What Taliban is practising in Swat Valley is already being preached by mullahs in India

” It is this Taliban and Talibani mindset that we should be scared of; both are already there in our midst. Mohammad Salim is not alone in wanting to emulate those who flaunt their “religious conscience, belief and custom” to the exclusion of a secular state’s enlightenment. What the Taliban are practising in Swat Valley and in the wastelands of Afghanistan is being preached by mullahs in India. And they are doing so openly. A casual reading of the fatwas listed on Darul Uloom Deoband’s Website, http://www.darulifta-deoband.org “

Forget Swat, fear Taliban amid us
Kanchan Gupta, Wednesday, April 8, 2009, http://www.dailypioneer.com

There is, we are told, disquiet among Muslims over Justice Markandey Katju’s comment, “We don’t want to have Taliban in the country”, while rejecting the petition filed by Mohammad Salim, a student of Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School in Madhya Pradesh, for quashing the school’s regulation requiring students to be clean shaven. The student’s counsel, Mr BA Khan, a retired judge, argued that Article 25 of the Constitution guaranteed protection to Salim to pursue his religious practice of keeping a beard and the school regulation was violative of the right to freedom of religion. He said forcing the student to shave his beard was against “his religious conscience, belief and custom of his family”. Mr Khan, who made an elaborate case linking the student’s faith and his beard, does not sport one himself. This prompted Justice Katju to point out, “But you don’t sport a beard!”

While rejecting Mohammad Salim’s petition, and rightly so, the Supreme Court bench made two points. First, if Salim found the school’s rules abhorrent and unacceptable, he could join some other institution. “But you can’t ask the school to change the rules for you.” Second, “If there are rules, you have to obey. You can’t say that I will not wear a uniform I will (wear) only a burqa.” Justice Katju’s comment, “We don’t want to have Taliban in the country”, was presumably directed against those who wish to imitate the Taliban and their subversion of the secular state and destruction of civil society in the name of practising Islam and enforcing Islamic injunctions.

This week we had a glimpse of what that means, thanks to a two-minute video shot with a cellphone in Pakistan’s Swat Valley and smuggled out by those who are alarmed by the prospect of the Taliban’s ruthless enforcement of “religious conscience, belief and custom”. The video showed a 17-year-old girl, a resident of Kabal, being held face down on the ground by men while a Taliban commander flogged her with a leather strap. The girl kept on pitifully begging for mercy and screaming in pain — “Leave me for the moment… you can beat me again later…” But this did not have the slightest impact on her tormentors: The flogging continued as a large group of men stood around, watching intently at this public display of Islamic fervour.

The girl was punished, the Taliban claimed, in accordance with shari’ah for stepping out of her house without being escorted by a male family member. But this may not be the real reason: Another account said she was falsely accused of violating shari’ah after she refused to marry a local Taliban commander.

The public flogging of the teenaged girl has revived memories of the Taliban executing Zarmeena, a mother of seven children, in Kabul’s sports stadium on November 17, 1999. In more recent times, two women were executed by the Taliban outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan in July last year. In Swat, too, women have been punished in a similar manner. On November 26, 2008, Bakht Zeba, a former member of the Swat district council, was dragged out of her home by the Taliban and brutally assaulted before being shot dead. Her crime, according to shari’ah as laid down by the Taliban: She criticised the ban on girls attending school.

It is this Taliban and Talibani mindset that we should be scared of; both are already there in our midst. Mohammad Salim is not alone in wanting to emulate those who flaunt their “religious conscience, belief and custom” to the exclusion of a secular state’s enlightenment. What the Taliban are practising in Swat Valley and in the wastelands of Afghanistan is being preached by mullahs in India. And they are doing so openly. A casual reading of the fatwas listed on Darul Uloom Deoband’s Website, http://www.darulifta-deoband.org, will prove this point. Here are some randomly selected examples:

Fatwa 1587/1330=L/1429: “The best purdah for woman is that the palms and no part of her body and adornments is exposed, ie, the whole body is covered from head to toe. If it is possible to see through the purdah, then the eyes also should be covered…”

Fatwa 1141/1141=M/1429: Family planning is haram and unlawful in Islam. You should apprise your wife of the commandment of shari’ah…”

Fatwa 691/636=D/1429: It is not a good thing for women to do jobs in offices. They will have to face strange men (non-mahram) though in veil. She will have to talk and deal with each other which are the things of fitna (evils).”

