The Radicalization of Muslims – A White Paper

The Radicalization of Muslims – A White Paper

Arif Humayun

ABSTRACT

Nearly all terrorist acts throughout the world are routinely ascribed to Muslims – by default.  This abrupt deduction is not without cause since radical ideologies amongst Muslim societies provide ample support for such an inference.  Sadly, insufficient attention – especially within Muslim communities – has been focused on the root cause of politically motivated ideologies that drive Islamic radicalism, impedes development within their societies and threatens world peace.  In fact, instead of encouraging intellectual discourse to deflate these ideologies, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is actually attempting to stifle debate on these topics.

This White Paper aims to encourage introspection among Muslims to understand how their religion of peace is being manipulated by radicals; the chasm between the Islam of Allah (God)[1] and that of the mullah,[2] is highlighted.  The origins of the politically inspired doctrines of jihad, apostasy, blasphemy, sharia,[3] etc., which form the basis of the radicals’ agenda, the unsuitability of the traditional educational system that graduates passive and receptive minds, and the separation of religion and politics, are discussed and some specific consequences highlighted.  Through this analysis, Muslims are encouraged to seek modern secular education, reject faulty doctrines, better understand their faith through critical intellectual discourse, and divorce politics from religion.  Additionally, this analysis will enable social scientists to strategize and develop policies for eliminating radicalism.  Finally, the analysis can assist law enforcement identify leading indicators and prevent the spreading of radicalism.

Introduction

Islam’s growth, since its beginning in 610[4] CE (current era) from the deserts of Arabia to most of the then known world and its subsequent decline, can be broadly classified into five periods:

1.     The beginnings (570 – 661 representing the Prophet Mohammad’s^sa[5] lifetime (570 – 632 CE) and the subsequent period of the four elected caliphs[6] (632 – 661 CE).

2.     Development (661 – 935 CE when the Caliphate became hereditary running the affairs of the State in Muslim controlled territories).

3.     Culmination of all encompassing Caliphate (935 – 1500 CE when independent political units emerged within the Muslim territories and Caliphate retained a symbolic religious function.  This period includes the Crusades, expansion of the Muslim empire, and the Mongol invasion).

4.     Triumphant Islam (1500 – 1700 CE when the Safavid (in Persia), Ottoman (in Turkey) and Mughal (in India) Empires ruled vast areas of the world as independent political entities. The Caliphate existed solely for religious functions and was part of the Ottoman Empire).

5.     Decline (1700 – present time, with the rise of the Western Powers due to the industrial revolution and the defeat of the three Muslim Empires).

Karen Armstrong[7] records the history of each period and documents that Islam’s rapid growth was based on its message of peace, equality, and justice.  In the global agrarian economy that existed at that time, this efficient system flourished and allowed Islam to spread to distant lands.  The transformation of the caliphate from an elected office based on piety during the first period, to a hereditary position running the affairs of the state during the second period, and its subsequent modification to a symbolic religious function when independent political entities emerged within the Muslim held territories is significant and demonstrates the evolution within the Islamic caliphate system.  A non-political caliphate is perhaps strongly required today to spiritually unite Muslims by rejecting the flawed concepts and enabling them to follow the Qur’anic teachings as interpreted under the current situation.

This Paper focuses on the growth of Islamic radicalism during the “Decline” period of the Muslim Empire (1700 to present) and describes how the radicals’ concepts have become accepted by the mainstream during this turbulent period.  With the primary purpose of encouraging introspection among Muslims, this paper presents an overview of Islamic teachings, excerpted from the Qur’an – its undisputed source – and contrasts them with radical ideologies that propagate violence highlighting the gulf between them.  Using specific, documented examples from Pakistan, the absurdity of radical ideologies of politicized clergy will be highlighted along with consequences of their application on the global scene.  Directed towards a broad audience – Muslims and non-Muslims – this paper will inevitably include details that may appear trivial or unnecessary to particular groups; nevertheless, to show the complete picture – origins and ‘cause and effect’ phenomena – that is unavoidable.

A, reverse chronological order – from contemporary to historic – is used in this paper to review current issues and supporting them with the relevant history.  A brief overview of Islam and its recent history during the Decline Period is followed by the historical background covering the periods titled Beginning, Development, Culmination of Caliphate and Triumphant Islam.  Misrepresented concepts fueling Islamic radicalization, their documentation by an investigative commission headed by Pakistan’s Chief Justice in 1954, the radical’s victory and its consequences will follow.  Concluding comments and recommendations will close this paper.

Islam – An Overview

A monotheistic, Abrahamic religion, Islam means “submission”, to the will of God.  An adherent of Islam, a Muslim, means “one who submits to the will of God”.  The Qur’an, addressed to all humankind, was revealed to prophet Mohammad^sa through the angel Gabriel between 610 and 632 CE.[8] Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the undisputed scripture, the Word of God, and Prophet Mohammad^sa as the final law bearing prophet.  Retained in its original form and without variants, the Qur’an confirms that prophets have been sent to all people throughout the world to sustain humanity in all ages.  The Qur’an describes God as the Lord and Sustainer of the worlds, Prophet Mohammad^sa as “the messenger for mankind”,[9] refers to itself as the “message for the world”[10] and Muslims as people “…raised for the good of mankind”.[11]

The Prophet’s functions are described as the creation and strengthening of faith through drawing attention to Divine Signs, the moral and physical uplift of the people, teaching them the Law, furnishing them with guidance, and expounding the philosophy underlying the Law and the guidance.[12] Without claiming monopoly over truth, it acknowledges all prophets,[13] including earlier Judeo-Christian prophets, and scriptures and confirms that the teachings originally revealed to the earlier prophets are included within its message.

Islamic teachings are encapsulated in the articles of faith,[14] acts of worship,[15] codes for social and moral behavior,[16] and the philosophy of life.[17] This framework of beliefs, duties, obligations, exhortations and sanctions seeks to stimulate and deepen human consciousness by emphasizing duties and obligations to safeguard freedom, justice and equality for all and promote and foster human welfare and prosperity in all spheres — social, economic, moral and spiritual.  The Teachings seek to establish a pattern of society, which, in all the changing and developing circumstances of a dynamic world, would maintain its character of beneficence in individual, domestic, national and international affairs.  The Qur’an prescribes only essential details and leaves considerable room for development and to safeguard against restrictive rigidity.  Indeed, it expressively commands against seeking to regulate everything since that might render the framework rigid and inelastic and, therefore, burdensome.[18] That which Allah has “left out” is meant to be devised, in accord with the prescribed principles through mutual consultation, always bearing in mind the overall standard of fostering equity (ma’roof), and eschewing iniquity (munkar).[19]

Prophet Mohammad^sa summarized the message of Islam during the Farewell address to Muslims in 632 CE during his last pilgrimage (Hajj).  Declaring all humans as equals, he urged spouses to respect each other, treat Muslims as brothers, safeguard their interests, honor trusts, support orphans, proper treatment for the poor, forgive people’s shortcomings, shun tribal or cultural practices, forgive vendetta, act with justice, promote mutual respect, and be united.  Cancelling any outstanding usury and blood reparations, he exhorted Muslims to obey those in authority, adopt Islamic teachings and practices, and personal accountability to God for all actions.  He further asked that his message be conveyed to those who were not present that day.  Upon completing this address, he received the last revelation.[20]

Fragmentation amongst Muslims is high; by some counts, six dozen sects exist amongst Muslims.  Sects are based on conceptual differences and form when alternate ideas are presented to resolve issues; a new sect is formed when adherents rally around that concept or the leader.  Muslims can and should reconcile their differences through intellectual discourse by referring to the Qur’an which is unanimously accepted as its undisputed source.  Unfortunately, the sects have grown in isolation and in their attempts to retain power and control, have often declared the others Muslim sects non-Muslim; ironically, such divisions are contrary to Qur’anic teachings.

