This was written in 2005 by the current ambassador of Pakistan to United States!!!!!
---
The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi GroupsHUSAIN HAQQANI
ALTHOUGH AN OVERWHELMING majority of South Asian Muslims has
practiced several variations of Sufi Islam over history, the region has
been home to minority puritanical movements resisting “un-Islamic
influences” or non-Muslim rule. Most jihadi movements in South Asia have
grown out of these Islamic revivalist movements. In recent years, jihad has
been used by the fragile Pakistani state to bolster its national identity against
India. Pakistan’s crucial role as the staging ground for the anti-Soviet Jihad in
Afghanistan created a nexus between Pakistan’s military and secret services,
which was heightened by the state sponsorship of jihad against India in the
disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Several jihadi groups have emerged
over the last two decades in Pakistan and Kashmir, occasionally spreading operations
into parts of India. Some offshoots of radical Islamist movements in
Bangladesh have also embraced jihadi ideology and rhetoric in recent years,
increasing the prospect of militancy and terrorism in Bangladesh.
Sources of Islamism in South AsiaUntil the decline of the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth century, Muslim
rulers presided over South Asian kingdoms in which the majority of
their subjects were Hindus. The exigencies of Muslim ascendancy in a non-
Muslim environment demanded religious tolerance by the rulers and resulted
in syncretism in the religion as practiced by local Muslims. Unlike in the
Middle East, enforcement of Shariah in historic India was never complete.
But Muslim ulema, muftis and qadis as well as laymen enjoyed a position of
relative prestige as co-religionists of the rulers.
The rise of British rule, culminating in the formal addition of India to the
British Empire after 1857, marked the end of the privileged position of Muslims.
The Muslim community’s response to the gradual decline in Muslim
political power came in the form of revivalist movements seeking to sharpen
an Islamic identity. South Asia’s Islamist political movements trace their inspiration back to Sheikh Ahmed Sirhandi’s challenge in the sixteenth century
to the ecumenism of Mughal emperor Akbar.
In the nineteenth century, the first jihadi group emerged in India and
operated in the country’s northwest frontier, including parts of present-day
Pakistan and Afghanistan. This puritanical militant movement fought the
region’s Sikh rulers. The rise of British power simply changed the militants’
target. The movement’s founder, Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili, organized cells
throughout India to supply the frontier movement with men and money.
Calling themselves “mujahideen,” the movement’s followers interpreted the
Islamic concept of jihad in its literal sense of holy war. Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili
(not to be confused with Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, the reformer) had been
influenced by the ideas of Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab, to which he had
been exposed during his pilgrimage to Mecca. He called for a return to early
Islamic purity and the re-establishment of Muslim political power. Sayyid
Ahmed’s revival of the ideology of jihad became the prototype for subsequent
Islamic militant movements in South and Central Asia and is also the main
influence over the jihad network of Al Qaeda and its associated groups in the
region.
The influence of Sayyid Ahmed’s ideas and practices on South Asian Islamists
is visible in recent jihad literature in Pakistan, which invariably draws
parallels between British colonial rule in the nineteenth century and U.S.
domination since the end of the twentieth. Unlike in Sayyid Ahmed’s time,
today’s jihad battlefield is not limited to a single geographic area. Nor are
the various mujahid cells dependent on handwritten messages delivered by
couriers riding (and hiding) for thousands of miles. Modern communications
facilitate jihad without frontiers. After all, the enemy is also global in reach.
And despite the differences in technology, the nineteenth-century mujahideen
remain the role model for today’s jihadis, who make up an international
network aimed at waging holy war at a time when the majority of Muslims
seek to synthesize their faith with modern living.
But the revivalist ideas of Sheikh Ahmed Sirhandi and the jihadi ideology
of Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili alone do not explain the rise of modern jihadis.
Even the large number of South Asian Muslims who embraced western
learning under British rule were influenced by revivalist ideas to the extent
of seeking a separate identity from South Asia’s Muslims, a process that was
somewhat accelerated by the demand for and creation of Pakistan.
