It isn’t fair to blame Islam for the atrocities of violent radicals. But when terrorists claim the Muslim mantle, then they bear this identity, if only nominally. Thus members of the faith must do whatever possible to prevent this cancer from metastasizing in our communities. If we don’t, we’ll be partly responsible for the smeared image of our faith.

First, we must denounce violence and not fall prey to victimhood. Having suffered oppression is no excuse for causing it or for failing to condemn terrorism. That the terrorists are committing grave sins in the name of Islam is not merely my opinion; it is the inevitable conclusion of an honest reading of primary sources: the Quran and the accounts of the life of Prophet Muhammad. The core principles of these sources—relayed over the centuries by scholars who devoted themselves to studying the Prophet’s sayings and practices, and to the “author’s intent” in the Holy Book—dispels any claims terrorists make of religious justification.

Second, it is important to promote a holistic understanding of Islam, as the flexibility to accommodate the diverse backgrounds of its adherents can sometimes be abused. Islam’s core ethics, however, are not left to interpretation. One such principle is that taking the life of a single innocent is a crime against all humanity (Quran 5:32). Even in an act of defense in war, violence against any noncombatants, especially women, children and clergy, is specifically prohibited by the Prophet’s teachings.

We must demonstrate these values by showing solidarity with people who seek peace around the world. Given the nature of human psychology and the dynamics of the news, it’s obvious that mainstream voices are less likely to capture headlines than extremist ones. But instead of blaming the media, we should find innovative ways to ensure our voices are heard.

Third, Muslims must publicly promote human rights—dignity, life and liberty. These are the most basic of Islamic values and no individual, nor any political or religious leader, has the authority to snatch them away.

Living the essence of our faith means respecting diversity—cultural, social, religious and political. God identifies learning from one another as the primary goal of diversity (Quran 49:13). Respecting each human being as a creation of God (17:70) is respecting God.

Fourth, Muslims must provide educational opportunities to every member of their communities, where the study of sciences, humanities and arts is embedded in a culture of respect for every living being. Governments in the Muslim world must design school curricula that nurture democratic values. Civil society has a role in promoting respect and acceptance. This is the reason participants of the Hizmet movement have set up more than 1,000 schools, tutoring centers and dialogue institutions in more than 150 countries.

Fifth, providing religious education to Muslims is critical to depriving extremists of a tool that they use to spread their twisted ideologies. When religious freedom is denied, as it has been for decades in parts of the Muslim world, faith grows in the shadows, leaving it to be interpreted by unqualified and radical figures.

Finally, it is imperative that Muslims support equal rights for women and men. Women should be given opportunity and be free from social pressures that deny their equality. Muslims have a great example in Prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha, a highly educated scholar, teacher and prominent community leader of her time.

Terrorism is a multifaceted problem, so the solutions should address the political, economic, social and religious layers. Approaches that reduce the problem to religion do a disservice to at-risk youth and the world at large. The international community would do well to realize that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism—both literally and symbolically—and they can help marginalize terrorists and prevent recruitment. That’s why governments should avoid statements and actions that result in the alienation of Muslims.

Violent extremism has no religion; there will always be people who manipulate faith texts. Just as Christians do not endorse Quran burnings or the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, and Buddhists do not endorse atrocities against Rohingya Muslims, mainstream Muslims do not endorse violence.

Muslims have historically added much to the flourishing of human civilization. Our greatest contributions were made in eras when the faith cherished mutual respect, freedom and justice. It may be immensely difficult to restore the blotted image of Islam, but Muslims can be beacons of peace and tranquility in their societies.

Originally published in The Wall Street Journal, Aug 27, 2015.

Undoubtedly, throughout history these states engaged in war with other states. A crucial point to understand is that war has always been a form of engagement between states caused by political, economic, or militaristic reasons. Therefore, in a hostile relationship where long-term dominance and its benefits play a major role, it would be wrong to call such conflicts religious wars solely because the opponents have differing religious identities. Such conflicts are embarked not for religious dominance but for political dominance. Additionally, it is possible for Muslims to be attacked solely for religious differences (this still happens today). In this case, it is natural to react to the attack by defending oneself and one’s religion, for, in fact, it actually becomes an obligation for Muslims to defend their religious freedom (22:39-41), themselves (2:190), and those being oppressed (Haleem 65).

Jihad, a crucially controversial concept in Islam, is often misunderstood by many Westerners, and even some Muslims. Whenever the word comes up, what comes to mind is an armed struggle by Muslims against non-Muslims, such as fights, clashes, and holy war. Jihad is a very comprehensive and dynamic term that can take on different forms, depending on historical circumstances and the needs of Muslims (Heck 95).

The word jihad comes from the Arabic root “j-h-d” and its dictionary meaning denotes doing one’s best, struggling against every kind of difficulty. In a religious context, it refers to the struggles one faces for the sake of God. In the words of Gülen “Jihad is … the inner struggle of a believer against all that stands between the believer and God” (Gülen 191). As Campanini clarifies through al-Ghazali’s teachings, there are two meanings for jihad. “The ‘great’ jihad is the struggle for self-purification, in order to conquer the evil inclinations of character and behavior, while the ‘small’ jihad corresponds to war” (Campanini 54). Delving deeper into the former category for purposes of clarification, the great jihad refers to a person’s struggle to overcome destructive obstacles within the carnal self such as feelings of resentment, hatred, envy, arrogance, and haughtiness – feelings that Islam orders followers not to harbor.

The following explanation for why jihad is confused with terrorism can be made: for the Muslim world, the 20^th century was one that was full of oppression and colonialism. Dating back further, to the 19^th century, a majority of Muslim lands were struggling for independence. In these battles and wars, Islam was conceived as a means to unite and mobilize people. During these wars, jihad was naturally the most frequently used concept. The war was against these invaders and colonizers, and the people were fighting to protect their country, their people, and their religion. Religious concepts – Qur’anic verses and the sayings and practices of the Prophet – were the main motivational factors driving Muslims during their hard struggle. Muslims called these wars, which were carried out in legitimate self-defense, jihad; however, there is a barrier between war and jihad in Islam that needs to be clarified.

The primary source of information in Islam must be the Qur’an; thus, I will refer to the Qur’an and its usage of the word jihad. Jihad is used in three verses in the Qur’an in the imperative form, as “jahid” and “jahidu,” to mean fighting against non-Muslims.

The other verses that contain jihad refer to its greater meaning, the personal struggle against feelings raised by the carnal self. Actually, the Qur’anic verses concerning war are mostly expressed by the word qital (fighting) rather than jihad (Haleem 64). In terms of the etymological meaning of qital, the relative context of the verses in which it is used and the events on which these were revealed support the fact that this word was mostly used in expressing war in the Qur’an. To give a few examples[1]:

Fight in God’s cause against those who fight against you, but do not exceed the bounds (set by God), for surely God loves not those who exceed the bounds (Baqara 2:190). But if they break their pledges after their treaty (with you) and assail your religion, then fight with those leaders of unbelief – surely they have no trustworthy pledges – so that they may desist (from aggression) (Tawba 9:12-13).

Reading these verses raises an important question: would it be wrong to identify jihad with war, or to give an emphasis to the aspect of war? The simple answer is no, for almost all of the verses related to jihad and qital were revealed in a situation of warfare. Furthermore, it would not be possible to interpret other verses in the Qur’an referring to the great jihad, such as striving with wealth (4:95, 8:72), without these terms’ relation to the aspect of war. This is the very point where the concepts of jihad and qital intersect.