Islam supports the concept of religious revival in the latter days through a divinely guided messenger.  While the Qur’an clearly alludes to that possibility,[21] the Prophet’s exhortations[22] [23] (ahadith) confirm and provide additional details, even identifying the promised reformer(s) as the guide (Mahdi) and the Messiah (referred to as the Second Coming of Jesus, son of Mary).  While some sects may interpret the Qur’anic verse differently, most Muslims, including Sunni sects, believe in the advent of the Messiah (physical descent of Jesus from heavens) and the Mahdi.  This unresolved topic needs detailed discussions but most Sunni Muslims have shut the door on this topic.

Recent History

Islam’s unifying message – one God, one Qur’an, and one Prophet Mohammad^sa – and its teachings – non-discrimination, equality for all human beings, social justice, and direct and individual link with God – created a system that was far superior to that which was in existence in 7^th century Arabia.  Consequently, early Muslims successfully developed and sustained a far superior, agrarian-based economic system, where people cared for their kindred, helped the poor and each other, solely to please God by obeying his commands.  This system enabled Muslim societies to develop from one of the most backward to the most advanced in economics, sciences, literature and arts.  This meteoric rise was exemplified by the advent of the three Muslim Empires, Ottoman (Turkey), Persian (Iran) and Moghul (India), culminated with the downfall of the Ottomans and decayed as the Empires disintegrated and the emerging Western powers colonized Muslim lands.  Muslims have not adjusted to the changed global environment and, in their frustration, are pushing themselves deeper into the proverbial hole.

Muslim societies developed around a traditional education system but, despite their initial successes, failed to transform to a secular system when the global economy transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial base.  Contrasting the traditional and modern systems, P. Hoodbhoy[24] argues that the basis for a traditional educational system in Muslim societies was that knowledge was revealed[25] and could not be challenged; it had to be acquired as a result of divine command.  This authoritarian style discouraged questioning of precepts and assumptions with rote memorization of crucial concepts being critical; the curricula remained largely unchanged.  The modern educational system, by comparison, promoted the development of individuality, encouraged empirical and deductive processes, questioned precepts and assumptions, encouraged student participation, and emphasized concepts which could be developed further.  Under this system, knowledge was required to solve problems and curricula and changed in response to changing needs.  He further argues that the traditional educational system promotes an attitude where the “mind is passive and receptive” whereas the modern educational system develops “creative and inquisitive” minds.

The evolution of the two systems can be traced back to their respective societal conditions but the continuation of the traditional educational system in contemporary Muslims societies, in hindsight, is very unfortunate.  It simply confirms the failure of several Muslim governments to understand the long-term implications of education on societies’ development.  Equally unpardonable is the Pakistan government’s failure to provide modern education along with their defense of madrassas[26] that mushroomed during the 70s and 80s as a means of mass education and subsequent attempts to modernize them.  The term “modern madrassas” is an oxymoron; they are not the panacea to a modern educational system because that system will continue to produce generations of passive and receptive minds.  No wonder madrassas continue to churn out jihadis and suicide bombers in Pakistan and the Muslim world.  A modern, secular educational system, that produces creative and inquisitive minds, is a prerequisite to modernization and development in the Muslim world.

An educational system is the vehicle for comprehending, creating, and disseminating knowledge; an effective system required to fulfill the Qur’anic exhortation to seek knowledge which, according to the Qur’an, is inexhaustible.[27] Emphasizing the importance of acquiring knowledge from all sources, the Prophet urged Muslims to seek it even if that required travel to China.  Contemporary Muslims have certainly failed to follow the Qur’an’s and the Prophet’s direction in this regard.  The first Muslim Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Abdus Salam from Pakistan, would stress that one-eighth of the Qur’an urges Muslims to seek Allah’s signs in the universe and hence science is a spiritual as well as a temporal duty for Muslims.[28] Questioned about the fundamental contradictions between any religion that refers to one immutable text and the spirit of science, Salam responded that “Science and religion refer to two different worlds; religion to the inner world of the human mind and science to the outer world of matter. To explore the inner world of “soul” and “Allah”, one needs faith and to explore the outer world of matter, reason.”[29]

P. Hoodbhoy[30] asserts that “Islam’s magnificent Golden Age (9^th to 13^th centuries) brought forth major advances in mathematics, science, and medicine.  The Arabic language held sway in an age that created algebra, elucidated principles of optics, established the body’s circulation of blood, named stars, and created universities.   Science in the Islamic world essentially collapsed with the end of the Golden Age with no major invention or discovery emerging from the Muslim world for over seven centuries.  That arrested scientific development is one important element—although by no means the only one—that contributes to the present marginalization of Muslims and a growing sense of injustice and victimhood.”  Attempting to define what it would require to return science to the Muslim world, Hoodbhoy quantifies the current state of scientific progress in the seven most developed economies amongst the Organization of Islamic countries (OIC).  The Figure, generated from Hoodbhoy’s article (Appendix 2, Table 1), compares the scientific publications and citations from the seven most advanced Islamic countries and contrasts that with emerging economies from the non-Muslim world; their current pathetic state of scientific research is obvious.  The article further shows that the Muslim world’s spending on science and technology is far below global standards when it should be significantly higher to enable them to catch up.  Read together, Appendices 1 and 2 paint a dismal picture for the Muslim world which should serve as a wake-up call for immediate action.

Maurice Bucaille, a French doctor specializing in gastroenterology practiced medicine from 1945 to 1982, was appointed family physician to King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s family in 1973.  He published a book, “The Bible, The Qur’an and Science” in 1976 that highlighted scientific facts contained in the Qur’an, which were subsequently discovered by scientists.  Bucaille states: “…Qur’an, while inviting us to cultivate science, itself contains many observations on natural phenomena and includes explanatory details which are seen to be in total agreement with modern scientific data.”[31] “…I could not find a single error in the Qur’an.”[32] Bucaille realized that “…the majority of scientific facts which are either suggested or very clearly recorded in the Qur’an have only been confirmed in modem times….for centuries commentators on the Qur’an have inevitably made errors of interpretation in the case of certain verses whose exact meaning could not possibly have been grasped” and concluded “that a thorough linguistic knowledge is not in itself sufficient to understand these verses from the Qur’an.  What is needed along with this is a highly diversified knowledge of science.”[33]

Actually, the reference to the Muslim world as one entity, as distinct from the non-Muslim world, should be critically analyzed.  What difference does it make for a country with a Muslim majority or a government designated with an Islamic prefix?  Each country faces a unique set of issues, based on the state of their economy, geography and the policies necessary for their survival; the only common denominator between countries are people who fundamentally have the same basic needs and aspirations.  They all need food, education, basic necessities to survive, security, safety, employment and growth opportunities, etc.  Each country has its own tradition and culture.  Because of its universal appeal, Islam cannot be bound within the confines of the Islamic World or the OIC countries and no country or group can claim monopoly over Islam or its teachings.  The myth that faith alone can bond people together was shattered in 1971 with the creation of Bangladesh – the former East Pakistan – where faith was considered to be the uniting force for two separate parts of a country, each with its unique culture and geography.  This realization will help Muslims appreciate that countries have excelled not due to faith alone but due to their accomplishments in diverse fields through secular education.  This formula was successfully employed by Muslims during the early days of their ascendancy and the subsequent deviation from this path resulted in their decline.

