muslim country, because, the responsibility of
protection of his food, shelter, life, etc. is on the Muslim state; for any harm to it, the Muslim
state will be responsible for providing justice. Furthermore, they are not required to pay Zakat
and Sadqah like their fellow Muslims citizens.

Amr bin Maimun narrates that Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Anhu), after he was stabbed, instructed
his would-be-successor;

"I urge him (i.e. The new caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the
protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon
with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax
them beyond their capability." [Sahih Bukhari, vol.4, bk.52].

Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Anhu) was breathing his last, but, he was not worried of who killed
him; rather, he was worried about the Dhimmis. From this one can well appreciate the protection
which non-Muslims are given in a true Muslim state.9

1.6. War, Holy War and Jihad

War

It is a reciprocated, armed conflict between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at

reorganizing a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result. War is not necessarily
considered to be the same as occupation, murder, or genocide because of the reciprocal nature of
the violent struggle, and the organized nature of the units involved.

9
Concept of Jihad in Quraan. Abdur Rehman’s Website. [Updated 10 October 2009; cited 22 November 2009].
Available from http://sites.google.com/site/jsmawais/
 12

The Jewish Talmud derives in its commentary to the fight between Cain and Abel (BeReshit
Rabba XXII:7 to ) three universal reasons for wars: They are i) economic, ii) power/pride/love
(personal) reasons and iii) ideology/religion.

Holy War

Any war fought by Divine command or for a primarily religious purpose. The concept is found
in the Bible and has played a role in many religions. The Crusades are Europe's best-known
example. In Islam, the concept is called Jihad. Wars in which religion plays a secondary or
exacerbating role are not generally called holy wars.

Crusades are Christian holy wars. These started with military expeditions, beginning in the late
11th century, that were organized by Western Christians to check the spread of Islam, to retake
control of the Holy Land and to recapture formerly Christian territories. Crusades were also
called against heretics (the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–29) and various rivals of the popes, and
the Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was diverted against the Byzantine Empire. The Crusades
constitute a controversial chapter in the history of Christianity, and their excesses have been the
subject of centuries of historiography.10

Jihad

The term ‘holy war’ in its usual connotation represents furthering of religious cause but it does
not preclude excesses against enemy. As against this Jihad is a battle fought in the way of Allah,
and bound accordingly by certain rules and laws described in the holy Qur’an and Sunnah of
Rasoolullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam). The most distinguishing features being restrictions
over waging Jihad and benign treatment to the conquered people.

10
History and Society: Crusades. Encyclopedia Britannica. [Updated 22 November 2009; cited 22 November 2009].
Available from http://www.britannica.com/
 13

SECTION – II: TERRORISM

 14

2. TERRORISM – AN AGE OLD WAR TACTICEtymology

The term "terrorism" comes from Latin terrere, "to frighten." The terror cimbricus was a panic
and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in
105 BC. The French National Convention declared in September 1793 that "terror is the order of
the day." The period 1793-94 is referred to as the regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror).
Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution proclaimed in 1794 that, “Terror is
nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.”11

The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred
to as "Terrorists”. The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in
1798 as meaning "systematic use of terror as a policy”.12

Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by the French government, in modern times
"terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocents by a private group in such a way as to create
a media spectacle. This meaning originated with Russian radicals in the 1870s. Sergey
Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution (Народная расправа) in 1869, described himself
as a "terrorist." German anarchist writer Johann Most helped popularize the modern sense of the
word by dispensing "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s.13

2.2. Reasons for Controversy

The modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the
achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in
agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for
what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies
directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments

11
A Brief History of Terrorism. Center for Defense Information. [Updated 2 July 2003; cited 22 November 2009].
Available from http://www.cdi.org/
12
Early History of Terrorism. Terrorism Research. [Updated 25 October 2005; cited 21 November 2009]. Available
from http://www.terrorism-research.com/
13
Marthe Crenshaw, ed. Terrorism in Context (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007), 44,
77.
 15

from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 200014, as to
include the disruption of a computer system wherein no violence is intended or results.

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of
legitimacy and morality. The application of "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed.
Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be
employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus,
each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of
their own political cause or aim. Meaning thereby that each interest group wants its opponent to
be labeled as ‘terrorist’ while he can go along with whatever actions suits his end. Had the term
focused on hitting innocent civilians only irrespective of the objectives, the definition would
have been a simpler job. But this would definitely have brought the contemporary powers under
the ‘terrorist’ label as all have historically used massive power against civilians to subjugate the
opponent or to destroy its economy and still consider it legitimate.

2.3. Definitions of Terrorism

United Nations

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 is an anti-terrorism resolution adopted on 8

October 2004. It refers to ‘terrorism’ as:

“criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious
bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general
public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a

14
…“terrorism” means the use or threat of action where; (a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or
threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c) the use or
threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it— (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious
damage to property, (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a
serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e) is designed seriously to interfere
with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is
terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
 16

government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” (United

Nations Security Council 2009)

European Union

The European Union definition is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating
Terrorism (2002). This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a
list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which;

"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization
where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a
Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act; or
seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social
structures of a country or an international organization." (Council Framework Decision of
Combating Terrorism 2002)

United States

Federal Criminal Code 18 U.S.C. §2331 defines terrorism as:

“…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal
laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

(US Code Section 2331:Definitions n.d.)