Fatwa 1386/227=TL/1429: “It is unlawful for women to go out after applying perfume.”

From here to chopping off the thumbs of women who use nail varnish is a very small step.

Blog on this issue at: kanchangupta.blogspot.com, Contact Writer at: kanchangupta@rocketmail.com

Why the Deobandi fatwa on terror is fake and misleading?

Deoband’s bogus fatwa on terror
Walid Phares
August 23, 2008, http://www.dailypioneer.com

Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa condemning terrorism by one of the leading religious centres in the Muslim world, the Darul-Uloom Deoband. An Islamic seminary said to have ‘inspired’ the Taliban has, according to the said document, denounced ‘terrorism’ as against Islam, calling it an “unpardonable sin”.

Hoping for a major change in ideology, international counter-terrorism authorities and policy-makers have been asking experts to determine if the Deobandi declaration will help counter the calls for violent jihad by Al Qaeda and its ilk around the world. In the war of ideas with the jihadis, many Western architects of strategic communications look for any sign that hearts and minds may be changing course and sympathies. From Washington, DC to Brussels and beyond, bureaucrats tasked with exploring the Muslim world for new trends, shop around for what they call “counter-narrative against extremism”.

The Deobandi school, a classical third branch of Salaafi Islamism (along with Wahaabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia theatre. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban.

“If they change course, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished,” I heard in Europe and the United States. So the question now is, have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence? I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.

Thousands of clerics and students from around India attended a meeting at the 150-year-old Deoband, and declared that they stand “against acts of terrorism”. Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the older rector of Deoband, told Reuters, “There is no place for terrorism in Islam. Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence.” Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for Governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.

“There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?” said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband. The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a Government.

These statements could be seen as impressive when quoted by news agencies rushing to break the good news, but to the seasoned analysts of Salaafism, the solid doctrinal roots of jihadism were kept untouched. Here is why.

From the fatwa itself and the statements made as it was issued, the following political goals likely motivated the gathering and the fatwa.

Create a separation in the eyes of the public discourse between Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as an illegal violent activity.

Such a move is legitimate and to be encouraged as it diminishes the tensions towards Muslims in non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West, as some are claiming that the Islamic religion is theologically linked to the acts and statements of the jihadis. The logic of “we are Muslims and we are against terrorism” helps significantly the disassociation between the community and the acts of violence.

However, without criticising the ideological roots of this violence, the fatwa seems to state a wishful thinking, not an injunction. A more powerful fatwa should have openly and expressly said: “We reject the calls for violent jihad regardless of the motives.” For the followers of jihadism do not consider their jihad as ‘terrorism’. Their answer has always been – to these types of fatwas — “but we aren’t performing terrorism, we are conducting jihad”. Thus, at this crucial level, the Deobandi fatwa missed the crux of the problem.

Deny Governments the ability to use the accusation that Islam condones terrorism to oppress Muslims.

The fatwa is concerned with geopolitics more than theological reform. Concern for the safety of one’s co-religionists is of course legitimate and should be addressed. But jihad, the legitimising root of political violence, cannot be ignored in any effort to protect the lives of Muslims.

There is no evidence that modern day Governments have expressly linked religion to terrorism; quite the opposite. Almost all national leaders involved in the confrontation with jihadi forces since 9/11 have clearly made a clear distinction between religion and terrorism.

Some even went further by negating any link whatsoever between theological texts and jihadism, which of course is not accurate. For in the texts, there are passages used by the terrorists in their indoctrination. Hence, the Deobandi fatwa should have instead asked clearly the jihadis not to use these citations or else they would be considered as sinners.

But instead of using their religious prominence to remove the theological weapon from the hands of the jihadis, the Deobandi clerics are attempting to shield the jihadis from the actions of Governments by denying that these extremists are indeed using — and abusing — religion.

Some may argue that the fatwa’s open goal is to defend Muslims from being unjustly targeted by non-Muslim Governments (a positive move) but a thorough analysis of the text used shows that the main intention of the declaration is to defend the Islamists from being contained by both Muslim and non-Muslim Governments.