The emergence of Pakistan as an independent state in 1947 was the culmination
of decades of debate and divisions among Muslims in British India
about their collective future. The concept of a Muslim-majority Pakistan
rested on the notion that India’s Muslims constituted a separate nation from
non-Muslim Indians. Although the Islamists did not like the westernized
leadership that sought Pakistan, and in some cases actively opposed the campaign
for Pakistan, the lack of religious orthodoxy among Pakistan’s founders
did not prevent them from seeking the revival of Islam’s lost glory in South
Asia. In fact, the creation of a Muslim-majority state provided them with a
better environment to pursue their ideas.
Soon after independence, Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly declared in
1949 that South Asian Muslims had created Pakistan for the principal objective
of “ordering their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements
of Islam.” Prominent individuals within the government mooted proposals for
adopting Arabic as the national language, and of changing the script of the
Bengali language from its Sanskrit base to an Arabic-Persian one. The president
of the ruling Muslim League announced that Pakistan would bring all
Muslim countries together into “Islamistan”—a pan-Islamic entity. In 1949,
the Pakistani government also sponsored the World Muslim Conference presided
over by the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, to promote
Pan-Islamism. This conference led to the formation of the Motamar al-Alam
al-Islami (Muslim World Congress), which has since played a crucial role in
building up the feeling of Muslim victimization that has subsequently fed the
global Islamist movement.
Since the creation of Pakistan, Islamist groups have been sponsored and
supported by Pakistan’s state machinery at different times to influence domestic
politics and shore up Pakistani national identity, which is periodically
threatened by sub-national ethnic challenges. The Islamists have also helped
support the Pakistani military’s political dominance. Islamists have been
allies in the Pakistan military’s efforts to seek “strategic depth” in Afghanistan—
a euphemism for Pakistan’s efforts to make Afghanistan a client state
of Pakistan—and to put pressure on India for negotiations over the future of
Kashmir, the Muslim majority Himalayan region that has been disputed by
India and Pakistan since their partition.
Pakistan’s state institutions, notably national security institutions such
as the military and the intelligence services, have played a leading role in
building Pakistani national identity on the basis of religion since Pakistan’s
emergence. This political commitment to an “ideological state” gradually
evolved into a strategic commitment to the jihadi ideology, especially during
and after the Bangladesh war of 1971. Then, the Pakistani military used the
Islamist’s idiom and the help of Islamist groups to keep elected secular leaders
supported by the majority Bengali-speaking population out of power. A
Bengali rebellion and brutal suppression of the Bengalis by the military followed.
In the 1971 war the country was bifurcated, leading to the birth of an
independent Bangladesh.
In the original country’s western wing, the effort to create national cohesion
between Pakistan’s disparate ethnic and linguistic groups through
religion took on greater significance and its manifestations became more
militant. Religious groups, both armed and unarmed, have become gradually
more powerful as a result of this alliance between the mosque and the military.
Radical and violent manifestations of Islamist ideology, which sometimes
appear to threaten Pakistan’s stability, are in some ways a state project
gone wrong.
Given Pakistan’s status as an ideological state, Islamic political groups of
all kinds have proliferated in the country and several of them have received
state patronage at one time or another. Others have operated independently or
with the support of fellow Islamist groups outside the country. The organized
jihadi movements that have been militarily active since the anti-Soviet Afghan
Jihad can be classified into three groups. The first of these groups is centered
on the Jamaat-e-Islami (Islamic Society) founded by Islamist scholar Maulana
Abul Ala Maududi in 1941. The second group includes the Deobandi
movements that arose from the austere interpretations of Islam emanating
from the Deoband madrasa of Northern India, which was founded in 1867
to protect Muslims from being seduced by Western materialism. The third
group of South Asian jihadis is Wahhabi, which is influenced by the doctrine
of Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab and almost invariably funded by Saudi
Arabia.
Jamaat-e-Islami and its Jihadi OffshootsThe Jamaat-e-Islami is an Islamist party similar to the Arab Muslim Brotherhood,
with which it has both ideological and organizational links. It
has operated over the decades as a political party, a social welfare organization,
a pan-Islamic network and the sponsor of militant groups fighting in Afghanistan
and Kashmir. For years, Jamaat-e-Islami was the major recipient of
Saudi assistance in Pakistan, until its current leadership failed to support the
Kingdom in the 1991 Gulf War. Although relations between the Saudi government
and Jamaat-e-Islami have since been repaired, the disagreement between
them in the early 1990s led the Saudis to divert support from Jamaat-e-
Islami to Deobandi and Wahhabi groups for a period, somewhat diminishing
Jamaat-e-Islami’s status as the dominant Islamist group in South Asia.
The founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Abul Ala Maududi (1903-1979), was a
prolific writer. In his books and pamphlets, running into over one hundred
in number including a six-volume commentary on the Quran, Maududi laid
out an elaborate ideological vision. He argued that Islam was as much a political
ideology as it is a religion and that the basic division in the world was
between “Islam and un-Islam.” Maududi critiqued all un-Islamic ideologies,
including socialism, communism, secularism and capitalism. He described
the political system of Islam as “theo-democracy”—a system in which officials
would be elected but would be subject to divine laws interpreted by the
theologically learned.
The Islamic ideology, according to Maududi, carried forward the mission
of the Prophets, which he described as follows:
1. To revolutionize the intellectual and mental outlook of humanity
and to instill the Islamic attitude towards life and morality to such an
extent that their way of thinking, ideal of life, and standards of values
and behavior become Islamic;
2. To regiment all such people who have accepted Islamic ideals and
molded their lives after the Islamic pattern with a view to struggling
for power and seizing it by the use of all available means and
equipment;
3. To establish Islamic rule and organize the various aspect of social
life on Islamic bases, to adopt such means as will widen the sphere
of Islamic influence in the world, and to arrange for the moral and
intellectual training, by contact and example, of all those people who
enter the fold of Islam from time to time.1
Maududi also laid out a stage-by-stage strategy for Islamic revolution in
his many speeches and writings. His first major book, Al-Jihad fil-Islam (Jihad
in Islam), defined the various ways and means of struggle for the perfect
Islamic state. In other books, Maududi described the social, economic and
political principles of Islam.
The Jamaat-e-Islami adopted a cadre-based structure similar to that of
communist parties. It built alliances with Islamist parties in other countries,
recruited members through a network of schools and hoped to serve as the
vanguard of a gradual Islamic revolution. Though the party’s call for Islamic
revolution did not have mass appeal, its social service infrastructure helped
create a well-knit, nation-wide organization within a few years of partition
in 1947. After the creation of Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami divided its organization
into two entities—one based in India, the other in Pakistan. The Indian
branch refrained from directly participating in electoral politics, and
focused instead on developing pious cadres for the eventual transformation
of the region into an Islamic state. In Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami participated
in elections with poor results until 2002, when it formed an alliance with
other Islamist groups and won a significant share of seats in parliament and
two provincial legislatures.
The Jamaat-e-Islami’s real opportunity in Pakistan lay in working with
the new state’s elite, gradually expanding the Islamic agenda while providing
the theological rationale for the Pakistani elite’s plans for nation building on
the basis of religion. Jamaat-e-Islami’s cadres among students, trade unions
and professional organizations, as well as its focus on building its own media,
made it a natural ally for those within the government who thought that
Pakistan’s survival as a state required a religious anchor.
The Jamaat-e-Islami’s first foray into military jihad came in 1971, when
its cadres sided with the Pakistan army in opposing independence for Bangladesh.
Jamaat-e-Islami members were organized in two militant groups,
Al-Badr and Al-Shams, and were trained by the Pakistani army to carry out
operations against Bangladesh nationalists seeking separation from Pakistan.
In the initial years after Bangladesh’s independence, this role of the Jamaate-
Islami prevented the movement from assuming an overt political role in
Bangladesh, but the organization has since revived and is now part of the ruling
coalition in Bangladesh. Although the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami is occasionally
accused of using its muscle against political opponents, it operates
within the country’s political system and appears to have opted against direct
participation in military jihad. Other Bangladeshi Islamist groups including
some offshoots of the Jamaat-e-Islami have been alleged to have developed
links with global terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda.