Definitions by Scholars15

Carsten Bockstette (2008): "Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict

that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent
victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are
meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to
exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force

15
Terrorism. Wikipedia [Updated 07 November 2009;cited 11 November 2009]. Available from
http://ur.wikipedia.org/
 17

multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm
political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Schmid and Jongman (1988): "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent

action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic,
criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of
violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen
randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target
population, and serve as message generators. Threat and violence based communication
processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are use to
manipulate the main target (audience(s), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or
a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily
sought".

It is evident from aforementioned definitions that in all the institutionalized definitions ‘states’
are excluded from the definition. This would mean that use of nuclear weapons on Japanese
civilians would not make USA a terrorist state. These definitions also put limits by using the
word ‘criminal’, implying that for an act to be ‘terrorism’ it has to be ‘criminal’ the latter being
open to different interpretations. These aspects are taken care of in the definitions presented by
some of the independent scholars. However, all the definitions relate terrorism to attain certain
objectives, which again put a restriction that anything falling beyond these identified objectives
would legitimize killing innocent people. These discrepancies are because of the fact that all the
stake holders in finalizing a unanimous definition are the perpetrators of ‘terrorism’ of one kind
or another.

Islamic Definition:

Darul Uloom Deoband, India, in Anti-Terrorism Conference (2008), defined terrorism as:

“Any action that targets innocents, whether by an individual or by any government and its
agencies or by a private organization anywhere in the world constitutes, according to Islam, an
act of terrorism.”

It is to be noted that this definitions has removed the restrictions of ‘perpetrated by’, ‘for an
objective’, ‘criminality of the action’ and ‘perpetrated against’. This simply puts ‘targeting
 18

innocents is terrorism’. It is not related to even media publicity. This definition encompasses
state terrorism as well and does not make any allowance for killing innocents for whatsoever
reasons. In fact, ‘terrorism’ is a lighter word in Islamic context for Islam makes it ‘haram’ to kill
innocents.

2.4. History of Terrorism16

Terrorism appears in the Bible's Old Testament, and there were frequent incidents of political
murder, even systematic assassination, in Greek and Roman history. The murder of Julius
Caesar, to give but one example, preoccupied writers and artists for the next two millennia. The
question of whether terrorizing was permissible kept generations of theologians and philosophers
busy. However, majority of them were of the opinion that it was necessary under certain special
circumstances. Knowing very well that this legitimization can play havoc in the hands of power.

Terror in Antiquity: 1st -14th Century AD

The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the
Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an
underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they
felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they
could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects.

The Assassins were the next group to show recognizable characteristics of terrorism, as we know
it today. A breakaway faction of Shia faction called the Nizari Ismalis adopted the tactic of
assassination of enemy leaders because the cult's limited manpower prevented open combat.
Their leader, Hasan-Ibn- Sabbah, based the cult in the mountains of Northern Iran. Their tactic of
sending a lone assassin to successfully kill a key enemy leader at the certain sacrifice of his own
life (the killers waited next to their victims to be killed or captured) inspired fearful awe in their
enemies.

Early Origins of Terrorism: 14th -18th Century

16
A Brief History of Terrorism. Center for Defense Information. [Updated 2 July 2003; cited 22 November 2009].
Available from http://www.cdi.org/
 19

From the time of the Assassins (late 13th century) to the 1700s, terror and barbarism were widely
used in warfare and conflict, but key ingredients for terrorism were lacking. The sort of central
authority and cohesive society that terrorism attempts to influence barely existed until the rise of
the modern nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Communications were inadequate
and controlled, and the causes that might inspire terrorism (religious schism, insurrection, ethnic
strife) typically led to open warfare. By the time kingdoms and principalities became nations,
they had sufficient means to enforce their authority and suppress activities such as terrorism.

The French Revolution provided the first uses of the words ‘Terrorist’ and ‘Terrorism’. Use of
the word ‘terrorism’ began in 1795 in reference to the ‘Reign of Terror’ initiated by the
Revolutionary government. The agents of the Committee of Public Safety and the National
Convention that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as 'Terrorists". The
French Revolution provided an example to future states in oppressing their populations. It also
inspired a reaction by royalists and other opponents of the Revolution who employed terrorist
tactics such as assassination and intimidation in resistance to the Revolutionary agents. The
Parisian mobs played a critical role at key points before, during, and after the Revolution. Such
extra-legal activities as killing prominent officials and aristocrats in gruesome spectacles started
long before the guillotine was first used.

Entering the Modern Era: The 19th Century

During the late 19th century, radical political theories and improvements in weapons technology
spurred the formation of small groups of revolutionaries who effectively attacked nation-states.
Anarchists espousing belief in the "propaganda of the deed" produced some striking successes,
assassinating heads of state from Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States. However,
their lack of organization and refusal to cooperate with other social movements in political
efforts rendered anarchists ineffective as a political movement. In contrast, Communism's role as
an ideological basis for political terrorism was just beginning, and would become much more
significant in the 20th century.

Another trend in the late 19th century was the increasing tide of nationalism throughout the
world, in which the nation (the identity of a people) and the political state were combined. As
states began to emphasize national identities, people that had been conquered or colonized could,
 20

like the Jews at the times of the Zealots, opt for assimilation or struggle. The best-known
nationalist conflict from this time is still unresolved - the multi-century struggle of Irish
nationalism. Nationalism, like communism, became a much greater ideological force in the 20th
century.