When people devoid of the necessary knowledge of history and Qur’anic commentary methods interpret Qur’anic verses concerning war, they often take it out of context, ignoring the previous verse and subsequent ones, thereby presenting Islam as a religion that gives no value to non-Muslims. This is absolutely wrong. I shall support my argument with a few Qur’anic verses that are commonly misinterpreted:

… kill them wherever you come upon them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. Disorder (rooted in rebellion against God and recognizing no laws) is worse than killing. Do not fight against them in the vicinities of the Sacred Mosque unless they fight against you there; but if they fight against you (there), kill them – such is the recompense of the (rebellious) unbelievers. (Baqara 2:191)

To understand a Qur’anic verse correctly, two essential things need to be kept in mind. First, the verse needs to be considered both independently and within its context. Second, the event for which the verse was revealed needs to be considered. If we consider the above verse with its previous and subsequent verses, we understand that there is an armed group that does not want to let the Muslims live. Thus, God allows the Muslims to put up a legitimate defense, and particularly commands them not be on the side that starts the fight. Furthermore, God reminds them that they should accept any possible offers of peace from the other side, no matter the stage of war.

This verse refers to the idolaters of Mecca, who tortured every Muslim they could, declared a boycott on all relations with Muslims, sent them into exile, drove them out of their homes, tried to force them back to paganism, and when Muslims began to gain power after settling in Medina, the idolaters constantly violated their peace treaties. When the verse is considered in this light, one may even ask the question: why did the Muslims even wait for a revelation to defend themselves – isn’t it common sense to strive to survive?

Let’s take a look at another commonly misinterpreted verse: “…seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and do not take to yourselves any of them as confident, nor as helper” (Nisa 4:88). This verse is often known to be quoted separately to detach it from its context. When one reads this verse as I have presented it, one sees the image of a ruthless and aggressive Muslim, sword in hand, ready to fight. However, as we experienced with the previous verse, reading the context (Nisa 4:88-91) alone will suffice in giving us a better idea behind this verse. After reading the context of the verse, we see that the people mentioned here are the hypocrites of Mecca and Medina. They pretended to be on the sides of the Muslims, but they were not sincere in their faith. Moreover, these hypocrites took every opportunity to act against the Muslims. An additional point to emphasize with this passage is not the command to kill, but the command by God to accept peace if it is offered. Thus, Muslims are not to be on the side that starts a war, but if they are attacked by an enemy, they are allowed to defend themselves.

These were just two examples of verses that are often misinterpreted when stripped from their contexts. These misinterpretations lead to the misinterpretation of Islam and obfuscate the true meaning of jihad. We can also give examples that clarify the meaning of jihad from secondary sources, such as the Prophet’s sayings, or hadiths. God’s Messenger was the conveyor of the Qur’an; therefore it is impossible for his words or practices to contradict the Qur’an in any way. When we look at the Prophet’s sayings on the topic of jihad, we see the same truth behind it.

One example that often comes up when jihad is mentioned is as follows: on returning to Medina after a battle, God’s Messenger told his companions: “We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater one.” After having fought a battle in which many Muslims had lost their lives, the Companions were surprised to hear this statement from God’s Messenger. When they asked what the greater jihad was, he explained that it was fighting the carnal self (Ajluni, Kashf al-Khafa, 1:424).

An additional example is what the Prophet told a Companion who asked for permission if he could join a military campaign. The Prophet asked the man whether his parents were alive, upon which the man replied affirmatively. The Prophet said in return: “You perform jihad by serving them” (Bukhari, Jihad, 138). God’s Messenger had a plethora of other cases in which he used the word jihad in a wider non-militaristic sense. Two more of these sayings are: “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for truth in the face of injustice,” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, 13) and, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler” Abu Dawud, Malahim, 17). More importantly, the gravity of this form of jihad is strengthened when looking at one of the statements of the Prophet: “Whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123).

Hitherto, we have looked at jihad in a theoretical sense, using definitions interpreted from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s sayings to reveal its true nature. It is not unreasonable for the reader to wonder how the Prophet acted in times of warfare to further dispel notions of jihad being considered a “holy war”; after all, there were wars and battles in which the Prophet was present. To give a brief account of the Prophet’s example in this light, let’s consider the Battle of Badr. The enemies of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr were the Meccan pagans, who were afraid that the Prophet was amassing enough supporters to pose a strong threat to the Meccans. Consequently, the Meccans sent a letter of ultimatum to their allies in Medina, appealing for the exile and the execution of the Prophet and his followers.[2] These harsh letters caused great upheaval in Medina; however, the actions that the Prophet took quickly eliminated the anxiety of the people of Medina.

The first of the Prophet’s actions was to sign a pact of truce with nearby tribes. The essential elements that he signed with the neighboring tribes were aimed at preventing the neighbors from assisting the Meccans against the Muslims. The Meccans proved to be determined, and despite all of the Prophet’s actions aimed at holding peace, the Meccans wanted to fight. When everyone knew that the battle was inevitable, the Prophet made a last attempt by sending Umar with an offer of peace[3], which was refused and provided the spark for the Battle of Badr. Similarly, when looking at accounts of the other battles of the Prophet – Uhud, Khandaq, and Khaybar – one sees that God’s Messenger always strived to maintain peace and worked to avoid engaging in the Western, ill-defined “jihad” – the spread of Islam, the taking of lives of non-Muslims, and the acquisition of new lands.

Now that the true definition of jihad has been clarified using the Qur’an and accurate interpretations as a primary source and the Prophet’s sayings and actions during warfare as a second source, we have to consider some broader questions. When is jihad complete? How can we accept one interpretation as the proper one? Why is jihad so misunderstood by some Muslims? Does it play to their advantage to intentionally misrepresent it? Lastly, does violent jihad justify terrorism?

Jihad, as mentioned earlier, has two meanings: the “great” jihad – corresponding to self-purification in the path of God, comparable to the Christians’ miles Christi (Peters 206) – and the “small” jihad – corresponding to war. The former type of jihad is essentially never complete; it is everlasting throughout one’s life, for situations that necessitate “great” jihad emerge everyday in a Muslim’s life. In example, if we look at the citizens of Syria today who are opposed to the ruthless oppression of their dictatorial leader, we see that they experience jihad everyday, for the Prophet has stated that, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler.”[4] And the tens of thousands of Syrians who have already lost their lives in the face of injustice in Syria’s conflict have died martyrs, for the Prophet has stated that “whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123). If we consider the “small” jihad in this question, we can say that it is intermittent, experienced by Muslims whenever they need to engage in warfare for self-defense to protect their country and their religious freedom.

When faced with the question of the accuracy of interpretations, one cannot bluntly state that one interpretation is more accurate than the other. When presented with a similar question, John Esposito, a Professor of Religion at Georgetown, pointed to a Surah from the Qur’an, which recalls how “God made humankind into nations and tribes for you to get to know one another not that you may despise one another.”[5] These words support a language of religious plurality, a concept that is contrary to religious extremism. Esposito further argued that there is no central authority in Islam or Christianity who can speak for all Muslims or for all Christians. Although the Pope is the central authority for Roman Catholicism, he does not speak for the Orthodoxy or for Protestantism. Every denomination has its own individual religious authority. Islam, similarly, supports the idea of ijtihad, the individual interpretation of the Qur’an. The important point in this question behind interpretations is the broadening of the base of religious authorities. Esposito argues that although this diversification may lead to more chaotic situations, it also serves as a check for religious authorities who legitimize illegitimate wars. Therefore, this system of checking can prove beneficial in stopping wars, though it may pose more problems in other aspects of interpretation.

Earlier in the paper, I gave an example as to why Westerners might misunderstand jihad; this poses the inevitable question: why is it misunderstood by Muslims? More specifically, does it play to their advantage to intentionally misunderstand it? Rahman describes the true meaning behind the propaganda slogan “Islam was spread by the sword” in his book Major Themes of the Qur’an. He writes: “What was spread by the sword was not the religion of Islam, but the political domain of Islam, so that Islam could work to produce the order on the earth that the Qur’an seeks” (Rahman 63). However, Rahman also points out that armed jihad was often used by later Muslims whose primary aim was territorial expansion and not the worldview they were asked to establish by God. This, unfortunately, answers the question posed above with a yes; it does play to some Muslims’ advantage to intentionally misinterpret jihad for selfish reasons: territorial expansion, political power, and economic benefits, all under the pretext of “religious duty.” These kinds of interpretations of Qur’anic verses and hadiths outside of their more important contexts render the practice of religion astray, allowing selfish extremists to justify their illegal behaviors. However, it is important to note that their justifications behind their actions are largely unaccepted by the greater Muslim community around the world, those who know the distinction between the two jihads and how to apply them in their lives.[6] This brings us to the final question: does violent jihad justify terrorism?