In other words, by denying that jihadism is the root cause of many acts of terror in Europe, the US, Africa, the Greater West Asia and Asia, the Deobandi fatwa in fact is shielding the jihadis from the accusation of terrorism, thus protecting them.

The fatwa defined terrorism as violence “targeting innocent people”. Such a definition is not new and doesn’t set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does ‘innocent’ mean? On several Websites and on many shows on Al Jazeera television, jihad’s apologists often use the Arabic term ‘bare’e’ for ‘innocent’ and assure the audience that jihad cannot target the latter.

The concept of ‘innocent’ isn’t that innocent in jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups ‘bare’e’ or not ‘bare’e’ at their discretion. The status of ‘innocence’ doesn’t overlap fully with the status of ‘civilians’. Hence, to claim that terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to jihadi violence.

Moreover, the fatwa doesn’t identify Al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as terrorist organisations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator. This text simply doesn’t bring novelty to the debate about jihadi-rooted terrorism.

— The writer is Director of the Future Terrorism Project, Washington, DC, and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.

Why The Deobandi Fatwa Against Terrorism doesn’t work

July 28, 2008
The Deobandi Fatwa Against Terrorism Didn’t Treat the Jihadi Root
By Walid Phares
Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa (Islamic theological edict) condemning Terrorism by one of the leading religious centers in the Muslim world, the Darool-Uloom Deoband in India. An Islamic seminary said to have ‘inspired’ the Taliban has, according to the said document denounced “terrorism” as against Islam, calling it an “unpardonable sin.”

Hoping for a major change in ideology, international counter terrorism authorities and policy makers have been asking experts to determine if the Deobandi declaration will help counter the calls for violent Jihad by al Qaeda and its ilk around the world. In the war of ideas with the Jihadists, many Western architects of strategic communications look for any sign that hearts and minds may be changing course and sympathies. From Washington DC to Brussels and beyond, bureaucrats tasked with exploring the Muslim world for new trends, shop around for what they call “counter-narrative against extremism.”

The Deobandi School, a classical third branch for Salafi Islamism (along with Wahabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia Theater. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban.

“If they change course, al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished,” I heard in Europe and the United States. So the question now is have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence?

I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.

It looked good at first

Tens of thousands of clerics and students from around India attended a meeting at the 150-year-old Deoband, north of New Delhi, and declared that they stand “against acts of terrorism.”

“There is no place for terrorism in Islam,” Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the older rector of Deoband, told Reuters. “Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence.”  Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.

“There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?” said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband. The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a government.

These statements could be seen as impressive when quoted by news agencies rushing to break the good news, but to the seasoned analysts of Salafism, the solid doctrinal roots of Jihadism were kept untouched. Here is why.

Goals of the fatwa

From the fatwa itself and the statements made as it was issued, the following political goals likely motivated the gathering and the fatwa.

Create a separation in the eyes of the public discourse between Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as an illegal violent activity.

Such a move is legitimate and to be encouraged as it diminishes the tensions towards Muslims in non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West, as some are claiming that the Islamic religion is theologically linked to the acts and statements of the Jihadists. The logic of “we are Muslims and we are against Terrorism,” helps significantly the disassociation between the community and the acts of violence. However, without criticizing the ideological roots of this violence, the fatwa seem to state a wishful thinking, not an injunction. A more powerful fatwa should have openly and expressly said: “we reject the calls for violent Jihad regardless of the motives.” For the followers of Jihadism do not consider their Jihad as “terrorism.” Their answer has always been -to these types of fatwas- “but we aren’t performing terrorism, we are conducting Jihad.” Thus, at this crucial level, the Deobandi fatwa missed the crux of the problem.

Deny governments the ability to use the accusation that Islam condones Terrorism to oppress Muslims.

The fatwa is concerned with geopolitics more than theological reform. Concern for the safety of one’s co-religfionists is of course legitimate and should be addressed. But Jihadism, the legitimizing root of political violence, cannot be ignored in any effort to protect the lives of Muslims.

There is no evidence that modern day governments have expressly linked religion to terrorism; quite the opposite. Almost all national leaders involved in the confrontation with Jihadi forces since 9/11 have clearly made a clear distinction between religion and terrorism.