Terrorism in 20th and 21st Century

The Early 20th Century: The effects of two World Wars inflamed passions and hopes of
nationalists throughout the world, and severely damaged the legitimacy of the international order
and governments.

Nationalism on the Rise: Nationalism became an especially powerful force in the subject peoples
of various colonial empires. Nationalist identities became a focal point for dissent and resistance
against colonial possessions.

Gradually, as nations became closely tied to concepts of race and ethnicity, international political
developments began to support such concepts. Members of ethnic groups whose states had been
absorbed by others or had ceased to exist as separate nations saw opportunities to realize
nationalist ambitions. Several of these groups chose terror as a method to conduct their struggle
and make their situation known to world powers they hoped would be sympathetic. In Europe,
both the Irish and the Macedonians had existing terrorist campaigns as part of their ongoing
struggle for independence, but had to initiate bloody uprisings to further their cause. The Irish
were partially successful, the Macedonians failed.

Damaged Legitimacy: The "total war" practices of all combatants of WWII provided further
justification for the "everybody does it" view of the use of terror and violations of the law of war.
The desensitization of people and communities to violence that started in World War I
accelerated during World War II. The intensity of the conflict between starkly opposed
ideologies led to excesses on the part of all participants. New weapons and strategies that
targeted the enemies' civilian population to destroy their economic capacity for conflict exposed
virtually every civilian to the hazards of combatants. The major powers' support of partisan and
resistance organizations using terrorist tactics was viewed as an acceptance of their legitimacy. It
seemed that civilians had become legitimate targets, despite any rules forbidding it.
 21

Cold War Developments: The bi-polar world of the Cold War changed perception of conflicts the
world over. Relatively minor confrontations took on significance as arenas where the
superpowers could compete without risking escalation to full nuclear war. Warfare between the
East and the West took place on the peripheries, and was limited in scope to prevent escalation.

Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union and USA blocs provided direct and indirect
assistance to revolutionary movements around the world. Leaders of these "wars of national
liberation" saw the advantage of free weapons and training. They also realized that the assistance
and patronage of the Eastern or Western Blocs meant increased international legitimacy. Many
of these organizations and individuals utilized terrorism in support of their political and military
objectives.

2.5. Differentiating the Legitimate

The distinction between the war and terrorism is not about methods, forces, reasons for fighting,
or the legitimacy of the organizations sponsoring the fighting. These all come up in discussions,
but they are not the metrics by which the fighting swings from clearly ‘war’ to clearly
‘terrorism’. If enemy combatants are targeted, it's war. If civilian populations are targeted, it's
terrorism.

However, all the parties at war have reasons to target civilian population of the enemy. The
perception of the weaker side is that by definition, a fair fight means the side with the best army
wins. These rules of limited, civilized warfare are like the Marquis of Queensbury rules in
boxing: they're designed to ensure the best boxer wins, with no funny business and no recourse
to anything other than boxing skill.

The sides with the best armies win, and since good armies are built by powerful economies with
high technology and lots of natural resources, the US always has good armies, so they nearly
always win when everyone follows the rules.

All those rules about the correct way to fight wars ensure that the developed world win the wars
without having any damage to their society, infrastructure and economy. The rules favor the
powerful. Terrorism is the way to fight when one can't win wars in a fair fight. It's fighting dirty.
Terrorism is a way to put up fight when the war would be otherwise lost. However, terrorism
 22

gives options against a simple surrender. As for the stronger side targeted hitting of cities is
required for early winning of war thereby reducing casualties and costs.17

In the history of modern warfare the civilian population had never been spared – be it WW-I,
WW-II or invasion on Iraq or Afghanistan. This implies that all historical and modern wars
(baring those which were fought during initial Islamic period where the injunctions of sparing
the non-combatants were strictly followed) were nothing but acts of terrorism.

Extending the same argument further it can be safely concluded that all the militant freedom
struggles where the fighters had access to civilian population for targeting them fall under the
ambit of terrorism. Similarly, all the militant struggles to overthrow occupation forces, where the
civilian population is beyond the reach of militants, would fall under the category of legitimate
wars. But why is it that the proponents of this theory of war and terrorism label the freedom
fighting efforts of Kashmir, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq etc. as terrorism and their atrocities
against civil population in these areas and carpet bombing and use of ‘daisy cutters’ as legitimate
warfare?

This leads us to another dimension of war – media war. By coining cogent and well reasoned
theories and propagating these through orchestra of media high moral grounds are created for
illegitimate actions. The beauty is that while the oppressed is being cursed for his feeble
struggles the oppressor is glorified and sympathized by media ridden public opinion of modern
world. This insincerity of purpose and double standards are best explained by the following
passage.

“I have little direct evidence about the atrocities in the Spanish civil war. I know that
some were committed by the Republicans, and far more by the Fascists. But what
impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or
disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the

17
Terrorism and War. Eagle. [Updated 27 January 2006; cited 21 November 2009]. Available from
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/terrorism.html
 23

atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to
examine the evidence.”18

The most significant feature of modern terrorism is suicide bombing. Military historians concur,
suicide bombings are tactics of asymmetric warfare. As the "poor man's military tactic," they are
by no means peculiar to any one group. The Tamil Tigers separatists in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-
Leninist group opposed to organized religion, committed 75 suicide bombings between 1980 and
2001 (about 40% of the global total). In World War II, Japanese Kamikaze pilots acted as
"human missiles" by flying their planes directly into enemy warships. After World War II,
Vietnamese Viet Minh "death volunteers" were used against the French colonial army. Middle
Eastern and Caucasian terrorists profess clear geopolitical goals (the liberation of Palestine, Iraq,
Chechnya, etc.), but their nationalistic struggles are commonly misconstrued and misrepresented
by media pundits as "Islamic," as if emanating from the religion Islam per se.

