We cannot counter jihadism until we stop denying its ideological origins

It's insulting to the victims and detrimental to Islam’s prospects of reformation if the obvious influence of religion on religious extremism is snubbed.

It’s insulting to the victims and detrimental to Islam’s prospects of reformation if the obvious influence of religion on religious extremism is snubbed

Rationalising the coldblooded massacre of schoolchildren is impossible. But six militants attempted it on Tuesday, when they launched a monstrous attack on a Peshawar school that left 132 schoolchildren dead and the entire world in shock.

Before we address the things that led to the most monstrous act of violence in Pakistan’s notoriously violent history, it’s important to pull apart some myths about why it happened.

For starters, the children were not attacked for wanting education or ‘simply going to school’ as David Cameron stated, a claim that has been echoed by other international media houses including the CNN.

Similarly the bloodshed can no longer be attributed to the US funding militancy in the AfPak region over a quarter of a century ago, an accusation that sections of the Pakistani intelligentsia and the liberal left in the west are equally fond of.

Even though self-reflection on the part of the west is admirable, three decades is a pretty long time for any state to right its wrongs, should there be sufficient intent to do so.

Not to mention the fact that the advent of the Taliban predates the first US drone strike in Pakistan by a good decade or so.

While these simplistic narratives do highlight important issues like the rise of militant attacks on schools in Pakistan, and the west’s role in initially funding militancy, the ongoing conflict in Pakistan is neither a part of an apparent war on education, nor a corollary of western imperialism.

Saying that there are terrorists on the prowl hunting down children who seek education shrouds the actual intent of these militants, who have indeed been allowed to prowl safely for over a decade.

They’re targeting schools because unfortunately they’re the easiest to target and they leave the most frightening remnants, as showcased by the gut-wrenching scenes from Peshawar.

Similarly, pointing towards US manoeuvres during the Cold War as the reason for the terror crippling Pakistan in 2014, conveniently allows the state to cling on to its decade long suicidal policy of pointing fingers at everyone but itself, while facing the ramifications of the monsters that it has so proudly – and conspicuously – bred.

And the last thing that anyone who has any interest in seeing Pakistan finally stand up on its feet should be doing is propagating a narrative that puts the blame for the Peshawar carnage on anyone but the incompetence of the state, the government, the military, and most crucially on the jihadist ideology that the state has proliferated, or acquiesced to, for decades.

The first reaction to every Islamist terror attack is the now mandatory chant of ‘this has nothing to do with Islam’ with any attempts to debate being dubbed racist, culturally insensitive and Islamophobic.

The Guardian by one of the most renowned Pakistani writers, virtually hours after the Peshawar attack, which claimed that the massacre isn’t about religion because both the attackers and the victims belonged to the same religion.

And this is precisely the sort of ‘head in the sand’ denialism that has aided the spread of the jihadist ideology in Pakistan.

When the chants of ‘Allaho Akbar’ and the obvious lure of a hedonist afterlife don’t suffice in highlighting the influence of religion on suicidal terrorist attacks, one wouldn’t expect any heed to be paid to the TTP spokesman Mohammed Khorasani quoting a hadith in the immediate aftermath of the school attack to justify the violence in Peshawar.

Why would the Taliban endeavour to quote Islamic scriptures – just like the seven-page letter they issued to validate the attack on Malala Yousafzai in 2012 – if their actions are not influenced by religion?

There is a huge difference between the claim that ‘Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam’ and the bigoted stance that ‘Islam propagates terrorism’, and not many seem to be interested in filling the precipitously increasing gap.

The Taliban’s version of Islam is what moderate Muslims would dub a perversion of their religious ideology. But it’s still perilous denialism to tout even the most outrageous misinterpretation of Islam as having absolutely nothing to do with the ideology.

How do you plan on implementing much needed Islamic reform, if you insist that those very ideas that need reformation are unrelated to Islam?

How would you denounce armed jihad, a popular Islamic idea over the past centuries and an integral feature of Islamic history, as no longer being applicable in 21st century Islam, if you’re going to deny its Islamic roots?

The immediate cause of the Peshawar attack, as stated by the Taliban, was the Pakistan Army’s ongoing military operation in the North West of the country, which is believed to have done significant damage to the TTP, an umbrella organisation featuring multiple Islamist militant factions.

Hence, a military-run school was targeted for revenge against an army that the TTP had already excommunicated, again, to justify waging jihad against them.

Rule number one of jihad is that it can only be waged against the ‘nonbeliever’. So either you make the ‘nonbeliever’ your enemy, or your enemy a ‘nonbeliever’ before vindicating jihad. The offspring of the ‘nonbeliever’ thence is automatically apostatised, with Islamic narrations used to call anyone who has reached puberty an adult, and to unleash the massacre on schoolboys who were aged between 10 and 18.