Some even went further by negating any link whatsoever between theological texts and Jihadism, which of course is not accurate. For in the texts, there are passages used by the Terrorists in their indoctrination. Hence, the Deobandi fatwa should have instead asked clearly the Jihadists not to use these citations or else they would be considered as sinners themselves. But instead of using their religious prominence to remove the theological weapon from the hands of the Jihadists, the Deobandi clerics are attempting to shield the Jihadists from the actions of Governments by denying that these extremists are indeed using — and abusing — religion.

Some may argue that the fatwa’s open goal is to defend Muslims from being unjustly targeted by non-Muslim governments (a positive move) but a thorough analysis of the text used shows that the main intention of that declaration is to defend the Islamists from being contained by both Muslim and non-Muslim Governments around the world. In other words by denying that Jihadism is the root cause of many acts of Terror in Europe, the US, Africa, the Greater Middle East and Asia, the Deobandi fatwa in fact is shielding the Jihadists from the accusation of Terrorism, thus protecting them.

Who is “innocent”?

The fatwa defined terrorism as violence “targeting innocent people.” Such a definition is not new and doesn’t set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does “innocent” mean? On several web sites and on many shows on al Jazeera television, Jihadi apologists often use the Arabic term”bare’e”  for “innocent” and assure the audience that Jihad cannot target the latter.

But Usama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, and to some extent Hassan Nasrallah, all claim that innocence is relative. Al Qaeda explicitly targets innocent civilians and has authorized the massacre of 4 million US citizens as of 2001. Bin laden explains that civilians who vote for and pay taxes to the infidel enemy are not “innocent.”

Hezbollah targets innocent civilians as well, not only in Israel but also in Lebanon and overseas (as in Argentina). The concept of “innocent” isn’t that innocent in Jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups “bare’e’ or not “bare’e” at their discretion.

Leading Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al Qardawi expounds at will on the innocence of civilians, detailing how civilian populations have been considered as part of the war efforts of the enemies of the Caliphate. In short, the status of “innocence” doesn’t overlap fully with the status of “civilians.” It is a matter of discretion in Jihadi warfare. Hence, to claim that Terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to Jihadi violence.

Who is a “terrorist”?

Moreover, still the fatwa doesn’t identify al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as Terrorist organizations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator.

This text simply doesn’t bring novelty to the debate about Jihadi-rooted Terrorism. For years, particularly since 2001, Islamist ideologues and militant groups have refrained from simply naming those terror groups as such. Spokespersons have constantly repeated that condemning terrorism in general is enough.

If the Muslim scholars followed this logic on the question of occupations, then neither Iraq nor Palestine should be specifically mention. But that is not the case.

Legal basis

The Deobandi fatwa didn’t explain what where the legal basis for the edict. Was there any new ground broken? Which were the previous rules that have changed regarding terrorism? Is the fatwa a reminder of a principle or a new principle to be adopted? Is the rejection of terrorism a duty (wajib) and what kind of obligation?

All these questions are warranted so that a fair assessment of the statement can be issued. Unfortunately, the legal grounds are not specific enough to enable readers — and eventually followers — to understand the absolute injunction of rejection of Terrorism.

The body of fatwas
Historically, there have been similar statements and fatwas issued in other quarters of the Middle East, yet they haven’t had a definitive impact on reality. And by exploring the reason behind the inefficiency of these declarations, one finds that the body of fatwas remains below the level of a reform, of a doctrinal radical rejection of Jihadism as a aqidah (doctrine).

The Deobandi fatwa — like its predecessors — tells followers that the principle of Jihadi wars (efforts) is sound and that the level of innocence of the target is discretionary but that engagement in violence has to be disciplined and not chaotic. In short, don’t give the infidels an alibi to compromise the ultimate goals by waging irresponsible acts of violence. Simply put: we don’t need Jihadism to be labeled as Terrorism.

Because of its unclear stipulations, there is room for more precise fatwas calling for violence against one or another targets, and receiving support from indoctrinated segments of society. These future fatwas could undo this Deobandi fatwa.

So in the end, how to deal with this and with similar edicts? At first one should welcome any statement that delegitimizes al Qaeda’s hot-headed Jihadism, even if the fatwa doesn’t cross the doctrinal line. Any call to stop terrorism is positive and should be built upon.

