Mumbai Attacks: Not in Our Name

Aside from the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of life and property, last week's shocking Mumbai terrorist attacks were sickening in their random senselessness. Media and governments still scramble to categorize the attacks into boxes: al-Qaeda? Indian-Pakistani hatred? Anti-Western hatred? Or, as Paul Cornish (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7755684.stm) suggests, "celebrity terrorism" without a real cause?

Like square pegs into round holes, however, these attacks do not fit the boxes. No pattern or purpose has yet emerged. The cowards perpetrating these attacks targeted hotels and a Jewish center, but they also targeted a hospital for women and children, as well as a railroad station full of local people.

As an Indian-American, I feel kinship to India. I condemn such barbaric acts, which have no place in civilized society. As an American Muslim, I am disgusted that these terrorists appear to have been Muslim. And I am angered that they connected their activities to my religion. Not in my name.

Although the "Deccan Mujahideen" have claimed responsibility, no one has heard of them. "Deccan" refers to the Deccan Plateau in India (indicating their origins?); but "Mujahideen" is a term to which this group has absolutely no right.

"Mujahideen" means "those who engage in jihad." The Mumbai attacks were not jihad; they were murder. And they violated the rules of Islam.

"Jihad" is a term that's been overused to the point of absurdity, but it does not mean "holy war." It means "struggle." The greater jihad is the internal struggle to make oneself a better person. The lesser jihad is the external struggle to eliminate injustice. This lesser jihad can be of several types: jihad by the word, which is the use of verbal persuasion to eliminate injustice; jihad by the hands, which is the undertaking of good works to eliminate injustice; and jihad by the sword, which is the use of arms to eliminate an injustice.

It's the last subset of the definition of jihad that is used as justification for violence. But the mainstream (i.e., not extremist) definition of jihad is the use of arms in self-defense against an immediate threat or to overthrow an oppressor (a term strictly construed). There was no self-defense here. This was not jihad.

Moreover, Islamic law has always been very severe on terrorism. Islam prohibits harming noncombatants, including elderly people, women, children, and those taking refuge in convents. Cheating or treachery in warfare is prohibited. The clandestine use of force is prohibited. Suicide is prohibited. Even property may not be arbitrarily destroyed.
I defend Islam. I do not defend all Muslims. I absolutely do not defend the Muslims who committed these crimes. They clearly violated the tenets of Islam.

The difficult thing to remember here is that the Mumbai attacks were not symptomatic of Islam, but symptomatic of the kind of violence that is common throughout the developing world. The Islamic world is part of the developing world, and it's plagued by problems common to the rest of the developing world: poverty, high illiteracy rates, hunger, recent independence from European colonizers, and oppressive governments. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the overwhelming majority of anti-U.S. terrorist attacks took place in Latin America -according to a State Department report. The most suicide attacks in the world take place in Sri Lanka, at the hands of the Tamil Tigers, a Hindu group.

The difference is that the Latin American terrorist attacks, though they take place in Christian countries, do not cause stereotyping of Christians - whereas crimes committed by Muslims are held up as further examples of an enemy religion. But the crimes are not condoned by Islam.

I hope the Mumbai attacks, horrifying though they were, will not be the excuse for further violence, further religious hatred, or the derailment of the Indian-Pakistani peace process. That may very well be what the attackers wanted; we must not reward them for their crimes. Enough innocent people have suffered already.

Comments

[asimm]

ok how about india`s involment in wazirstan and bilochistan.india always tried to destablize the pakistan and now india want us to close our intalligence agency isi.but in this whole sanario the sign of relief for pakistan is india`s increasing involment in afghanistan cause that step is going to brake in into several small parts cause its not easy to handle afghanis the born worriors

[riafern]

no one blamed pakistanis ,just the grps who get good shelter to hide in pakistan ,if you have a rougue element in your house would you not do something about it ...maybe we are blaming the sheltering & financing by ISI ...that is your org right ???

[asimm]

no one can deny the authenticity of the article its very well written but i want to say that like an amercan dream there are some also very paplour dreams like indian dream "the akhand baharat" and some israil dreams but dreams are dreams,dream on guys.the majority of bad apples are in indian camps.i wish people can see behind the shining india.india is never serious in peace process they just want to domiate the subcontinent,and they found a very good opportunity in mumbai attacks but i really want to thank india for waking us up by showing their real intention and reminding us two nation theory once again as far as these terrorist are concernd they cant be finished until the reason behind provoking them will not be finished

[Tunghoy]

It may never be possible to prevent every act of random violence. As long as someone can get hold of a weapon and doesn't care about being captured or killed, they can do damage. To reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist attacks, the populations from which attackers come from must reject it. Public opinion must make terrorism unpopular.

The problem is that while there are many people like you, who are rightly angered about having their religion or nationality hijacked by terrorists, there are still too many who approve or look the other way. That makes prevention difficult. When a group of Muslims in upstate New York were making evil plans, many more people who attended their mosque helped turn them in. When Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Cunanan and Ted Kazcynski perpetrated their crimes, their families aided their capture or prosecution.

But look what happens in Sri Lanka and the Palestinian territories: suicide bombers are publicly lauded as heroes and martyrs. In that type of environment, terrorism is encouraged. It will continue until everyone thinks as you do, not just some of them.

[KoolBreez]

The only way to judge a religion is thru the conduct of its practitioners.

[niceradz]

oh come on get real. This article is very well written and speaks for the millions of muslims in India. I am a Hindu but haveand know many many muslim friends who think and feel just like this writer. A few bad apples in every basket???!!!

[asimm]

well mam your so called secular india is blaming us pakistanies for that mishap,in panjabi we use to say if your own daughter is out of control u must not blame ur neighbours and this is exactly what happening in india`s case.GOd bless them

[niceradz]

Nobody is blaming the Pakistanis but would it now be better if the people of Pakistan, convince there government to work with the Inidans to capture and bring to justice these rogues. I would hope that Mr. Zardari would work with the Inidan Government and stop beating around the bush.