1 2 3

Violence and Muslims
By Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqi 


[continued...]

Violence and terrorism

When some individuals or groups, who are not themselves in power but live under the jurisdiction of some other authority, resort to violence to defend themselves, sooner or later their use of violence turns into what may be characterized as terrorism.  Terrorism is to kill without discriminating between the belligerent and non-belligerent among the ‘enemy’. Destruction of innocent lives, in particular those of the children, women, the invalids and the elderly, destruction of property, and inhumane ways of killing people are categorically prohibited by Islam.

Let us now analyze the current situation.  On the one hand there are nation states with huge armies and all sorts of state-of the-art technology and weapons to kill human beings. On the other hand there are individuals and groups who cannot get even ordinary weapons without the permission of their governments. They cannot raise an army, they cannot openly organize even a militia. They cannot choose the time and place of a battle.  Their efforts against their own governments or against any foreign governments have to be a secret and they cannot follow all the ethical guidelines of Islam in dealing with their ‘enemy.’ Circumstances force them to hit the  ‘enemy’ whenever and wherever possible.  They may not reach out to the belligerent and may target the innocent people in a country that they consider enemy They may not get closer to military aircrafts and ships and may target civilian aircrafts and vessels, may not reach to the armed personnel and may target innocent civilians, and they may not reach to the military installations and may target commercial centers.  The mechanics of this counter violence is going to be much different than those organized by governments.  The history of such covert activities and underground missions is indicative of the fact that the leadership of such groups changes quiet frequently and the grip of leadership on the field activities is not very strong.  The limitation of such use of violence against the state-sponsored violence or terrorism is that sooner than later such violence becomes terrorism.  Then the important question is how such groups or individuals who are subjected to aggression and violence can defend themselves.  Before answering this question, let us once more make it clear that there is no room for terrorism in Islam.    As discussed earlier, Islam provides an ethical framework and limits the use of violence.  Following is an authentic narration of a story outlining the ethical context and limitations on the use of violence in Islam.

When Abu Bakr Siddique, the first Caliph, sent an army to Syria under the command of Yazid bin Sufyaan, these were Abu Bakr’s instructions to his army commander:  Do not kill a child, women or elderly person; do not cut and destroy a fruit bearing tree; do not cause destruction of a populated area; do not burn or disperse the honey-bees; do not be dishonest, unfair and unjust in dealing with the property and wealth you acquire during the war; and do not be a coward (Mua’ttaa Imam malik, The book of Ahkaam al-Khilafah; Also see this author’s book on Islam and the Principles of Ownership ( in Urdu), published from Delhi in 1994, page 219).

Destruction of property, wealth, and crops and demolition of buildings are considered creating chaos on the earth, which has been strictly forbidden in Islam. The Qur’an says:

And to Madyan We sent their brother Shu’aib. He said, “O my people, worship Allah, you have no other deity than He.   A clear guidance has come to you from your Lord.  You should, therefore, give full measure and weight, and do not defraud the people of their goods,  nor spread disorder on the earth after it has been set straight.  This is better for you if you are true believers (7:85).

When he (a certain person) gets power, he directs all his efforts towards spreading mischief in the land, destroying harvests and killing human race, whereas God does not like mischief (2:205).

In the last twenty years certain Muslim groups have been waging war against their own governments, or against the United States or Russia, or France, or Britain. This has ostensibly been done in response to aggression or anti Muslim policies. The violent means adopted in response to violence committed by the other party definitely took these Muslim groups into those gray areas fraught with danger---areas from which Islam had asked them to keep away. Innocent people have lost their lives and properties have been destroyed during the violence directed against America, in America itself and in many countries including the Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.  In India too Muslims have sometimes used violence to repel violence committed against them. Not unexpectedly, this violence has sometimes taken the form of terrorism.  It clearly violates the limits imposed by Islam on the use of force. It fails to qualify as justified use of violence as it is neither defense nor punishment meted out to a convicted criminal by appropriate authority.

Attacking embassies, airplanes, and tourist buses and hijacking of commercial aircrafts are all acts of terrorism. They involve loss of life by innocent people including children, women and the elderly. They also involve loss of property. This in itself is sufficient ground for prohibition of these acts.  Moreover, these acts have not helped those who carried them out in achieving their goals.  On the contrary, such acts have resulted in a bad image of Islam among common folks in the world.  Some people and groups are carrying out inhuman acts in the name of a religion that teaches kindness, love and friendship and asks for respect of human life even in a state of war.  Media then exaggerates such acts and ordinary people in the world look at Islam as a violent religion.  There could not be a greater loss for a people whose mission is to bear witness for God and work for justice and fairness.