The collaboration with the Pakistan army in what turned out to be a lost
battle in what was then Eastern Pakistan helped Jamaat-e-Islami forge closer
links with the Pakistani military and intelligence services. These links led to
the organization’s close identification with the Islamizing military regime of
General Ziaul Haq (1977-1988). Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan was directly involved
in supporting the Afghan mujahideen operating out of Pakistan, maintaining
close ties with Gulbeddin Hikmatyar’s Hizbe Islami (Islamic Party)
and Burhanuddin Rabbani’s Jamiat-e-Islami (Islamic Society). Both of these
Afghan Jihadi groups adopted the ideological precepts of Pakistan’s Jamaate-
Islami, which influenced Hikmatyar’s anti-Western bent during and after
the anti-Soviet struggle.
During the period of the war against the Soviets, Jamaat-e-Islami was
able to build a significant infrastructure, including madrasas, businesses and
charities with the help of generous financial contributions from the governments and private individuals in the Gulf States. Jamaat-e-Islami played
host to many of the foreign, mainly Arab, mujahideen that came to Pakistan
to participate in Afghanistan’s jihad. Jamaat-e-Islami’s own cadres also received
training alongside the foreign and Afghan fighters and several Pakistani
young men fought the Soviets inside Afghanistan. By the time of the
Soviet withdrawal, Jamaat-e-Islami had developed ties with Islamist groups
throughout the world. Islamist liberation movements seeking redress of perceived
and real grievances in places remote from Pakistan, such as Chechnya,
Bosnia and Southern Philippines congregated in Pakistan. The Jamaat-e-Islami
raised funds for these groups and provided military training for their
members, in addition to allowing its own younger members to participate in
Jihad around the world.
From 1989, Jamaat-e-Islami has actively participated in the militancy in
Jammu and Kashmir with the full backing of Pakistan’s inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) and the Pakistan military. To maintain a distinction between
Jamaat-e-Islami, the ideological-political group, and militant or terrorist outfits,
several jihad-specific organizations were created. The most prominent
of these is the Hizbul Mujahideen (The Party of Holy Warriors). For years,
Hizbul Mujahideen avoided the terrorist label by taking care that its target in
Kashmir could be identified as military, as opposed to civilian, targets. Even
the United States acknowledged this distinction and spared Hizbul Mujahideen
from designation as a terrorist group. Post 9/11 developments have diminished
such distinctions. Under pressure from the United States, the Pakistan
government has restricted Hizbul Mujahideen’s freedom of operation
in planning and executing attacks against India. There is no doubt, however,
that Hizbul Mujahideen retains the capacity to attack targets in Indian-controlled
Kashmir and Jamaat-e-Islami’s trained militant cadre remains intact.
Although Jamaat-e-Islami can be described as being sympathetic to the
aims of various Jihadi movements, it has taken care not to cross the line from
being primarily an ideological-political movement—“the vanguard of the Islamic
revolution,” in Maududi’s words. The party’s ideological journal, Tarjuman
al-Quran, explained the need for caution in approaching the issue of
military jihad, implying that there was no sense in attracting massive military
retaliation when political options were available. According to one editorial
in the journal:
Muslim rulers sheepishly follow the steps of their Western masters.
They fulfill their political and economic interests. In retaliation if
some people resort to force, they are branded as terrorists. These
rulers are promoting non-Islamic culture and crushing Islamic forces
in their own as well as their masters’ interests. How to work for the
supremacy of [faith] is then a problem of universal extent. There has
been an element of disunity in some movements on this issue, due to
which some extremist-armed groups have sprung up in small niches.
Excesses by such groups have sometimes been reported from some
places. Using the excuse of these groups’ violations, the hostile rulers
are crushing Islamic movements. At places where these movements
are cautious and not providing any such opportunity, the antagonists
are trying to create [an] atmosphere so as to crush them, e.g. in Pakistan….
Confused thinking, particularly when it is based on despair
instead of reasoning and thinking, diffuses strength for action. This
can lead to disastrous consequences… for so long as doors are open
for peaceful preaching of Islam’s message and the required result to
bring change is satisfactory, and for so long as the public opinion for
an Islamic revolution is not mobilized, one [does] not qualify to pick
up arms for Jihad.2
Aside from its involvement in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Kashmir,
Jamaat-e-Islami appears unwilling to acknowledge any direct involvement
in jihadi activities. But like the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world, the
movement serves as an ideological inspiration for polarizing Muslims between
“true believers” and “camp followers of the West.” The Jamaat-e-Islami
has built a coherent ideological case for global Islamic revivalism—a revivalism
that includes the defense of violent jihad, but without identifying Jamaate-
Islami clearly with militant struggle.