In the Muslim world, there is and always have been radical thoughts and political ideologies; the same is true in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. However, it is wrong to identify the thoughts and the beliefs of radical groups with religion. One of the focuses of this paper was to emphasize the importance of using the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet to seek answers in Islam, and the aforementioned radical thoughts are not found in either. Nonetheless, there are still those who commit terrorist acts “for God” or “in the name of religion.” These terrorists also believe in Islam. This leads to a paradox: on one hand, we have Muslims who commit terrorist acts, and on the other hand, we have a religion that forbids these acts. If we view this paradox from the lens of Muslims, we do not see a paradox at all; it is merely a situation that is generated by a wrong perspective. If we take a look at all perspectives – the political, economic, historic, cultural, moral, and humanistic – we see that there is a perceptible dichotomy between religion and terrorism, and are able to consequently establish that terrorism does not stem from religion, but that it has other political, economic, and cultural roots. Therefore, jihad does not justify terrorism; nothing in Islam does, for terrorism is essentially forbidden in Islam.

In conclusion, jihad is a crucial concept in Islam due to the wide misunderstanding it causes amongst people around the world and the concept’s import in Islam on a global scale. While the term Islamic Terrorism – an oxymoron within itself – is inaccurate in all aspects, its existence is not the issue; its degradingly common usage, especially in the media, advertises a negative Muslim image to non-Muslims, imbuing a subconscious belief that all Muslims are terrorists. The reverse of this scenario often happens in the Muslim world as well, especially after the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. These wrongful representations of both sides do nothing but aggravate tensions between the two sides, which leads to further conflict and a discordant world. Instead, if books or news reports that clarify the true meaning of jihad and other misunderstood concepts of various religions and their applications were broadcasted for the world to hear, we would not witness as much religious conflict around the world as we witness today. What a beauty that sight would be: a harmonious society of people living with a plurality of religious beliefs.

References

• Abdel Haleem, Muhammad. 2011. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. I.B. Tauris.
• Abou El Fadl, Khaled. 2001. Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Campanini, Massimo. 2011. The Qur’an: Modern Muslim Interpretations. London: Routledge.
• Gülen. M. Fethullah. 2012. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 191.
• Hamidullah, Muhammed. 2011. Islam Peygamberi. Beyan Yayinlari.
• Heck, Paul L. 2013. “Jihad Revisited.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 32.1 (2004): 95-128. JSTOR. Web. 22 February.
• Peters, F. E. 2003. Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rahman, Fazlur. 2009. Major Themes of the Qurʼan. University of Chicago Press.
• Ünal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. NJ: Tughra Books.

[1] The reader may also refer to (Tawba 9:36) and (Tawba 9:5) for additional examples on the usage of qital that were omitted due to their length.

[2] Hamidullah, Muhammad, Islam Peygamberi, I, p. 217.

[3] Hamidullah, Hz. Peygamber’in Savaslari (Wars of the Prophet), p. 55–92.

[4] Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi 13.

[5] “Who Speaks for Islam and for Christianity?” Voice of America News, 2008.

[6] This is also true in other non-religious cases. When Timothy McVeigh caused the Oklahoma City Bombing and resulted in the death of 168 people, he thought he had legitimate reasons to do so; however, a majority of the people did not accept his thoughts as sound justification behind his actions.

Almost every society eventually creates an “other”that serves as such for certain political, economic, or social purposes. And in most cases, the identification of this “other” rests on a simplistic “us versus them” dichotomy: we are “good” people, and they are “bad” people. Because this simple dichotomy is more mythical than real, the maintenance of this myth requires a continuous pumping of misinformation into the public realm. Misinformation is not necessarily incorrect information; it is also purposeful manipulation of reality. Each society foregrounds the good acts of its own people and backgrounds their bad acts while foregrounding the bad acts of “others” and backgrounding their good acts. Thus, we all accomplish giving our own communities a delusional sense of moral and cultural superiority over others, which eventually turns the material conflicts between us and others into moral conflicts between good and evil.

The common “good Westerners-bad Muslims” dichotomy results in manipulation of the information provided to the people in the West about both Muslims and Westerners themselves. This is why in some of the Western media, evil acts of Muslim people are almost always associated with Islam while noble acts of Muslim people such as Mr. Osman are either ignored or associated with their nationality rather than their religion. In the same vein, evil acts of Western people such as those who gassed the nursery of a Muslim mosque in Ohio while about 300 people were praying inside in September 2008 are largely ignored by some of the mainstream Western media, for it goes against the “good Westerners” image.

A striking example that is used as evidence to the evilness of Muslims is the degree of support for terrorism among Muslims. Authors from Sam Harris to Robert Spencer have sought refuge in Muslim support for terrorism when they wanted to denounce Islam. Some surveys reveal that there are some Muslims who justify killing innocent people in certain circumstances. According to the respectable PEW institution’s surveys, 10 to 50 percent of people in different Muslim societies (with an average of 20-25%) often times or sometimes justify suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam. Such findings are construed as evidence to both the belligerent nature of the religion of Islam and the evilness of the Muslim mind. Yet another truth that goes uncovered in some of the Western media is the fact that there is comparable support for terrorism among Western people as well. According to a 2007 survey by World Public Opinion, for example, 24% of Americans find “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” often times or sometimes justified. But such surveys never find a place in the some of the mainstream American media because they go against the common “good American-bad Muslim” dichotomy.

The problem of misinformation is not unique to the West. It is equally problematic in Muslim societies. Most Muslims have known the United States and Americans through the lenses of Vietnam, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the like. But few of them are aware of such programs like Peace Corps or Volunteers for Prosperity because such good American acts go against the mythical “bad Americans-good Muslims” dichotomy in the Muslim world. Similarly, most Muslims have memorized many non-Muslim names for their brutal acts against Muslims, but very few Muslims are familiar with Muslim names who are held responsible for the crimes against humanity. Whereas the former figures confirm the mythical “good Muslims-bad non-Muslims” image, the latter contradicts it. Therefore, the former examples have been highlighted in the Muslim media and the latter has been ignored.

On the forefront of this universal misinformation campaign are two institutions: the media and governments. The media loves sensational, flashy news because such news pumps up their ratings. Consequently, the media capitalize on overstated evilness of some other people and the existential threat they pose to “our” society. In the same vein, our governments love the existence of “external threats to our national security,” mythical or real, because it allows them to divert public attention from failed domestic policies to international politics and also to implement certain political and military agenda that they could not have carried out without a foreign threat. John Mueller, a professor of political science from Ohio State University, estimated that “the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000-about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor.” Yet whereas no sane American is obsessed with the adversity of a meteor falling on his/her head, many have been made to obsessively think, fear, and guard themselves against a terrorist attack by some evil others.

Most of us have been misinformed about other societies to some extent. We are all, therefore, in need of a therapy of knowledge refinement. But how do we do that? Personally, I think there are two effective ways/channels of refining our knowledge and acquiring authentic information about other societies. First, we need to diversify our sources of information by reading multiple and multi-national news papers or portals. Second, we need to diversify our pool of friends and include in it as many people from “other” societies as possible. Nothing is more powerful than a concrete counter-example when it comes to destroying a myth. As we diversify our sources of information and befriend people from other societies, we will realize that “we” are not as “good” as we are told we are, and “they” are not as “bad” as we are told they are, which will hopefully help us re-appreciate the essential commonality between all of us: humanity. Hopefully, we will then also realize that the major struggle is not between “good” us versus “bad” them but rather between the good people and the bad ones among us all. We need to find ways of testing or confirming knowledge we get from the media and not forget that the media is owned and operated by people, who, like us, have many presumptions, biases, priorities, or simply misconceptions, that can spill over when they are “reporting.”

