On Deoband Fatwa, Jihadi Roots and Terrorism

Excerpts from a great article by Prof Walid Phares, “The Deobandi Fatwa Against Terrorism Didn’t Treat the Jihadi Root” underscoring some of the points I had made in an earlier post (Thanks to Krishen-ji for alerting me to this)

*** Excerpts Begin (emphasis mine) ***

Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa (Islamic theological edict) condemning Terrorism by one of the leading religious centers in the Muslim world, the Darool-Uloom Deoband in India. An Islamic seminary said to have ‘inspired’ the Taliban has, according to the said document denounced “terrorism” as against Islam, calling it an “unpardonable sin.”

…The Deobandi School, a classical third branch for Salafi Islamism (along with Wahabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia Theater. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban. “If they change course, al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished,” I heard in Europe and the United States.

So the question now is have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence?  I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.

…”There is no place for terrorism in Islam,” Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the older rector of Deoband, told Reuters. “Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence.”  Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.
“There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?” said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband. The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a government.
These statements could be seen as impressive when quoted by news agencies rushing to break the good news, but to the seasoned analysts of Salafism, the solid doctrinal roots of Jihadism were kept untouched. Here is why.

From the fatwa itself and the statements made as it was issued, the following political goals likely motivated the gathering and the fatwa.

Create a separation in the eyes of the public discourse between Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as an illegal violent activity.
Such a move is legitimate and to be encouraged as it diminishes the tensions towards Muslims in non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West, as some are claiming that the Islamic religion is theologically linked to the acts and statements of the Jihadists. The logic of “we are Muslims and we are against Terrorism,” helps significantly the disassociation between the community and the acts of violence. However, without criticizing the ideological roots of this violence, the fatwa seem to state a wishful thinking, not an injunction.

A more powerful fatwa should have openly and expressly said: “we reject the calls for violent Jihad regardless of the motives.” For the followers of Jihadism do not consider their Jihad as “terrorism.” Their answer has always been -to these types of fatwas- “but we aren’t performing terrorism, we are conducting Jihad.” Thus, at this crucial level, the Deobandi fatwa missed the crux of the problem.

…the Deobandi fatwa should have instead asked clearly the Jihadists not to use these citations or else they would be considered as sinners themselves. But instead of using their religious prominence to remove the theological weapon from the hands of the Jihadists, the Deobandi clerics are attempting to shield the Jihadists from the actions of Governments by denying that these extremists are indeed using — and abusing — religion.

Who is “innocent”?

…The fatwa defined terrorism as violence “targeting innocent people.” Such a definition is not new and doesn’t set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does “innocent” mean? On several web sites and on many shows on al Jazeera television, Jihadi apologists often use the Arabic term”bare’e”  for “innocent” and assure the audience that Jihad cannot target the latter.

But Usama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, and to some extent Hassan Nasrallah, all claim that innocence is relative. Al Qaeda explicitly targets innocent civilians and has authorized the massacre of 4 million US citizens as of 2001. Bin laden explains that civilians who vote for and pay taxes to the infidel enemy are not “innocent.” Hezbollah targets innocent civilians as well, not only in Israel but also in Lebanon and overseas (as in Argentina). The concept of “innocent” isn’t that innocent in Jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups “bare’e’ or not “bare’e” at their discretion.

Leading Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al Qardawi expounds at will on the innocence of civilians, detailing how civilian populations have been considered as part of the war efforts of the enemies of the Caliphate. In short, the status of “innocence” doesn’t overlap fully with the status of “civilians.” It is a matter of discretion in Jihadi warfare. Hence, to claim that Terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to Jihadi violence.

Who is a “terrorist”?

Moreover, still the fatwa doesn’t identify al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as Terrorist organizations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator.

This text simply doesn’t bring novelty to the debate about Jihadi-rooted Terrorism. For years, particularly since 2001, Islamist ideologues and militant groups have refrained from simply naming those terror groups as such. Spokespersons have constantly repeated that condemning terrorism in general is enough.