The Jamaat-e-Islami’s leading ideologue, Professor Khurshid Ahmad, recently
published a collection of essays in Urdu, Amrika: Muslim Dunya ki
Bey-Itminani (America and the Unrest in the Muslim World).3 In this book,
Ahmad argues that the United States “dreams of world domination, resolves
to control the resources of other nations, wants to shape the world according
to its ideas, and seeks to impose its values and ideology on others by force.”
Only the Islamists, he says, offer a political force capable of resisting this Pax
Americana.
Ahmad’s book comprises nine essays, four written before September 11,
and five after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In the book,
he condemns the attacks but argues that the perpetrators are still unknown.
“A glance at the history of Israel and [the] Zionist movement,” he suggests,
“gives credence to the suspicion of Mossad’s role in the terrorist acts.” Like all
Islamists, however, Ahmad was suspicious of Western intentions long before
September 11. Two of his essays on the “new world order” that emerged following
the end of the Cold War, originally published in 1991 and 1993, extensively cite influential U.S. conservatives such as Samuel Huntington, Francis
Fukuyama, and Eliot Cohen as proof of an insidious plan to create a century
of U.S. dominance at the expense of other nations.
The framework of this U.S.-led new world order, according to Ahmad,
rests on “four pillars”: globalization, Western democracy, technological supremacy,
and political alliances. Ahmad’s suspicions of U.S. intentions during
the 1990s, even as the United States was leading a military campaign on
behalf of Bosnia’s Muslims, can best be understood in the context of the U.S.
abandonment of Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from
Afghanistan. Ahmad saw the end of U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen
as a betrayal motivated by the United States’ need for a new enemy-an Islamic
green menace to replace the defunct Soviet red threat.
The U.S. ruling
elite, he argues, in collusion with Zionist Israel and Hindu India (the Islamist
“axis of evil”) is bent on plundering the Islamic world of its oil and denying
Muslims their rightful place in the contemporary world.Ahmad’s prescription for resisting U.S. subjugation is similar to such
prescriptions from other Islamist groups:
The Muslim Ummah—(the global
community of believers)—must purify its ranks and become a homogenous
community that can mobilize against the American-Zionist-Hindu plot. Ahmad
also emphasizes Pakistan’s special role in this Islamic revival. As the only
Muslim country with a nuclear capability, Pakistan must expand cooperation
with Iran, China, and other nations that wish to oppose the U.S. hegemon.
The Americans have let Pakistan down before, he says, because their interests
converge with those of India. The Chinese, however, have been among
Pakistan’s most reliable allies.
In effect, Ahmad advises the Islamists to reverse the mistake they made
during the Cold War, when they sided with the West against godless communism
in Afghanistan. The arrogance and triumphalism of the “American
imperialists” require a closing of ranks among all those who oppose them.
Ironically, Ahmad’s arguments for a proposed alliance between the Islamic
world and China parallel Huntington’s prediction in his clash of civilizations
thesis of an eventual “Sino-Islamic alliance” against the West. (WN : interesting.. I was driven by a Paki taxi-driver – MS in computer science from Illinois Institute of Technology - on my last visit to Chicago and he assumed that I was a Pakistani and was ranting about the injustice met by Muslims and how the world will have only 3 major powers – US (which, in his opinion, was declining), China (the next superpower) and ISLAM!!)
The DeobandisUnlike the Jamaat-e-Islami, South Asia’s Deobandi groups did not originate
as a political movement. The movement takes it its name from a
traditional madrasa established in 1867 in the North Indian town of Deoband.
The school’s founder, Maulana Qasim Nanotvi, was concerned with
the prospect of India’s Muslims adopting and accepting western ways. His
madrasa, therefore, marked the beginning of a movement to adhere to a traditional
religious way of life. The Deobandis explain the decline of Islamic
societies in terms of their having been seduced by the amoral and materialist
accoutrements of Westernization. According to them, Muslims have lost
Allah’s blessings because they have deviated from the original teachings of
Prophet Muhammad and the pristine ways of his earliest followers.