In principle the Deobandi fatwa should be considered as a step that needs more steps in the direction of a doctrinal reform. Minimally, these fatwas should name al Qaeda and similar groups as Terrorists. But to be considered as breaking a new ground, they must render Jihadi violence illegitimate and terrorism against non combatants illegal, regardless of any theological, ideological or political goals.

Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.

Will Deoband fatwa against terrorism work? 71% believe they won’t

Will the fatwa against terrorism work?
CNN-IBN, Wed, Jun 04, 2008

Islamic fatwas against terrorism are nothing new. US Muslim groups have issued fatwas against terrorism, so have a group of senior religious scholars in Saudi Arabia. Last week for the first time at a mass gathering Muslim leaders and groups issued a strong fatwa against terrorism.

But just two days later as if in response to this, there was a bomb blast in Pakistan outside the Danish embassy, a blast in which eight died.

Investigators probe the bomb blast in Islamabad which killed eight people new leads suggest the car used for the blasts was stolen just two days before this latest terrorist strike outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, leading Islamic groups in India, including the Deoband Dar Ul Uloom, which is said to be the inspiration for the Taliban, had issued a fatwa against terrorism, saying terrorism was un-Islamic and inhuman.

Since 9/11 terrorism has emerged as the number one enemy of Islam, this was the main concern of Muslim leaders at this Anti-terrorism conference held in Delhi on May 31.

Whether the fatwa by India’s most influential seminary will prove to be a deterrent against terrorism remains to be seen. But it will go a long way in changing the perceptions about Islam and its followers.

Will the fatwa against terror work? CNN-IBN discussed the issue on its show Face the Nation. To discuss it on the panel were Javed Anand General secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy & Co-editor, Communalism Combat, Asaduddin Owaisi, MP, Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and Ajai Sahni Security Analyst, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management.

The initial result showed that 71 per cent of the people said no the fatwa against terror will not work while only 29 per cent of the people said yes it will work.

Implementing the fatwa

Deoband Dar Ul Uloom has issued fatwa against terror but why has it taken the Muslim leadership so long to do this?

Answering the question Owaisi said, “Islam and Indian Muslims have always condemned terrorism and terrorism has no place in Islam. This is an act of desperation by the Muslim community because of continuous victimisation politicisation.”

“The investigating agencies should change their mindset against the Muslims. We hope to see these changes taking place after this fatwa has been issued by this religious seminary.”

Have the Maulanas actually been bolder and more courageous than liberal groups? Now they have gone out and said that these are not Muslims these are just criminals. Then do not belong to Islam. So why these groups don’t speak this language?

“The fact is that unfortunately the ‘moderate Muslims’ have not spoken up in the way that Maulana have spoken up and I have full of admirations for them and I do not agree one moment what Mr Owaisi said, ” Anand admitted.

“Fatwas will not stop terrorism because terrorism does not have anything to do with traditional Islam. It is modern and political in nature and hides its true face by wearing an Islamic mask and speaking in Islamic slogans. A theological device cannot control a modern monster.”

Reacting to the statement Ajai said, “As far as devices like this are concerned you must understand that there is conflict within the believers of Islam. Those who are modernized who are not committed deeply to the practice of the faith they are outside, they are as good as not being Muslims as far as the orthodoxy is concerned.

“But as far as the orthodoxy is concerned these people who are committing acts of terror claimed to be speaking for Islam. The orthodoxy must respond to them,” he added.

Terror, terrorism and religion

How, as a leader, you are going to implement this fatwa? How you are going to try and bring back the elements that are causing the terror into the fold.

Replying to the question Owaisi said, “Muslims have maintaining continuous stand that we condemned all form of terrorism. I would like to say that you can counter terror or terrorism only with justice and not with revenge. ”

What does this mean for the campaign against laws like POTA, campaign against tough laws because now you have Maulanas are out saying these are criminals they must be brought to book. Does that not strengthen hand for those arguing for tougher laws and for tougher law and order?

Anand replied, “You are talking about TADA and POTA the way it has been used that’s a different story all together. But I must say that Ajai made a very significant remark and we must all pay attention to it that Dar Ul Uloom is globally recognised as the most important centre of Islamic learning in India. A fatwa from there is like a full bench of the constitution passing a verdict.”