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in political science. He is a freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

The following day journalists, writers, columnists, newscasters, academics, members of think-tanks, and politicians announced that this day had been a milestone. The term “milestone” marks the beginning of new things; what was about to begin now? As time passed we understood what they meant. Nothing in America was the same as before. On September 10, 2001 it had been the land of liberty; on September 12 the situation totally changed. Due to the religious identity of the members of Al Qaeda, who were declared to be the perpetrators, the USA, indeed almost the entire world, had become uninhabitable for anyone with the same religious identity. Liberty had been replaced by constraints and accusations. Not only the USA, but indeed the entire world had shrunk for Muslim people.

It is possible to understand the anger of Americans who lost their loved ones in this tragic incident, one in which almost 3,000 people died. It is also possible to understand people insulting Muslim women wearing headscarves and Muslim men in their beards and turbans. Attacks on mosques during this time could even be considered tolerable. However, what is difficult to understand is the long-lasting discrimination against Muslims and the perception of each and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. For the USA, a country with multicultural politics it cannot be reasonable to formalize changing attitudes with legislation. Something was happening to this country, one which had been advocating peace not war, one that had been known as the land of freedom and diversity. However, all this has happened because America was undergoing a period in which wisdom had been abandoned, something noted by many people.

I want to tell you about two of my memories. One of them occurred in 1999. I and several friends were going to the southern region of New Jersey. When we landed at JFK, we had another 2 hours to drive to our destination, if the traffic was light. Because it was time to pray and we would not be able to get to our destination before the time to pray, we decided to pray on the way. We performed ablution in a rest area. We laid our prayer rugs on the ground and we prayed in public, on the grass. We did not notice anyone glaring at us. We did not encounter any quizzical expressions nor were we treated in any disparaging manner. People in the USA would ask Muslims to mention them in their prayers when they came into contact with God. They also used to show us places to pray. But today? Although some claim that attitudes have not changed, Muslims cannot pray without worrying about somebody calling 911. This is not just an empty claim or remote possibility. There have been many examples of this kind of situation.

Another memory is from the USA of 2002. I was at an airport, getting ready to fly to another state. Although I passed through a number of security checkpoints along with other passengers, the security officer pulled me over. This had happened many times after 9/11, but this time I could not resist asking, “Why?” I had become exasperated with such acts of discrimination. I was fed up with being treated like a terrorist and a man to pity under scornful eyes. Angrily I asked “Why me?” I suppose he had undergone training in psychology. He held my arm, smiling, which made me feel comfortable. He showed me my boarding pass and the 3 S on it. He explained that it means extra security check. He said that the computers put these letters there because I have a Muslim name. He also told me that I should not take it personally because the computer program adds this to all names entered into the system. I realized that my name, which I have always been proud of, was now a reason for discrimination. I am sure that this was only because of 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Are such precautions appropriate? Many authorities, in particular, politicians at that time agreed they were necessary. There were some people who did not agree, but their number was less and they could not speak up. 10 years after this horrific incident many people now say that all such actions were inappropriate.

The past stays in the past. It is ridiculous to try to carry yesterday’s issues to today. However should we not learn from the past? I Religion, language, ethnicity, creed, and profession are our secondary identities, coming after being human. These were differences that gave us a sense of belonging. In the same way that capital has no religion, terrorism cannot have any religion. If there is a list of words that cannot go together, “religion and terrorism” takes first place. We can neither relate to religion nor explain by religion what the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh or the Norwegian terrorist Behring Breivik did. In the same way that we cannot relate what they did to their religious identity as Christian terrorism, we cannot do the same with the events on 9/11 as Islamic terrorism. However, sadly this has not been the case.

All rational Muslims have exclaimed that it is in no way justified to identify Islam and Muslims with terrorism. Many authorities, scholars, politicians, academics, and opinion leaders have also said that this was a grave mistake. Even though a terrorist may have a Muslim identity, you cannot generalize and scrutinize such behavior from an Islamic perspective. On that day the newspapers published full-page condolence messages. Muslim scholars and academics also penned letters that condemned terrorism. This period, as it was one in which wisdom did not exist, prevented people from seeing all this, perhaps because it was Islam being accused and they didn’t really care about it, or because they did not want to change their foreign policy which they based on these attacks, or because they were prejudiced, or because they wanted to ease public opinion. What did happen was that common sense was ignored and people behaved as they wanted to.

Thank God, this lack of wisdom did not last long. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the mood has changed. Not all Muslims are considered to be potential terrorists anymore. People who have Muslim names do not get extra security checks at airports. The terrible slaughter in Norway has made the authorities start to reconsider their policies. Religious and cultural diversity projects and models for living together with peace are being reviewed. Projects that cover all areas of life, such as world brotherhood, coexistence while preserving differences, making the world a place for togetherness, preventing the otherization of other people have all started to take place despite the existence of some people who still see “others” as the enemy. We sincerely hope that those who are for peaceful coexistence will dominate over the second and the world will never experience a new 9/11, Oklahoma, Madrid, London, or Oslo attacks again.

•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture defines torture as:

… any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

There is also a myriad of laws and conventions prohibiting the use of torture. In the oft-repeated words of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 3 states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A large number of international laws have been adopted to combat torture from Article 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 of the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) , and the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The ticking time-bomb scenario

In spite of torture being almost universally condemned, some have sought to justify the use of it in the “ticking time-bomb” scenario. While some versions of the scenario are more or less elaborate, the basic idea is that a terrorist has placed a bomb in a public place; if it is detonated many innocent lives will be lost. The authorities have detained a terrorist and are certain that the terrorist has relevant information as to the whereabouts of the bomb. The terrorist knows details that could lead to its defusing, however without the terrorist’s confession there is no other way to defuse the bomb. If the information is provided, the bomb will be diffused and the terrorist will not be tortured. But if the terrorist does not reveal the relevant details, he will be tortured until he does so.

The question posed in this situation is whether the torture of the person is permissible, impermissible or obligatory. Defenders of torture argue that it is permissible, and in some cases even obligatory; the right of the person with information not to be tortured is outweighed by the right of potential bomb victims not to be killed or injured. Given the choice between inflicting a small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving the lives of many innocent people, is it morally indecent to prefer the interest of the wrongdoer?

The problem with the ticking time-bomb scenario is that it is impossible to know in advance how much pain would be caused by the bomb exploding and how much pain would be caused by the torture. Morally, it does not matter who experiences the pain or how intense it is. No one should go through such pain.

A critique of the ticking time-bomb scenario as a defense of torture

There are many reasons why torture is impermissible. Even if we accept it as a necessary evil, torture is an unreliable way to obtain information and evidence, especially when terrorist organizations know about torture and prepare for it by ensuring that no individual knows all the facts of any one operation. A person being tortured will say almost anything the torturers want to hear, even if it is false, so that their pain and suffering will come to an end. Another reason why torture should be prohibited is the fact that every society detests the violation of common morals; torture is a way of destroying the existing moral fabric of societies.

The ticking time-bomb misrepresents the real world. It is a simplification of reality in order to persuade people that torture can be permissible under certain circumstances. The torturer, for instance, is not portrayed as cruel and insensitive to the victims’ pleas, but rather as a heroic and conscientious public helper desperate to save the lives of innocent people that are weighing on his conscience. If one was to take this scenario hypothetically, it is worth asking how long a suspect should be tortured. How much should he be tortured? Should the frequency increase if he doesn’t talk, or as time runs out?

Secondly, if an official is willing to torture a person to extract information, why should he stop there? If the terrorist does not crack under pressure and pain, why not move on to torturing his family and friends in front of him? Seeing loved ones hurt is another form of torture that may be viewed as potentially useful as actual torture. Who is to guarantee that in order to extract information from a possible suspect, all probable measures, such as hurting loved ones, should not take place? In a world where the truth is unclear and where the existence of information held by a suspect remains ambiguous, the ticking time-bomb scenario should not be a valid point of reference.