Applying the four fundamental roots of the Islamic legal system – the Qur’an, the Prophet’s actions and exhortations, consensus, and analogical reasoning – as described later under Historical Background, to science and other educational disciplines highlights the importance of independent thinking, reasoning, empirical and deductive processes, questioning precepts and assumptions, developing concepts – in short requires creative and inquisitive people – for which the modern secular educational system is required.  Interestingly, the failure of Muslims to transition to the modern educational system is un-Islamic.  Pakistan, again, is a good example where the clergy is resisting the government’s half-hearted efforts to promote modern and higher education.  Destruction of educational institutions, especially girls’ schools, and preventing them from seeking a college education is a common tactic of the radicals in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.  P. Hoodbhoy[34] cites a chilling threat to his university students, broadcast through an FM radio transmission by the government-funded, mosque-cum-seminary (Red Mosque) in Islamabad – the country’s capital – on 12 April 2007:

“The government should abolish co-education. Quaid-i-Azam University has become a brothel. Its female professors and students roam in objectionable dresses…. Sportswomen are spreading nudity.  I warn the sportswomen of Islamabad to stop participating in sports…Our female students have not issued the threat of throwing acid on the uncovered faces of women.  However, such a threat could be used for creating the fear of Islam among sinful women. There is no harm in it. There are far more horrible punishments in the hereafter for such women.”[35]

Rather than keep pace with modern education – science, mathematics, economics, financing, legal, and other social sciences – Muslims have allowed their limitations in understanding the intricacies of Qur’anic teachings to influence scientific research, as demonstrated by Maurice Bucaille.  This discussion highlights the need for a complete transition from the traditional to a modern, secular educational system in Pakistan and other Muslim countries as the first step in effectively eradicating radicalism and is in total accord with Qur’anic teachings.

Historical Background

The common perception amongst Muslims of a monolithic early Islamic system is not supported by evidence.  Civil wars, political movements, jostling for power and systems of governance, and expanding empire shaped the Islamic system from its earliest days.   Several religious movements emerged to resolve these differences during the Development Period that resulted in the genesis of the Shia-Sunni divide, the recording of the Prophet’s practices (sunnah), exhortations (hadith), and jurisprudence.  This became necessary because the Qur’an – the primary source of Islam – contains very little legislation but defines broad principles for resolving specific matters through consensus.  The foundation for developing the Qur’an compliant system of governance evolved during this period.

Early scholars developed additional sources for guidance, based on Qur’anic principles to meet the growing requirements of the Muslim state.  The sunnah and hadith were painstakingly compiled by scholars through the collection and collation of verbal accounts from people who had personally, or through their ancestors, heard the Prophet’s exhortations or actions, and cross checking their authenticity through the person’s piety and family linage.  These two databases serve to compliment Qur’anic teachings. Six such books[36] were completed between 194 and 273 AH,[37] about two hundred years after the Prophet’s death.  As a general principle, these compilations are subservient to the Qur’an and, if contrary to its teachings, must be rejected.

Independent Judgment (Ijtihad) is the third source of Islamic law.  The Prophet’s appointment of Mau’z as the Judge (Qazi) of Yemen illustrates this point:

The Prophet asked Mu’az about his decision making process in that position.  Mu’az said he would look for the rule in the Book of Allah. “And if you do not find the answer in the Book?” queried the Prophet. “I shall seek for it in the example of the Prophet.” “And if you still lack an answer?” “I shall exercise my own judgment.” “That is the right way,” he was assured by the Prophet.[38]

The application of the broad laws varies in practice; Islamic scholars have elaborated systems of law on the basis of these rules and their interpretations.  The vast and elaborate system of Muslim jurisprudence (Fiq’ah or knowledge of the practical rules of Islam) was developed through several schools of jurisprudence that flourished simultaneously within the rapidly widening Islamic State; four[39] of which – all of Sunni persuasion developed from 699 and 855 CE – are still used as reference.  In their attempts to widen the horizon of jurisprudence, some scholars even ventured into hypothetical situations thereby freezing further development of jurisprudence, which over a long period thereafter became more speculative than constructive.[40]

According to Islamic legal theory, law has four fundamental roots, the hierarchy of which is the Qur’an, the Prophet’s actions and exhortations (sunnah and hadith respectively), consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas).  The theoretical basis for Islamic law was proposed by Al-Shafii in the 9^th century.  Thus, Islamic laws are designed so as to be interpreted by people based on principles of peace, equality, and justice, using additional resources as the prophet’s exhortations and practices, independent reasoning, and jurisprudence.  They must keep pace with changes in the environment through constant review.  Difference of opinion is allowed in laws based on logic and consensus.  The broad principles enunciated in the Qur’an conform to human conscience and several secular laws currently used in the West.

Having pursued knowledge, as mandated in the Qur’an,[41] Muslims excelled in commerce, sciences, mathematics and arts, and laying the foundation for future developments, their agrarian-based economy of an expanding empire ran out of resources.  In the meantime, Western European countries had begun a process of major transformation towards industrialization that would enable the West to dominate the world.  The industrial revolution[42] unfolded in Western Europe after a long (300 to 400-year) preparatory period (also known as Renaissance Period) which began from the mid 1400 CE and focused on education, technological developments, financial systems, industrialization, and a myriad of associated fields.  This transformation created a new economic system and enabled the European nations to defeat Islamic governments, colonize their lands, and assume global ascendancy.  The Muslims required a similar transformation to recreate a new social structure – economic, educational, religious, spiritual, political, and intellectual – within their societies to become integrated and succeed in the industrialized environment.  Their refusal to accept the changes or to assimilate in the new economic system isolated them and caused them to be left behind while the Western countries widened their technological and social lead.  The clergy attributed the Muslims’ failure to their lack of piety and exhorted them to revert to the true Islam when Muslims were successful.  In their attempts to emulate past practices, Muslims lost the soul of Islam but held on to the rituals!  Muslims have been on the downward slide ever since.

Thus the root cause for the Muslims’ failure to reverse their downward slide, compared to the West, was their refusal or inability to transform from an agrarian to an industrial economy and also to transform their educational system along modern lines.  Unlike the agrarian system which can outrun its resources, the industrial system can generate new resources through technological innovations.  Muslims have still not embarked on that track and, as 25% of the global population and its fastest growing segment, their frustration is understandable.

Currently living in isolated communities, under authoritarian governments where rule of law, human rights and freedoms are brutally suppressed – all un-Islamic practices – does not present an encouraging picture for the Muslims’ development in their own countries.   Widespread corruption, lack of social and economic development programs, absence of quality health care and basic necessities (clean water and sanitation), coupled with poor educational standards and a lack of industrial and economic growth keeps them from breaking out of this vicious circle.

