freedetainees.org

Moazzam Begg

During my years of incarceration at Bagram and Guantánamo Bay, I was interrogated well over 300 times. One of those interrogations, by the CIA, in my third year of US captivity, I still recall with a sense of amusement. The agent insisted on repeating the word ‘terrorist’ when referring to me. Nothing new, I thought. Then, he used an Algebraic equation to prove his rather puerile point in trying to get me to cooperate. “Your equation is X+Y=Z,” he said as he wrote out his findings. “’X’ is you, ‘Y’ is your non-cooperation and ‘Z’ is terrorist – a terrorist who will stay here for a very long time.” After three years of this sort of thing, I was no longer intimidated by the US military or the alphabet agencies. I replied by telling him that Algebra was an Arabic word that clearly struck terror into the hearts of people in the West – and the East for that matter (at least if you were a teenager studying trigonometry). But I also told him Algebra wasn’t the only Arabic word that frightened the West, and he knew it.

There are hundreds of English words that have etymological roots in the Arabic language. Most of them are taken for granted and attract little controversy when used by ordinary English-speaking people: ‘Arabic numerals’ revolutionised and replaced cumbersome Roman ones; the words ‘alkali’, ‘chemistry’, ‘arsenal’, ‘cipher’, ‘admiral’, ‘magazine’, ‘sherbet’, ‘syrup’, ‘tariff’, ‘zenith’, ‘algorithm’ and even ‘checkmate’ are but a few that hark back to an Islamic and Arabic past that helped civilise the world . A few words were regarded with a simultaneous sense of repulsion and admiration – of the exotic and mysterious, like ‘assassins’, ‘Saracens’ and ‘harems’.[1] But there is an Arabic word used in the English language today that provokes more confusion, suspicion, hostility and fear than all others: ‘jihad’. And the time has come for Muslims to reclaim it.

The word jihad comes from the root verb jahada which linguistically means ‘to struggle’. The Arabic lexicon describes jihad as, ‘making the utmost effort to attain something beloved or to save oneself from something disliked.’ It is from this literal interpretation that many Muslims – and non-Muslims – erroneously limit the concept of jihad solely to internal, spiritual struggle. Whilst recognising the importance of the spiritual jihad – the jihad of the nafs (self) – there is a critical danger in applying literal interpretations to words that have widely accepted meanings according to the consensus of Islamic teachings and jurisprudence. This approach does little to address the very real problems that issue from deliberate mistranslations and misconstructions of Arabic words and concepts - against which Islam is not immune.[2]

The five daily prayers in Islam are referred to in their singular form as salaah. There is no dispute in this matter and anyone attempting to restrict the practice of prayer to the linguistic definition, which simply means ‘connection’, would be guilty of heresy. Likewise, a similar reinterpretation of the Islamic obligation of zakaah – a tax Muslims are required to pay that assists the poor, beggars, tax-collectors, orphans, travellers, recent converts to Islam, prisoners and even the mujahideen – to its linguistic meaning, ‘purification’, would also be entirely rejected. Those who engage in jihad are called ‘mujahideen’ and those killed doing it are called ‘shuhadaa’ (martyrs). It would seem absurd for people who interpret jihad as ‘the daily struggle of life’ to call themselves ‘mujahideen’ in life and ‘martyrs’ in death.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes jihad as a ‘religious war of Muslims against unbelievers; campaigns for or against a doctrine.’ Jihad is commonly described in the West as ‘holy war.’ But holy war in Arabic would be Harb al-Muqadassah and this phrase is simply not found in the Qur’an or the Sunnah (the Prophetic way of life) which are the best sources to understanding the concept of jihad – or any other Islamic teachings.

Jihad and Qitaal (fighting) are mentioned collectively over one hundred times in the Qur’an. Both appear often with the words fi sabeel lillah (in the cause of Allah). The subject of jihad is addressed in great detail throughout the Qur’an; some very large chapters deal almost exclusively with the topic. All the authentic books of ahadith (Prophetic sayings and actions) contain hundreds of chapters under the title of ‘jihad’. This is also true regarding hundreds of general books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as well as those written exclusively about jihad.

