Yes that Question was absolutely
correct. It’s painful for me as a religious Muslim, as I know that
it’s painful for a lot of other Muslims. But that’s the truth
that we should face: ISIS and Al-Qaeda and other extremist and
terrorist organizations are legitimate sons, not illegitimate as many
Muslims claim. ISIS actions based on verses from Holy Quran, Hadith
(Sayings of prophet Muhammad), Sirah (Biography of prophet Muhammad)
and Islamic history, not on wrong interpretation, but on direct and
explicit texts, facts and events of prophet Muhammad, Sahabah
(prophet Muhammad companions) and Islamic history. It’s the
traditional religious culture of Muslims – especially Sunni –
that makes many of them potential terrorists, potential sons of ISIS.
And if it doesn’t happen for a Muslim to turn to be an extremist r
terrorist, that means that he chose to ignore this culture, or he
settled on reconcile with himself as an” uncommitted Muslim”.
It’s not only the matter of Middle
East region, although it’s the region where all these extreme and
terroristic thoughts came to light and then exported to the rest of
the world. But after the communication and internet revolution you
can find that culture everywhere, east and west, in Canada, Germany,
Australia, Nigeria, Philippines, etc... I’ve even heard this
culture’s manifestations in a mosque in Canada, as I heard it in
mosques in Egypt, as you can hear it on Youtube by Sheikhs and Imams
from all around the world. So it’s not weird for this culture to
produce terrorists of different nationalities and from all over the
world.
This traditional religious Sunni
culture has the ability to transform the normal Muslim into a time
bomb that may explode at any moment, anywhere, just if the
circumstances and incubator environment allowed that, chances of that
may increase or decrease depending on each country’s nature and
circumstances, but it’s definitely exist. This is the solid base
that produced an organization such as Muslim Brotherhood which in
turn produced Al-Qaeda, Jehad, ISIS and others. The religious
intellectual basis of all that organizations is the same; there are
no differences in core, only in degree and class but not in kind and
type. As while ISIS establish the Caliphate State in a cruelly and
bloody way, the Muslim Brotherhood want a religious dictatorship with
a nice democratic appearance not much different than the Mullahs
regime in Iran.
It’s true that there are tolerant
Islamic views, and it’s true that there are great efforts to
achieve reconciliation between Muslims and world, but the other fact
that we “as Muslims” have to admit: is that this tolerant culture
isn’t prevalent between Sunni Muslims in general. We also have to
admit that the most prevailing religious discourse between Sunni
Muslims all around the world is mostly hostile, racist and bloody;
can explode when the opportunity arises. So terrorists now aren’t
only coming from the Middle East, but coming from everywhere in the
world, because of the spread of communications revolution that
facilitated dealing with this terroristic religious discourse.
From where does this terroristic
religious culture come?
It came from the Quran itself. The
truth is that the Holy Quran is full of lots and lots of tolerance,
freedom of faith, respect of difference and many other great
humanitarian values. But it’s also full of verses that incite for
killing and hatred. So it’s normal to find many Muslims and lots
and lots of Imams and sheikhs telling you that ISIS actions don't
represent the real Islam. The reason is that they are relying on
verses that call for tolerance, peace, love and many other great
humanitarian values, while they don’t deny that there’re contrary
verses, which call for hatred and killing, those verses that have
been taken by ISIS as main reference.
The same thing in Hadith and Prophet
Muhammad's (pbuh) Sirah. As there are very humanitarian Hadith, there
are many others that incite for killing and abusing antagonists like
infidels, Jews, Christians and others. Prophet Muhammad was not only
God’s messenger, but also - For reasons related to the nature of
the Bedouin community in which the message of Islam arose - he had to
fight all forms of armed battles against antagonists. So which one we
should take from, the messenger of peace or the fighter and warrior?
The biographies of Sahaba and Caliphs
tell us about a lot of tolerance, and also about a lot of bloodshed,
spreading Islam by force and occupation of other countries, and the
subsequent war crimes and crimes against humanity. They even fought
themselves in “the struggle for the throne” bloody wars, and
three of them were murdered (Omar bin al-Khattab - Othman bin Affan -
Ali bin Abi Talib).
There is a bloody side in the Islamic
history, as there’re many great values and great civilization that
contributed to humanity progress.
Let me tell you that Islam isn’t an
exception in this bloody history; this is how all religions,
including Christianity. Also Islam clerics aren’t exception,
killing and bloodshed in the name of God occurred by all religions.
Also eastern and western ancient empires committed a lot of heinous
crimes during their colonial expansions, and Islamic empire isn’t
an exception. We also must remember that the western colonization in
modern era was coupled with blood, and that happened in many events
under the cross flag.
But all those religions including
Judaism and Christianity have been developed for many reasons and
waived their bloody side, reconciled with world and life. And I think
that this is exactly what Muslims need. Unfortunately they revere the
bloody side of their prevailing religious culture, but that’s the
time to get rid of all of those bloody texts, and to disown all those
bloody crimes in their history. All of that was related to its time
and circumstances and we don’t have to follow it. We need to stop
following the political performance of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He
had to fight these battles in his time to protect the new message of
Islam, and I think that we don’t have to do the same.
As an example: he fought a bloody conflict with some of the Jews in his time, this does not mean that we are in conflict with Judaism or Jews in every time and place. We have to follow Prophet Muhammad as a messenger of great humanitarian values, while we have to waive everything else against humanity in Islamic jurisprudence “Fiqh” and Islamic history. Keeping the great values in this history, that values that protect our humanity, and disown – like others – the invasions, violence and blood. Move from being enemies of humanity to become part of it, effective part of its progress, we are humans just like others.
As an example: he fought a bloody conflict with some of the Jews in his time, this does not mean that we are in conflict with Judaism or Jews in every time and place. We have to follow Prophet Muhammad as a messenger of great humanitarian values, while we have to waive everything else against humanity in Islamic jurisprudence “Fiqh” and Islamic history. Keeping the great values in this history, that values that protect our humanity, and disown – like others – the invasions, violence and blood. Move from being enemies of humanity to become part of it, effective part of its progress, we are humans just like others.
Saied Shoaaib
Egyptian Writer
