The November 2008 Mumbai attacks initially triggered little reaction in the Arab and Muslim media. A few days later, in response to this silence, articles by Arab columnists began to appear, calling on the Arabs and Muslims to take a firm stand against the attacks, so that the world would not get the wrong impression about their position as it had after 9/11. The columnists called to condemn the attacks unequivocally on both moral and religious grounds, to come out strongly against the separatist forces in Kashmir, and to adopt a different understanding of jihad, based not on violence and hatred but on the struggle against these phenomena.
Following are excerpts from the articles:
Dr. 'Abd Al-Mun'im Sa'id: Arab States Must Increase Their Support for India
Egyptian liberal Dr. 'Abd Al-Mun'im Sa'id, director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, wrote in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "...It is time we learned from past experience, considering that [so far] we have mishandled the [aftermath] of the 9/11 [attacks]... In the days following these cursed attacks, my friend and colleague Dr. Mamoun Fandy wrote an article... in which he discussed the Arabs' reluctance [to condemn the attacks explicitly and unequivocally]... During this entire period, [condemnations] have always been qualified with a 'but,' [introducing] reservations, excuses and justifications [for the attacks]. Strangely, even after taking stock, we never came to take the radical, bloodthirsty fundamentalist ideology with the seriousness [it deserves].
"Today, [after the Mumbai attacks], the Arab countries – separately and as a group – must do three things. First, they must declare their support for India in this crisis, aid it by [sharing] information and cooperating in every way, and – most importantly – condemn [the attacks] clearly, without reservations and religious justifications… India needs [us] to condemn [the terrorists] unconditionally, on [both] moral and religious grounds.
"Second, [the Arab countries] must mediate between India and Pakistan to [help them] resolve their mutual conflicts. Just as the problem of terrorism is shared by both countries, a victory over terrorism will likewise [benefit them both] – by protecting India from civil war and Pakistan from collapse.
"Third, Islam was long ago 'hijacked' by revolutionaries and adventurers, [who use it as] a cover for notions and tendencies of destruction and suicide. [We therefore] face the task... of restoring it to the people as a force that is constructive rather than destructive – [a force] that unites rather than divides, and [leads to] dialogue rather than strife. Let's try and make a serious [effort] this time!"[1]
UAE Columnist: "We Can Go on Deluding Ourselves [that] These Psychopaths [Terrorists] Do Not Represent Us... [But] the Terrorists Will Continue to Speak On Our Behalf, [If] We Do Not Speak Up"
Columnist Aijaz Zaka Syed wrote in the English-language UAE daily Khaleej Times: "…It’s all very well for us to say [that] Islam has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We can go on deluding ourselves [that] these psychopaths do not represent us. However, the world finds it hard to accept this line of argument, because it sees the extremists increasingly assert themselves and take center-stage while mainstream Islam remains silent. The great religion [of Islam,] which preaches and celebrates universal brotherhood, equality of men and peace and justice for all, has been hijacked by a demented, miniscule minority… And only Muslims can solve this problem...
"This is no time to hide. It’s time to stand up and speak out. For the terrorists will continue to speak on our behalf, [if] we do not speak up. This is no time for silence. Enough is enough!"[2]
Columnist Khaled Al-Jenfawi wrote in the Kuwaiti English-language daily Arab Times: "…We Arab and Muslims [must] show the rest of the world, as soon as possible, that the majority of us no longer accept such massacres in our name. I personally condemn any act of violence committed against any human being, or even against our ecological system, for whatever reason, [and] you should do likewise, rational reader!"[3]
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Columnist: The Muslim World Must Take a Firm Stand on Kashmir
While the Saudi government and media for the most part supported Pakistan and did not explicitly condemn the Mumbai attacks,[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Hussein Shobakshi called to take a firm stand vis-à-vis Muslim separatist movements in Kashmir. He wrote: "If the investigations reveal... that Pakistani organizations supporting the separatist movement in Kashmir were behind the recent attacks and murders in Mumbai... the Muslim world will have to take a firm stand on the Kashmiri issue...