Islamic scholars have classified jihad into four categories: Jihad of the nafs (self), jihad against the shaytan (devil) [desires], jihad against unbelievers and hypocrites and jihad against oppressors and evil-doers.[3] Thus, limiting jihad to any singular interpretation would be incorrect. The best approach is in recognising that the varying levels complement, rather than contradict one another. Even the physical jihad can be waged by the heart and tongue[4], as well as through wealth and actions. The hadith of the Messenger: ‘The mujahid is the one who strives against his own soul,’ does not negate or contradict other ahadith [plural of Hadith] that mention jihad as ‘the peak of the matter’[5] or as a deed that is unmatched in reward.[6] Jihad was even described by the Messenger of Allah as ‘monasticism’ (abandonment of worldly affairs) – the ultimate jihad of the self: ‘Every nation has its monasticism and the monasticism of this nation is jihad.’[7]

By consensus of the Islamic schools of thought, jihad (with wealth and in person) becomes an individual obligation, like prayer and fasting, on Muslim men and women when their land is occupied by foreign enemies. That obligation extends to neighbouring Muslim peoples until the enemy has been expelled. If the whole body of believers abandon it, they are in a state of major sin; if enough of them do it to complete the task, they are absolved.[8] Jihad using wealth is also obligatory in securing the release of Muslim prisoners. Imam Malik said: ‘If a Muslim is held as a prisoner of war…it is obligatory on others to secure his release, even if it requires all the Muslims’ wealth.’[9] Some scholars even argue that had jihad been emphatically prohibited in Islam, it would become permissible by necessity when Muslims lands are invaded, in the way that pork becomes permissible for the Muslim if there is nothing else to eat.

There are even dire warnings in the Qur’an for Muslims who abandon jihad: If you do not march forth Allah will chastise you grievously and will replace you with another people, while you will be in no way able to harm Him. Allah has power over everything[10] and in the Prophetic hadith: ‘A nation does not abandon jihad except that it is humiliated.’[11]

Historically speaking, whenever the Qur’an calls for aiding the oppressed: And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help’[12] people have always obliged. Over time, that number has dwindled, but Prophet Muhammad said: ‘There will not cease to be a group from my people, fighting upon the truth manifest over those who fight them…’[13]

Although in the West jihad is often seen as ‘terrorism’ it is correct to describe it as ‘tourism’. The Prophet Muhammad said: ‘The tourism of my nation is jihad.’[14] This is one reason why many Muslims from thousands of miles away travelled to places as far and wide as Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the 1980s, the word ‘mujahideen’ became almost exclusively associated in the West with the fighters of Afghanistan resisting the Soviet Union’s occupation of their land. This name was ennobled throughout Europe and America and, the rallying cry, under the banner of jihad, was endorsed by fatawa (religious edicts) from Islamic scholars as well as Western leaders and politicians.[15] Even Hollywood waded in, lionizing ‘the glorious mujahideen’ with a dose of Sylvester Stallone in Rambo 3. A fact conveniently brushed aside today is that Afghan and Arab mujahideen units were brought over to the UK during the 1980s and given training by SAS (Special Air Services) commandos in the picturesque mountains of Snowdonia’s National Park and the Scottish Highlands. Testimony from the instructors tells of how they found these mujahideen, often mountain-men themselves, so easy to teach. In fact, it was due to the British supplied ‘Blowpipe’ anti-aircraft missile system that the face of the war in Afghanistan changed. But not in the way which was intended.

The Mi 24 soviet helicopter gunship, nicknamed ‘the Devil’s Chariot’, with its terrifying arsenal of mini-guns and rockets, wrought havoc upon the lightly defended mud-brick villages of the Afghans. They had very few anti-aircraft capabilities and that is why the British supplied them with ‘Blowpipe’ – which turned out to be highly ineffective. It is at this point that the US introduced clandestine supplies of heat-seeking Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which produced a kill-rate of 7:10. This became the catalyst in changing the face and direction of the war, the jihad, in Afghanistan.[16]

Of course, there was widespread international support for the Afghan, Arab and Muslim resistance fighters back then and they were not referred to derogatively as ‘jihadists’ (instead of mujahideen) who practiced ‘jihadism’ (instead of jihad) and ‘Islamism’ (instead of Islam). However, it can be argued that the mujahideen were not carrying out strikes against civilian targets in the West either.

In the early days of Islam – and even before that – duels of strength would be fought between champion warriors of opposing forces in single combat. This was part of the test of manhood (rajoolah) encompassing individual skill and courage. The Messenger of God and his companions were renown for their ferocity and steadfastness in battle against the enemy as much as they were for their mercy and magnanimity towards the vanquished. In one of the most celebrated duels ever recorded in Islamic history, during the Battle of the Trench, Ali, the Prophet’s cousin, accepted the challenge to fight ‘Amr, ‘the greatest warrior in Arabia’. After a long, harrowing duel between the two fighters, Ali managed to subdue his opponent. However, just as the final death-blow approached ‘Amr spat in Ali’s face. What Ali did next has resounded throughout Muslim history – both Shi’ite and Sunni – as the quintessential example of selflessness, even if it is seldom practiced today. Ali rose calmly from ‘Amr’s chest, wiped his face, and said. “Know, O ‘Amr, I only kill in the way of Allah and not for any private motive. Since you spat in my face, my killing you now may be from a desire for personal vengeance. So I spare your life.”[17] There is no rajoolah or honour in killing unarmed civilians.