18
Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War. Literature Collection. [Updated 13 February 2006;cited 21 November
2009]. Available from http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/456/
 24

SECTION – III: ISLAMIZATION OF TERRORISM

 25

3. ISLAMIZATION OF TERRORIt is evident from the preceding sections that there is no

room for terrorism in Islamic theology and historically terrorism had been perpetuated by all but
Islam. However, it is after 9/11 that Islam is related with terrorism and that too with such
intensity that all counter-terrorism measures are directed against Islam. This was like defining a
new enemy for the West. Islamic revivalist movements within the Muslim world were started
being considered as main threat to the Western value system. All resource whether of active war
or of consent manufacturing through media and literature have since been focused on Islamic
ideology without differentiating between orthodox Islamic interpretation and the interpretation of
Islamic militants. Islamic ideology was neither here nor there during Cold War period but
afterwards there is a sudden change in threat perception which needs historical review of facts on
ideological basis.

3.1. Islam and the West

During Cold War period entire focus of the West had been on limiting the spread of the then
competing ideology of ‘Communism’. Political, economic and military might of the Communist
bloc posed sufficient challenge to the West that it could not took on the ideological threat of
Islam. With the dissolution of Soviet Union the proponents of capitalist values foresaw the
potential of Islamic ideology to become a major competitor to their value system in future.

Western thinkers and policy makers realized that Islamic ideology cannot be assimilated in
global culture of the ‘new world order’. The concern got intensified by the fact that Islamic
ideology governs all aspects of life. It has its own unique stance for economic model, laws of
warfare, individual’s life style and social issues, etc. They also realized that Muslims, though not
practicing Islam, are emotionally attached with this ideology and can go to any extent towards
implementation of this ideology as their own ‘new world order’.

The fact that Muslims world is marginalized because of their weak economies and military
strength and is far from being a monolithic threat to the Western might notwithstanding, their
population, resource rich lands, strength of Islamic ideology and sentimental attachment with this
ideology are the factors valid enough to make the Western world apprehensive of Islamic
renaissance struggles within the Muslims world. So the conflict starts which has its roots in
differing worldview of the two competing ideologies.
 26

3.2. Conflicting Worldview

Following presents Western version of comparing the Western and Islamic societies19. The
contents are derived from the study carried out by Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil
Society, London.

I – Identifying Two Distinct Entities

The Western Society

Modern ‘Western’ societies base their philosophical principles, political institutions and social
structures on the values of liberal democracy. These were historically rooted in Ancient Greece
and developed by peoples influenced primarily by Judaeo-Christian traditions. The term
‘Western’ is though inappropriate geographically but is widely used to refer to a constellation of
societies which may differ from each other in many respects but which generally share
fundamental philosophical, political and social characteristics.

The defining characteristics of ‘liberal democracy’ include a commitment to fundamental

freedoms, within a framework of laws designed to prevent their abuse, such as freedom to
practice one’s own religion; freedom of speech; freedom of association; freedom to publish; and
equality before the law. The populations of Western societies are very heterogeneous in many
ways, including race, religion (or lack of religious commitment), culture, wealth and life-style.
However, they are bound by the legal systems of the countries they inhabit and therefore
committed to a respect for the associated values and their behavioral requirements.

However, there are recent examples of societies and individuals within the broad category
Western societies which deviate from the central defining tenets of commitment to fundamental
freedoms and the associated values of tolerance and respect for cultural diversity. The
development of National Socialism in Nazi Germany is one such example. The religious and
political intolerance of certain fundamentalist Christian groups, even towards other Christians,
may offer examples at the level of individual beliefs and practices.

The ‘Islamic’ Society

19
Caroline Cox and John Marks, The ‘West’, Islam and Islamism (Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press,2003), 1-29
 27

For many reasons modern ‘Islamic’ societies are more difficult to categorize. The term may be
used to include a very heterogeneous range of societies, cultures and peoples. However,
following can be considered as broad categories.

Modernist Islamic Societies – these have made explicit commitments to some of the values
identified as those relating to Western societies. Many of these derive from developing the
concepts of traditional Islam to take account of the changes in Western societies which have led
to modernization. These include the emergence of ‘modernist’ Islam in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries and the related development of ‘liberal’ Islam mainly in the second half of
the twentieth century.

Practical consequences include the adoption of secular constitutions with commitments to

secular legal systems and to the protection of individual freedoms, such as freedom of choice of
religion, freedom of speech, publication and equality before the law. Examples of societies with
predominantly Muslim populations which have adopted such principles include Turkey in the
1920s, Indonesia after 1945, Egypt in the 1950s and Nigeria after independence in 1960.

Traditionalist Islamic Societies – are societies where the ruling elites are committed to the
maintenance of ‘traditional’ Islamic institutions and their associated values. These may have
different manifestations. For example, Saudi Arabia maintains very strict adherence to Shari’ah
law and many associated behavioral practices—curtailing freedoms such as the freedom of
worship by adherents of other faiths or equality before the law between men and women,
Muslims and non-Muslims.