With religion being so flagrantly used to justify every single one of those heinous acts, it’s insulting to the victims and detrimental to Islam’s prospects of reformation if the obvious influence of religion on religious extremism is snubbed. This is done to cater to the sensitivities of the non-violent Muslims who would be the first to benefit from a clampdown on jihadist terrorism and Islamic reformation.

Pakistan has been breeding jihadist organisations as ‘strategic assets’ to wage proxy wars in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The militants are now using the same ideology they had been taught as ideological arsenal war against Russian and Indian ‘infidels’, to launch jihad against Pakistan after excommunicating the state’s constitution, government and armed forces.

The only way Pakistan, and the rest of the Muslim world, can counter jihadism, is by accepting its ideological origins and then moderating the mosques, madrassas and other religious institutions that nourish jihad.

Armed jihad cannot be curtailed through killing jihadists. It can only be countered by chopping off its ideological roots, which is impossible if you choose to ignore the role of the ideology every time it is used to vindicate butchery.

Kunwar Khuldune Shahid is a Friday Times journalist. Follow him on Twitter

65 Responses to “We cannot counter jihadism until we stop denying its ideological origins”

  1. Seathanaich

    The problem is that too many Muslims are still following the dogma of their religion, as written in their holy book. Islam is the problem. Full stop.

    The reason that “the west” is less violent and more tolerant is that nobody follows the dogma of Christianity any more, as written in their holy book. Morals and ethics in the west come from the Enlightenment, which in turn comes from pre-Christian ancient Greece, the birthplace of western philosophy, morality, and democracy.

    Philosophy evolves over time. With each passing year we have more ideas to pick and choose from, allowing us to improve over time, if we choose to do so. Get of rid of ancient religious teachings, and you largely remove organised, widespread violence and support for it from your society.

  2. ForeignRedTory

    Oh, that worked so well in the USSR. TL;DR: nothing but atheist trolling.

  3. Seathanaich

    You’re just another religitard who doesn’t understand that atheism has nothing to do with communism. Before you discuss a topic, learn what the words involved mean. Communism is a totalitarian social and economic system. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The two are not in any way related. Kind of like how having a moustache or red hair also has nothing in to do with communism.

    Here’s a clue to help you figure out what the problem is in communist societies: when a place is communist, it’s the communism that’s the problem. It’s not the hair colour of the people there, it’s not whether or not the dictator has a moustache, it’s not whether the people who live there are Catholic Christians, Sunni Muslims, or Thor Worshippers. Most communists in Russia, in South America, and in Eastern Europe in the 20th Century were Christians, so if you think there is some sort of relationship between a religion and communism, unfortunately for you that religion is Christianity. Fortunately for you, intelligent people are well aware that there is no relationship between communism and any particular religion or religious opinion.

  4. Mike Stallard

    I am a Catholic. I like being a Catholic. And it was us Catholics who supported the IRA – remember them? We also did the Inquisition which held back southern Europe for centuries. Both these horrific organisations had their roots in Christian doctrine.
    Today in Uganda there are Christians who are just as bad – if not even worse – than the Taliban – the Lord’s Army, or General Butt Naked are two examples.
    And let me give you a proof text: Jesus said that he came to bring the sword.
    Here in Malay Singapore, the Muslim women indeed like to be veiled. But they have coloured veils! They also enhance their dresses with sequins and shiny thread. They look really good. In shops, they are careful to match their veils with the shop uniform and they always make sure their faces are revealed.
    Since there is conscription, and then a call-up if necessary, the young men – always a danger in a polygamous society – are kept occupied and off the streets.
    The Christian Churches rarely hold less than 3000 people and they are usually pretty full for Sunday and week day special services. In the top of Malls, there are ‘free’ churches which sometimes hold up to 6000 people.
    And, do you know what? There doesn’t seem to be any problem at all.
    Religion is dangerous. So is Socialism – or it should be.

  5. Ringstone

    To reform Islam would require the same precondition as that to reform an addict, the worldwide ummah would have to really want to do it. I see no indication of that whatsoever – most would see any attempt as apostacy. How long would their Luther last once he nailed his Ninety Five Theses to the mosque door in Tehran, Riyadh or Islamabad? He’d be beaten to death with his own hammer.
    There will be no muslim reformation, no enlightenment, however much the liberal West might wish it, both in our interest and those of many muslims [particularly women] worldwide. We will have to deal with what we’ve got. The process and outcome is unlikely to be pretty, I wonder if we’ve got the stomach for it..

Comments are closed.