Perhaps the most revered personage in the Muslim world – after the Prophet Mohammed – is Salahuddin (Saladin) Al-Ayubi. Liberating Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the crusaders has earned him the respect and love of all Muslims. Even in these days of great trauma and turmoil, it is not unusual to hear Imams of mosques pray for the emergence of a modern Salahuddin. But it is the admiration the West has extended him that has truly set Salahuddin apart. His largesse towards his enemies is the stuff of legend and his chivalry was exemplary. His qualities of humility, piety, bravery, honour, integrity and generosity are what most Muslims aspire to, especially the mujahideen. His recapture of Jerusalem in 1187 was comparatively tame to the wanton bloodlust introduced by the crusaders in 1099. He even pardoned many of those who fought against him as well as freeing a huge number of captives and giving rights of free passage and worship to civilians. And yet, non-Muslims who have bravely challenged Western misconceptions of Islam have fallen into the trap of denial. In his impressive book about the life of Salahuddin, the historian Geoffrey Hindley writes astonishingly:

‘In the twenty first century, this term jihad has powerful resonance in the Islamic world. Although the word is not found in the Qur’an, it was in use from a very early date.’ [18]

Such flagrant errors only enhance the notion that there is little desire in the West to really understand Islam.

In the wake of the attacks on September 11 the US administration attempted to launch its ‘war on terror’ under the name of ‘Operation Infinite Justice.’ However, the ill-advised Bush junior, referring to ‘this crusade’ soon realised how offensive it might sound to potential Muslim allies that the USA was now establishing itself on a par with the Divine. The rewording that followed was equally inapt. ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ demonstrated clearly how the Bush administration believed ‘freedom’ was not a right that all human beings have from birth till death. Rather, it was something to be endured – at least if you happened to be a captive of US forces. It was more like ‘Operation Ending Your Freedom’ for us and the thousands more who were later detained around the world. It began with a desire for justice, mutated into a wanton act of revenge and is now a war against a faith and the resources its people are gifted (or cursed) with.

Muslims have learned the meaning of Bush’s ‘American justice’ in Guantánamo, Bagram, Abu Ghuraib and the multitude of secret detention sites dotted around the world. The process of extraordinary rendition [kidnap, false imprisonment, torture]; religious, racial and sexual abuse; cruel inhuman, and degrading treatment are all designed to terrorise victims and have produced false confessions to justify more occupation of Muslim land. It is terrorism of the very worst kind, especially since it is carried out in the name of virtue. Inside the detention camps of Guantánamo – where the iguana is protected by law under the ‘Endangered Species Act’– the detained men have no human or legal rights. Everything afforded to them is a ‘privilege’, including toilet paper. Outside each of the camps there is plaque that reads ‘Honor Bound to Defend Freedom’. The stark irony lies in there being about as much honour in this as there is freedom.

There was little honour too in the violent strikes against civilians which claimed 2,976 lives in the US, 191 in Spain and 52 in the UK. But at least we know these numbers because each individual counts. In stark contrast, thousands of tonnes of tomahawk missiles, ‘hellfire’ rockets, cluster bombs, smart bombs, phosphorus bombs, vacuum bombs, 1500lb ‘daisy-cutters’ and billions of rounds fired from machine guns and assault rifles have killed more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than anyone could ever know exactly. Estimates put the numbers at anything from 100,000 to 2 million. The reason why there are no reliable figures in either country is because no one counts. Neither the killers, nor those killed. They are worth much less than collateral damage. They are not even numbers. They are nothing. If September 11 was terrorism then what do we call this?

The word ‘terrorism’ entered the English language in the late nineteenth century after the French revolution and the ensuing ‘Reign of Terror’ (or ‘the Terror’) gave birth to French democracy.[19] However, since the notion of terrorism was first applied to a state rather than to an individuals or groups, it has been almost impossible to arrive at a single definition. Hence, there are over a hundred of them. The only common factor agreed upon is the inclusion of violence – or its threat. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes the terrorist as ‘one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.’

It is not surprising that more recent definitions of terrorism, such as the one found in the American Heritage Dictionary, omit the inclusion of governments as potential candidates: ‘The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organised group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.’

