Click here to get
Hamd-e-Bari Ta'ala and Naat-e-Rasool (sallalahoalaihiwassallam)

June 13, 2003 	Friday 	Rabi-us-Sani 12, 1424

No room for terrorism

By Haider Zaman

THERE is a growing impression in some quarters these days that Islam as a religion sanctions the
acts of terrorism against the opponents in faith. This impression is based partly on the
occurrence of some incidents of terrorism in which Muslims were involved and partly on the
complete ignorance about the teachings of the Quran, the main-spring of Islam, as well as about
the Sunnah and historical facts.

Let us first examine the above view in the light of what the Quran says. The Quran expects the
community of true believers i.e. those who follow its teachings in letter and in spirit, to be
the people who are justly balanced (2:143). The people being justly balanced mean the people who
follow the principles of golden mean, the people who are given to doing justice to every one, in
every matter and everywhere. This has been further affirmed by the Quran when it says “they are
those who when We give them power in land, establish prayers, and give regular charity: enjoin
what is right and forbid what is wrong” (22:41).

Judged in the light of the above declarations, can terrorism be said to have the sanction of the
Quran? Even if some acts of terrorism are the result of some wrongs or injustices perpetrated by
the victim, it can still not be said to have the sanction of the Quran for the simple reason that
maintenance of balance and the acts of terrorism are poles apart.

The Quran enjoins the prohibition of that which is wrong. But it does not accept the repulsion or
prohibition of wrong with wrong. It specifically enjoins repulsion of evil with goodness (41:34),
moderation as a way of life (31:19), doing of justice even to enemies (5:8) and kindness even to
non-believers (60:8). By no stretch of imagination, terrorism can be equated with goodness,
moderation, doing of justice and kindness.

Given the nature of human beings, the Quran allows reprisal but with a clear directive that the
harm or injury to be caused to the opponent shall in no case be more than the harm or injury he
has caused with due emphasis on the exercise of patience. As it says “And if you do catch them,
catch them out no worse than they catch you: But if you exercise patience, that is indeed the
best (course) for those who are patient” (16:126).

Another ground on which the critics base their accusation is the number of battles fought during
the period of the Prophet (peace be upon him). But they ignore the basic fact that all the
battles fought and the expeditions sent by the Prophet were either against aggression, threatened
or actual, or against oppressions. During the first thirteen years as a Prophet, he was subjected
to worst possible oppressions and when he migrated to Madina, he was subjected to aggressions
from all sides while his followers remaining in Makkah continued to live under the yoke of
oppressions. It was in this situation that he was permitted to fight against aggression and
oppression both (22:39) (4:75) but subject to the conditions that he had not to exceed the limits
(2:190) (16:126) and if the enemy inclined to peace he too had to do so (8:61).

The Quran, in fact, lays more emphasis on patience and pardoning than reprisal. It says “The
recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto: but if a person forgives and makes
reconciliation his reward is due from Allah: for Allah loves not those who do wrong” (42:40). The
way the Prophet treated the people of Quraish, who had subjected him to inhuman oppressions,
after the fall of Makkah, could be a living example of this admonition.

One of the incidents that Rev Robertson of the United States has made the main basis of his
tirade against Islam, labelling it as a violent religion, is the killing of the adult male
members of the Jewish tribe of Bani Quraizah in 627 A.D. Since this incident is being frequently
quoted to malign Islam, it is necessary to discuss the true facts leading to this incident.

Bani Quraizah was a Jewish tribe of Madina that had entered into a pact with the Prophet which
was still in force when the Quraish army comprising ten thousand men besieged Madina. During the
siege Bani Quraizah unilaterally renounced the pact thereby exposing the Muslims to the imminent
danger of extinction. Their fortress situated on the south eastern side of Madina could provide a
safe passage to the enemy to the centre of the city. It was, however, a miracle that the Quraish
army couldn't avail the opportunity of entering Madina from that side.

After the siege was over, the Muslims besieged the fortress of Bani Quraizah. In the meanwhile,
members of the Aws tribe, one of the two main Muslim tribes of Madina, approached the Prophet
with a request to show some leniency to the besieged tribe, their former ally, in the same manner
he had shown leniency to another Jewish tribe Bani Qanuqua which was the former ally of Kharaj,
another Muslim tribe of Madina.

In reply the Prophet said “will it satisfy you if one of yourselves pronounce judgment over
them?” They agreed and their chief Saad Bin Muaad was brought for the purpose who ruled that all
the adult male members of the tribe shall be killed. The judgment was in fact based on Torah, the
Jewish scripture, which, regarding the treatment of the people of besieged city said “when the
Lord thy God has delivered it unto thy hands, thou shall smite every male member therein with the
edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the
city, even the spoil thereof, thou shall take unto thyself” (Deuteronomy 20:12).

Now, compare the incident of Bani Quraizah with what the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany, what
the Americans did to the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and what they most recently did in
Iraq and let your conscience decide whether it was the incident of Bani Quraizah or the
indiscriminate and random killing of Jews by Nazis or of Japanese and Iraqis by the Americans
which met all the parameters of terrorism.

The attack on World Trade Centre may be seen as a payback but it was an act carried out by a few
individuals, not having the backing of any community or nation, and no one can deny that it was
an incident of terrorism. Even if some Muslims were involved in that incident and whatever their
motive, the act was doubtlessly against the teachings of the Quran.

In fact, it is the persons involved in the incident who shall be blamed for subverting the true
spirit of their religion rather than the religion because they happened to be Muslims. But what
is more important could be to know the actual reason for which they went to the extent of
subverting the true spirit of their religion, if it is desired to seek some lasting solution to
the problem.