Another way of looking at the ticking time-bomb scenario is the argument that it can help prevent future terrorist acts and act as a warning for others. If torture is permitted, it might be argued that it can help stop crimes. This cannot be the case in a society where right and wrong is judged upon what the behavioral norms of people are. If torture is permitted even in exceptional circumstances, then we run the risk of violence becoming tolerated and accepted in society as a normal response.

Contrastingly, it can be argued that even though in theory the requirements of the ticking time-bomb scenario can be met, in practice it is very difficult. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the suspects being interrogated are in fact terrorists, or, even if they are involved with a terrorist group, it cannot be certain or probable that they in fact have any information. Secondly, torture is not guaranteed to work if the assumption is based on mere possibility, as opposed to the certainty, that torture will make anyone talk. Thirdly, there is very little evidence suggesting that torture obtains results within a short time and in the most effective way.

Torture in Islamic jurisprudence

In Islam, human beings are considered as being the most exalted of all creation, created in the finest manner, adorned with rights and freedoms that cannot be undermined. Consequently, torture and inhuman practices inflicted on human life are strictly forbidden. An authority or state body whose aim is to restore justice cannot go outside the sphere of what is just and apply torture-this is haram, forbidden, in Islamic jurisprudence. The Qur’an explains the concept of justice in the following verse:

O you who believe! Be upholders and standard-bearers of right for God’s sake, being witnesses for (the establishment of) absolute justice. And by no means let your detestation for a people (or their detestation for you) move you to (commit the sin of) deviating from justice. Be just: this is nearer and more suited to righteousness and piety. Seek righteousness and piety, and always act in reverence for God. Surely God is fully aware of all that you do. (Al-Maidah 5:8)

In Islamic jurisprudence, a guilty person cannot be forced into confession through torture. If such a case arises, a person cannot be punished for the information they provide as a result of such force. This is because the most important right of an individual under Islamic law is the principle presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In Islamic jurisprudence, a conviction has to be based on sound proof and certainty and not on mere probability, like the ticking time-bomb scenario. If there is reasonable doubt, it is seen as being in favor of the accused, not against. This principle is based on the saying of Prophet Muhammad: “Prevent punishment in case of doubt. Release the accused if possible, for it is better that the ruler be wrong in forgiving than wrong in punishing.”

Said Nursi, a twentieth century Islamic scholar, refers to the strict prohibition of torture in Islam as “pure justice” as opposed to “relative justice,” which is taking on the lesser of two evils. He makes reference to the Qur’anic verse “He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind” (al-Maidah 5:32). Nursi further explains his ideas in light of the Qur’anic verse above.

“[N]o innocent person can be deprived of his or her right to life or sacrificed for the community’s sake. Any right is a right in God’s sight, and thus cannot be abolished for one considered just as great or fundamental.”

When a relative justice approach is taken, the right of an individual is overlooked in favor of the rights of the community. Nursi argues that attempts made to apply relative justice are wrong if it is possible to apply pure justice.

By looking at Islamic principles on torture and the ticking time-bomb scenario as a whole, it can be said that because torture is strictly prohibited in Islam, it cannot be used to attain a confession from a terrorist. As a result, there would be uncertainty and doubt as to the guilt of that individual. In such cases, punishment needs to be prevented on the presumption that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

How to prevent both terrorism and torture

In order to eradicate terror and terrorists, we need to be able to go deeper into the core of the problem and ask ourselves this simple question: would a reasonable person go and threaten to kill thousands just for the sake of killing? There has to be a reason behind such an act. If we cannot discover what is bothering one individual, we cannot solve such a problem. If such problems are not listened to and dealt with in a proper humane manner then one side will continue to torture and the other side will continue to threaten to kill, but for how long? In the end, what we need to realize is that we are dealing with a human being who is facing torture, not an animal.

As long as there is not full certainty that the terrorist is guilty, there has to be another way to deal with situations like the ticking time-bomb without having to resort to torture. There has to be an alternative, one that does not discriminate against an individual on the basis of race or religion, without segregation, belittlement or force. One alternative could be interrogation and reasoning with the terrorist, discovering the reason why they have such a person who poses a threat. The interrogators must ask themselves what has made the suspect what he is, what has triggered him to take such a drastic action, and try to discover what he wants. If voices are being heard and individual problems are being dealt with, why is there still such rebellion and terror in our society? If there is terrorism in a society, there must be injustices. In a society where justice is being served, there cannot be terrorism.

Another solution to terrorism lies in the religious foundations and moral upbringing that should be grounded in every individual and society to prevent such scenarios like the ticking time-bomb from arising in the first place. If every society is sustained by religious, moral and human values, then would, without a doubt, be peace. This moral framework is most effective when it is established early on in life through educational upbringing so that later on such concerns do not develop.

Fethullah Gulen, a modern day scholar and thinker, acknowledges that it is through religion that such a moral framework can be instilled within people.

Humankind, since the beginning of time, has found true peace and happiness in religion. As it is impossible to talk of morality and virtue where people do not practice the true religion, it is also difficult to imagine real happiness. For morality and virtue originate in good, clear conscience and what makes conscience good and clear is religion, which is the connection between humanity and God.

It is extremely important for individuals to realize that when dealing with such scenarios as the ticking time-bomb, no religion supports such behavior. In the Qur’an it is stated that “… those who affront believing men and believing women without their having done any wrong to deserve it, they have surely burdened themselves with calumny and a blatant sin” (al-Ahzab 33:58).

Similarly the Bible states “Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment” (Matthew 5:21). Also, in Jewish scriptures, there is reference to Hillel who says in the Talmud, Shabbat 31a “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow.”

If religion and moral values are instilled within individuals effectively, even when there is no one present, the fear of God and the love for God will prevail to prevent such treacherous acts like torture and killing from taking place. Those individuals who fear God are less likely to break the rules if they believe that they are being watched and that any action they do will have a consequence. It can also be said that those individuals who love God in His goodness, compassion and mercy will be more likely to do virtuous acts, above and beyond simple duty. It is when society is filled with such conscious people that crime rates can drop and the door to torture and terror can remain closed. There will neither be terrorist’s withholding information regarding the whereabouts of a bomb nor law enforcement agents waiting to torture possible suspects.

In a nutshell, there are numerous arguments for and against the use of torture in exceptional circumstances like in the ticking time-bomb scenario. However, such circumstances cannot justify the breaching of one human’s right in place of another’s, regardless of the quantity of lives involved on either side of the spectrum. Everyone must have an absolute right to life. It is the lack of prohibition of torture by various states that enable such unnecessary exceptions like the ticking time-bomb to arise. There can be no legitimate basis for the limiting of this human right, because a human right to be free of torture is absolute.

Note

1. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 Dec. 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1467 UNTS 85 (1985), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

2. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed 4 November. 1950, entered into force 3 Sept. 1953

3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, G.A. Res. 217A, 3 UN GAOR, UN Doc. A/810, at71 (1948), available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/3/ares3.htm

4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171, reprinted in 6 ILM 368 (1967), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

5. M. A. Abdel Haleem, Adil Umar Sharif and Kate Daniels. Criminal Justice in Islam: Judicial Procedure in the Sharī’a , UK: I.B.Tauris, 2003, p. 48.

6. Abu Dawud, Salat, 14; Tirmidhi, Hudud, 2.

7.Said Nursi, The Letters, The Fifteenth letter from the Risale-i Nur Collection, NJ: The Light, Inc., 2007) p. 92.