The tradition of Deoband was extremely hostile to British rule and committed
to a literal and austere interpretation of Islam. Instead of organizing
for political action, the Deobandis originally focused on establishing madrasas.
During the struggle for independence from British rule, Deobandis were
divided between those who supported *hi’s Indian National Congress
because of their hostility to the British and those supporting the creation of
an independent Pakistan.
After Pakistan’s creation, the Deobandis expanded control over the traditional
religious education system and argued that a Muslim’s first loyalty is
to his religion and only then to the country of which he is a citizen or a resident.
Over the years, Pakistan’s Deobandis have insisted that Muslims must
recognize only the religious frontiers of their Ummah and not the national
frontiers. Jihad has always been central to Deobandi thinking and Deobandi
scholars inspired and participated in militant campaigns against British rule
throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In recent years,
Deobandi Ulema have articulated jihad as a sacred right and obligation, encouraging
their followers to go to any country to wage jihad to protect the
Muslims of that country. The Deobandis gained considerable strength during the anti-Soviet Afghan
Jihad, especially because General Ziaul Haq encouraged the establishment
of madrasas for Afghan refugees as well as Pakistanis. Most of the new
madrasas followed the Deoband model and had Deobandi teachers. The
movement’s influence reached its peak when the Taliban, themselves students
of Deobandi madrasas in Pakistan, assumed power in Afghanistan.
The Afghan Jihad ended the previous isolation of Deobandi traditionalists,
linking them with global Islamist movements. Groups such as the Harkatul-
Jihad-al-Islami (Movement for Islamic Jihad) that were born during the
Afghan war to assist in the recruitment and ideological motivation of Afghan
peasant refugees created a wider presence in Pakistan, and later in Kashmir.
Once jihad was expanded to Kashmir, several Deobandi militant groups appeared
on the scene with initial assistance from Pakistani intelligence.
In addition to Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, prominent Deobandi groups
include Harkat-ul-Ansar (Movements of Supporters of the Faith), which
changed its name to Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (Movement of Holy Warriors) after
being a declared terrorist group by the United States for its involvement in
kidnapping of western tourists in Kashmir.
The founder of Harkat-ul-Ansar
and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, was one of the signatories
of Osama bin Laden’s fatwa declaring war against the United States. Khalil
worked closely with Pakistani intelligence, and until recently continued to lead
jihadi groups after changing their names once the previous name appeared
on the list of global terrorist organizations. He announced his ‘retirement’ in
January 2005, passing the baton of leadership to less well-known followers.
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen was involved in hijacking an Indian Airlines aircraft
in 1999 and secured the release of one its principal ideologues and organizers,
Maulana Masood Azhar, from an Indian prison. Upon his release
Azhar formed the Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Muhammad), which was
involved in the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and high
profile suicide attacks on the Kashmir legislative assembly and the Indian
parliament in 2001—a few days after the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
Jaish-e-Muhammad was involved in several attacks on churches in Pakistan
as well as in assassination attempts on Pakistan’s military ruler, General Pervez
Musharraf. Although temporarily detained by Pakistani authorities under
U.S. pressure, Azhar was subsequently released and is now at large, surfacing
occasionally to make speeches exhorting global jihad.The ideology of the various Deobandi jihadi groups is explained, among
others, by Masood Azhar in three books: Ma’arka (The Struggle), Faza’il Jihad
(The Virtue of Jihad) and Tuhfa-e-Saadat (The Gift of Virtue).4 Faza’il Jihad
is Azhar’s translation of the thirteenth century classical text on jihad by Ibn
Nahhas, believed to be a disciple of Ibn Taimiyah.
The book romanticizes jihad
and paints a somewhat sensuous portrait of the worldly and other-worldly
benefits that await the Mujahid. The fact that different versions of the Ibn
Nahhas book have been found in circulation among jihadi groups—from Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan to Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia—seems to
indicate that this is the favored text of Al-Qaeda-related jihadi movements.