Any association of Islam with violence is unfortunate as violent ideologies expressly contradict Qur’anic teachings.  Islam teaches respect for all religions, highlights commonality with other faiths, emphasizes service to humanity, and preaches relativity by not monopolizing truth, acknowledging Divine origins of earlier religions and scriptures.  Further evidence of relativity is the Qur’anic permission for Muslims to even marry “People of the Book” conventionally understood to mean Jews and Christians.  Like a majority of Muslim scholars, Karen Armstrong also confirms this view: “…Islamic law forbids Muslims to declare war against a country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and it strongly prohibits the killing of innocent people.”[43] Upholding the sanctity of human life and condemning killings, the Qur’an likens the senseless killing of one person as being akin to killing all mankind and the saving of one life as saving all mankind.[44]

Ironically, growing cadres of politicized clergy now propagate politically expedient approaches as a means to seek control and re-establish the Muslims’ glorious past!  Some have established militias to justify violence, based on flawed interpretations, as part of Islam by exploiting the widespread frustration among the Muslim youth who are prone to accepting destructive approaches to “serve their faith”.  The ensuing turf wars among such factions have led to increasing violence and more radicalization. Frustrations caused by global political events that subjugate Muslims serves to further catalyze radicalization.  Strong evidence of continued political patronage in Muslim countries has emboldened the radicals and thus enabled them to hijack Islam.  A once dynamic religion has thus been reduced to its dead shell.

While the vast majority of Muslims decry terrorist acts, they have not been able to stop the growth of Islamic radical groups.  Initially, these senseless actions, supposedly perpetrated under the banner of Islam, were directed against non-Muslims – as defined by radicals.  More recently, terrorism has also targeted other Muslim sects whom that particular group has judged to be non-Muslim.  Bewildered and in group denial, some Muslims even allege that non-Muslims conspire to defame Islam through terrorist acts.  Either way, they fail to realize that the flawed interpretations, which justify any form of violence, provides the weak underbelly that exposes Islam to exploitation by both adherents and opponents.  That weakness urgently needs to be corrected by elaborating and practicing the correct Qur’anic teachings.

Throughout the last 100-150 years, some mainstream Islamist political parties have actively supported violent jihad.  Apart from the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, Maulana Maudoodi, founder of the Jama’at-i-Islami was the leading proponent of violent jihad in the Indian sub-continent.  He wrote that the Prophet, after failing to persuade people to accept Islam, forcefully converted them by threat of force (sword).[45] His party wields considerable influence amongst Muslims and is closely associated with radical groups around the world, particularly in Afghanistan.  Pakistan has used these flawed ideologies to further its domestic and foreign policies as documented elsewhere.[46] Additionally, for the past several decades, Saudi Arabia has been at the forefront of establishing mosques and publishing and distributing the Wahabi literature throughout the world; that has shaped the views of many immigrants and students from Muslim countries, who, having grown up in isolated societies, feel the need to learn about Islam when intellectually challenged in the West.  In 2005, Freedom House published its findings of a survey of more than a dozen Saudi Arabian funded mosques across the US, collecting some 200 publications during November and December 2003.[47] The report documents finding hate ideologies in the Saudi literature.  For example, declaring non-Wahabi Muslims as apostates and infidels, violent jihad, suppression of women, prohibiting Muslims from befriending non-Muslims, infidel conspiracies, etc.  The same sentiment is also prevalent in several Muslim countries where Saudi funds were invested in establishing mosques and madrassas.

A recent Times of India article (Appendix 3) documents the divergence between Muslim groups in the Indian subcontinent – one for retaining the traditional model of education and the other for adopting a modern and secular approach.  The traditionalists morphed towards violence and laid the foundation of the modern day terrorists.  In their efforts to monopolize Islam, radicals have often tried to define “Muslim” by using deviant definitions of concepts.  These will be detailed later in this paper.  The authoritative documentation of the radicals’ initial attempts at monopolizing Islam in Pakistan,[48] a country with high illiteracy and poverty that has also become the epicenter of Islamic radicalization, offers a good reference for understanding their strategy.  The fact that every terrorist act has a direct or indirect link with Pakistan is not coincidental.  The next sections will focus closely on the development and propagation of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan which has also found roots in other Muslim countries.

The propagation of Islamic radicalism is predictable; it follows a defined pattern.  Initially the politicized clergy creates turmoil by claiming threats to Islam from non-Muslims, denouncing western influences and demands the implementation of sharia.  Using distorted concepts of blasphemy, apostasy, sharia, etc., they create civil unrest to demonstrate their potential to disrupt civil society and then blackmail and coerce the government or the targeted group.  The demands for protecting Islam, implementing sharia and disruptive acts against blasphemy and apostasy, should serve as leading indicators for the national security organizations to identify and stem the growth of radicalism within their borders.  Moreover, it should enable governments to implement policies for eliminating radicalism.

Discussion of Misrepresented Concepts – the Radical’s Weapon

This section will contrast the actual Qur’anic teachings with the misrepresented concepts and summarize the conclusions of an authoritative investigative report by Pakistan’s Supreme Court in 1954.  Excerpts of direct testimony from politicized clergy (‘scholars’), deposed by the Commission, will show the contradiction between the Qur’anic teachings and their politically inspired versions and their use by radicals and terrorists.  For brevity, only the critical misrepresented concepts, commonly used by terrorists, are present in this paper.

Jihad:

Any misconception that jihad promotes violence or a holy war needs to be rejected absolutely; violence or war can never be holy and political wars cannot be jihad.  Jihad means “striving in the cause of Allah” and the Qur’an defines several possible forms of jihad[49] which do not refer to violence or war.  First and foremost, jihad is the struggle to overcome personal egos and arrogance.  It also refers to peaceful struggles within societies to eliminate exploitation and persecution; to intellectual discourses for the establishment of peace, social justice, and equality, and a defensive war, to prevent religious persecution.

Terrorist propaganda arguments that the Qur’an sanctions violence or the senseless killings of non-believers are specious.  Selectively misquoting Qur’anic verses does not modify the factual position that Islam rejects violence.  Appendix 4 is an overview of how violence was first interjected into jihad and how that flawed concept has been revived recently.

Apostasy:

The Qur’an specifies no punishment to be administered by Muslims to apostates – those who first accept Islam and then turn away from it in disbelief.   Affirming that apostates can not cause any damage to Allah’s religion[50] the Qur’an repeats Allah’s promise to guide a large number of people to replace an apostate.[51] [52] Further clarifying this matter, the Qur’an expressly affirms that there is no compulsion in religion and that right has been made distinct from wrong.[53] Moreover, the Prophet’s role is defined as a Warner and not a Magistrate over people.[54]

The Qur’an is most emphatic on freedom of conscience. Faith is a matter of conscience and conscience cannot be compelled. A person may be forced or coerced into saying they believe or disbelieve, but they cannot be forced to accept it.  Such an effort is futile and self-defeating.[55]

Blasphemy:

Islam does not prescribe any physical punishment for blasphemy by humans, despite the commonly held view to the contrary.  Qur’an mentions blasphemy five times [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] and condemns it only on moral and ethical grounds, advising Muslims to temporarily disassociate from gatherings that mock and ridicule religious values.  Muslims are prohibited from blaspheming idols and objects of worship by non-Muslims because that might encourage blasphemy against God.  Above all, the Qur’an cites Jews for blaspheming against Mary and Jesus by declaring her unchaste and alleging Jesus’ birth as questionable but does not authorize humans to punish them.