8. M. Fethullah Gulen, Criteria or the lights of the way, London: Truestar Publications, 1996, p. 5.

We didn’t have long to wait. The next morning the opening ceremony of the conference entitled “From Terrorism to Universal Ethics: Religions and Peace” in Moscow, staged by Dialogue Eurasia Platform of the Journalists and Writers Foundation and the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies, reflected the same colorful picture of the rainbow the day before. Turkish folk music singer Mahsun Kirmizigul performed the song “The Song of Religions” and 48 children in groups of eight, all dressed in white, came onto the stage with scarves of different colors that represent richness of diversity. Following this colorful performance, 14 spiritual leaders and ecclesiastics took their respective seats: Mark Yegoryevskiy, the representer of Alexi II, the Patriarch of the Russian-Orthodox Church; Emmanuel Adamakis, Metropolitan of France; Priest Sahak Mashalyan, the representative of the Turkish Armenian Patriarch; the assistant of Ravil Gaynutdin (the mufti of the Muslims in Russia); Prof. Mustafa Cagrici, the mufti of Istanbul; Ishak Haleva, the Chief Rabbi of Turkish Jews; Syrian Ancient Community Metropolitan Yusuf Cetin; Yusuf Sag, Vice Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Community; Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, from India, the founder of The Art of Living Foundation; Byung Do Min, Buddhist Priest from South Korea; Tizen Giok Sang, the Buddhist priest, the representative of the Dalai Lama; Bingkil Irawan, the representative of the Confucius Community of Indonesia; Jadi Nugroho Damaris, the leader of the Protestant Community in Indonesia. Some of them prayed according to their own beliefs and some of them shared their ideas. Then they all planted a “Tree of Love” in a glass sphere that had a world map drawn on. The sphere was filled with earth that had been taken from different parts of the world, and then the children carried water in their hands in order to show everyone how difficult it is to help an olive tree to grow, the symbol of peace.

It was not surprising to see the use of such symbols in order to relay impressive messages at the beginning of the ceremony; interestingly, the four fundamental concepts (terrorism, universal ethics, religion, and peace) that are usually defined differently and toward which different approaches are generally adopted were all discussed under the same heading. What is more, the conference was held in the city of Moscow; a city that was the capital of a country where it used to be imposed that “religion is the opium of the masses.” This meeting was held near the Duma, the sub-parliament of the Russian Parliament, and about 100 yards from Red Square.

In addition to the role the city played in the past and the significance of the subject, the hall where the conference was held was also important. The sessions were held in a conference hall called the Kalani Zal; formerly this had been where important decisions had been made and where the funeral of Stalin, a leader who had put religious groups under great pressure, was conducted 52 years ago. In this hall, adorned with dozens of chandeliers, large and small, the participants expressed their pleasure in being there, as well as stressing the need for perpetual peace in the world. The fact that the writer Chingiz Aytmatov expressed his feelings in the following way indicates the importance of the meeting: “This symposium stems from a need. We have organized it so that we can strive to form common values; this is what life forces us to do. Why does terror exist with the technology that we have developed? Why are people still killing each other? For what reason has terrorism been identified with Islam? We have all just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. While its sorrow is still fresh in our heart, why is terrorism still on the agenda? We are here to answer these questions. In the past we used to gather in this hall for important occasions. Now it is good that we are here for different goals.”

A Platform geared up

In fact for a long time the DA (Dialogue Eurasia) Platform has been organizing meetings and publishing books in order to try to meet the concerns expressed by Aytmatov. The meeting in Moscow was a part of such efforts, but one detail separated this symposium “From Terrorism to Universal Ethics: Religions and Peace” from the others. In the past, these activities had been limited only to the region of Eurasia and the area of Abrahamic faiths; now they had gone one step beyond. Among the many participants from 38 countries there were Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Confucians; the geographical boundaries ranged from the United States, Canada, Bulgaria, Georgia, India, South Korea, and Indonesia. Such an expansion to include almost the entire world shows the ground that the DA Platform had covered in a very brief time.

During the meeting people expressed their dissatisfaction with the trend that was now prevalent throughout the world. The deadlock that Western civilization had reached and is now facing was often referred to, as well as the attempts to find a solution to the problems and the expression of the need for alternative approaches. The participants were aware of the problems, but when it came to solutions, the common points made way to different insights and approaches. Ratislav Ribekov, the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Oriental Studies, dwelled on the role of religion in this subject, saying, “All the religions must be in the struggle for good and bad; they must join forces.” Prof. Ilber Ortayli, the second-term president of the DA, said “Peace means religion and religion means peace. Each and every religion tries to realize this by striving for peace.” With this sentence, he sent a clear message to those who were trying to make a connection between “terrorism” and “religion.” Anar, the Chairman of the Writers Foundation in Azerbaijan, also spoke on the point made by Ilber Ortayli and he reminded us that all cooperation and reciprocal understanding begin with dialogue. Muhammed Nur Hidayet, the President of the Assembly in Indonesia, emphasized the importance of “being constructive without being destructive,” showing the approach that should be adopted.

The symposium consisted of five sessions. In the first session, “The Obstacles of Global Peace and Critical Views,” Dr. Kamran Mofid from England presented a paper with a heading of “Violence or Dialogue?” Born in Iran, Mofid stated that the world was enraged and displeased and said “Bombs explode everyday. People are killed. That is not the type of world that God wishes for.” A lecturer in economics, Mofid said that he had noticed the close connection between economics and theology, and that economics inseminates people with the idea “You can be happy through consumption”; theology states that the same happiness can be realized with the help of love and compassion. “Money is important. Being rich or trading are also important. But those who deal with money should know that wealth is attained only for a noble goal.”

Mofid also said “We talk continuously about economic growth and prosperity at school, on the street, and on TV. We have focused too much on production and consumption. However, we do not discuss whether economic growth can bring justice. Then why do we produce something? What is our aim? What is more, what is the goal of the journey we call ‘life’?” He stated that the world was in need of a spiritual revolution and we should contemplate the concept of “common benefit.”

The second speech was made by Prof. Hassan Hanafi from the Cairo University. The title of his paper was “Violence and the Factual Analysis of the Violence Thesis Based on the Enlightenment Theory Opposing Violence.” Hanafi said “It is easy to curse terrorism, but it is difficult to reveal its sources. We want to extirpate the source of violence and terror from the world, but it is a hard to admit that we are desperate.” He stated that violence and terror were social facts and that tendency toward violence decreases as people gained their liberty. He said “We often accuse others, saying ‘I’m innocent.’ We even say ‘my violence is good,’ but apart from individual violence, there is also the violence of organized groups and even states.” He stated that terrorism has become a global “phenomenon” and that the mass media has played an essential role in this process. The final speaker of the first session was J. C. Kapur, publisher of The Journal of International Issues and president of the Kapur Surya Foundation in New Delhi. Unfortunately, he was not able to participate in the symposium, so his paper, “Challenges on the Pathways to Peace,” was read by someone else. Kapur stressed that the misconstruction of secularism had caused the erosion of ethical values in society.

The title of the second session, conducted by Prof. Dogu Ergil, was “Religion, Belief and Tradition: the Contribution to Universal Ethics.” In this session, Prof. Dimitri Kitsikis dwelled on the role of religions for the maintenance of peace in a globalizing world. Claiming that nation states are steadily disappearing, Kitsikis said “The European Union is openly directing its efforts, in its integration process, to replace nation states with regions. In time, all nation states will be carved up into regions inside the European Union.” Drawing attention to the process of Turkey’s membership, he stated that some regions were being encouraged toward autonomy in some member countries of the EU: “Turkey should be aware of what is awaiting her when she joins the European Union as a full member.”

No peace project can continue without religion

Presenting a paper with the title “The Importance of Interreligious Dialogue in the Middle East Peace,” Rabbi David Rosen from Israel talked about the misuse and exploitation of religion. Stating that religion adds meaning and goals to our lives, he said “Religion surely brings identity to a person. Who am I? What is my aim? Of course the answers to these questions disclose our psycho-moral values.” He also commented on the reflection of religion and the identity relationship in the Israeli-Palestine conflict in the Middle East: “The Israeli-Palestine conflict is in fact a regional problem. This is a conflict over land. This can be solved by a regional concession, namely the giving of some land. Of course, this should be done with the affirmation of both parties. Unfortunately, this has not yet been realized. This regional conflict has turned into a religious conflict. Now a party is using religion to try to remove the other, while the other side is trying to defend itself in the same way. A conflict for land can be solved by means of land concessions.” Stressing that the components of religion and identity have become intertwined, Rosen thinks that we should make religion a part of the solution. If we exclude religion, it could hang over our heads. No peace project can be lasting without benefiting from religion.

