Recently some Muslims perpetrated acts of violence in France and Denmark. As usual, these acts were performed in the name of Islam. After these incidents the US administration organized a three-day conference in Washington during February 17-19, 2015. The theme of the meeting was: Countering Violent Extremism. Sixty nations participated in the conference. A number of Muslim organizations were also among the participants.
Speaking on this occasion President Barack Obama said that Islam as a religion was not responsible for the recent violence. It was rather an external ideology—not based on Islamic teachings—that was behind these acts. Those who commit violence draw inspiration from this external ideology.
The political interpretation of Islam has become an ideology that promotes violence.
What is this ideology? President Obama did not mention this. It is the political interpretation of Islam, devised in the twentieth century. There were two champions of this ideology: Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) in the Arab world and Syed Abul Ala Maududi (1903-1979) in the Indian subcontinent. For various reasons, this ideology spread widely amongst Muslims.
It is important to understand why the political interpretation of Islam foisted an ideology that promoted violence. It made Islam a subject of imposition, whereas earlier Islam was regarded as a subject of adherence or following. If Islam is the subject to be followed, then the goal is to focus on oneself—one must discover God, lead a God-oriented life and try to spiritually elevate oneself. With such a goal, there can be no question of violence. But when Islam is considered a subject of imposition, the goal then becomes the external political system. The aim now is to dethrone the political rulers so that the political system of choice may be imposed on all. Here lies the root of violence.
The political ideology is inherently violent. It is imperative to come up with a counter ideology to eradicate violence—one that is sound and robust. The wrong notion that Islam is a political system must be dispelled and instead clearly establish it as non-political. The objective of Islam is Islamization of the individual, and not Islamization of the state.
In 1917 the Communist government was formed in Russia and the USSR was established in its wake. This situation was perceived as a threat by the United States of America. America countered the problem not with violence but through a sound counter ideology. Anti-communist literature was published on a wide scale and the entire world was flooded with it. One example of this is mentioned below:
Yugoslavia’s Communist politician, Milovan Djilas (1911-1995) wrote a powerful book New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (1957) criticizing the Communist system. It was introduced in the Reader’s Digest under the heading, Milovan Djilas and the Book that is Shaking the Communist World. (Eugene Lyon, October 1957)
The political ideology is inherently a violent ideology. Therefore, a counter ideology is required to face this violent ideology.
Given these historic precedents, the need to publish strong and powerful literature against the terrorist ideology is imperative—powerful enough to shake the terrorists at their very roots. So that a commentator may be able to remark: ‘This is the book that is shaking the terrorist world.’ This is the only solution to rid violence in the name of Islam that plagues the world today. No other solution will work in this regard.
