User:Qaisarrashid/sandbox

Militancy in the name of Islam and its ramifications Authored by: Dr Qaisar Rashid

Why do followers of a (divine) religion resort to militancy? Is it to get the voice of the religion heard or is it to get their own voice heard? These two questions bear more relevance when the religion is Islam and the followers are Muslims. What is the voice of the religion of Islam? Is it not peace? Can the voice of peace be expressed in militant terms? The answer is in the negative. To project its image of peace, Islam does not need militancy. The next question is, to make its voice heard could a (divine) religion be handicapped at the hands of its followers? It cannot be so. Islam is not a religion that can be hamstrung by its followers. Muslims cannot hold a monopoly on the religion of Islam. Islam is open to all to study and listen to its voice.

It is still debatable whether militancy practised by certain Muslims falls in the category of ‘jihad’ or not, as the concept of jihad banks on the intention of the follower(s) waging it. One’s personal glory, vendetta and other worldly objectives do not justify jihad; instead, militancy based on them fall in the category of war. Islam is very particular about the differentiation between the real intent and the declared objectives of its followers.

Can militancy serve the cause of Islam? The obverse side of the question is why the problems of the world cannot be solved through political means. The Europe of today remained engaged in two world wars and then decided to settle its differences through political means. Why can no lesson be learnt from Europe’s bitter experience of bloodshed?

The next question is whether Islam is being used by its followers to meet their own worldly objectives. The trend in societies that are overwhelmingly populated with Muslims indicates that resorting to militancy is becoming a way of life. Instead of voicing one’s grievances in political terms, religious terms are used. One reason for that may be that one does not know how to voice one’s concerns in political terms, as the domain of (pluralist) politics is still alien to the conceptual understanding of many Muslims. Another reason may be that religious terms amplify one’s voice many times and draw more attention. Apparently, Muslims are politically backward and that is why they use religious terms to air their grievances.

It would be interesting to know the result of the comparison between — if someone makes it — how many Muslims resort to hard work to improve their lives and how many depend on fate to offer them, on a silver platter, the same rewards of life. Apparently, an over-reliance on their fate has rendered Muslims helpless (and worthless) in the world. The helplessness has actuated the feeling of jealousy (and perhaps hatred), which in turn fosters an attitude expressed in militancy and that too, unfortunately, in the name of Islam.

In the acts of militancy, the prevalent ignorance (and illiteracy) amongst Muslims might have made them feel a sense of glory — as if Islamic grandeur of the medieval age were revisiting the world — but they have failed to understand that violence has masked the face of Islam leaving no room for non-violent (peaceful) means to earn popularity. Further, Muslims seem unable to apprehend that in the globalised world, militancy in the name of Islam is acting as a force of disintegration of global oneness. Will the consequent seclusion be acceptable to Muslims?

If the global oneness is perceived as a threat to the ‘self’ of Muslims, a question irks the minds of many: would Muslims keep their separate global identity through militant means? The retreat of Islam into a militant bubble has demeaned its message of peace. That is the single major injustice militancy has done to the voice of Islam. Militancy has secured the foreground at the cost of the rest of Islam. Muslims who have resorted to militancy (though they are in a minority) have expropriated the space at the rostrum and without seeking the consent of the rest (who are in a majority), have started representing all Muslims. This state of affairs may be hailed by Muslims ignorant of global political affairs, but it has made the informed ones apprehensive about the kind of future waiting for them. In this regard, blameworthy are also those who have kept silence on the deeds of the minority militant ones.

In a way, militancy in the name of Islam is justifying the incompetence of Muslims in the fields of science and technology. Secondly, it has discredited the role of state governments to raise their voice for Muslims. Thirdly, it has made the largest chunk of Muslims who, though they do not side with militant Muslims, apologetic before the world. Fourthly, it has made all Muslims vulnerable to all types of prejudices.

One of the problems Muslims are facing is that they live physically in the 21st century but survive mentally (or conceptually) in the medieval age. Did Islam advise its followers to perpetuate the medieval age and abhor the modern age? Should industrialisation not have happened? Should the world not have moved to the phase of modernisation or even post-modernisation? The next best question is, can these processes (or phases) be reversed?

The modern age has brought to the fore its own realities and ways of living. If Muslims were so concerned about this kind of modern age, they should have been in the forefront of progress and development to construct their own type of modern age. If they could not do so, why nurse grievances? If Muslims stay backward, why should the world come to their doorstep to ask what kind of world they approve? Instead of militating against the inevitable realities of life and the irreversible processes of the world, Muslims should reconcile with them.