Or there is the example of Sudan. In 1989, the National Islamic Front (NIF) took power by
military coup. Those who oppose it include many Arab and African Muslims as well as many
Christians and traditional believers. One of the primary causes of the opposition is the NIF’s
commitment to the imposition of Shari’ah law. Although the NIF argues that it will only apply to
Muslims, many Muslims do not want this kind of legal system; and many Christians argue that it
will impact on them, even if they are formally subject to a secular legal system.

Therefore, it is clear that the term ‘Islamic societies’ does not have the same broadly defining
characteristics as the term Western societies and it is therefore very difficult to make
generalizations referring to countries where the majority of citizens are Muslims. However, the
 28

definitions offered by Ruthven are among the most helpful for this purpose. He distinguishes
between ‘Islam’ as identity, ‘Islam’ as faith, ‘Islam as political ideology’ and ‘Islamism’.

‘Islam’ as identity: This refers to someone whose father is a Muslim and who accepts a nominal
Muslim identity but without committing himself or herself to specifically Muslim beliefs and
practices. Similarly in Western societies citizens may adopt, say, a nominal Christian or Jewish
identity, without accepting any specifically Christian or Jewish commitments.

‘Islam’ as faith: ‘Islam’ is the Arabic word denoting submission or self-surrender to Allah as
revealed through the Message and life of His Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam).
Many deeply committed Muslims may challenge the authenticity of ‘nominal’ or ‘secular’
Muslims.

‘Islam’ as political ideology: This refers to the beliefs and practices of those Muslims who seek
to establish an Islamic state in order to enforce obedience to the Islamic law or Shari’ah derived
from the Holy Quran and the life and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa
Sallam).

Methods vary according to different political situations. Jordan and Indonesia include Islamic
revivalist among their parliamentarians. By contrast, in Algeria revivalist are in armed conflict
with the state. In Sudan, the National Islamic Front régime took and maintains power by military
force. In Nigeria, there are now eleven states imposing Shari’ah law in ways which have
sometimes led to violent conflict with local Christian communities.

In some cases the supporters of ‘political Islam’ work within the framework of democratic
institutions, using democracy and its enshrined freedoms in order, ultimately, to overthrow
democracy and its associated freedoms and to replace them with their commitment to the
Sovereignty of God as expressed in the Shari’ah.

‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamist’ are the terms now widely used to refer to radical and militantly
ideological versions of Islam, as interpreted by the practitioners and in which violent actions
such as terrorism, suicide bombings or revolutions are explicitly advocated, practiced and
justified using religious terminology.

II – Comparing the Entities

 29

Sources of Knowledge and Truth and Institutions Needed to Promote and Preserve Them

In Western societies truth about any subject is sought, in universities and elsewhere, by experts
who use all available evidence, logical argument, public debate and criticism to arrive at their
always provisional conclusions. These conclusions—and the tentative ethos which created
them—are transmitted to the next generation through education. One aim is to produce
autonomous individuals who can think for themselves, in a spirit of academic criticism and self-
criticism.

In traditional Islamic and Islamist societies truth is the word of Allah as revealed to His Prophet
Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and recorded in the Holy Quran together with the
sayings and actions of the Prophet as recorded in the Ahadith and Sunnah. This is interpreted and
transmitted later by the ‘Ulema’—the experts in these matters. The aim is to produce truly
Islamic devout Muslims. One result is some inhibition of critical free individual enquiry.

These radically different philosophical approaches to the concepts of truth and knowledge
underpin and shape the very different social and political structures in Western societies,
compared with traditional Islamic and Islamist societies.

Social, Political, Legal and Economic Institutions.

Modern Western societies are ideally based on the values of tolerance, pluralism and individual
freedoms in political, economic, cultural, educational and religious institutions and, most
crucially, in the institutions concerned with freedom of expression, communication and access to
information. Like their universities, Western societies are relatively decentralized. Although
Western societies are not immune from corruption, their institutions and values help to provide
complex checks and balances on the exercise of power.

Traditional Islamic and Islamist societies tend to be monolithic and dictatorial, intolerant of
dissent, and lacking in individual freedoms. There tends to be more control over all aspects of
life—legal, political, economic, cultural, educational, religious—which is frequently exercised in
the name of Islam. Freedom of expression and of access to information is often limited and few
if any effective checks exist on the exercise of power by the ruling or governing group.
 30

Two central concepts from traditional Islam, Shari’ah and Jihad, are incompatible with the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially with regard to equality before
the law and equality between men and women.

The Shari’ah is derived from the Holy Quran and the Ahadith; there is no other source of Islamic
law. Shari’ah law requires inequalities between Muslims and: (i) Christians/Jews; (ii) all other
non-Muslims; and also between men and women. Slavery has been endemic in the Muslim
world for centuries and still continues in, for example, Sudan today.

Jihad mean an obligation, imposed by Allah on all Muslims, to strive unceasingly to convert or
to subjugate non-Muslims and is to continue until the whole world accepts Islam or submits to
the Islamic state.

Western societies are based on the values of capitalist economic systems. They may show
problems such as unacceptable economic inequalities, financial corruption and excessive
promotion of materialistic values. However, capitalism, despite these problems, has proved a
highly successful wealth-generating economic system, which has tended to promote improved
standards of living for citizens living in capitalist societies.

