All unnecessary ineffective acts of violence are invalid
Mir Mahboob Ali
We strongly condemn all violent acts and have no words to condemn the grisly act of terrorism in New Zealand and Sri Lanka. However, an act of a lone perpetrator and organized well planned continuous acts of violence are not the same. Anyway, we need not add fuel to fire by inflammatory counter-accusations and rebuttals. We need to exercise extreme caution and restraint and spread the message of love and peace. Remember "answer evil with what is better (Qur’an 23:96). Those will be given their reward twice for what they patiently endured and they repel evil with good," (Surat al-Qasas 28:54). 'Nevertheless, the West must stop labelling a lone act of violence by a derailed Muslim an act of terrorism while by a non-Muslim differently.
At a time such as this, people are killing with a cool head because of hatred of a particular caste, creed or culture, we must exercise utmost restraint in what we say, do or write. It is inconceivable what intense hatred or madness drives a person or a group of persons killing others without being engaged in an armed conflict. Human beings are much above that. No religion in any form advocate killing human beings without a valid cause unnecessarily. No religion in any form sanctions violence other than in a combat situation yet, we find history teaming with examples of extreme violence in the name of religion. Religion has sanctioned defensive violence and at times violence in limited form to eradicate injustice and anarchy. "And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause" (Qur’an 17:33). Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways," (Proverbs 3:31). The Hebrew Bible says, "Love thy neighbor as thyself", making no distinction of caste, creed and color but the Israelis do not heed. Would we blame religion?
We, therefore, cannot say religions do not sanction violence in any form as all the Abrahamic religions and other major religion in spite of their overwhelming emphasis on Peace do sanction violence on condition. However, religion strictly limits violence to specific pressing situations. Nevertheless, unfortunately, the powerful twisted the interpretation to their special needs and misused it widely resulting in a bad name for religion. The distractors siege on the exploitation and berate religion whenever they find an opportunity. They dare take it to the extent to claim religion is the cause of all violence - a highly wrong assertion. On the contrary, religion has greatly reined in the evil propensities of men. However, taking the weakness of the gullible for granted, religious leaders, the powerful and the vested interest groups shamelessly exploit religion to befool people to create their hegemony and perpetuate.
The Quakes and Mennonites took the "turn the other cheek" literally and pushed passivity to an impractical level. We witness in history over and over again humans had to take recourse to violence to repel greater disastrous violent onslaught and to establish peace and justice. In recent times we have encountered the inhuman Pakistani genocide and had to repel and defeat them with immense force. Thus we saved ourselves from total elimination as an independent Nation through violence. Now, that violence is necessary and religion sanctions that Kashmiris, Balochi and Palestinians fighting violence with violence but the validity of ineffective violence is doubtful in a peaceful situation just to assert their presence and keep their issue alive. This introduction of violence without being attacked has to be examined under religious laws. Especially, when we are faced with the devastation caused by the so-called Islamists, in the Middle East, the South East Asia and elsewhere, we need to closely examine Islamic religious dictions.
Islam, for that matter, all Abrahamic religions and other major religions preach Peace but permit violence because it is needed to resist and destroy evil. However, the irresponsible indiscriminate killings by suicide-bombing are perfectly irreligious and also un-Islamic. Since there is a marked difference between a lone murderer acting alone and an organized operation under the umbrella of an organization like ISI are two different things, we would examine the lone status and the group separately.
A lone operator is doing a grave sin whatever his intentions or motivations are, like the Qur’an says, "Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur'an 5:32). This applies to single and group situations. A person cannot take a decision to kill, other than in defense, even if a cause exists, rightfully it is the state and only a rightful authority that should do it. In a group situation, the Islamist groups that we currently see operating and playing havoc in the name of Islam killing innocent people do not have the sanction of the great majority of the Islamic Ummah that is spread all over the world living in different nations of the world. And it clearly contravenes Islamic injunctions. Don't take a life unnecessarily. Only a legal authorized authority can decide where life can be taken or a war can be waged. States helped by Islamic Scholars that are accepted by the Ummah would take such decisions. Therefore, ISI or Taleban or Jeisha Muhammad or any such organization cannot kill in the name of Islam using suicide bombers - suicide is one of the gravest sins. Their very mode of prescribing suicide is a manifestation of their erroneous ideology.
These terrorist outfits outwardly dressed in supposedly Islamic dress (there is nothing called as Islamic dress. One must be dressed appropriately covering his/her body as instructed by Shariah. There is no designated Islamic dress. Generally, a dress that covers body decently is recommended. In the case of males from Navel to the knees should be covered in public and bare chest in public where it attracts attention is frowned upon. In the case of females, the whole body except the face and hand should be covered. Qur’an says, "draw their head-coverings over their chests" (24:30-31), and Prophet Muhammad (sm) instructed that women should cover their bodies except for their face and hands. Other than that the dress should be loose not tightly fitting the body for both men and women, not revealing and should be clean, decent, not excessively fancy or ragged. However, they have made the long flowing robes and turbans their trademark pretending it to be Islamic. Therefore dressing in a definite way to emphasize their Islamic origin is wrong, it is a deception.
Prophet Muhammad (sm) says, "Whoever of you sees an evil must then change it with his hand; if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart and that is the slightest faith." This hadith under today's circumstances has far-reaching implications. We have seen that the violent activities killing people indiscriminately cannot be Jihad by any definition. Reading the above hadith we may easily infer that if the force does not bring the desired result and on top be detrimental to the purpose, force should not be used. We may safely conclude that where violence causes more violence without any positive outcome then whatever the cause is using force is not sanctioned. Even the groups adopting violence for seemingly rightful cause should find out other ways to a solution. They should not cause unnecessary loss of life and property until such time when their efforts will bring positive results.