Terrorism seems to be political in nature, it’s from political causes, foreign policy causes, imperialist causes that it really does not have anything to do with religion. So fatwas really don’t matter.

Ajai disagreed completely with the statement that these foreign policy causes are integral to any terrorist movement.

He said, “Terrorism arises basically out of the conscious mobilization of particular communities for violence. And there will always be possible set of grievances. The grievances themselves don’t create such violence.”

“It’s not a Muslim problem. Islamic identity has been mobilized by certain sets of extremist. The core is mobilization. The very act of bringing together a mass meeting of such proportions constitutes an act of implementation,” he added.

Final result:

No: 73 per cent

Yes: 27 per cent.

CNN-IBN Editorial

The fatwa is a traditional Islamic instrument. Just as jihad actually means the struggle to find one’s faith, terrorism is modern and political and as scholars have said has nothing to do with traditional Islam. It seems doubtful therefore that a theological device can control a modern aberration.

‘A Jehad is not terrorism’: Classic Islamic doublespeak:

Quote: “Usman said that many people, especially in the West, were carrying out a propaganda that terrorism was synonymous with jehad. He said that while terrorism is destructive, jehad is constructive.” Unquote

This is a classic Islamic excercise in al-taqiyya or lying in order to mislead the kaffirs.

See here

A Jehad is not terrorism’
Express News Service, Sunday , June 01, 2008

New Delhi, May 31 In A dramatic setting of overcast clouds and billowing dust winds, over three lakh Muslims from all over India descended at the Ram Lila Grounds for the Global Peace Conference on Saturday.
Clerics from every state came together for the conference and issued a fatwa against terrorism. The fatwa follows a declaration by Jamait-ul-Hind President Qari Usman denouncing terrorism at the Deoband seminary on February 25.

Representatives of Shia and Sunni sects — Darul Uloom Deoband, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, Nadwatul Ulama Lucknow and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind — were present at the rally.

“It is proved from clear guidelines provided in the Holy Quran that allegation of terrorism against a religion like Islam, which preaches world peace, is nothing but a lie,” the fatwa reads.

Maulana Qari Sayeed Mohammad Usman, president of Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, while reading out the fatwa, said,” At present, there is a propaganda to equate Jehad with terrorism. Jehad is basically for establishment of peace, which is a fundamental right of human beings. Terrorism, meanwhile, is the gravest crime as held by Quran and Islam.”

And, it was not just the clerics. Even the laity, cutting across economic classes, reached the Ram Lila Grounds: some as early as yesterday. People started walking towards the ground from 3 pm; several had been camping since early morning.

“Every time there is any sort of unrest after a bomb blast, Muslims are blamed even without an investigation. Mohammad Iliyas was picked from Bharatpur mosque without any proof of his involvement in the Jaipur bomb blasts,” said Irfan Mohammad, a driver who reached the grounds from Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh.

People came not just from North India, but also from Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The local mosques had announced about the Global Peace Conference a fortnight back. In Delhi, the announcement was made on May 10 at the Jama Masjid.
“Our Ulema told us about the conference. A day’s income is nothing in front of din. We had to prove that Deoband does not produces terrorists and not everyone with a beard is a bomb maker,” said Rafi Mohammad, who came from Alwar in Rajasthan.

Deoband first: A fatwa against terror
1 Jun 2008, 0000 hrs IST,TNN

NEW DELHI: For the first time ever, Islamic seminary Darul-Uloom Deoband issued a fatwa against terrorism on Saturday, stating Islam had come to wipe out all kinds of terrorism and to spread the message of global peace. The Darul-Uloom had denounced terrorism for the first time in February, but had not issued a fatwa so far.

Saturday’s fatwa, signed by Darul-Uloom’s grand mufti Habibur Rehman, asserts that “Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form”.

Citing the “sinister campaign” to malign “Islamic faith…by linking terrorism with Islam and distorting the meanings of Quranic Verses and Prophet traditions”, Mahmood Asad Madani, leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, had wanted Deoband to spell out the stand of Islam on world peace.

The fatwa, issued before a huge gathering of Muslims in Delhi’s Ramlila Ground for the Anti-Terrorism and Global Peace Conference, went on to say, “It is proved from clear guidelines provided in the Holy Quran that allegations of terrorism against a religion which preaches and guarantees world peace is nothing but a lie. The religion of Islam has come to wipe out all kinds of terrorism and to spread the message of global peace. Allah knows the best.”