Most contemporary Deobandi literature on jihad traces the history of
Muslim grievances.
According to this view, the world as shaped over the last
two centuries is unfavorable to Muslims. Palestine has been taken over by the
Zionists, Kashmir occupied by India, Chechnya devoured by Russia, and the
Muslim sultanates in southern Philippines subjugated by Catholic Manila.
The battle in each case, irrespective of the political issues involved, is one
of Muslim against non-Muslim. And the Muslims’ disadvantage comes from
their lack of effective military power vested in the hands of the righteous. “Every Muslim must just turn to God” is the remedy for this imbalance,
according to Maulana Masood Azhar, in the foreword of his third book, The
Gift of Virtue. As a tribute to the nineteenth-century Wahhabis and Sayyid
Ahmed of Bareili, Azhar penned the preface of The Struggle in the mountainous
redoubt where Ahmed died in battle. The fundamental argument of each
one of Azhar’s books, and many published speeches, appears to be that puritanical
Islam faces extinction at the hands of an ascendant secular culture,
just as the fledgling religion was challenged by unbelievers in its earliest days
during the seventh century A.D. The Struggle is written as an invitation to
young Muslims to join Jaish-e-Muhammad, complete with motivational anecdotes
from the early history of Islam. For example, Azhar reminds readers
of how the Battle of Badr, in A.D. 623, was won by the earliest Muslims with
an ill-equipped army of 313 fighters facing Arabia’s pagan tribes numbering
in the thousands.
The Prophet Mohammed was forced to fight those who sought to eliminate
Islam, as were his early companions. To follow their example, the Deobandi
jihadis argue that Muslims must define the contemporary detractors of
Islam in similar terms and fight them in a similar manner.
Azhar’s argument
for fighting India in Kashmir is rooted in the same theological arguments
that Osama bin Laden has cited in his declarations of war against the United
States. The Indian military’s presence in Kashmir compromises the sovereignty
of Muslims in a territory over which they should actually rule, Azhar
argues. Bin Laden resents the United States because its troops defile the holy
land of Saudi Arabia. Azhar expresses respect for bin Laden partly because
of shared beliefs and partly because bin Laden has financed jihad with his
inherited wealth. For Azhar, the struggle for sovereignty is also an existential
struggle for Muslims. “Submission and slavery damage our faith and religion,”
he writes in The Struggle. In his view, Islam risks being diluted as a system of
belief unless it is politically ascendant. “The decline of Muslims,” one of his
colleagues argues, “started with the fading of the spirit of jihad and sacrifice.”
The Wahhabis or Ahle-HadithAlthough Sayyid Ahmed’s nineteenth century efforts influenced the jihadi
thinking of Deobandis and the Jamaat-e-Islami, his own Wahhabi movement
did not gain a large following in South Asia until recently. The Wahhabis
in South Asia described themselves as “Ahle-Hadith” (People of the
Prophet’s Tradition). Their adoption of Hanbali religious rites and their strict
condemnation of many rituals widely practiced by South Asian Muslims did
not sit well with the vast Hanafi Sunni population.
In recent years, especially during and after the Afghan Jihad, the existing
Ahle-Hadith groups were able to better organize themselves, increasing their
numbers as well as their influence.
A large number of Pakistani, Indian and
Bangladeshi Muslims worked in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries and
subsequently returned home with Wahhabi views. Wahhabi funding from
the Gulf Arab region has also enabled Wahhabi missionaries to convert Sunni
Muslims to their interpretation of Islam. More significantly, Sunni Muslims
have cast aside their aversion to Wahhabi groups, creating a large number of
traditional Sunnis who embrace Wahhabi political and jihadi ideas without
necessarily giving up their rites and rituals.
The most significant jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion is Lashkar-e-
Taiba (The Army of the Pure) founded in 1989 by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed.
Backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services,
Lashkar-e-Taiba became the military wing of Markaz al-Dawa wal-Irshad
(Center for the Call to Righteousness). Saeed created a large campus and
training facility at Muridke, outside the Pakistani metropolis of Lahore. After
the U.S. froze Lashkar-e-Taiba’s assets and called for it to be banned, Saeed
changed his organization’s name in Pakistan to Jamaat-ul-Dawa (the Society
for Preaching). Pakistani authorities have been reluctant to move against
either Lashkar, which continues to operate in Kashmir, or Jamaat-ul-Dawa,
which operates freely in Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat-ul-Dawa
scaled down their military operations against India to help Pakistan honor its
commitments to the U.S. and India. But Saeed remains free and continues to
expand membership of his organization despite divisions in its leadership.Under U.S. pressure, General Musharraf placed Jamaat-ul-Dawa on a
watch list in November 2003.
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.
For example, a Markaz al-Dawa wal-Irshad publication titled Hum Jihad
kyun Kar rahe hain? (Why Are We Waging Jihad?),
declares the United States,
Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam. It lists eight reasons for Jihad:
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
to liberate Muslim territories under non-Muslim occupation.This list of itself is sufficient to justify a virtual state of permanent jihad.
“Have all the obstacles to observing the faith in the world been removed?”
the unnamed author asks rhetorically, adding that non-Muslim dominance of
the global system makes jihad necessary. “
Is the current world order that of
kafirs (unbelievers) or of Muslims? Is the global economic system according
to the wishes of Allah, which requires the end of interest and usury?” Jihad
is described as essential to ensure ascendancy of Islam and to create circumstances
whereby non-Muslims would either convert to Islam or pay jizya.
Furthermore, all major powers have broken their pledges to Muslims made
at one time or another, for which they must be punished, runs the argument.
“Are Muslims not being mistreated all over the world? Are not weak Muslim
men, women and children calling for help against oppression from India,
Kashmir, Philippines, Chechnya, Russia, China, Bosnia and several other
parts of the world?...Burma’s Muslims are under attack from Buddhists, who
expel them from their homes… Israel has pierced the dagger of its existence
in the heart of the Arabs.”
The Markaz/Lashkar/Jamaat-ul-Dawa movement construes Muslim territories
under non-Muslim occupation in the broadest sense. “Muslims ruled
Andalusia (Spain) for 800 years but they were finished to the last man. Christians
now rule (Spain) and we must wrest it back from them. All of India,
including Kashmir, Hyderabad, Assam, Nepal, Burma, Bihar and Junagadh
were part of the Muslim empire that was lost because Muslims gave up jihad.
Palestine is occupied by the Jews. The Holy Qibla-e-Awwal (First Center
of Prayer) in Jerusalem is under Jewish control. Several countries such as
Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese
Turkistan…were Muslim lands and it is our duty to get these back from unbelievers.
Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris and some
of the forests and mountains of Switzerland were home to Muslim mujahideen
but are now under the occupation of unbelievers.” Some of the arguments and claims might appear historically incorrect
or practically impossible but this does and will not deter a closely-knit jihadi
group from raising funds, organizing cadres and fielding militants or terrorists
in pursuit of a broadly defined global jihad aimed at the revival of Islam’s
global ascendancy and eventual domination.
3/20/2005 7:31:29 PM
HUSAIN HAQQANI
NOTES
1 S. Abul A’la Maududi, A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam, (Lahore: Islamic
Publications, 1963), p. 26.
2 Khurram Jah Murad, “Revolution Through Bullet or Ballot,” Tarjuman-al-Quran, January 1996.
http://jamaat.org/Isharat/archive/0196.html3 Khurshid Ahmad, Amrika: Muslim Dunya ki Bey-Itminani (America and Unrest in the Muslim
World), (Islamabad: Institute of Policy Studies, 2002), 308 pages (in Urdu).
4 Maulana Masood Azhar, Ma’arka (The Struggle); Faza’il Jihad (The Virtue of Jihad); Tuhfa-e-
Saadat (The Gift of Virtue), (Karachi: Idara AI-Khair, 2001) (in Urdu).
5 ‘Hum Jihad kyun Kar rahe hain?’ (Why Are We Waging Jihad?), (Muridke: Markaz al-dawa wal-
Irshad, undated), (in Urdu).
AuthorTopic: THE IDEOLOGIES OF SOUTH ASIAN JIHADI GROUPS (Read 658 times)
August 13, 2006, 05:39:39 PM