The Qur’an records an instance of blasphemy[61] where the Prophet forgave the blasphemer in spite of the Muslims demanding that he be punished.  The Prophet even led the blasphemer’s funeral prayer despite opposition from some Muslims.[62]

Sharia:

Sharia is probably the most discussed and feared Islamic Law which was developed under the Abbasid Caliphates[63] of al-Mahdi (775-785 CE) and Harun al-Rashid (786-809) by two noted scholars Malik ibn Anas and al-Shafii, who were earlier imprisoned for participation in the Shia uprising by early Abbasid caliphs.  Sharia literally means “the path leading to the watering place” and is considered to be the expression of divine will.  It constitutes a system of duties incumbent upon all Muslims by virtue of their religious beliefs and is based on traditional Islamic scholarship covering all aspects of life including laws of inheritance, marriage, and restitution for injuries and murder, rules for fasting, charity, and prayer to matters of state, like governance and foreign relations.  Sharia was designed to create a uniform legal system for implementation throughout the Muslim (Abbasid) empire.  These Abbasid Caliphs encouraged the emergence of a distinct class of scholars for this purpose.  Sharia’s ethos, like that of the Qur’an, was egalitarian. Special provisions were included to protect the weak, and no institution, such as the caliphate or the court, had any power to interfere with the personal decisions and beliefs of the individual.  Each Muslim has always had a unique responsibility to obey God’s commands, and no religious authority, institution, or a specialized group of “clergy” could intercede between God and the individuals who were all considered equals.  Sharia was thus an attempt to rebuild society on criteria that were entirely different from those of the emperor’s court.

Radicals around the Muslim world now demand the implementation of sharia and some countries, Afghanistan under al-Qaida and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Sudan and Nigeria, etc., have enforced their respective brand of sharia.  Those versions are devoid of the Qur’anic principles and have failed in providing justice, equality and uplifting the people.  Sharia should be dynamic, as discussed in an earlier section; Appendices 5 and 6 further illustrate this issue.  Maybe, it is time to properly understand and implement the true spirit of sharia; people may be surprised to note its close similarity to Western laws than to those of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

The Munir Commission and its Findings— an Important Milestone

in the Politicization of Islamic Teachings

Formally known as The Court of Inquiry Constituted Under The Punjab Act II of 1954 to Enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953, comprising Mr. Justice M. Munir, Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court as president and Mr. Justice M. R. Kayani as a member, this commission investigated the causes of the 1953 rioting in the Punjab province of Pakistan.  The civil administration failed to control the rioting, the army had to be called out and the city of Lahore was placed under martial law.  While this report discusses a specific incident, its findings illustrate how the radicals’ exploit the flawed concepts for political purposes.  This cause and effect relationship should serve as an eye opener for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  Sadly, this topic is considered taboo in Pakistan and several Muslim countries.

Of the seven parties included in this inquiry, the main instigators were the politicized religious parties (Majlis-i-Ahrar or Society of Ahrar in Islam, Majlis-i-Thaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat or Society for protection of finality of Prophet hood, and Jama’at-i-Islami or Islamic Group), who had protested against the beliefs of another Muslim group,  Ahmadiya Movement in Islam, and demanded that it be declared non-Muslim.

A brief background about the parties to the dispute is relevant to this discussion.  The Ahrar, seceded from the Indian Congress Party and formed Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam in May 1931 — prior to the 1947 partition of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan — when their leader Mazhar Ali Azhar led one hundred volunteers to Jammu (the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir) in sympathy for the Muslims’ oppression by the Hindu ruler .  They initially denounced demands for the creation of Pakistan and after it was formed, became “disillusioned” and “bewildered” and considered retiring from politics altogether.  Following unsuccessful business ventures, they formed the All-Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar in December 1947.  Finding a cause to reestablish themselves, they demanded Ahmadi Muslims be declared non-Muslims in May and June 1948.  The Majlis-i-Thaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat was a conglomeration of several other Islamist political parties and together they wanted to safeguard the finality of Prophet Mohammad^sa.  The Jama’at-i-Islami was formed by Maulana Maudoodi, a journalist turned scholar, to safeguard the Muslims’ cause.[64]

The Ahmadiya Movement in Islam was founded in 1901 in Qadian, a small village in Indian Punjab.  Its founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, wrote a famous four-volume book ‘Buraheen-i-Ahmadiya’ between 1880 and 1884 to respond to “acute religious controversies … repeated attacks on Islam, not only by Christian missionaries but also by preachers of Arya Samaj, a liberal Hindu movement which was becoming very popular.”  Claiming to be a recipient of Divine revelations, he announced that  Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the Cross, nor was he physically raised up to the Heavens [as most Muslims and Christians believe] but that he was removed from the Cross in a wounded condition and his disciples cured his wounds.  After recovering, he travelled to Kashmir [to preach to the ten lost tribes of Israel] where he died a natural death.  Ahmad rejected the commonly held belief that Jesus would physically descend from heavens and explained that the Second Coming meant another person with the qualities of Jesus will appear to guide the Muslims.  He proclaimed himself to be the spiritual Second Coming of Jesus, the promised Mahdi [and the Second Coming of all religious founders to unite humanity].  Claiming to be a subordinate prophet [of Mohammad^sa], he rejected “jihad with the sword” and proclaimed “jihad with the pen” to convince people [about Islam’s truthfulness] through logical arguments.  He explained that the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat [finality of prophet hood] means that after the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam no nabi [prophet] would appear with a new shari’at [law] but that the appearance of a new prophet without a shar’a [law] was not contrary to that doctrine.[65] The role of the subordinate prophet would be to reinterpret the Qur’anic teachings and provide spiritual guidance in the current times.  His teachings went against the conventional understanding of Muslims and caused much interest within religious and intellectual circles.  Appendix 7, excerpted from the Munir Commission Report, provides additional details about the controversy and the parties involved.

Comical as it may sound, the commission failed to get a common definition of “Muslim” from more than a dozen ‘scholars’; that definition was a prerequisite for declaring someone non-Muslim.  The commission thus concluded: “Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama (scholar), need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental.  If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim (scholar) but kafirs (non-believer) according to the definition of everyone else.”[66]

Jihad, apostasy, blasphemy, sharia, and similar religious concepts formed the core of the Islamist political parties’ demands and were investigated during this inquiry.  When the politicized clergy were unable to logically defend their position justifying killing of innocent people in jihad, they took an indefensible position admitting that the particular Qur’anic verse that expressly prohibits killing innocent people has been abrogated.  The Commission thus summarized this point: “The generally accepted view [of the scholars] is that the fifth verse to Sura-i-Tauba (Sura IX) abrogated the earlier verses revealed in Mecca which permitted the killing of kuffar [non believers] only in self-defense.  As against this, the Ahmadis believe that no verse in the Qur’an was abrogated by another verse and that both sets of verses, namely, the Meccan verses and the relative verses in Sura-i-Tauba have different scopes and can stand together. This introduces the difficult controversy of nasikh [current] and mansukh [abrogated], with all its implications.”[67]

The finality of prophet hood after Muhammad,^sa Jesus’ physical ascent and subsequent descent and the events leading to the Day of Resurrection, raise fundamental questions about Jesus’ status on returning to earth: Would he descend as a Judeo-Christian prophet or a Muslim prophet?  This and other issues were also examined by the Commission.  Interestingly, Jesus himself rejected the concept of physical descent from heavens and supported the concept of spiritual second coming.  Elijah’s descent, according to the Bible, was to herald the Messiah’s (Jesus’) advent.[68] When questioned about Elijah’s second coming, Jesus identified John, The Baptist, as Elijah’s spiritual Second Coming and thus the fulfillment of that prophecy.