Submitting a paper with the title of ‘Can Sufism be a Base for a Universal Ethics?’ Prof. Kenan Gursoy put the same emphasis on this matter: ‘Those who have tried to exclude religion are now unsuccessful. Today we have to discuss the problems without avoiding religion. If religion becomes the means of domination instead of bringing an inner peace, then we must evaluate it in the name of humanity and ethics. Modernity has become ethics of division and there is no space for differences there. In this part of the symposium, Associate Prof. Irina Kudrasava of the Foreign Relations Institute of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Russia made a speech that gave some important clues about Moscow”s perspective on world politics, and particularly on terrorism. Having stated that after the collapse of the Soviet Union there had been a process of globalization and that the liberal model was in effect all over the world, Kudrasava thought that globalization had introduced serious problems in terms of economy and humanity in the Islamic geography. Therefore, many Muslims believe that Christians and Jews were waging a war against Muslims. On the contrary, there is no such thing; this is merely the result of political injustice. Expressing that globalization made human beings Western and that the West is viewing the rise of Islam as being ‘aggressive and dogmatic,’ Irina Kudrasava went on to say that, ‘Islam is perceived as a phenomenon that must be kept under control. Therefore the West behaves like a policeman and keeps Islam within limits.’

According to Kudrasava, globalization had made countries dependant on each other. ‘Today there are 15-20 million Muslims in Europe. These are not only the emigrants coming from outside of Europe, but also Europeans that have accepted Islam. The priority of the first emigrants was economic independence. Religion and culture became more important for the children of the first emigrants. There are foundations, mosques, houses of culture, and publications that belong to the Muslims in Europe now. In short, there has been an Islamic revolution in Europe.’ Evaluating the end of the second session, Dogu Ergil said that, ‘Humans are like a family. Individuals are responsible to one another in matters of independence, prosperity, and security. This leads to an insight of morality. Almost everybody answers the question of ‘Can religion form such a common ethical insight?’ by saying that it is possible. Religions must be part of the solution, not the problem. Therefore, religions must establish dialogue with each other in the name of compromise.’ On the second day of the symposium, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, from India, was the chairman of the session. Abd al-Wahid Pallavicini, the President CO.RE.IS. Italiana, was unable to participate in the symposium for the first speech. Prof. Ahmed Abdulveli Vincenzo, from Napoli Frederico II University read Pallavicini”s paper, ‘What is European Islam?’ on his behalf. Stating that in terms of sociology the existence of a large number of Muslims is being perceived as if there were many forms of Islam, Vincenzo went on to say that Islam was a universal religion and addresses everyone. Believing that concepts like fundamentalism, civilization, and tolerance have been misunderstood, he said ‘Fundamentalism was born in a Baptist Church in the US. It made religious concepts political. Fundamentalism does not exist in Islam. It is an ideology. The civilization philosophy of Islam can only be explained in terms that we call umran, which means ‘the existence of God in society.’

Umran is a concept that shows that human beings are equal and a concept which has a universal quality.’ Stating that dialogue is one of the key concepts between Muslims and Western Europe, Vincenzo said, ‘The religion that is the majority religion in a region must approach other minority religions with tolerance. Freedom of religion in Europe does not necessarily mean that all religions in Europe have the same conditions; Islamic groups are not treated with equality to other Christian groups. For a multi-cultural Europe, it is essential that we get in touch with those Islamic groups that are on this continent and that the Muslims tell the Europeans about the universality and encompassing nature of Islam.’ Presenting a paper under the title of ‘Synagogue, People, and Ethics’ Zinoviy Kogan, Chief Rabbi of Russia, stated that Russia is a country where celestial religions have existed for a long time, that an interreligious platform has been founded in the structure of the Russian Federation, and that they amicably live with the Muslims of Russia. ‘Ministers should attach importance to dialogue instead of highlighting the areas of dispute. Stalin tried to eradicate the Jews and other people who belonged to other religions. We got rid of him; we saw him off 50 years ago in this hall.’

In the second session of the second day, individual and civil society dynamics and universal ethics were discussed. Chingiz Aytmatov was the chairman of this session and Prof. Memetsho Illolov expressed that peace was being maintained in the Eurasia region and that there was dialogue among both political figures and non-governmental organizations. Then, presenting a paper under the heading of ‘Democracy and the Human Rights Problem in the Traditions of Western and Islamic Law,’ Prof. Leonid Sukiyanen, one of the most eminent experts of Islamic Law in Russia, stated that the Islamic world and other religions have some serious problems when it comes to understanding each other. According to Sukiyanen, human rights and democracy today are explained in terms of liberal concepts. Therefore, Western countries tell Islamic countries that ‘If you want democracy, betray your Islamic principles.’ Extremist Muslims appear under the flag of Islam and claim that there is no common point between them, the West, and democratic values. On the contrary, Islamic principles have arguments that support dialogue among civilizations.

A discussion of the legal system

After this evaluation, Sukiyanen went on to say that, ‘Politics should support the democrats, not the extremists.’ He also mentioned different cultural structures and problems, reminding us that in some countries some rights have only recently been given to women. Saying that ‘There may be some kind of compromise between West and Islam on some common points, like human rights,’ Sukiyanen suggested that within the scope of Dialogue Eurasia, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish jurists could meet and discuss their own law systems. In his paper, ‘The Role of the Civil Society in Preventing International Terrorism’ Alexander Dichek, the President of the Ukraine Anti-Terror Center, said that modern terrorism had become a social fact that had reached very dangerous dimensions. Stating that it is not possible to eradicate terrorism through sheer force, he said ‘We do not divide civilization into West-East or Islam-Christianity.’ According to Dichek, terrorism has demanding economic and human resources conditions. Therefore, in order to struggle with the fact that ‘systematic terrorism’ has a huge structure, it is inevitable that a new national security architecture be founded. The last speech in the same session belonged to Ali Bulaç, the columnist from the daily newspaper Zaman. Dividing the world into two categories, as ‘the region of crisis’ and ‘the region of potential crisis,’ Bulaç said that the main question we should be asking must be, ‘Can we solve these conflicts with the accumulation of knowledge and experience we have?’ Claiming that what we have learned in the 200 years since the Enlightenment had not been enough to find a solution to the existing problems, Ali Bulaç went on to say that people are seeking solutions outside of the West. He also stated that the Madina Agreement was a good reference for the solution of the problems of the world. In the last session of the symposium, named ‘Applicable and Sustainable Peace Projects,’ Prof. Hervé Legrand, Sergey Lazarev and Rabbi Brad Hirschfield presented their papers. Finally, Dr. Gunduz Aktan, former Turkish ambassador to the Geneva office of the UN made the conclusive remarks about the event. In brief, ‘religion and religious arguments’ were the basic ingredients of the two-day symposium.

Note

This report was originally published in Aksiyon, issue # 549, Istanbul, and we thank Kemal Budak for its translation into English.

The need for dialogue among people of faith has been underscored by the events of the past few years. Interreligious dialogue is seen as an alternative to the much-discussed “clash of civilizations.” Those who do not subscribe to the theory that a civilizational clash is inevitable are proposing instead a dialogue of civilizations, an exchange of views aimed at mutual enrichment, a sharing of insights that can lead all to a deeper understanding of the nature of God and God’s will for humankind on this planet.

That is what this book is about. It presents the thoughts of one of the most influential Muslim scholars and spiritual leaders in the Islamic world today. The movement inspired and guided by Fethullah Gulen is offering Muslims a way to live out Islamic values amidst the complex demands of modern societies. From its origins in Turkey, the movement has spread rapidly, through its schools in many countries, through its cultural and media activities, and through the social projects and dialogue encounters of Turks in diaspora in Europe, North America, and Australia, to the point that the influence of the Gulen movement is being felt in virtually all regions where Muslims live as majorities or minorities.

