A terrorist is not created in his mother’s womb. It takes an environment of hatred—a whole jungle of hatred—to bring him into existence. The present community of Muslims has unfortunately provided such an environment. How did this hatred grow? For one, it is the extensive proliferation of a particular ideology among Muslims—a political interpretation of Islam, that offered Muslims the status of God’s vicegerants on earth, with the right to rule the world on His behalf.
Islam was the world’s leading civilization in the period between the decline of ancient civilizations and the ascent of modern European ones. But ultimately, Western colonial powers established their dominance over the Muslim world. Political movements were launched in the name of Islam as a reaction to this domination. Their objective was to free Muslim countries from Western rule and to re-establish Muslim rule.
It was Syed Jamaluddin Afghani, born in Iran in 1838, who probably developed the concept of Islamic nationalism for the first time. During his lifetime, the colonial expansion of the West was at its peak and almost the entire Muslim world had, directly or indirectly, come under its rule. Jamaluddin Afghani made it his mission to bring down the colonial system and restore the political power of Muslim nations. Towards this end, he launched the movement known as Pan-Islamism. It aimed to bring together Muslims across the world to form a united international power, which would defeat Western nations and set the Muslim world free from their clutches.
If you read the Quran, nowhere in it will you find any mention of 'political Islam'. The Quran contains neither information nor injunctions which could lead to the setting up of a political system.
Jamaluddin Afghani may have failed to achieve his political target but he successfully sowed the seeds of hatred for Western nations in Muslim minds. Muslims in general came to regard Western nations as their enemies. Most Muslim leaders of his time thought in negative and political terms. Prominent of these were Sayyid Qutb and Amir Shakib Arsalan in the Arab world, Muhammad Iqbal and Sayyed Abul ala Maududi in the Indian subcontinent, and later Ayatullah Khomeini in Iran.
Initially, these movements focused on expulsion of Western forces from the Muslim world. More appropriately it was an initiative to gain political freedom. Thus in the times of Afghani, this movement was more political than religious, with its slogan being, “The East for Easterners”.
The next phase of this revolutionary movement was given an ideological form. What had been described in communal terms (with reference to the global Muslim community), now took an Islamic hue. An attempt was made to Islamize their communal thinking by developing a complete ideology based on the political interpretation of Islam. If earlier the thinking had been that the Western nations were usurpers and that a restitution of Muslims’ political rights must be demanded from them, the next phase developed the theory that the Islamic system covered all aspects of human life including politics. The Muslims were therefore, duty-bound to capture political power by force, so that Islam might be implemented as a total system. The promoters of this movement held that so long as Islam was not adopted by believers as a complete system, their faith would not be acceptable to God. It followed that bringing about a political revolution became a binding obligation, like prayers and fasting.
Giving a political interpretation to Islam is a despicable act and in no way serves the higher aims of the religion.
In this second phase, two Muslim leaders figured prominently, the Egyptian intellectual Sayyid Qutb (died 1966) and Syed Abul ala Maududi (died 1979), a Muslim ideologue from the Indian subcontinent. Both leaders found themselves in a very favourable environment—an environment that made it possible for their books to be translated into many languages and thus for their ideas to spread across the Muslim world. Muslims across the globe were directly influenced by this political ideology. Some became actively involved while the others’ thinking was shaped by this ideology. All dreamed of the political glory of Islam.
This movement, designed to establish political Islam, gave rise to various other movements. Two of these movements grew into prominence. Al Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or the Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928 in the Arab world and the Jamat-e-Islami established in 1941 in the subcontinent. Both were highly organised movements and subsequently launched campaigns to establish Islamic rule in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Tunisia and Malaysia.
At first, these movements sought to establish Muslim rule by spreading their ideology of political Islam. When they failed in this they started taking part in the national elections in the countries where they were active. When they failed on this front too, they resorted to militancy.
What had started as a pro-Islam movement in the first half of the twentieth century had turned into a reactionary movement in the second half of the century. But events have demonstrated that in spite of making every conceivable effort, Muslims have failed in their campaign against others. On every front, they have had total defeat. It is the ensuing build up of a defeatist mentality which has culminated perforce in the phenomenon of terrorism in the name of Islam.
Though ostensibly aimed at re-establishing Islamic rule, these movements actually grew as a political reaction to the circumstances in which Muslims found themselves. Its inspiration and its impact were totally negative. The movement was the result of anti-western rather than pro-Islam feelings, and for precisely this reason it rapidly turned violent.
A truly Islamic movement arises out of feelings of benevolence for all of humanity, its goal being neither land nor power and is always carried out through peaceful means. It never adopts violence. If Muslim movements opted for extremism, it was because they were not genuinely Islamic in nature. The truth is that these Muslim social movements, which had only the community agenda in mind, adopted the name of Islam purely as a means of self justification.
A truly Islamic movement arises out of feelings of benevolence for all of humanity, its goal being neither land nor power and always carried out through peaceful means.
If you read the Quran, nowhere in it will you find any mention of ‘political Islam’. The Quran contains neither information nor injunctions which could lead to the setting up of a political system or for the political domination of Islam.
The eighteenth century French thinker Rousseau, who was greatly concerned with the human condition, wrote a treatise called The Social Contract (1762). He opened his book with this arresting statement: ‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’.
This is the language of a political book, a book which was to contribute to the ideas and policies of the leaders of the French Revolution and which ultimately gained worldwide currency. But if you read the Quran, it begins not with a diatribe against human inequality with its implied criticism of wrong governance but with simple praises of God. And it ends with the necessity to seek refuge in God against Satan. The Quran and the Hadith have no mention of the system of state. Nor is there any mention of revolt against any existing system. Neither is there any indication as to how a political ruler or khalifah is to be appointed or selected. No such principles are set forth in Islam, neither from an ideological nor from a practical point of view. In short, it is clear that no aspect of politics in Islam is dealt with anywhere in the Quran and the Hadith (sayings and deeds of the Prophet of Islam).
At more than one place in the Quran we are told what the Prophet’s tasks were in accordance with the divine plan. These were conveying the divine message to mankind, purification of the soul and imparting wisdom to live a successful life. In none of the verses are we told that the task of the Prophet was to establish Islamic rule in the world. The champions of political Islam have distorted such verses in support of their cause to serve their own ends. Giving a political interpretation to Islam is a despicable act and in no way serves the higher aims of the religion.
