Were the Mumbai Terrorists Muslim?

Last week's terrorist acts in India's financial capital left more than 180 people dead and 280 wounded. The Indian and European press is reporting that the violence has sparked widespread debate as to whether the terrorists should be considered and referred to as followers of Islam, but most of the American coverage of the attack is oblivious to what could potentially be a remarkable transformation in the Muslim world.

Immediately after the attacks, several Bollywood stars began to blog about the problem of associating Islam with terrorism. OneIndia's web site reported that actor Aamir Khan wrote that terrorists are neither people of religion nor people of God.

"When will these politicians realise and admit that terrorists have no religion," wrote Khan. "Terrorists are not Hindu or Muslim or Christian."

Further, Khan attributes their actions to mental illness, not Islam.

"They are people who have gone totally sick in their head and have to be dealt with in that manner," Khan wrote in his latest blog.

Another Indian news outlet, Rediff India, interviewed Idris Ali, the president of All-India Minority Forum, shortly after the attacks. Ali is well known in India's Muslim community as an advocate for minority and Islamic issues as well as a harsh opponent of anti-terrorism laws. When asked about the relationship between the events in Mumbai and Islam, Ali said:

"What we must realize is Islam never propagates violence. The word Islam is derived from aslama, which means submission to the supreme power. And submission can never be achieved through bloodshed. Those 10 bloodthirsty men who slaughtered innocent Mumbaikars cannot be the followers of Islam. Had they read the Quran, they would have waved olive branches and not automatic guns."

Echoing the thoughts of actor Khan, Ali also said, "Fanatics have no religion, terrorists have no creed. The only religion that radicals follow is carnage."

Many Indians and Islamic believers not only refuse to call the terrorists Muslim but have also denied the dead gunman burial in their cemeteries because in their eyes the men who committed these acts are not Muslims.

In a recent article on India's NDTV web site, Abdul Razzak, the president of Dawat-e-Islami, an international movement for the propagation of the Quran and Sunnah, is quoted as saying: "The killing of innocents is against Islam. They are bringing shame to 25 crore (or 250 million) Muslims of India. These men are not Muslims. Why should we give them place anywhere? There is no place for them in our hearts and in our cemeteries."

Despite the fact that this movement to disown the Mumbai terrorists is widespread and gaining momentum in the Muslim world, most of the commentators in the U.S. are calling the events an Islamic attack. Michael Rubin, author of the National Review Online's blog The Corner, typifies the dismissive tone of many of the American journalists who at least acknowledge the debate.

"While it's fashionable to argue that terrorists in Mumbai do not act out of religion," Rubin writes, "but are simply misguided, the fact of the matter is that they justify their actions in Islam."

Rubin and the rest of the American media tend to argue that our focus should be on how terrorists describe their beliefs and not on whether their supposed fellow travelers recognize those beliefs as their own.

"For the purposes of policy and security, religion should be what its practitioners believe it to be rather than what academics or outside commentators say it is," said Rubin. "It is much more important to determine how terrorists are brainwashed in madrasas, than passing judgment on whether what they believe conforms to what academics believe Muslims should believe."

Rubin's comments betray a contradiction at the heart of our attitudes toward religion generally and Islam in particular. Millions of Islamic practitioners are telling us that the terrorists aren't Muslims, but outside commentators like Rubin are telling us (and people like Aamir Khan and Idris Ali) that they are. This contradiction points toward a fundamental misunderstanding of how religious movements work. At best, this means that writers like Rubin will continue to offer commentary that doesn't reflect the greater religious and political implications of identifying Islam with terrorism. At worst, it means that the curse of mutual incomprehension between America and the Muslim world will persist for some time to come.

Originally posted on USC Knight Chair in Media & Religion Site.

Follow Brooke-Sidney Gavins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaramelBella

Comments

[Historical1]

There are many verses in the Koran that not only sanction violence against Kafirs (Infidels or Non-believers) but actually demand it as a religious duty. The Hadith and the Sira, actually make Muhammad’s life an example to be emulated and this leads straight to the 7th century Jihad of Islam against the Non-Mulsim world. Muhammad’s numerous Ghazi raids against the caravans of Mecca, which he launched from Medina represent the medieval prototype on which the modern terrorist attack is modeled. Osama Bin Ladin is simply emulating Muhammad’s life, and waging Jihad in the best recommended way, by his holy books.

It is irrelevant, that there are other Muslim Scholars in various countries and universities who can provide a benign interpretation of the same verses in the Koran. What matters is that the terrorists are interpreting the same verses in a manner that provides the ideological framework for their actions. So, it is very difficult to fight and destroy the ideology of Islamic terrorism, without to some extent, appearing to challenge Islam itself – And here is where the greatest difficulty lies.

We need to acknowledge this difficulty first. Merely insisting that the "Terrorists are not Muslims" is an absurdly simplistic position - one which ignores what the terrorists themselves are saying. They are saying they will kill the infidels (Non-Muslims) in the name of Allah; and they are doing so again and again. Still we won't listen to them. Isn't this a kind of insanity?

[Historical1]

The Mumbai Terrorist attacks were perpetrated by a group called the "Laskar-e-Taiba", which means the Army of the Pure which was founded in 1989 by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed based in Pakistan. What is the Laskar-e-Taiba and what does it stand for? According toHussein Haqqani, (Clearly an eminent Muslim), the current Ambassador of Pakistan to the USA :

“Lashkar-e-Taiba has adopted a maximalist agenda for global jihad though its operations so far have been limited to Kashmir. The group justifies its ideology on the basis of the Quranic verse that says, “You are obligated to fight even though it is something you do not like” (2:216). Extrapolating from this verse, the group asserts that military jihad is a religious obligation for all Muslims. The group then defines the many circumstances in which that obligation must be carried out.

1) To eliminate evil and facilitate conversion to and practice of Islam;
2) To ensure the ascendancy of Islam;
3) To force non-Muslims to pay jizya (poll tax, paid by non-Muslims for protection from a Muslim ruler);
4) To assist the weak and powerless;
5) To avenge the blood of Muslims killed by unbelievers;
6) To punish enemies for breaking promises and treaties;
7) To defend a Muslim state; and
8) To liberate Muslim territories under non-Muslim occupation”

Now, the qeustion is - Is the Laskar-e-Taiba an Islamic organization or not?

[maxthecashier]

I think this is great and very well put. I'm surprised there's not a huge debate raging in this comment area. More people should read this.