It is not enough for Muslims to assert that they condemn terrorism, as Islam is a religion of peace. It is common knowledge that it is not only historical - institutional Islam which has waged wars, but the doctrinal position that the Quran takes on the issue is not of absolute pacificism.
The issues related to war and terrorism therefore need to be addressed by Muslim scholars for their own clarity and for others to make a true assessment of the Muslim position. The Quran validates use of force for self-defence when people are subjected to extreme persecution to the extent that they cannot freely practise their religion and have been forced to flee their homes. Force is also legitimised for liberating a people who have been oppressed and tyrannised beyond endurance.

It is a travesty of the Quranic position to say that it exhorts Muslims to kill Kafirs per se. The exhortation is directed to the particular group of people who had driven Muslims out of their homes and who were bent on annihilating Islam. For other non-Muslims who did not persecute them the Quran directs believers to base their relations on principles of fairness and equity.

In both cases of lawful use of force it is ordained by the Shariah that force will be taken recourse to when all other methods of redressal of wrong have been exhausted. The Shariah also requires that during the conduct of hostilities non-derogable human rights shall not be violated and that protection will be ensured to non-combatants and civilian life and activities, especially children, women, old and invalid and wounded people.
It follows from this that terrorism, which invariably makes indiscriminate use of force causing destruction of civilian life and property, including women, children and old people, is a crime against humanity under Islam as much as under humanitarian law.

Taking recourse to the logic as some Muslim jehadi groups including Osama bin Laden are reported to have done that since the government of country A is a tyrannical one therefore its citizens, who are taxpayers and who are potential combatants, can also be targeted even while engaged in civilian activities, is highly perverse, which brutalises the practioners of such violence and dehumanises their political/religious creed.

It would appear that this is a position similar to that adopted by exponents and practitioners of Hindu Dharma from ancient times.

It has been rightly noted by many that the Quranic position on war is similar to that of the Gita. Though early Christianity did not entertain any idea of war, but at a subsequent stage the idea of a just war was developed within the organised Church, sanctifying crusades and martyrdom. In modern times this realistic position of legitimate use of force for a just war has been endorsed by the world community under the UN Charter (1945) and the humanitarian laws of war codified under the Four Geneva Conventions (1949).

There have been and are pacifists who would not allow use of force for any cause, even for self defence or for a just cause. They, however, do not generally remain consistent for any length of time. Gandhiji, for example, preached non-violence as an absolute religious doctrine during his struggle against the British. He nevertheless allowed Indian Armies to march into Jammu & Kashmir to fight and repel the raiders there in October 1947. It is wiser and morally more sound to allow use of legitimate force to defend just causes, otherwise might will always prevail over right, making Ravana to prosper and Rama to retreat.

Peace & justice, freedom and equality are all cherished moral and spiritual values. But in real world conditions, one is perpetually involved in making a choice between conflicting values. Those who exalt `peace' above all else disregarding the equally vital value of justice, are either naive or hypocrites or are insensitive to injustice because of their own or their class/national privileged position.
In the eyes of Islam peace is accorded a fairly high ranking in the hierarchy of values; but so is justice, which constitutes one of the refrains of the human song of the Quran. The Quran, and the life of the Prophet as exemplifier of its teachings, enjoin on every righteous person the duty to oppose injustice, and oppression to anyone anywhere. In real life, however, the option is not always binary between `justice' and `peace' or between `equality' and `freedom'. There are shades within each category requiring discrimination e.g. tolerable inequality reconciled to larger freedom and tolerable injustice reconciled to pervasive peace; and vice-versa i.e. tolerable disturbance reconciled to demands of minimum justice. Life is a spiritual quest requiring the pilgrim to continually harmonise the conflicting demands of these values within a broader framework provided by human rights norms in our times, which are comparable to Islamic norms of individual and collective rights under Shariah.

In our own times the choice of use of force also involves consideration of weapons of mass destruction including landmines, which are inherently incapable of distinguishing between civilians and combatants. It therefore requires Muslims to be in the vanguard of outlawing all atomic, biological and chemical weapons and landmines. It also requires Muslims to speak out unambiguously through their authentic intellectual and religious forums against communal and terrorist violence.

Though all terrorists on occasions try to legitimise their cult by recourse to religion, a special responsibility devolves on Muslims for getting the collective opinion of the Ummah against terrorist violence expressed not through the conclaves of opportunist rulers, but of intellectuals and religious scholars, for the simple reason that among a host of terrorist groups world over, like the IRA in Northern Ireland, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, the Naxalites, and sections of Hindus, Tribals and Christians in North East India, it is the Muslim Mujahideen whose claim to religious inspiration is most strident.

Muslim ulema and scholars should rather take a lead in getting authentic representatives of all religions endorse the humanitarian laws under Geneva Conventions, so that members of all communities may realise that if and when they feel that use of force cannot be ruled out, they must adhere to the code which prohibits communal violence and terrorism.

A call was given to the Parliament of World's Religions which met in December 1999 in Capetown to make such a declaration, but it remained unheeded because lovers of absolute peace could not think of adopting an ethical-legal code of war.

Apart from the ethical and legal requirements of observance of distinction between combatants and non-combatants, the technology, economics and sociology of modern warfare should make Muslims as well as followers of other religions join the struggle for the purification if not dismantling of the whole modern diabolical machinery of war.

This will not lead them to necessarily take a philosophical pacifist position of no use of force in absolute terms, which will allow Ravana to prosper and Rama to retreat. It will rather lead them to a position where life is treated as a perpetual struggle to choose between peace and humanised use of force. On occasions it will make us choose for peace under an order which is not perfectly just, while continuing to peacefully struggle for a more just order.
This should lead the Muslims worldwide, wherever they find themselves oppressed, to explore new techniques of militant but effective peaceful struggle of passive resistance which was evolved by, among others, Gandhi. Will it succeed? The answer lies in the question: Has terrorism succeeded?

prof. Iqbal A. Ansari is Secretary-General of the Minorities Council and a member of the Indian Liberal Group.

Root Out The Evil Of Terrorism
But Do Not Use Unlawful Force

The following statement has been issued by Prof. Iqbal Ansari, on behalf of the Minorities Council:

The Minorities Council condemns, in absolute terms, the most savage incidents in the history of terrorism causing colossal loss of innocent lives in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, which has rightly outraged the conscience of mankind. We express our heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families. We also express solidarity with the people and Government of the United States of America in their resolve to root out the evil of terrorism from the world.

We would, however, like to remind the Government. and the people of the USA that by using the language of tribal retaliation and jingoism and by threatening to use indiscriminate force against a whole people they would be involved in undermining the values of freedom, justice and rule of law, instead of promoting them.

We appeal to the people worldwide, especially of the U.S.A., not to give vent to their fury against innocent people because of their origin or community affiliation.

We appeal to all those who are committed to human rights and to ethical and spiritual values to take initiative for preventing and resolving all national & regional conflicts in a manner that does not allow the weak to suffer gross injustice and oppression for far too long driving them to seek desperate remedies.

All those who feel outraged by oppressive structures of power and systemic injustice and exploitation, must work for their overthrow by peaceful struggle. If at all force is to be used it must be done lawfully, abiding by the ethical and legal norms set by religious as well as by the humanitarian laws of war codified as Geneva Conventions.

We again appeal to the people and the Government. of the USA and to all governments actively supporting it not to take recourse to unlawful use of force.