"A Muslim, no matter where he is, is required to worship Allah and fight for the rights to which he is entitled, as part of his freedom to worship [without any connection to] separatist political slogans. Otherwise, what is the difference between [the Muslims in Kashmir] and the radical racist programs of the Zionist enterprise in Israel or the old Apartheid [regime] in South Africa?...
"The important thing is not to let the entire Muslim [world] become entangled in separatist political schemes that have a particular agenda and are backed by highly influential [forces] with particular interests. The Pakistani example is a case in point. The Pakistani Muslims, who won independence from India, let their country fall hostage to corruption and to a plague of hideous tribal division...
"By taking a firm, resolute and clear stand against the separatist movements in Kashmir... the Muslims will send a new and necessary message, [namely, that] Islam is a religion of worshiping Allah, of moral [values] and of coexistence, and it must not be exploited by land dealers and slogan [mongers]. [Newspaper] articles and marches of condemnation are not enough – the world expects the Muslims to take different measures now."[5]
Saudi Columnist: We Need to Rethink the Concept of Jihad
Liberal Saudi columnist Turki Al-Hamad wrote: "The recent events in Mumbai, as well as past events and possible future events, force us to rethink many notions that have gained currency among us... I wish to reassess one [particular] concept that causes others to hate us and [leads us to acts of] self-destruction... I am referring to the notion of jihad, which is used to justify every destructive and bloodthirsty act that a handful of Muslims perpetrate in the name of all Muslims, as though the Muslims, as a collective, empowered them to do so... The bitter truth is that many Muslims identify with these acts, even if they do not have a hand in them...
"The question is – what is jihad? Can jihad be... at odds with the Koran, [which says]: 'We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person... it would be as if he slew all of mankind, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved all of mankind [32:5].' Can jihad be interpreted to negate the other just because he endorses a different faith, ideology or school [of thought]?...
"Many doubts go through my mind after every jihad operation perpetrated by one of the groups that use Islam to clear themselves [of guilt] and justify [their actions]… [Actually,] why shouldn't the condemnation of violence be regarded as a kind of jihad?... Jihad is a broad concept. Why should we leave it to the [narrow] interpretation of one approach and one specific group? This vacuous [concept] contaminates many minds, [causing] us to lose our [true identity] and the entire world around us…"[6]
Dr. 'Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, former dean of shari'a at Qatar University, wrote: "After all the tragic events that have befallen the Muslims, indiscriminately causing the death of innocent people, we must wonder… why do these things repeatedly happen in the name of the Islamic [concept of] jihad?... Those who sanction the killing of innocents, and who murder innocents – can they really be considered Muslims? Why do the clerics and sheikhs not come out as one against those who distort the directives of Islam and cause harm to the Muslims? Why do the clerics not forbid suicide operations?... So far, the preachers in their pulpits have not had the courage to criticize bin Laden, even though he and his supporters distort the concept of jihad. Does it make any sense for the [Muslim] Brotherhood Spiritual Guide to say in public, on an Arab satellite channel, that Osama bin Laden is a mujahid?
"It has come to the point that the Muslims are not just a burden on the back of civilization – some of them have actually become a force that sabotages and destroys civilization… We must come out against this belligerent and bloodthirsty stream that has transgressed all religious, moral and human boundaries, and eliminate it [once and for all]. This is first and foremost the duty of the clerics, for it is their responsibility to rescue the value of jihad from the hands of those who have hijacked it."[7]
*B. Chernitsky is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 3, 2008.
[2] Khaleej Times (UAE), November 30, 2008.
[3] Arab Times (Kuwait), December 2, 2008.
[4] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis Series No. 478, "Concerned About Pakistan's Future, Saudi Press Rallies to Prevent India-Pakistan Escalation," December 5, 2008, Concerned About Pakistan's Future, Saudi Press Rallies.
[5] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 2, 2008.
[6] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 7 2008.
[7] Al-Ittihad (UAE), December 10, 2008.