For illustration, a sampling of responses by the leaders of politicized religious parties to the Commission’s questions is attached as Appendix 8.  The irrationality and absurdity of their responses exposes their absolute lack of understanding of international relations and are devoid of fundamental Islamic principles of equality, justice and peace.  Rather they used tribal and un-Islamic concepts to justify their untenable positions.  The absolute lack of foresight and their interest in the welfare of Muslims, especially those living overseas today, needs no comment.  They proposed discrimination against minorities – not giving them any rights to make or administer law, hold public office, or employment in the armed forces, judiciary, or a cabinet position in the government.  In their view, the Law of War in Islam was fundamentally different from the International Law of War; they justified slavery for prisoners of war who could not pay ransom for their release.  They supported the theory that a Muslim State is perpetually at war with neighboring non-Muslim states, and in case of a war between the two states, Muslim citizens of non Muslim states should relocate to the Muslim state.  They disagreed that a Muslim could be a faithful citizen of a non-Muslim state and expressed opinions that in case of war with India, any Indian Muslim soldiers were obligated to desert the Indian army and fight for Pakistan.  They readily accepted the proposition that if their version of Islam could be implemented in Pakistan and India retaliated by implementing the Hindu Law (caste system), they would have no objections to Muslims in India being treated as untouchables.

Religion and politics are totally incompatible – religion is a personal matter and aims to attaining spirituality and closeness to God while politics is party-based and designed to manipulate facts for attaining power.  The successful example of separating religion and politics can be seen in the US and Europe today.  US President Barak Obama, championing the separation of religion and politics, forcefully makes the point: “…the separation of church and state protects the church as well as the state.”[69] Unfortunately, the Muslim clergy and the radicals portray Muslims as a community (ummat) as a politically unified entity, a utopia for which they are striving hard. That goal is misplaced and highly unlikely.  Unfortunately, Pakistan and some other Muslim countries have combined government and religion, crafted legislation based on flawed interpretations, and spoiled both the state and Islam; examples of which are widespread in their societies.  It is unfortunate that the clergy has gotten away with such travesty.  The majority’s failure to understand and refute the clergy’s absurd responses may be due to the passive and receptive minds generated by the traditional educational system.

Radicals’ Victories in Pakistan

The radicals’ first major victory was in 1974 when, in the aftermath of elections, alleged to be widely rigged, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, succumbed to their demands to realize the clergy’s support: he fulfilled their long-awaited demand and declared the Ahmadi Muslims to be non-Muslims through a constitutional amendment (Appendix 9).  Gen Zia-ul-Haq, himself a radical Muslim, launched an Islamization drive and built on Bhutto’s constitutional amendment through a Martial law Ordinance that criminalized the Ahmadi Muslim’s practicing of their faith (Appendix 10) and prescribed mandatory jail sentences and even capital punishment for their religious activities (Appendix 11).  Ahmadi Muslims’ use of the traditional greeting of peace and affirming the Unity of God and Mohammad^sa as His prophet was also criminalized.  The courts sentenced several Ahmadi Muslims for these “crimes”.  On appealing these draconian rulings, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in 1993, upheld them citing the US and UK’s Company and Trademark Laws.[70] The Pakistani court not only confirmed the government’s and thus the politicized clergy’s ownership of Islam, they also debased religion as a commercial article, conveniently forgetting that proprietary rights for religion cannot be held by humans and that prior registration of company name and trademark is required for the cited law to apply.  No one has yet registered religion as a company, or trademark; nor does anyone have the right to do so!

Consequences

First and foremost, the rise in radicalism and terrorism under the guise of Islam has reached intolerable proportions.  It is now threatening even the governments that helped create them – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  Pakistan, the country that first encouraged and officially sanctioned the politicization of Islam, is now in the radical’s crosshairs; radicals are threatening its very existence as a modern state and battling its army along its western borders and also in several towns and villages.  Suicide bombings and attacks on government and private institutions occur regularly.  The military action in the Red Mosque, in the middle of capital Islamabad, is a grim reminder of the proximity of such radical bases to the seat of power.

Zahid Hussain[71] documented how successive Pakistani governments since the 1950s have patronized the fledging religious political parties for favors which enabled them to gain influence.  He states: “Fundamentalist parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami and some factions of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam who could never have made it to the corridors of power through elections, were only too willing to provide Gen Zia the political backing that he desperately needed.  They accepted cabinet posts in the military government, which gave them the opportunity to set foot in the establishment.”  Several well-armed, organized and highly motivated militias exist in Pakistan and are either directly or indirectly affiliated with each religious political party.  Lashkar-e-Tayaiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Jahangvi are some of the well known militias; a few of which have formally been classified as terrorist organizations by the United Nations.  Steve Coll[72] has documented how the US and its Middle-Eastern allies funded the madrassas, trained and armed the jihadis in Pakistan with the latest weapons to fight the Soviets and then deserted them after accomplishing their objectives.  Kathy Gannon[73] records the US support for developing a jihadi curriculum for madrassa students as young as 4-5 year old.  No wonder, the traditional, madrassa-based educational system helped win the war through its early crop of jihadis who were trained to be passive and receptive for the subsequent indoctrination.  Documenting the impunity with which terrorists’ operate inside Pakistan to suppress free thinkers, Hussain states: “The increasing incidents of public persecution of intellectuals by religious zealots, the ever worsening sectarian strife and the persistent attempts to establish a myopic theocratic dispensation are all symptomatic of a society held hostage by religious obscurantists.”

Islamic terrorists today are active in several countries and use the same tactics to spread their influence throughout the world – terror bombings in London, Spain, India, and African countries, are just a few examples.  Their daring hijacking and negotiated release of their leaders from Indian jails, the audacious attacks on the Indian parliament and the recent attacks in Mumbai where they withstood the Indian Army for almost three days shows their growing sophistication and organizational skills.

The second major adverse consequence was a colossal setback in the scientific and technical development of Pakistan and other Muslim countries due to religious discrimination against the brightest Muslim scientist, Abdus Salam, because of his beliefs.  Jagjit Singh[74] documents this discrimination from 1951 when Salam returned from Cambridge.  His return coincided with the civil unrest of 1952-53, which has already been described.  Discrimination due to his Ahmadi Muslim beliefs and petty politics forced him to return to Cambridge as Lecturer in 1954 after which he was appointed a Professor at the Imperial College in London.  He assisted the Pakistani government to boost science and technology from 1958-1974, resulting in the establishment of Pakistan’s premier research laboratories (Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, PINSTECH, Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Committee, SUPARCO, Wheat, Rice Research Institute, etc.).  When Bhutto accepted the radicals’ demand to declare Ahmadi Muslims a non-Muslim minority through a constitutional amendment, Abdus Salam resigned in protest.”  Pakistan thus lost a great scientist and its early lead in science and technology because of the bigotry of the politicized clergy and the government’s acceptance of their illogical demands.  Earlier, he had also proposed the establishment of advanced scientific research laboratories to several Muslim countries.

Some recent consequences of implementing the flawed interpretations of Islam are listed for illustration.