The conference was addressed by Jamiat chief and Darul-Uloom’s deputy rector Hazrat Maulana Qari Sayed Mohammed Usman.

He called the conference historic as Muslims of different sects and ideologies — including Nadwatul Ulama Lucknow, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board — ratified the fatwa against terrorism.

The exclusively-male turnout that read an “oath of allegiance” to the fatwa cheered most lustily as speakers attacked the US.

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader Madani, an MP, stated that the fatwa should be welcomed by the entire Islamic world.

“Killing of innocent people is not compatible with Islam. The biggest challenge faced by us today is terrorism (which) threatens to strike at the very root of the secular structure of our society besides causing irreparable loss,” stated Madani.

Notwithstanding the caveats like “unjust” and “innocent”, which may make it appear falling short of an
unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, the fatwa is viewed by many as a significant step forward towards rallying the public opinion against terrorism.

Coming after the February 25 denunciation, it is seen as reflective of the growing recognition on the part of clerics to counter misgivings about interpretations of scriptures.

Deoband has lately been under intense focus because many of the terrorist groups — from Taliban to Jaish and Harkat — are widely perceived to be Deobandi in orientation.

However, it was when the deputy rector of Deoband, Usman, came down heavily on “the dual policy of America” that the massive crowds cheered the most. “Whenever Christian and American interests are hurt in any part of the world, they take prompt action to set things right even at the cost of human lives. They maintain silence though when Muslims are the victims,” he said, further criticizing the US for its support to Israel.

According to Usman, Jamiat recently held a series of conferences and meetings with madrassas in Lucknow, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Surat, Varanasi and Kolkata to carry forward the anti-terror movement which was initiated at Deoband in February. Usman said that many people, especially in the West, were carrying out a propaganda that terrorism was synonymous with jehad.

He said that while terrorism is destructive, jehad is constructive. “Terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Quran and Islam. We are not prepared to tolerate terrorism in any form and we are ready to cooperate with all responsible people,” he said.

Jamiat fatwa against terrorism

Staff Reporter, The Hindu

Aye to peace, nay to terror: Members of Darul Uloom Deoband and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind during an Anti-Terrorism Global Peace Conference in New Delhi on Saturday. NEW DELHI: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, one of the leading Islamic organisations, along with several other Muslim outfits owing allegiance to different sects and ideologies, issued a “fatwa” against terrorism at the Anti-Terrorism Global Peace Conference at Ramlila Grounds here on Saturday.

The “fatwa,” sought by Member of Parliament and Jamiat leader Mahmood Asad Madani and issued on the letterhead of Darul Uloom Deoband, read: “Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes.”

Welcoming the fatwa, Mr. Madani said: “Terrorism has emerged as the most serious challenge faced by our nation in recent times. It threatens to strike at the very root of secular structure of our society besides causing irreparable loss in terms of human lives and property. The conference today has provided the opportunity for the entire Islamic community to come on a single platform and raise its voice against terrorism.”

The conference, organised as part of a series of such public meetings across the country, adopted a seven-point declaration condemning the propaganda that “regards terrorism as synonymous with jehad.”

“There is a world of difference between terrorism and jehad. Jehad is constructive and terrorism is destructive. Jehad is for the establishment of peace…terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Koran and Islam,” the declaration said.

Addressing the huge gathering, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind president Hazrat Maulana Qari Sayed Mohammad Usman said: “We appeal to the Government of India and international community that if they are sincere about rooting out the menace of terrorism they must strive to establish justice and fair play in society. The implementation of the Sachar Committee Report will help eradicate injustice and deprivation. The Government should take immediate action for its implementation.”

Social activist Swami Agnivesh said: “It is wrong to attribute the wrongdoings of a few individuals to the whole community. I would not mince words to say that the United States is the terrorist number one. To defame the Holy Koran and Islam is the worst form of terrorism. Islam stands for peace and brotherhood and there cannot be a bigger lie than saying that Muslims are terrorists. Who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi and former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi? Were their assassins Muslims?” he asked. End

For further analysis on Islamic doublespeak on this issue go to the popular website jihadwatch here