Many Islamic societies have limited economic freedom and limited economic success compared
with many non-Muslim countries; and they tend to be dependent on the import of science and
technology from the West.

3.3. The Problem

The foregoing is a summarized form of a liberal study carried out with an objective to bring the
Western world close to modernist Muslims. Even this liberal analysis regards Islamic worldview,
legal, social and economic framework and institutions as antithetical to their liberal and
democratic values, freedom and modern intellectual processes. To their mind Islam can only
harbor violence, intolerance and extremism. Consequently, only those Muslims can go along
with Western lifestyle who opt to give up Islam as a religious ideology and keep it only as ethnic
identification. The rest are either engaged in destroying the Western model society or have the
potential to become threat to these liberties in form of pure Islamic states.
 31

The West’s perception of Islam propagating extremism is corroborated by attacks of

international Islamic activists on their civilian populations. The fact that Islam allows attacks
only on combatants is not considered at all.

Western analysts completely failed to differentiate between true Islamic version of Jihad and the
interpretation of Jihad by militant Islamic activists. This interpretation of militants is rejected by
all Muslims scholars. Fatwas of Muslim scholars against attacking civilian population have been
given much coverage to prevent further recruitment by Islamic militants but strangely enough
these could not find any place in efforts of the West to understand true Islam. Similarly, it is a
historical fact that when Shari’ah was implemented in early days of Islam it successfully created
a just, progressive, economically sound and socially peaceful society as well as welfare states of
which no parallels can be quoted from the present age. But all Western analysts could found in
Shari’ah is oppression and extremism. This projection of a bias view of the competing ideology
is just in line with human nature. We see what we want to see.

3.4. Dividing the World

By rejecting Shari’ah the West has posed a fundamental question to the Islamic world, i.e.,
whether to consider human race subject to Divine Guidance or is it free to find out its own way
through experience and accumulated knowledge of generations. The question is so significant
that there can be no midway meeting points of these two ideologies.

The world is divided into two opposing ideologies. Reason d’être of Muslims belief is following
the Divine Guidance while the rest of the world believe in free will and manmade rules through
evolution. The divide, by its very nature is so distinct and rigid that it is impossible to blur it.
This split is characterized by underdeveloped Muslim world on one side and developed West
leading rest of the world on the other side.

Besides rejecting Islam the West decry it as being adamant towards gaining hegemony over the
world. However, a little introspection would reveal that the West itself is endeavoring for the
creating hegemony over the entire world and in doing so all sorts of oppression and injustice are
resorted to. Media and literature is used to mould minds of Muslims and military might is used
against non-complying Muslims states. The resulting targeted civilian causalities of millions of
Muslims are regarded just as collateral damage – not a state sponsored terrorism. Any resistance
 32

to these hegemonic designs is either terrorism or extremist ideology. Following is the typical
example of case in point;

“The current Islamic debate is so contentious that smaller issues easily become freighted
with vast ideological and symbolic significance. Non-Muslim political actors can easily
misjudge the significance of an issue and end up endorsing a position that they think
“does not matter,” without sufficiently realizing its actual ramifications.

For example, showing active approval of the wearing of hijab by Muslim women in the
United States can be intended, on the part of U.S. opinion leaders, to convey the message
that Muslims are completely free to practice their faith in the United States……..
However, a Muslim woman’s head covering is not analogous to the Sikh turban or the
Jewish man’s yarmulke or even to a sari or other kind of ethnic dress. Unlike hijab, these
garments are not the subject of bitterly contentious debates within their communities, and
people are nowhere being forced to wear them on pain of beatings, mutilation by acid, or
even death. One can cast “hijab” as an issue of freedom of expression and of pluralism,
but that ignores the larger context. And the larger context is that “hijab” is neither a
neutral lifestyle issue nor a religious requirement.”20

The excerpt is from an American study. The matter under consideration was freedom to women
who wanted to wear hijab and not of preventing the enforced hijab. In this context the argument
forwarded against this religious freedom is totally out of place. It is in this context that terrorism
is linked only with Islam. All other atrocities in the world either do not merit attention or are just
counter-terrorism measures or pre-emptive and preventive strikes.

As far as attacks of Islamic militants against unarmed civilian are concerned these are driven by
two factors. First is the lack of knowledge of Islamic warfare laws. Attacking unarmed civilians
and adopting ways that sprout anarchy is against Shari’ah – the very objective of this struggle.
This is the result of centuries old policy of driving Muslims away from their religious scholars
and sources of knowledge. Second factor is the insensitivity of the West towards the plight of the
Muslim world. Their stance over Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir reflects clear bias in

20
Cheryl Benard, Civil Democratic Islam (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2003), 73
 33

Western policies. Influencing and engineering change of regimes in Muslim states compound
frustration and anger among Muslims and, as such, so called ‘Islamists’ are their own making.
Anger and frustration have reached such an extent that these militants have refused to heed the
fatwa against terrorism from authentic Muftis and have decided to go along with their own
interpretation.

The Islamization of terrorism has far-reaching detrimental repercussions. Many people have now
been conditioned into believing that Islam and terrorism are interrelated, that there is a violent
dimension to the religion of Islam, that Muslims must be kept in check, by interventionism if
need be. This narrative necessarily conjures hostility towards Muslims. While most people would
agree that the selective targeting of unarmed civilians is an abomination worthy of the denotation
"terrorism," as a matter of fact, adversaries selectively bestow this demonizing label upon their
enemies. This malicious charge serves to delegitimize the cause of their opponents. The US,
Israel, and Russia, as pertinent examples, are quite comfortable characterizing all attacks against
their combatant military units as terrorism.