The Pakistan Supreme Court has established precedence for criminalizing individuals for committing otherwise pious acts.  Contrary to secular law, some  ‘pious acts’ are now selectively defined as crimes and specific individuals perpetuating those pious acts as ‘criminals’; that is, the Pakistani law criminalizes people for pious acts which the majority performs as part of their religious practices.  Thus Pakistan’s Islamic laws are ‘people specific’ and not ‘act specific’.  Their law upholds the monopolization of religion by the government and relegates religion under the Company and Trademark Law, thus equating Islam with articles of commerce.

A New York Time Op Ed opined that President Obama, being born a Muslim and now a Christian is an apostate and would be liable to be killed by Muslims for apostasy.[75] Thus it would be unsafe for him to travel to Muslim countries.  This is a preposterous suggestion where the malice is obvious.  Sadly, this is in line with the radicals’ view.

The reversal of judgments made under the sharia laws in Saudi Arabia[76] and Pakistan[77] for rape victims presents an interesting situation.  Although subsequently overturned due to global condemnation, the decisions clearly show their hypocrisy.  Either the initial rulings were flawed, or the proper rules where the onerous burden of proof is on the prosecution was not followed, or their sharia laws were flawed, or their sharia allows government the discretion to overrule the law, needs to be determined.  Several similar crimes – like the stoning to death[78] and honor killings – go unreported or the perpetrators get away – in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and African countries; these crimes have now also been reported in Europe!  Such misapplication of tribal and barbaric justice under the guise of sharia, needs to be reviewed by Muslim governments.

Several cases where the death penalty was awarded to alleged blasphemers in Pakistan have been reported.[79] In most cases, the alleged culprits were innocent and fabricated charges, based on personal vendetta, were filed.

The controversies over Salman Rushdie’s book and the Danish cartoons resulted in widespread disturbances and loss of life and property in Muslim countries.

The Saudi-sponsored UN Interfaith Conference in November 2008 was probably an effort to conceal their embarrassment after pushing resolutions through the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council “seeking a review of Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),^[80] and requesting tighter restrictions on Freedom of Expression in the aftermath of 9/11 which, they argued, has created an entirely new set of circumstances.”  International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) representative Roy Brown, commented: “It is outrageous that many of those States pushing for changes in international law are among the worst offenders themselves when it comes to protecting the rights of minorities.”  The US Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva April 2007, Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor stated: “The resolution adopted attempts to legitimize the criminalization of expression.  In effect, it seeks to delineate restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights.  Make no mistake; these amendments would support the criminalization of free expression, or the possession of opinions contrary to those of a state, plain and simple.  It is a sad day when the Human Rights Council turns from protecting rights to eroding them.”

Muslim countries themselves have the worst record of interfaith harmony and freedom of speech, as correctly highlighted by the IHEU and the US representatives.  They have denied those rights within their borders and are now trying to restrict the freedom of expression internationally.  Their hypocrisy is evident by their denial of religious freedoms, in spite of being signatories to the various UN conventions on Human Rights and religious freedom, and then hosting interfaith discussions.  The UN and the US State Department (International Religious Freedoms) document and publish the denial of religious freedom in all countries.[81]

The best way for Muslim countries to promote interfaith harmony is to renounce their draconian laws against religious freedom; forcefully condemn hate ideologies, reject the politically inspired concepts, and allow equal rights to every individual to practice their religion in safety and peace.  Similarly, freedom of expression will promote intellectual discourse that will correct the distorted views that Muslims have begun to accept as part of their faith.  The overlap between religion and culture needs to be defined and separated.  Religion and faith should return to the personal domain; faith and morality are generated within the person and cannot be regulated or legislated.

Human Decision Making Biases and Importance of Correct Information

Many heuristic biases (skewed modes of thinking or learning) affect the human decision making process.  These biases operate even in the presence of correct data (information, knowledge) but incorrect data will certainly ensure crooked results.  Traditional stories, folklore and myths, passed down through generations have affected our ability to accept change.  Well recognized and documented cognitive traps, that affect decision making, are: ‘Availability bias’, which causes us to base decisions on information that is more readily available in our memories, rather than the data we really need;  ‘Hindsight bias’, which causes us to attach higher probabilities to events after they have occurred than we did before they happened; ‘The problem of induction’, which leads us to formulate general rules on the basis of insufficient information;  ‘The fallacy of conjunction (or disjunction)’, which means we tend to overestimate the probability that seven events of 90 per cent probability will all occur, while underestimating the probability that at least one of seven events of 10 per cent probability will occur;  ‘Confirmation bias’, which inclines us to look for confirming evidence of an initial hypothesis, rather than contrary evidence that would disprove it; ‘Contamination effects’, whereby we allow irrelevant but proximate information to influence a decision;  ‘The affect heuristic’, whereby preconceived value-judgments interfere with our assessment of costs and benefits;  ‘Scope neglect’, which prevents us from proportionately adjusting what we should be willing to sacrifice to avoid harms of different orders of magnitude;  ‘Overconfidence in calibration’, which leads us to underestimate the confidence intervals within which our estimates will be robust (e.g. to conflate the ‘best case’ scenario with the ‘most probable’); and ‘Bystander apathy’, which inclines us to abdicate individual responsibility when in a crowd.[82]

Each of these cognitive traps appears to be at play in portraying the distorted picture of Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  Data (correct information) and critical, unbiased analyses are essential prerequisites to reach correct conclusions.  Given individual biases, peer review and open discussion is essential.  The same rigor is required for proper decision making in science, business, finance, etc.  Why can it not be applied to religion?  As discussed above, the predominant Muslim thought is shaped by centuries old data through the complex prism of the above heuristic biases.  It is, therefore, no wonder that such concepts as jihad, sharia, apostasy, blasphemy, and a whole host of others are so disconnected with the contemporary world.

These flawed concepts continue to negatively influence the younger generations.  A January 2007 newspaper report[83] from the Policy Exchange Survey compared  the trends among young (16-24 year old) Muslims born in the UK with those of the older generation (55+ years) immigrants, showed  evidence  of ‘growing religiosity’ among  younger Muslims.  A moderate majority accepted the norms of British democracy while a growing minority did not.  Similarly, among the young Muslims, an increasing minority rejects Western life.  Responses on the other questions are summarized below:

According to Pew Research survey results,[84] younger Muslims in America are both much more religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism than their older counterparts.   A greater percentage of younger Muslims in the US think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than primarily as Americans.  More than twice as many Muslim Americans under age 30 believe that suicide bombings can often, or sometimes, be justified in the defense of Islam.  Results of this May 2007 survey are summarized below:

A similar pattern of greater acceptance of suicide bombing among young Muslims was reported in Pew Research surveys in Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain.  In contrast, surveys among Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world do not show greater tolerance of suicide bombing among young people.

These chilling survey results are in complete accord with the views of the politicized clergy recorded in the Munir Commission Report (see Appendix 8) and contain reflections of the Freedom House survey of hate ideologies from Saudi funded US mosques mentioned earlier.  Despite the recent widespread condemnation of suicide bombings by the OIC and other Muslim scholars, the trends of higher justification for suicide bombings clearly show increasing radicalism among young Muslims.  This also reconfirms the effect of heuristic biases on human decision-making.  Other flawed concepts (apostasy, blasphemy, jihad, etc.) should also be forcefully condemned so their influence on decision-making biases is minimized on future generations.