Violence and the current situation

Now that Islam’s position on violence and counter violence is quiet clear, let us look at some specific situations and find out whether Muslims can use violence in those situations or not.  We have four situations:  (1) The persecution of Islamists by Muslim rulers in Muslim majority countries; (2) Those Muslim majority areas that have been occupied by an aggressor and people in such areas are subjected to violence and oppression; (3) Muslim minorities in non-Muslim majority countries where Muslims are subjected to violence; and  (4) The violence against Muslims and Muslim countries by America and its allies.

Egypt is a good example of the first situation.  The violence against Muslim Brotherhood that started in a big way in 1954 continues to date in one form or other. It is a long story that cannot be narrated in this essay.  Egyptian model has been imitated in many Muslim countries.  Islamic groups, however, should not use counter violence to deal with this situation. Instead, peaceful efforts should be made to seek justice and establish peace.  Since scholars have discussed3 this situation in detail, I will skip its detailed analysis.

The second situation is that of the occupied lands that the occupiers are not willing to vacate despite U. N. resolutions and international pressures.  The most apparent example of this situation is Palestine.  Palestinian’s struggle against Israel comes under the defensive use of violence considered permissible in Islam.  Muslims should employ all such strategies that bring an end to occupation and help in getting back their land.  Strategic decisions about armed struggle and use of other peaceful means will obviously be made by those who are involved and who are on the scene.  This is not a controversial issue that one needs to discuss in detail. 

Muslim Minorities

The third situation is that of Muslims living as a minority in a non-Muslim majority country such as in India. What are Muslims in a non-Muslim majority country to do, if they are subjected to violence and their lives and properties are not protected by the government? What if the government appears to be collaborating with the mischief makers, such as in the case of Gujarat violence in India in 2002?Can Muslims use violence to counter violence? 

There is no doubt that the Muslims also have the right to defend their lives, honour, and properties.  The laws in a democratic country allow for defending one’s own life even if the attackers get killed.  Some Muslim scholars, under the pressure of the current situation, have expressed the opinion that it is allowed to take an offensive action as a preventive measure.  In this author’s opinion, however, following strategies are not correct.

·   To attack the attackers even before any such attack, in order to prevent aggression.
·  To use violence against some other people of the same community or country, living at another place, in order to revenge for the excesses done by people belonging to that community.
·  To consider it right to use violence against any person belonging to a community if some members of that community use aggression and violence against Muslims.

The logic behind such thinking, as mentioned above, is that this may prevent violence. It is argued that preventive or preemptive use of force will teach people a lesson and will persuade them not to use violence. It will also discourage the police and government officials from patronizing such violence. Some people also point out to the success of such strategies at few places.  However, one needs to collect significant data from the field and conduct sufficient research before being sure about this preventive theory.  In this essay only the ethical aspect of this approach may be discussed and its usefulness as a successful approach may be analyzed.

In the opinion of this author the third approach i.e. the use of violence to take revenge is totally against the teachings of Islam.  One cannot take revenge of a criminal from an innocent.   Being a citizen of a democratic nation, one has an obligation not to use this strategy.   To violate the rule of law is also a violation of Islamic principles. The rules of war among sovereign nations cannot be applied to the conflict among different groups living in the same country.  As far as the first two of the above approaches are concerned, this author considers them too as against the spirit of Islamic teachings. In response to a group that has attacked Muslims, Muslims cannot attack another peaceful group of that community, neither before the attack nor after it.

If Indian Muslims do not use violence in response to the violence committed against them, then what should they do to stop the violence against them? To answer this question, one needs sufficient thinking and research.4 

Before thinking about this problem one must think about the causes due to which Muslims are facing this situation.  There are some historical causes.  The present generation of Hindus and Muslims cannot do anything about that past, however they may diligently avoid such issues inherited from past that harm the relationship between them and destroy the future of the country.  The knowledgeable people of the country know that the history lessons given to our children in schools and those that are repeated in speeches are spreading hatred and weakening mutual trust.  Mutual hatred and mistrust are dangerous for a healthy future of the nation.  Such things have to be stopped.    But the country lacks the political vision, the legal framework, the role of the   judiciary and that of the media needed to stop this trend. Some people are taking advantage of these loopholes in our system in order to get votes and gain political power in Indian democracy.

