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. ForeignRedTory

    ‘ as dumb as an American’ Bigotry, much?

    # Living in a mostly atheist country’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#United_Kingdom

    A compilation of some sociological studies indicates that roughly 30-40%
    of the British population does not have a belief in a god, but only 8%
    self identify as convinced atheist.[96]

    I call BS on you.

  2. Just Visiting

    rather too many claims that can’t be supported.

    > And it was us Catholics who supported the IRA

    But the IRA’s aim were not religious -they did not quote from the Bible. Their aims were geo-political – not religious: In fact they networked internationally with Marxist groups – with whom they shared their underlying worldview.

    Now compare and contrast that to islamic terrorists today: where the Quran is repeatedly quoted, and the religious nature of their motivation is emphasised.

    > We also did the Inquisition which held back southern Europe for centuries.

    An exaggerated claim – yes they were not good guys – but the actual impact they had in total was small – Wiki gives sources saying “3,000 were executed – about two percent of the number of people put on trial”.

    > And let me give you a proof text: Jesus said that he came to bring the sword.

    This sadly exposes your total ignorance of Christianity.
    Can you quote any church group that takes that verse and interprets it as a call to violence?

    You’re cherry picking a verse out of all context and assigning to it a meaning that the adherents of that religion do not attach to it at all.

    But if you google: you’ll find that many people have listed some of the in-context clear calls to violence spoken by Mohammed.

    And that Mohammed was a military leader who beheaded prisoners: whereas Jesus… not so much.

    > Here in Malay Singapore, the Muslim women indeed like to be veiled.

    Ah Malaysia! A country where racism is institued in law: university places, top jobs and etc are restricted, so that the majorityy Malay (Muslim) get preference.

    The country where it is against the secular law, for Muslims to stop being Muslim!

    The country, along with ~100 other Islamic nations, who signed up to their Cairo convention on human rights: which explicitly does not give equal rights to women, nor to non-Muslims.

    > 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.

    WTF?

    > 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.

    Are you really so keen to shut your eyes to the truth!

    Just last week in Malaysia:
    “18 Myanmar nationals (Buddhists) killed and mutilated in series of “mysterious and unexplained murders”

    Start your awakening: Have a read of Wiki: Religion_in_Malaysia

    Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Malaysia#Persecution_of_Hindus

    > Religion is dangerous.

    It can be.

    But I’m sure you’re not trying to suggest that all religions are dangerous to exactly 100% the same level?

    Even Richard Dawkins didn’t agree, where he said that Christianity may be desireable as a bulwark against something worse.

  3. Just Visiting

    When debating, it;s good to know when to apologise, and when to keep digging.

    A) You made a gross debating error by labelling someone online ‘American dumbass’ when you no evidence of his nationality.
    B) you made a gross error by calling someone online a ‘dumbass’.

    The mature debater’s response would be to apologise online.
    And to learn from the lesson.

  4. Just Visiting

    > 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.

    Wrong, and easily proven wrong.
    The biggest killers in the 20th century, outnumber anything from the past and were atheistically inspired
    * Stalin
    * Pol Pot
    * Mao Tse Tung
    * Nazi-ism

    The other facts that a scientific method would consider are: the role of judeo-christianity in the west on:
    * abolition of slavery
    * formation of the principles of democracry
    * development of science
    and so on

  5. Canadian

    I personally think the solution is in cutting off the
    heads of the waderas, chaudhris and the mullahs as they’re looting the country
    and lining their pockets and stuffing them in western banks and living lives of
    luxury. Isn’t that what the advent of Islam did? That is of getting rid of the
    plutocrats and aristocrats? I think these criminals and thugs that we have in
    the forms of Zardaris, Sharifs, Bhuttos, Altafs, the mullahs in the power need
    to be told they need to leave the country and go west where they’d be welcomed.
    Let them go with their wealths because when they’ll go there the west will tax
    them and then strip them by criminalizing the wealth. Interestingly the ones
    who can give them the boots are also the ones that keep them in power and
    who’ve the ability to bring in the decent Pakistan symathizers among the
    ordinary talented citizenry. I’m referring to the western symathizing military.

Comments are closed.