Islam is a modern, straightforward religion based on common sense and good judgment; it is based on the principles of peace, justice and equity where every individual is responsible for their actions directly to God.  The clergy imposed restrictions on education, individual responsibility and freedoms and its outright rejection of any modern concept has divided it into several sects, in complete contravention of the Qur’anic teachings; each and every individual is equally responsible for allowing the clergy – who has no role in Islam – to usurp that authority.  This process of Creative Destruction can stop only when one of its components (individuals, sects, Muslim countries, etc.) realizes the importance of modern secular education, individual freedom and responsibility, relativity, human rights, etc. – all Qur’anic injunctions – and critically review their belief individually and through rigorous peer review.  The wide open secret of the West’s success is the adoption of a secular education and a humanist system which has evolved over time and is consistent with the Qur’anic teachings.  Based on the discussion of Misrepresented Concepts and the findings of the Munir Commission Report, it goes without saying that the gulf between Muslim sects is not easy to bridge by simple human efforts.  Divine guidance is definitely required and provision for which – Messiah or the Second Coming of Jesus – is made in the Qur’an and clearly defined by the Prophet’s traditions.

Concluding Comments

The divergence between the Qur’anic teachings and the current Muslim practices is self- evident.  Politicized Islam has only served to fragment Muslims into several sects, some of whom have adopted radical ideologies. Rather than comprehensively practicing the faith and making it a blessing for mankind, Muslims’ struggle with identity crisis, afraid of debating fundamental issues and hiding behind sectarian divides and ritualism, have made it into anything but a blessing.  The separation of politics and religion is essential.

Global politics and the confluence of several socio-economic factors in the Muslim world are perpetuating the growth of radicalism – lack of meaningful education, economic opportunities for a fast growing and young population, poor governance, the absence of basic necessities (water, sanitation, etc.), widespread corruption, absence of basic human rights, can be identified as major factors.

The non-availability of meaningful secular education directs impoverished children to madrassas, a majority of which are funded or run by radicals.  In these, the impressionable minds are indoctrinated with flawed, politically inspired Islamic concepts.  Without meaningful employment opportunities these indoctrinated children provide the pool for recruiting jihadi soldiers.  Continued subjugation of Muslims in areas such as Palestine, Kashmir, Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Abu Ghareb (Iraq), Afghanistan, etc., further promotes radicalism.  Similarly frustrations due to widespread corruption and the absence of good governance in Muslim countries lead people towards disillusionment and, when compared to their glorious history, result in an understandable craving for a return to the past.  Radicalism feeds and breeds when people have lost hope in the system for improvement.  This vicious cycle thus continues unabated in the Muslim world.  Dubai (UAE), in spite of privileged treatment for its citizens, perhaps presents the only model for good governance in the Muslim world where some basic freedoms are available and the rule of law is applied uniformly to a diverse group of immigrant workers.  The mutual coexistence and tolerance among the diverse groups of religion and cultures in Dubai is commendable.

The complicity between corrupt politicians and culpable clergy prohibits intellectual discussion through legislation or coercion (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia are prime examples).  The mosque thus becomes the primary source for disseminating information to the masses with hate and isolationist ideologies frequently dispensed by the mullah.   It is this weak underbelly that helps radicals (Muslims and non-Muslims) to exploit Islam for justifying terrorism.  Islam does not sanction or support senseless violence of any kind; the radicalization of Islam is a recent and political phenomenon, which developed during the decline of the Muslim Empire and the colonization of Muslim countries.  Pakistan leads the Muslim world in legislating and institutionalizing politically motivated ideologies; radicalism is a consequence of those policies and is now widespread in Pakistan.  Sadly, radicals are pushing other Muslim countries to adopt similar policies.  Through such policies, radicals have effectively hijacked Islam and use the flawed ideologies to justify terrorist acts while the majority, in apparent confusion about the distorted concepts, is unable or unwilling to take an effective stand against them.  Their internal divisions and vested interests prevent them from intellectually resolving the differences and effectively preventing the radicals from exploiting Islam.

Having established deep roots in Pakistan and Afghanistan, this destructive trend is spreading to other Muslim countries (Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Balkans, Central African countries, etc) and in countries where impoverished Muslims are significant minorities (India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc.).  Muslims must realize that transition to education and industrialization are long-term phenomena whose time frame cannot be condensed.  Their governments must embark on enduring plans for this transition, establishing good governance, implementing accountability at all levels and granting basic human rights and freedoms.  Muslims must accept radicalism as a major disruptive force and take immediate steps to control it. The permanent and enduring solution has to be the rejection of politically inspired ideologies for which an intellectual offensive is required.  Attempts to hide behind the UN and OIC resolutions for maintaining status quo will prove counterproductive and, using Pakistan’s example, will threaten their very existence.

In closing, the following observations made by Justices Munir and Kayani almost six decades ago appear prophetic in the 21^st century:

“If there is one thing which has been conclusively demonstrated in this inquiry, it is that provided you can persuade the masses to believe that something they are asked to do is religiously right or enjoined by religion, you can set them to any course of action, regardless of all considerations of discipline, loyalty, decency, morality or civic sense.”

“It is this lack of bold and clear thinking, the inability to understand and take decisions which has brought about in Pakistan a confusion which will persist and repeatedly create situations of the kind we have been inquiring into until our leaders have a clear conception of the goal and of the means to reach it. It requires no imagination to realize that irreconcilables remain irreconcilable even if you believe or wish to the contrary. Opposing principles, if left to themselves, can only produce confusion and disorder, and the application of a neutralizing agency to them can only produce a dead result. Unless, in case of conflict between two ideologies, our leaders have the desire and the ability to elect, uncertainty must continue.”

“…and press Islam into service to solve situations it was never intended to solve, frustration and disappointment must dog our steps. The sublime faith called Islam will live even if our leaders are not there to enforce it. It lives in the individual, in his soul and outlook, in all his relations with God and men, from the cradle to the grave, and our politicians should understand that if Divine commands cannot make or keep a man a Musalman [Muslim], their statutes will not.”

Recommendations

A focused, long-term and multi-faceted strategy at individual, national and international levels is obviously required to eradicate Islamic radicalism.  Individual Muslims must accept the fact that radicalism is threatening their very existence and, after thorough introspection, reject the flawed and politically inspired ideologies that are contrary to Qur’anic teachings.  Muslims should develop a better understanding of Islam by going across sectarian divides and becoming familiar with alternate concepts.  This will allow reconciliation amongst various concepts and help unite Muslims into one community, as directed by the Qur’an.

On the national level, Muslim countries should ensure good governance, separate politics from religion, implement policies focused on secular education, adopt basic freedoms and human rights policies for women and religious minorities, dispense with discriminatory policies, provide a solid social infrastructure, create meaningful employment opportunities for the youth and encourage intellectual debate on controversial topics.

Internationally, countries should cooperate and help resolve political issues that have subjugated Muslims and denied them their homeland, dignity and basic human rights.  The world community must also truly encourage the promotion of human rights and democracies in Muslim countries by assisting in the development of social infrastructures (education, basic health care, etc.), meaningful secular education, employment opportunities, and good governance.

Nothing short of this long-term, multi-pronged approach based on modern secular education, social development and economic empowerment will be effective in eradicating Islamic and other forms of radicalism throughout the world.