If the Muslim scholars followed this logic on the question of occupations, then neither Iraq nor Palestine should be specifically mention. But that is not the case.

Legal basis

The Deobandi fatwa didn’t explain what where the legal basis for the edict. Was there any new ground broken? Which were the previous rules that have changed regarding terrorism? Is the fatwa a reminder of a principle or a new principle to be adopted? Is the rejection of terrorism a duty (wajib) and what kind of obligation?

All these questions are warranted so that a fair assessment of the statement can be issued. Unfortunately, the legal grounds are not specific enough to enable readers — and eventually followers — to understand the absolute injunction of rejection of Terrorism.

The body of fatwas

Historically, there have been similar statements and fatwas issued in other quarters of the Middle East, yet they haven’t had a definitive impact on reality. And by exploring the reason behind the inefficiency of these declarations, one finds that the body of fatwas remains below the level of a reform, of a doctrinal radical rejection of Jihadism as a aqidah (doctrine).

The Deobandi fatwa — like its predecessors — tells followers that the principle of Jihadi wars (efforts) is sound and that the level of innocence of the target is discretionary but that engagement in violence has to be disciplined and not chaotic. In short, don’t give the infidels an alibi to compromise the ultimate goals by waging irresponsible acts of violence. Simply put: we don’t need Jihadism to be labeled as Terrorism.

…So in the end, how to deal with this and with similar edicts? At first one should welcome any statement that delegitimizes al Qaeda’s hot-headed Jihadism, even if the fatwa doesn’t cross the doctrinal line. Any call to stop terrorism is positive and should be built upon. In principle the Deobandi fatwa should be considered as a step that needs more steps in the direction of a doctrinal reform. Minimally, these fatwas should name al Qaeda and similar groups as Terrorists. But to be considered as breaking a new ground, they must render Jihadi violence illegitimate and terrorism against non combatants illegal, regardless of any theological, ideological or political goals.

* Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.

*** Excerpts End ***

Related Posts:

Will the Darul Uloom now declare war on “Islamism”?

The Deoband declaration – A good first step

Islamism – not Islam – is responsible for terrorism

P.S. Krishen-ji had forwarded me the email with this subject line: “The phoney fatwa against terrorism – taqiyya”

To those of you who may not be familiar with the term, here are two suggested links: Understanding Taqiyya by Warner MacKenzie and Taqiyya and Kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic Terrorism.

 

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. v.c.krishnan says:

    Dear Sir,
    It is appropriate that one terms this FATWA as EYEWASH! not fatwa. From the various sources that I have read who have quoted from the quran,as I am not an authority neither have I read the quran, it is always said that all infidels should be killed and kaffirs should be executed if they do not follow the law of ALLAH.
    Does it mean that these people are not innocent or are they guilty of any form of living? Does it mean also that others than those who are killed in a jihadi bomb are guilty and not innocent?
    Let the schools of Islamic thoughht come out with precise definitions that clears doubts instead of throwing dust in the eyes of the people for getting clearances from doubtful “Secularists” mainly the Western driven media and their “Band masters” all over the world.
    Regards,
    vck

  2. Vikram says:

    Very good post, and very good and clear interpretation of the Deoband Fatwa on Terrorism.

    Thanks for the good work.

  3. B Shantanu says:

    Excerpt from Terror mail threatens to “stop India’s heartbeat” by Praveen Swami

    Interestingly, in an evident response to anti-jihadist clerics who have in recent months attacked the Indian Mujahideen, the e-mail lays claim to the legacy of famous regional jihadists. “We have carried out this attack in the memory of two most eminent Mujahids of India, Sayyed Ahmed, Shaheed and Shah Ismail, Shaheed (may Allah bestow His Mercy upon them), who had raised the glorious banner of Jihad against the disbelievers in this very city of Delhi.”