So, is terrorism just a narrative part of warfare? Is there a moral fine line between terrorism and
legitimate armed struggle? And, who draws this fine line? Is not colonialism -- the expansion of
hegemony and territorial dominion by military coercion -- state terrorism? In an interview
published in The Guardian (26 January 2001), Leila Khaled, a fighter for the Popular Front for
the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), who became the 1970s favorite "girl terrorist" after hijacking
a plane in 1969, said when asked about terrorism: "Whenever I hear this word, I ask another
question: who planted terrorism in our area? Some came and took our land, forced us to leave,
forced us to live in camps. I think this is terrorism." The geopolitical context that fomented Ms.
Khaled's PFLP, which was founded by the notorious George Habash, also nurtured the
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which was founded by another Palestinian
Christian, Naif Hawatmeh. It also created Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, all for the purpose of
liberating Palestine by means of armed struggle and not violent renaissance of Islam.

If the calculated targeting of civilians is terrorism, are not the calculated military activities that
kill and maim civilians also terrorism? In an armed struggle, who decides what level of
"collateral damage" is acceptable? To ponder these complexities is to contextualize terrorism.
Islamization of terrorism diverts attention from the underlying geopolitical context. Framing the
 34

conflict in an age-old menace, Islam, harnesses domestic support for Western interest groups.
The simple truth is that "Islamic terrorism" is the manifestation of a politicized and militarized
ideology that emerged in the context of contemporary military realities.
 35

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 36

CONCLUSION

“Terrorism, even if defeated, it may recur at a later date. There are good reasons to
expect the reappearance of terrorism since in this age large-scale wars have become too
dangerous and expensive. This makes terrorism as the alternative form of violent conflict.
As long as there are conflicts on Earth, there will be terrorism.”21

Terrorism, as defined in this paper, is as old a phenomenon as the history of war itself. Terrorism
of one side is legitimate struggle or pre-emptive strikes of the other side. It neither has an
ideology nor any religion; only it provides moral high ground in comity of nations to perpetuate
military solutions to international conflicts.

Twenty first century dawned with violent struggle between two ideologies for dominating the
world – Islam and ‘Western Value System’. All other religions and ideologies have already
succumbed to the ‘Western Value System’ of democracy and liberalism. Most intriguing feature
of this struggle is that the ‘haves’ are afraid of the domination of the ‘have-nots’. It is a contest
between two unequals. The West is leading the world in all material ways while Muslims are not
only underdeveloped in material terms but are also ignorant of true teachings of the very
ideology they are defending. The moral ground for military campaigns against Muslims is
attained through relating Jihad and Shari’ah with ‘Terrorism’ – an old tool for gaining moral
justifications for atrocities.

In essence, this is a pre-emptive war imposed by the dominating ideology of the ‘haves’. The
threat is not from the military might of Muslims or from their economies. The source of threat is
the perception that Islam has the potential of retaining its identity and providing alternate
solutions to the world. The strength of the ideology, commitment of its followers and historical
domination of Islam over the world provide valid reasons for worrying the beneficiaries of the
Western society. Yet in this war of ideologies the tactics used are typical of secular wars.

Powerful West is imposing economic sanctions, bombing the cities, occupying the land, causing
casualties of millions of innocents on the pretext of pre-emptive or preventive tactics. Islamists,

21
Early History of Terrorism. Terrorism Research. [Updated 25 October 2005; cited 21 November 2009]. Available
from http://www.terrorism-research.com/
 37

being the weaker side, resorted to suicide bombing on enemy’s combatant clusters and available
civil targets with the objective to deter enemy’s expansionism. On one side it is terrorism on the
other it is state sponsored terrorism. So a pure un-Islamic war is being fought in the name of
Islam which strictly forbids killing of non-combatants and torturing the prisoners of war.

While the war goes on the only victim is Islam itself. Contemporary Islamic militancy is the
result of the West’s pre-emptive and preventive measures against Islamic renaissance. The fact
that the Western efforts are directed towards neutralizing ideological threat from Islam
notwithstanding, the objective of Islamic militants is mostly geo-political and they fail to refrain
from un-Islamic war tactics. Relating this resistance with Islamic injunction of pre-emptive Jihad
is only a war tactic to malign the competing ideology for what it does not enjoin. Muslims get
killed in millions, their lands are occupied, their economies are burdened and the West has the
world opinion that Muslims are savages looking forwards to destroy the developed world. It is a
win-win game.

The crux of the matter is that the choice given by the West is that either Muslims should forsake
Islamic value system as antiquated and adopt Western value system and become acceptable in
the modern world or stick to their sacred ideology and be marked as followers of an extremist
and terrorist ideology. The question is how many Muslims would buy this idea and what would
be the cost of rejecting it both to the Muslims and the West?
 38

RECOMMENDATIONS

The war on terror and so called militant Islamism is not going to be a short term phenomenon.
Muslims world, besides facing the damages because of war on terror, will have to meet with the
challenge of international militant Islamists. These militants resemble ‘Khawarij” of early days
of Islam who had their own interpretation of Islam and who fought even with ‘Suhaba –e-
Karam. In view of foregoing following long term measures are recommended:

1. Islamic militants are recruiting mostly from the Muslims populations in the name of
Jihad. It is suggested that our educational system should impart comprehensive
understanding of Islam. It is ignorance from Islamic injunctions of ‘Jihad’ that is
breeding this ‘Khawarij’ like militants who are blindly killing Muslims and non-Muslims,
combatants and non-combatants in the name of Shari’ah. Thereby on one hand they are
causing casualties of Muslims and on the other hand their extremism is eroding the
ideological basis of the country. Correct knowledge of Islam will prevent the exploitation
of religious sentiments of Muslims for pseudo Jihad.

