Overview

It is said that ""Islam is not responsible for terrorism."" And this is true, if we take Islam from revelation. But much of what passes for Islam is from tradition. The Book of Allah permits fighting in self-defense or against persecution. It does not permit wars of aggression, not even for the purpose of the propagation of Islam. The verses relating to fighting are misquoted not just by non-Muslims but also by Muslims. These verses were misunderstood as requiring Muslims to ""slay polytheists wherever you find them"" (Quran, 9: 5). Verse 9: 5 was revealed after the adversaries of Muslims broke the treaty of Hudaybiya. The breaking of the treaty resulted in a resumption of fighting. Verse 9: 5, together with 9: 29, of the two ""verses of the sword,"" are misinterpreted as commanding Muslims to fight non-Muslims in an epic ""clash of civilizations,"" the abode of peace vs the abode of war. But this is a misinterpretation, foisted upon the umma by militant ulama, engaged by hawkish rulers. These rulers required a ""religious"" justification for fighting unlawful wars of aggression. They required a way of by-passing the prohibition of aggressive warfare in the Book of Allah. For the rulers wanted to fight wars of aggression under the banner of Islam. This required a corruption of the teaching of revelation. The corruption was accomplished by recourse to exegesis that endorses the perception that the peace verses of the Book of Allah were ""abrogated"" by the verses of the sword. To reinterpret revelation to realize their aspiration of territorial expansion, hawkish rulers enlisted ulama willing to provide a rendition of Islam that justified territorial expansion. The re-interpretation of revelation required the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence. This resulted in a corruption of knowledge. The corruption of knowledge enabled the justification of wars of expansion under the banner of religion. The transformation of Islam into a religion of war was augmented by recourse to problematic traditions. These include the tradition according to which the prophet was ""sent to fight people until they all say that there is no god but God."" They also encompass the tradition according to which the prophet was ""sent with the sword as a mercy to the worlds."" These traditions furnish justification for the perpetration of acts of terrorism. The deterioration of jurisprudence found its culmination in the ruling by a cleric that bombings are ""martyrdom operations,"" meriting rewards. The ruling that terrorist acts are ""martyrdom operations"" is rooted in the perception that the ""blood of the kafir is permitted for the believer,"" a part of the traditional teaching on war. Jihad al-talab treats fighting non-Muslims as a religious requirement. It demands fighting non-Muslims because of their faith. Thus, participation in jihad al-talab is hardly different from present-day terrorism. Both require fighting the kuffar to the death. Accordingly, the response to jihadism requires dismantling the teaching of jihad al-talab and its myth of the epic clash between the realm of peace and the realm of war. This requires rejecting the teaching of abrogation as well as all tradition that justify fighting non-Muslims because of their faith. In this way tensions between civilizations could be eased and a détente established for peaceful co-existence. It is vital to emphasis shared values among different religions and build peace on those shared values and take an inclusive rather than an exclusive and sectarian approach.

Full Product Details

9798244576665

Table of Contents

Reviews

Author Information

Tab Content 6

Countries Available