    Sayyid Ahmad of Rai Bareilly and Shah Ismail died at Balakote, Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in May 1831, in what is present-day Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while waging an unsuccessful jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s kingdom. Ahmad’s followers went on to set up the Jamaat Ahl-e-Hadis — a neo-fundamentalist order that has drawn million of mainly-peaceful followers, but has also inspired south Asia’s largest terrorist group, the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

  4. Deo bandi says:

    islam has nothing to do with terror.

  5. B Shantanu says:

    A brief excerpt from Medieval trap by Tarun Vijay:

    The Deoband mullahs have never helped their community in making economic, social and educational progress. At any moment of a social crisis among Muslims, they have delayed any decision or taken a retrograde stand.

    The “shining” examples of their fossilized mentality were too visible during the Shah Bano case, Gudiya’s tragic story and equal right to Muslim women. They kept a studied silence when five lakh Hindus were driven out of their homes in the Kashmir valley, after announcements were blared out on the dreadful night of January 11,1989, asking Pandits to get out and leave behind their women.

    Jammu & Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority state in India and if Deoband is “concerned” about Islam’s peaceful, and humanitarian face, why should it not try to influence the terror groups operating in the name of their religion and in turn, as the maulvis say, bringing bad name to their great message of universal brotherhood?

  6. संदीप नारायण शेळके says:

    See yourself what this muslims have done to the youngster(Hindu) who married to muslim girl
    http://www.panchjanya.com/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=349&page=6

  7. B Shantanu says:

    Excerpt from Tavleen Singh’s The Home Minister needs enlightenment:

    …Then there is the Vande Mataram fatwa. Last week’s gathering of 10,000 Muslim clerics banned Muslims from singing this song. Vande Mataram is not the national anthem, nobody is forced to sing it, so it is not clear why a fatwa was needed at all unless it was to hint at a rejection of something bigger and more important: Pre-Islamic Indian culture, civilisation and history. I very much fear that this was the fatwa’s real intention. On the Darul Uloom’s website I came across a line that described the state of India before this fine institution came into being. ‘The old madaris in India had almost become extinct and condition of the two or four that had survived the ravages of time was not better than that of glow worms in a dark night’.

    Is ‘dark night’ a description of India before Islam came to ‘enlighten’ us infidels? I ask because when I read the words I was reminded of a board outside the grave of an Iraqi preacher who came to Rajasthan many centuries ago to spread Islam. He ended up in Nagaur and the board outside the shrine that preserves his remains says that he came to India because he saw it as a ‘vast darkness’. So the Vedas, the Puranas, that extraordinary treasure of Sanskrit literature, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, all get dismissed as pre-Islamic garbage. Right? They cannot possibly have come out of the ‘darkness’ that was India and cannot compare even with the ‘glow-worms’ that existed before the great enlightenment that has come since the creation of the Darul Uloom.

    It really is no surprise that the Darul Uloom spawned the Taliban.

  8. B Shantanu says:

    From What Is Wrong With 120 Moderate Ulema’s ‘Open Letter To ‘Khalifa’ Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, And Why It Will Not Work? This Moderate Fatwa Does Not Leave Any Leg For Moderate Islam To Stand On, By Sultan Shahin, 1 September 2015, a brief excerpt:

    But to expect the Open Letter to stem the tide of gathering support for the so-called Islamic State will be futile.

    Extremism has been endemic in Islam, present almost from the beginning of Islamic history. Muslims fought among themselves and quite vehemently even before the creation of Hadees and Sharia, which they now consider divine. Muslims have still not found an antidote to militant verses in the Quran that are now available to anyone with access to internet. Calling all verses of the Quran as of eternal value is not going to solve the problem. Calling Hadees and Sharia divinely inspired is no answer to the questions of the day.

    Muslims will just have to abandon the theology that leads to violence and supremacism and look for a new theology, a coherent theology of peace and pluralism, consistent in all respects with the teachings of Islam, and suitable for contemporary and future societies.