This book has a double purpose. On the one hand, it is a call to Muslims to a greater awareness that Islam teaches the need for dialogue and that Muslims are called to be agents and witnesses to God’s universal mercy. Mr. Gulen calls upon his broad knowledge of the Islamic tradition by bringing together the Qur’anic Scripture, the hadith (the Prophet’s traditions) reports from Muhammad, and the insights of Muslims down through the ages, to build a convincing argument that tolerance, love, and compassion are genuinely Islamic values that Muslims have a duty to bring to the modern world.

On the other hand, the book is an invitation to non-Muslims to move beyond prejudice, suspicion, and half-truths in order to arrive at an understanding of what Islam is really about. Someone whose knowledge of Islam is limited to the headlines of the daily newspapers is likely to believe that the religion teaches terrorism, suicide attacks, oppression of women, and hatred for those outside its community. Who would ever want to be in dialogue with people who promote such actions? Who would ever want to live among people with such attitudes?

However, through the writings of Fethullah Gulen, the reader of this book will see that a proper interpretation of Islamic teaching leads rather to truly spiritual values like forgiveness, inner peace, social harmony, honesty, and trust in God. In expressing these Islamic values, which are shared by many religious believers of various faiths, the author is not only calling Muslims to engage in dialogue, but is engaging the non-Muslim in a discussion of commonly held ideals.

I can cite my own case as an example. I am a Catholic priest, an American living in Rome. I have known the members of the movement associated with Fethullah Gulen for more than a decade, and I can state that they are sincerely and impressively living the teachings of their spiritual guide. They respectfully call Mr. Gulen “Hoca Efendi,” which simply means “Teacher.” The lessons in this book, derived from the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, form and shape the attitudes by which these Muslims practice their Islamic commitment. In bringing together his writings which have appeared in a wide variety of journals and interviews, many of which have never previously appeared in English, Mr. Gulen has done a good service for those who wish to know the ideals that characterize this movement.

Last year I was delivering lectures in Urfa and Gaziantep in eastern Turkey. I was invited to address, on my way back to Rome, a group of young people in Istanbul at a gathering organized by the Gulen movement. On arriving, I discovered to my surprise an assembly of perhaps 4,000 youths. In speaking with them, I found that they represented a cross section of Istanbul youth, some university students in engineering, medicine, and computer science, others working men and women. Several of the women were employed as secretaries, travel agents, or schoolteachers. I met young men who worked as bank clerks, drivers of delivery trucks, and in construction.

They were happy, enthusiastic young people who had come together to celebrate the birthday of their prophet Muhammad. It is significant that I, a Catholic priest, was invited to address them on the theme of “The Prophets, a Blessing for Humankind.” My talk was followed by poetry readings in honor of Muhammad, and the evening concluded with a well-known Turkish folk singer singing hymns of praise to God accompanied by electric guitar. My feelings that evening, as on many other occasions, were that if Fethullah Gulen and his movement have been able to instill in so many young people the desire to praise and thank God and to live with love and respect for others, they must be engaged in a very valuable spiritual enterprise.

Non-Muslim believers will agree that these are people with whom we can live and cooperate for the benefit of all, but will undoubtedly ask about the views of Gulen and the movement toward others in the Muslim world who are prone to violence. In this book, the author also takes up these “hard” questions in the chapter on “Jihad-Terrorism-Human Rights,” explaining the meaning of jihad and stating clearly that the true Muslim can never engage in terrorism.

I conclude this Foreword by citing a passage that sums up Gulen’s approach as a spiritual teacher:

If I had the ability to read people’s minds, that is, if I had the ability to know everyone with his/her particular characteristics, I would direct each person to the hill of perfection that is the most appropriate for him/her. I would recommend continuous reflection, contemplation, reading; I would tell them to study the signs of God in the universe and in people themselves; I would advise people to busy themselves with the study of the Qur’an; I would advise others to recite a portion of the Qur’an and certain prayers on a regular basis; I would tell still others to continuously reflect on natural phenomena. That is, I would designate duties for people in the areas in which they have natural abilities.

Note: This review is taken from the Foreword of the book.

These terrorist attacks show that the perpetrators share none of the aims of Islam, such as spreading Islam peacefully. You cannot spread Islam to other people by bombing them. Is there anything in Islam which legitimizes this terrorist attack? Certainly not! Jihad is a totally different concept, and can be declared only when Islam has to be defended. But Islam does not have to be defended in America, for Islam is already acknowledged here as one of the three monotheist religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This is not a superficial acknowledgment”6 million Muslims now live in America. Islam is not an imported religion, and this terrorist attack has nothing to do with American Muslims. On the contrary, it was perpetrated by outsiders having political”not religious”motivations.

The goals for which they are striving are not Islamic, but probably are related to the current political goals of certain people who manipulate Islam to legitimize their quest. I do not agree with Samuel Huntingtons well-known œclash of civilizations theory, in which Islam is approached as an enemy to the West and must be destroyed. On the other hand, the media (especially, those who supply the information and constantly oppose Islam) are striving to maintain an artificial adversarial sensitivity against Islam.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict underlies the clash of civilizations and, in a way, is the primary source of all these events. Mutual terror has been experienced throughout the 54 years of this conflict. Palestinians retaliated with counter-terror campaigns to Israel’s terror at the governmental level. This has affected millions of people not only in terms of religion but also in terms of national-political status. Israel attacks Palestinians not because they are Muslims but because they are Arab Palestinians. The fact that 20 percent of all Palestinians are Christians shows that this is not a religiously driven conflict. Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash are leaders of Palestinian Democratic Public Front and are both Orthodox Christians. They began organizing suicidal attacks before HAMAS was even founded. The foremost significant supporters of Palestinians are Edward

Said and Albert Hourani, who are Protestant Christians and, respectively, prominent figures in literature and history.

The organizational formation of the terrorist group that launched the September 11th attacks deserves serious consideration. It seems that 60 to 70 people were actively involved; 19 of them are dead. But what about those who probably provided logistical support? How did they carry out their role unnoticed? For such an organization, there needs to be a mastermind, and I do not think that Bin Laden is the most likely candidate.

All types of terrorism, regardless of reason, are evil. While protesting terrorism, however, we should not ignore the reasons. America has to delve into the reasons and the roots of these events. It has to cast far-reaching look and search for real reasons, instead of dealing with symptoms. If America uses its power not to exercise sovereignty over others but to create a more peaceful world, this would serve its own interests. In addition, Muslims would benefit the most from it.

I only care about myself. Whether the rest of the world collapses or not does not concern me, is the idea reflected by such events. This attitude of indifferent haughtiness leads to the following result: A world in which I have no welfare must be destroyed or If I am not loved, no one else can be loved. Our welfare level today has been unable to stop other peoples suffering, for we have not noticed what they experienced in the past. Such people were as glad at this tragedy as if they had taken revenge themselves, in the true sense of the word, while watching the tears and shock of the rich. We have just realized that the world is small, and that violence impacts everyone.

Terrorism is an absolute threat to all civilizations. As there is still no commonly accepted definition of terrorism, any state’s reaction to it will not lessen the threat it poses; on the contrary, it actually might strengthen it. The future of the world rests upon reaching a just response to this horrible tragedy and discussing the matter comprehensively. The fact that politics has gone clerical and that religion has become politicized makes some global events of the modern world more global.

The September 11th tragedy shows that terrorism is able to span regional and continental borders. This obliges the entire world to unify itself in order to face this challenge. To this end, we need to deal primarily with social problems and poverty, close the economic gap, and prevent strong countries from oppressing weaker ones. In the face of our world’s real contradictions, there is no second alternative to stopping terrorism, which constantly produces the most cruel incidents. In order to benefit from Earth’s riches, we must channel human consciousness, science, and technology properly so that they may serve good instead of evil; so that they may serve humanity’s collective development instead of destruction. Globalization can absolve itself only if it solves our world’s global problems.