Indian Defence Review

The Threat

The decisive defeat of the Middle East in the Gulf War struck the heart of every Muslim soul in the region. Although, Islamic Fundamentalist did pose severe challenges to its rise, it does manage to win early victories. Since, most of the Arab states actively supported the West, Islamic Fundamentalists meagrely considered them “puppets of the west”. For them, compromise was out of option. Furthermore, with the signing of Arab-Israeli peace accord, the propaganda theories of Islamic Fundamentalists were worst hit.

The elimination of “Jews from this Earth” was widely publicised in teachings of and propagation theories of Islamic Fundamentalists.

With Arab-Israeli peace accord, many factions within radical Islamic groups too “lightened” their “Anti-Israel” propaganda, especially in the concept of authority and challenges posed by western concept of democracy. The visible change was the “rise of moderate Islamic Fundamentalism”. The second change was introduction of a new faction which supported “legal fundamentalism”. The last was the radical fundamentalism.

It is important to note that, radical Islamic elements waged “aggressive tactics” against political regimes, using kidnapping, assassination, and explosions to send a message. They not only targeted government buildings or bureaucratic machinery, but also assassinated foreign tourists, dignitaries and journalists. Additionally, they targeted schools, hospitals and social institutions in an effort to terrorise the masses.

Furthermore, video-casting their messages, they used social media to their advantage and warned the West of harsh actions. In an effort to fight on external boundaries, they warned the West not to support liberal Muslims, provide any foreign aid or send peacekeepers and aid workers. For masses in the Middle East, Islamic Fundamentalism pose a greater threat since it rejects the concept of “freedom” and condemns “western culture, language, music” on a whole. The destruction caused by radical Islamic fundamental elements continues to pose a grave challenge to the Middle East.

The traditional “Islamic expansion” and theories of the great “Crusades” continues to haunt the west, particularly the image of death and plunder; the clash between the West and the East goes ages. Historically, the resurrection of Islam as a religion and its rise pose a grave threat to the West, religiously, socially and politically; the rapid military expansion in the West threatened Christendom. The historical clashes between ethno-centrism and culture indifference forced masses to raise arms against another religion. Although, a well flourished establishment would hardly affect a declining one. Thus, the threat of Islamic radical extremists is thoroughly limited. Generally, the radical Islamic fundamentalists are scattered over limited regions. They do not have “uniform” propositions nor is it likely for them to unite. They, themselves are in the state of conflict.

It would not be wrong to say that, the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists is a meagre exaggeration. While rulers in the East are in constant demand of funds to counter the Islamic threat, but use the state machinery to oppress the masses simultaneously. On contrary, many policy makers in the West particularly the State Department, are in constant need to identify fresh targets, in an effort to replace the soviets with a new enemy and communism with a new “different ideology” in an effort to benefit their policies.

Introducing the Jihad

Jihad in the verse of Qur’an

While establishing a link between Islam and global war on infidels, the first term that enquires is of “jihad”, also called the “holy war”.

Traditionally, the concept of jihad links to the “tribal war” or “internal conflict among the tribes”, a concept as old as Qur’an. In the light of this reference, for Jihad the Qur’an says:

“And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.” (Surah 2.190)

“Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged…surely God is able to help them…who were expelled from their habitations without right, except that they say ‘Our Lord is God’.” (Surah 22.40)

In the light of above mentioned revelations, stated by Muslims coming from Mecca to Medina, there are many other revelations with respect to jihad in Qur’an. These can be understood depending upon the individual readers ideology, from military perspectives, measures taken for a prisoner at guard, measures during truce with the enemy, measures taken for the “shahids” or martyrs on the battlefield, along with the promises to go to heaven and more.

Theoretically the Qur’an recommends the victor forces to be generous with the enemy and focuses on “defensive warfare” tactics against the “haters”. Since, the “defensive tactics” element is “explicitly” not mentioned in Qur’an, radical elements use the phrase on its own soothing.

Furthermore, the Surah 9.5 says, “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent of their sins, worship and willingly give alms, then let them go away.”

When the rightly chosen Guided Caliph in-charge of governance over Islamic Community after the Prophet passed away, Islam was gripped with “violent domestic truffles”, reason which it spread “aggressively” in all corners of the world. The nature of the wars during this period were not defensive but followed a pattern of “expansionist” jihad, which was fuelled with religious dominance.

Frequently, the wars motivated young Muslim soldiers with additional ownership of war spoils, corruption flourished was rampant. Nonetheless, with Qur’an, explicitly mentioning the “humility and tolerance” even to the “unbelievers” and frequent “diversified” context of the meanings, Islam cannot be termed as a “militant religion”. 

Useof Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Jihad

In an effort to understand the pedagogy of warfare in Islam, it is important for policy makers to examine the nature of “modern weaponry” in Islam. Since the use of atomic, bio-chemical warfare is strictly prohibited in Islam, there is no use of deliberation. However, using such dangerous weaponry in battlefield is in defiance of the traditional Islam. The Prophet, who propagated his message of nonviolence and disrespect to others, would naturally do not consent the use of destructive weaponry.