It is not surprising too that Muslims have become angry and have even responded with actions rejected by Islam to unleash their outrage. However, if resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was jihad, if the repelling the massacres by the Serbs in Bosnia was jihad, then how can resisting the current occupation of these Muslims lands be anything else? Was jihad simply a tool that could be used and discarded according to interests?[20] The problem is that very few people care to distinguish between people who fight – or are willing to fight[21] – invading forces abroad and those who choose to bring their fight to unarmed civilians who have little to do with it (and in many cases oppose the war too). To add, recent history shows how ‘terrorism’ has been closer to home than previously acknowledged – and it was sanctioned by the British government as a legitimate means of self-defence.

On 28 June, 1940, Nazi forces occupied the British Channel islands; the enemy was knocking at Britain’s southern door. Whilst the bulk of British soldiers were engaged in operations around Europe, North Africa and the Far East, over 1.5 million men joined the Home Guard or ‘Dad’s Army’ as it affectionately became known. The contingency plan against a successful German occupation of Britain included the re-training of these men in guerrilla tactics. That training began in Osterley Park, London, where communist veterans of the Spanish civil war taught British volunteers how to make improvised explosive devices (IEDs), Molotov cocktails, hand-grenades and how to sabotage and terrorise potential Nazi occupiers. The success of this training spread and several more camps were opened. [22] Thankfully, the Nazis were defeated on their own soil but, they would have been in for a surprise had they landed in Britain. The Nazis would no doubt have been welcomed by the far-right in Britain – as they had been in many other countries – and would have labelled the British insurgents ‘terrorists’ as they had the French résistance.

Admittedly, there is sometimes a fine line between resistance and terrorism, and we often can’t tell the difference – or make distinctions based not on principle but on how the language has been defined for us.

The Arabic word irhab is today used to describe terrorism. However, the usage of this word has altogether dissimilar roots and applications to its European counterpart. The Qur’an states: ‘And prepare against them [the enemy] what ever you are able from power and from steeds of war [weapons and stratagems] in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy of Allah and your enemy…’[23] Although the ‘striking of terror’ referred to in this verse is sometimes incorrectly used by some Muslims to justify terrorism, it is clear according to both classical and contemporary Qur’anic exegesis that the reference is to an army preparing for battle. But even armies – Muslim or not – are not mobilised, supposedly, to threaten and terrorise civilian populations.

Another Qur’anic verse sometimes misappropriated in the same way is: ‘And if they transgress against you then transgress against them the way they transgress against you…’[24] to justify indiscriminate acts of violence against civilians as a justifiable retaliatory tactic of war, going beyond the ‘collateral damage’ argument. But the same verse ends with: ‘And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear him’ making it clear that however brutal the enemy may be, Muslims are still required to do that which is conducive to fearing their Creator. The Qur’an states also: And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.[25] Indiscriminate slaughter and rapine are not practices sanctioned by Islam.

During the war – or jihad – in Bosnia in the 1990s, thousands of Muslim women were systematically raped by Serbian soldiers under the leadership of indicted war criminals Slobodan Milosovic, Radovan Karadic, and Ratko Mladic. In addition to this, hundreds of thousands of Bosnians were brutally killed and ethnically cleansed from their own homes. Subsequently, thousands of Muslims from around the world once again volunteered under the banner of jihad to come to the rescue of their beleaguered coreligionists. However, Islam forbids Muslims from reciprocating in kind regardless of the crimes perpetrated by the enemies of Muslims. Muslims would never contemplate setting up rape-camps for captured Serbian women – or any other women.

It was after encountering the body of a non-Muslim woman killed in battle that the Prophet said: ‘She is not one who would have fought.’ He then said to one of companions: ‘Catch up with Khalid [Ibn al-Waleed, the foremost Muslim general] and tell him not to kill women, children and prisoners.’[26] The Messenger was even more specific later, exhorting his soldiers not to target women, children, old people, clergy and unarmed villagers. He also emphatically forbade the use of fire to kill, mutilation of corpses, cutting down vegetation unnecessarily or torturing captured prisoners.

Although jihad does seek to terrify those who are engaged in oppression, abuse and violation of the sanctity of Muslims (and those under their protection), ordinary, decent human beings should not have to fear it, even when their own governments have committed crimes in their names. Being just to the enemy might be the hardest jihad of the nafs but it is still incumbent upon Muslims. O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah.[27]

In conclusion, jihad is an inseparable component of Islam which embodies the very highest principles of faith, morality and rules of engagement. It is the belief of Muslims that ‘jihad will continue until the Day of Resurrection.’[28] But even as it is waged, in all its forms, the Muslim must never allow their oppressors to become their teachers.

---

[28] Sunan Abu Dawood