Dr Tasleem Ahmed Rahmani
LAST month’s bomb explosion near the iconic Red Fort in the national capital has raised several pertinent questions. The atrocity demands a closer look at the psychological factors motivating the perpetrator’s actions. Additionally, it calls for a critical examination of the operational shortcomings and intelligence failures within national security agencies that should have identified and addressed these threats beforehand.
This specific incident has prompted a new avenue of discussion. Preliminary investigations indicate the involvement of numerous physicians for the first time. The journey to become a physician often requires significant financial investments from families, typically those of modest or middle-class backgrounds, who may exhaust their life savings in the process. Consequently, one may question how a mindset could develop in which young individuals willingly jeopardise their parents’ sacrifices and their own future, perceiving such actions as martyrdom or divine reward. It is important to note that Islam explicitly prohibits suicide, and neither Islamic history nor its legal traditions provide any precedents for such behavior.
Additionally, educational institutions also come into focus. Are some campuses inadvertently fostering such thought processes? Regrettably, every tragic incident follows a familiar pattern: intelligence agencies tend to focus exclusively on Muslims and Muslim-run institutions, while the media, eager for headlines, often rushes to declare Muslims guilty without awaiting judicial outcomes. As a result, Muslim professionals and educational institutions find themselves under a cloud of suspicion. Accusations that were once unfairly directed at madrasas are now being applied to contemporary educational institutions as well.
The mounting pressure was not confined to Al-Falah University alone; it extended to the esteemed Jamia Isha’atul Uloom in Maharashtra, which also faced intense scrutiny. Additionally, numerous medical colleges fell under the radar as well. However, despite these inquiries, no significant evidence or findings emerged to substantiate the allegations against them. This troubling scenario has given rise to a chilling narrative that implicates not just clerics or madrasa graduates, but also highly educated Muslim professionals and respected institutions in potential wrongdoing. Consequently, a shadow of
suspicion has been cast over the entire Muslim community, fostering an atmosphere of distrust.
What’s particularly alarming is that the government’s own data, along with various court rulings, consistently reveal that in the majority of these alleged cases, police investigations ultimately prove to be unfounded. Individuals who were wrongfully labelled as “masterminds” languished in prison for 20 to 25 years. Eventually, they were acquitted but not before their reputations were tarnished and while the true perpetrators remained at large, leaving the families of victims clamouring for justice.
The unfolding of recent events is quite compelling. Strangely, six weeks after the blast at the Red Fort, the country has witnessed a resurgence of controversy centred around the term “jihad.” Historically rooted in significant spiritual meaning and articulated within the Qur’an, the concept of jihad has increasingly been misrepresented over the past four decades, often conflated with terrorism in international discourse. Particularly within the Indian media landscape, the term has been weaponised, frequently deployed as a pejorative. Other critical Islamic constructs, including fatwa, shariah, and khilafat, have similarly been subjected to negative framing, complicating the public’s understanding of these concepts.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in United States, a significant number of Muslim scholars have adopted a more cautious and sometimes apologetic stance regarding the interpretation of key Islamic concepts. This shift has led to a general reluctance to provide clear and assertive elucidations of fundamental terms. Nonetheless, for those who view the Qur’an as a source of divine revelation, there is an imperative to rigorously clarify its teachings and dispel prevalent misconceptions within both scholarly circles and the broader public discourse.
The concept and framework of jihad have been clearly defined for over 14 centuries. It serves as a response to severe injustice; when individuals, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, endure extreme oppression, are driven from their homes, or suffer the tragic loss of loved ones, they are allowed to fight such tyranny, even by force if necessary. The Qur’an firmly supports this idea. It is similar to the Sanskrit notion of “dharma-yudh” or the medieval idea of a “crusade”, which frame struggles within a moral context; jihad also carries significant ethical implications.
However, it’s crucial to understand that jihad is not a solo endeavour. It must be conducted under the guidance of a legitimate state or leader, emphasising collective action rather than individual militant ventures. No group can simply take up arms and declare jihad on its own. At its core, jihad aims for justice and the preservation of human dignity, not driven by personal, political, or sectarian agendas.
Groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-Shabab, or any organisations with similar names operated in our neighbourhood, which misappropriate the name of Islam, have nothing to do with true jihad. Unfortunately, the term began to be distorted during the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan, where entities like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban misused it to serve their agendas. This distortion intensified after the 2001 attacks on Twin Towers in US, particularly when
US President George Bush referred to a “crusade,” framing a narrative that erroneously equated jihad with terrorism.
It is crucial to rearticulate the authentic concept of jihad and foster an informed discourse that transcends mere clarifications. This endeavour is imperative not only for intellectual integrity but also for advancing justice and promoting a deeper understanding in contemporary society.
Terrorism represents a distinct phenomenon within the landscape of political violence. The term first appeared in 1875 in an article in The Times, primarily in the context of the French Revolution. Despite extensive discourse spanning several decades for thousands of hours, neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations has succeeded in establishing a universally recognised definition of terrorism.
It is worth noting that there is a prevalent tendency to categorise violent acts committed by Muslim individuals or groups as terrorism, often conflating these actions with the broader concept of jihad on an international level. In the Indian context, this labelling has historically been selective; incidents involving Muslim perpetrators have largely been classified as terrorism, whereas other forms of political violence have been described differently. For example, the Naxalite movement is referred to as “Naxalism,” unrest in the Northeast is termed “insurgency,” violence in Punjab is classified as “militancy,” and Tamil separatism is described as “ethnic conflict.” In contrast, the resistance in Kashmir is singularly identified as terrorism. This discrepancy in nomenclature raises significant questions about the underlying biases in how political violence is categorised and perceived.
It is essential to recognise that all forms of violence, irrespective of the identities of those involved, necessitate proactive measures. Upholding justice and fostering peace is a shared responsibility that involves both governmental bodies and the broader society.
Another recognised form of violence on a global scale is resistance or resistance struggle, characterised as collective action against state oppression. This phenomenon typically commences as a democratic movement; however, a forceful response from the state may lead to its escalation into violence. India’s own struggle for independence serves as a historical illustration of the quest for self-determination; significantly, the British authorities labelled it as terrorism. It is pertinent to note that this struggle is referred to as “Swatantrata Sangram” in Hindi, “Tehreek-e-Azadi” in Urdu, and “Freedom Movement” in English. The term “Jihad” never applied to that struggle. Numerous such struggles persist globally today, with the Palestinian movement representing one of the most prominent examples—an organised quest for self-determination that should not be categorised as either terrorism or jihad. Notably, aside from a limited number of involved states, no international forum, including India, has classified the Palestinian cause as terrorism.
The contemporary discourse surrounding jihad is notably fraught with misinterpretation, often exacerbating Islamophobia, while many Muslim scholars tend to avoid confronting these complexities. The delineation between terrorism and legitimate resistance is indeed tenuous; states frequently label resistance movements as terrorism, whereas these movements can occasionally resort to violence that transcends acceptable boundaries. A pertinent case study is Kashmir, which initially emerged as a genuine resistance movement. Despite some attempts at dialogue between the Indian government and groups like the Hurriyat, these discussions largely proved unfruitful.
Post-1990, however, Pakistan, an economically vulnerable, politically unstable and socially corrupt failed state, motivated by geopolitical considerations, began channeling financial resources and armaments to various factions within the Kashmir struggle, thereby steering them toward terrorism and undermining potential negotiations. The resultant economic and political instability has allowed terrorism in the region to be manipulated as an instrument of state policy. Consequently, what began as a legitimate struggle for self-determination has been recast as terrorism and subsequently labelled as jihad. This transformation has led to the indoctrination of innocent young men, disintegration of families, and a tarnished perception of Islam. The toll of this escalation is borne by approximately ten million Kashmiris and innocents across the country.
Responsible Muslim scholars and community leaders must engage in a rigorous examination of these issues and articulate their findings with uncompromising clarity and conviction. Similar to mathematical truths, they must openly and honestly convey the realities of the situation to the public.
____________
Dr Tasleem Ahmad Rahmani is president of Muslim Political Council of India and a prominent political analyst. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them.