To defeat such groups in the political game, it is important that Muslims participate in politics. If Muslims can form political alliance with sensible and peace loving Hindus or participate in the existing political parties on the basis of peace and justice, they may deprive the mischief-makers of the votes.

Political activism is a day-to-day business, but there is a need to operate at a higher level too, that relating to the judiciary, the constitution, the administration and the police force which is responsible for maintaining law and order.

The way minorities in India, specially the Muslims, have been dealt with in the past half century is a testimony that current constitutional guarantees and regulations concerning the safety of the life and properties of minorities are insufficient and ineffective.  Indian democracy has failed to sufficiently protect its minorities.

This deficiency in our system has been pointed out on many occasions by the human right commissions and various commissions instituted to investigate communal riots.5 There is abundance of recommendations that these commissions have brought forward. Had they been implemented, today the Sikh, Christians and Muslims may not have the feeling that the administration has always failed to protect them in difficult times.  To remove this drawback from our system, one needs to pay attention to other institutions of collective living as well as to engage proactively in a continuous effort making.

Media’s role in this endeavor is paramount.  So far Muslims have not invested any significant resource in this venture. Muslims have to overcome this gap.  They have to present a strong case not only through English and Hindi media but through the media in other regional languages as well in order to dispel the stereotypical and hateful picture of Muslims and to present a balanced picture of them.  Muslims have to do this job themselves.  No one else can do it for them.

It is not enough to publish a few newspapers and magazines to present the case of Muslims in media.  While this is important, it is more important   that we remain aware of the current trends, be alert, and wherever and whenever it is possible, use the national and regional media to present our point of view.  This is as beneficial and perhaps more beneficial than having a few Muslim-owned media. 

Television and electronic media are more important than print media.  We are nowhere in electronic media but our presence in this field is essential for our survival.

The roots of our influence in media and politics are in our social relationship.  Hindus and Muslims live separate lives while living in the same country.  We are unaware of each other’s pains and suffering and rarely participate to share them.  As long as we do not learn to live together as neighbors and as people of the same nation, the hate mongers will continue to be successful.  A true Muslim has nothing to do with hatred. Hatred is the biggest obstacle in the way of Islam in India.  The warmongers have no better poison against Muslims than hatred.  Both Islam and reason demand that Muslims enhance and strengthen their social relationships and participate in social and welfare programs including efforts to eliminate poverty and hunger.

Despite participating fully in politics, judiciary, media, and other social programs, Muslims may encounter violence.  In such situations they have the moral and legal right to defend themselves.  Muslims should make advance preparation to deal with such situation.  However, such preparation will be more effective if Hindus are aware of it and support it.  The problem is not to protect Muslims from Hindus or Hindus from Muslims, the real issue is to protect the weak and oppressed from the powerful and aggressors.

Despite all efforts there may still be problems.  As is evident from many commission reports, the basis for terrorism is provided by the frustration, anger and helplessness of the victims who find no recourse in the system.  People can easily find and exploit such frustrated youths to serve their vested interests.

It is prudent to allow the democratic means of expressing anger, dissent and dissatisfaction in order to avoid frustration and helplessness leading to negative sentiments.   Peaceful protests and demonstrations are part of the political norms of a democracy.  Muslims can also use these to express their grievances.  It is better to jointly hold such programs to make them more effective.

Even after all these efforts, the grim situation in refugee camps, the delay in courts, and the waste of precious years of young people in prisons can increase frustration and fuel anger. Muslims have to make legal help available and effective.  The Indian nation has to be kept informed of the plights of those living in refugee camps.  Muslims have to establish more stable institutions to deal with these ongoing problems.

The above suggestions to stop the onslaught of Hindutva aggression and to  protect the Muslim community and the whole country from  the damages it can inflict require unity among Muslims.   The difference of opinions and practices based on different approaches to Islam has nothing to do with Muslims coming together to solve these problems.   This is a matter of Muslims’ survival in India.  The leadership of various religious and political groups of Muslims must realize the challenges of the Hindutva aggression and must launch this campaign, as described above, with one voice and from a single platform.

If Muslims are able to do this, they may also overcome other weaknesses that they have been experiencing since long.   Muslims are poorer than others, literacy rate among Muslims is also lower, overall they suffer from more health concerns than others, and their representation in police, administration, and other important walks of life is much less than others.  Muslim scholars and intellectuals point out to these areas of deficiency from time to time.  This essay is not to focus on these issues in detail but just to point out that Muslim unity can help them work together for achieving other long-term goals too.

1 2 3