2. Institutions of good governance be strengthened on the basis of Islamic injunctions to

evolve a strong, progressive and tolerant society. This sounds very radical but the fact is
that Islam is tolerant and progressive ideology and Islamic systems provide for all kind of
‘healthy’ liberties. This will reduce the disgruntlement in the society in general and
would counter the argument of militants that they want to wage Jihad on Muslims lands
to impose Shari’ah. Further such tolerant and progressive Islamic society would provide
evidence to the Western population that Islamic way of life is different from what is
portrayed by the Western media and academicians.

3. Muslim scholars should bring to the forth the liberties and protections offered by
Shari’ah to dispel the fear of its being antiquated and oppressive law system. Their
success has already been demonstrated in the early days of Islam.

These arrangements would go a long way towards diffusing the international ideological conflict
and would pave way for creating an environment for peaceful coexistence of the two
contemporary ideologies and the world might become a safer place to live with more religious
and secular liberties.
39
 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, Shaukat. Islam and the Challenges of Modernity. Islamabad: Center of Excellence, Quaid-i-
Azam University, 2004.
Allbery, Russ. Terrorism and War. June 30, 2008.
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/terrorism.html (accessed November 21, 2009).
Al-Munajjid, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh. Is the Permission of the Ruler Necessary for Jihad.
November 20, 2009. http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ (accessed November 20, 2009).
B.A., Ehsaan. Rasul Allah Medane Jihad Mein. Lahore: Brothers Publisher, 1993.
Benard, Cheryl. Civil Democratic Islam. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2003.
Burgess, Mark. A Brief History of Terrorism. July 2, 2003. http://www.cdi.org/ (accessed
November 21, 2009).
"Council Framework Decision of Combating Terrorism." Official Journal of Eurpean
Communities, 2002: L 164/4.
Cox, Caroline, and John Marks. The 'West', Islam and Islamism. Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press,
2003.
Crenshaw, Marthe. Terrorism in Context. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007.
Early History of Terrorism. September 20, 2007. http://www.terrorism-research.com/ (accessed
November 21, 2009).
Gulen, Fatehullah. Reading Islam. October 9, 2008.
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1221720646707&pagename=Z
one-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout (accessed November 11, 2009).
Harper, Douglas. Terrorism. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism (accessed
November 21, 2009).
History and Society: Crusades. November 22, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/ (accessed
November 22, 2009).
Jahanpuri, Dr. Abu Suleiman Shah. Jihad e Islami aur Dor e Hazir Ki Jang. Lahore: Muhammad
Riaz Durrani, 2006.
Khalid, Adeeb. Islam after Communism. Loss Angles: University of California Press, 2007.
Lumbard, Joseph E. B. Islam, Fundamentalism,and the Betrayal of Tradition . New Dehli:
Elegant Printers, 2005.
Maleeh, Dr. Rajab Abu. Al-Qaradawi's Fiqh of Jihad. October 29, 2009.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1256034052372&pagename=Zon
e-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout (accessed November 22, 2009).
Orwell, George. Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War.
http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/456/ (accessed November 21, 2009).
Rehman, Abdur. Concept of Jihad in the Quran. Edited by Abdur Rehman. October 10, 2009.
http://sites.google.com/site/jsmawais/ (accessed November 12, 2009).
 41

Shafi, Mufti Muhammad. Jihad. Lahore: Idarae Islamiat, 1983.

Shafi, Mufti Muhammad. "Mu'arif ul Qura'an Vol 4." 312.
United Nations Security Council. August 9, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1566 (accessed
November 21, 2009).
US Code Section 2331:Definitions. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331
(accessed November 10, 2009).
Usmani, Mualana Zafar. Jihad. Lahore: Idara Islamiat, 1984.
Usmani, Mufti Muhammad Rafi. Yeh Tere Pur Israar Bande. Karachi: Idaratul Muarif, 2000.
Usmani, Mufti Muhammad Taqi. "Islam and Modernism." In Islam and Modernism, by Mufti
Muhammad Taqi Usmani, 125. Karachi: Darul-Ishaat, Urdu Bazar Karachi, Pakistan, 1999.
—. Qatal aur Khana Jangi. Karachi: Maktabah Muariful Quran, 2009.
Usmani, Mufti Taqi. Hazarat Mufti Taqi Usmani Reply to Accusations. November 22, 2009.
http://tnwp.blogspot.com/2009/11/hazrat-mufti-taqi-usmani-reply-to.html (accessed November
20, 2009).
Wallace-Murphy, Tim. What Islam Did for Us. London: Watkins Publishing, 2006.
Wikipedia. Terrorism. November 11, 2009. http://ur.wikipedia.org/ (accessed November 11,
2009).
WordNet. Princeton University. November 21, 2009.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism (accessed November 21, 2009).