These actions are in direct violation to the traditional concept of Islam. Although, such weapons of mass destruction were not present during the time of the Prophet and his successors, hence use of these weaponries would confront the traditional concept of Islam.

The Prophet rather remains the funder of harmony, school of peace, tranquillity and unity. He, never advocated the use of poison in war to his soldiers, left alone the advance weaponry of today, since poison too carries the same property of killing an individual, irrespective of who the individual is. The Prophet propagated the message of “non-violence” and asked his subjects to observe humility. If a Muslim soldier did something wrong, he had to face severe punishment from the Prophet.

For aforementioned reasons, the Prophet strictly forbade the use of poison in war. Moreover, the word poison here, necessarily does not mean, a poisonous substance, it also any horrible weaponry that harms masses or has the ability to take a life, which has the property to destroy the “god’s creations”. In early wars, fighters used poison, a horrible inhumane weapon that has now been replaced by chemical and biological weaponry.

To conclude, the Prophet, who forbade the use of poison, particularly used by terror elements in October-2001 Anthrax incidents, will never agree to the use of bio-chemical weaponry and any device that has the property to destroy “god’s creation”.

Rise of Terrorism

The relation of terrorism is not first mentioned in Qur’an, but hidden in the stories of Christendom. There are various stories related to terrorism, but the first “terror” act was conducted when “Cain, the eldest son of Adam, stoned his brother, Abel, to death.”

Terrorism,  has often been used by political leaders’ to strong arm the masses in an effort to remain in control and in power. After the two World Wars, which bought a paradigm shift in the global order, terrorism has become a “general” definition for the nations of third world countries, which use “crony” words to express their discontent under western imperialism and intends to liberate themselves, followed by notable minority militant factions, such as the PLO, which seeks to establish a nation of their own.

It is important for policy makers to understand that, such interpretations vary from one country to another. In case of the PLO, terrorism is a fight for liberation. Similarly, a terrorist is a hero and a villain at the same time. In Arab nations, terrorism is not just an act of war, it is the beginning of a “holy” war, a “jihad”, and terrorists walking on this path are called “liberators” or “freedom fighters”, a “shahids”. The former head of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, who was globally condemns for being the head of the PLO, a Nobel Laureate is honoured by Arabs as their leader.

In other cases, terrorism is viewed more than just acts of violence, not motivated politically, but an indiscriminate attack that claims the lives of civilians. Furthermore, an act, which even justifies being an incident of terrorism, is a crime since it is a violation in the due process of law. On the contrary, terrorist groups profess the “concept of jihad” as the most appropriate act against the weak when they want their voices to be heard globally. The frequent news of explosions or roadside bombings are an apt example of the “limelight” these militant factions desire, which they then portray it to be a nationalist act against the infidels, an act of patriotism. This further pave the way for radical islamists to identify “jihadists” or “volunteers” for suicide bombs, who are then preached about “romanticism in jihad”, in an effort to terrorise the masses. Taking the history of religious fanatic martyrdom to the mid-twentieth century, the Arabs, use this means to protest against the West, particularly the West and Israel.

Although terrorism retains its activities to minimum places, since 1960s, potentially everyone is vulnerable to terror incidents.

In the beginning, terror factions specifically targeted US embassies and Israeli installations, but they too have become “mechanised” and “tactful” in their strategy, expanding their operational expertise to car bombs and hijacking.

Concluding remarks

To prevent communist expansion in the southern borders of Russia, CIA, MI5, heavily funded Afghan Mujahidin’s. Washington, using its strategic service intelligence groups supported the Mujahidin’s’ war against the Soviets. Washington went too far, even to approve a jihadi war against the Soviets and drove them off the sea. Educating the Afghan Taliban innovative guerrilla tactics followed by new “military hardware”, the Taliban continues to use the same strategic resources shared by the CIA, dipped in the name of terrorism. It is an irony for Washington, since it instigated the use of jihad as a weapon against the Soviets, equipped the Afghan Taliban with weaponry, the same which the Taliban now uses towards the West, particularly the US and its allies.

What the future will be, especially in the light of ISIL, Islamic fundamentalist groups, Boko Haram and resurrection of Abu Sayyaf group in South East Asia,specifically hinges on Washington’s policy on Middle East and South-East Asia. In the light of recent “Arab entanglements” between Qatar, Saudi Arabia led boycott, President Trump continues to remain silent on his policies however, remaining confident of “anti-terror” operations, not “anti-Muslimism”. It is imperative for Washington to assess the scenarios without hampering any more relations with the East, and act before it turns into a “Clash of Civilisations”. Also, it should stop enforcing the “fundamentals of western concept” upon other nations, and respect the culture, the values, particularly the masses of the East.

Moreover, the contentions between Chancellor Angela Markel, President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron remains to be high, relations remain to be sour and issues remains to be “unresolved”. It is important for US to adopt an aggressive development strategy in the Middle East, particularly for the masses and leave its traditional role of “weapons supplier”. This will not only prevent any further war with the West but also be able to refurbish its image in the eyes of the masses, restructuring the image of a “bigger, more responsible player” in the Middle East.