Pakistan’s response to latest terrorist attacks in London and Egypt and to the renewed indictment of Pakistan as a base for Taleban and Al-Qaeda, has been primarily of an administrative nature but has also included the effort to redefine the concept of jihad. And primarily with the help of those madrasas which were known to have supported political extremism in the hey days of the international jihad against the Soviet Union. Additionally individuals like the former ISI Gen. Hamid Gul who has, in the past, promoted and supported extremist politics among Muslim groups are appearing on television to explain how “balance” in thought and action is a fundamental requirement of Islam.
The attempt now is to project in the public space a less confrontationalist concept of genuine and permissible “Islamic” jihad.
The government which has no allies from among the mainstream political parties in this colossal political-cum-administrative task of rolling back the angry, confrontationalist and reactionary version of “jihad” seeks allies from among the religious groups.
Significantly the religious teachers from Pakistan’s leading madrasas have responded to the government’s call. After London and Egypt there also appears to be some voluntary internal rethink in these madrasas.
In Pakistan the heads of leading madrasas are also critiquing the concept of jihad that justifies suicide bombings and killing of innocent people. In an interview to BBC Mufti Rafi Usmani, who heads Darul Uloom Karachi, one of Pakistan’s most respected madrasas, said, “Islam does not allow killing of innocent civilians and noncombatants under any circumstances.” Mufti Usmani said, “to begin with, jihad is not incumbent on all Muslims and a call for jihad can be given only under special circumstances.”
The consensus among three top scholars on the circumstances in which a call to jihad can be given includes a situation where a Muslim community comes under attack. Then jihad becomes an obligation for all Muslims, male and female, in that community. If that particular community feels it cannot fight off attackers on its own, then jihad becomes incumbent on Muslims living in nearby communities and finally if the Muslim ruler of a country calls for jihad, then it is incumbent upon the Muslims living under that ruler to join the jihad.
The effort now is clearly to roll back the popularization of jihad when, in the earlier ’80s, the international community launched the joint anti-Soviet Afghan jihad. For example, Mufti Usmani said that “If Pakistan is attacked but its army is sufficient to deal with the threat, then Pakistani civilians are under no obligation to join the jihad.”
On the conduct of jihad, the Pakistani ulema maintained that Islamic jihad completely disallowed attacking “women, children, the old and the meek, the sick, those that are praying and civilians.” This contradicts the justification given by the political extremists and reactionaries among the Muslims who argue that if innocent Muslims are killed in enemy action then Muslims are allowed to kill innocent people in retaliation.
But the heads of madrasas like Mufti Usmani categorically refute this. They say that Islam does not allow Muslims to respond to “a mistake” by another mistake because “Islam is absolutely clear on this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right.” Specifically he said if US or UK is killing the innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing of innocent people in London or New York is not allowed.
Similarly the head of Pakistan’s leading madrasa, Jamia Binoria, Dr. Sikander told the BBC that in case Muslims do not agree with the foreign policy of those countries where they are living they must leave the country. The option for a Muslim “outraged over Britain’s role in what is happening in Iraq” is to go and “fight the coalition forces there,” he said. Mufti Usmani maintains that “When a Muslim visits a Western country or if he is living there, then he is under a kind of a contractual obligation to abide by the laws of that land.”
Redefining jihad is only one aspect of a broader challenge that is not exclusively a challenge for Muslims but indeed for the entire international community. Putting the onus on Muslims alone will only produce an inadequate response to terrorism.
