Terrorism should not be viewed through religious lenses

Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, has become the latest target of terror attacks, with several people killed in explosions in the city centre. The attacks come two days after a suicide bomber attack in Istanbul killed more than 10 people, mostly tourists.

Since last year, terrorists, believed to be either from the Islamic State (ISIS) or the Kurdish Workers Party, have attacked several sites in Turkey. In the most recent incident, Turkish authorities blamed ISIS for the attacks near the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque) and Hagia Sophia.

There is a pattern in ISIS’ modus operandi lately: Targeting tourist attractions or urban centres that have many civilians. In November last year, ISIS militants launched similar attacks in Paris, albeit on a larger and more coordinated scale, killing more than 130 people.

The international community, including religious groups, is quick to condemn the attacks. Unfortunately, such attacks will always be viewed through a religious lens. This has created unnecessary tension between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as hindered counter-terrorism solutions.

Some consider Muslims’ condemnation of such acts as not enough. Others tar all Muslims with the same brush. Mr Donald Trump, a presidential candidate for the United States Republican nomination, called for Muslim immigrants to be banned from entering America.

On the flipside, there are Muslims critical of those who apologise. They ask: “Why should Muslims apologise for crimes we have not committed?” The discourse post-9/11 shows that such contradicting responses are not new.

Condemnation of terrorism by religious groups is expected because no religion would condone violence. Islam, like the other faiths, maintains the sanctity of life. It certainly does not support taking someone’s life just for being at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Nonetheless, it is erroneous to treat everyone who condemns terrorism as moderate, and those who do not as extremists. There are many so-called “moderates” in our midst who condemn ISIS but also feel that other religious minorities — such as Shias, Ahmadiyahs and Sufis — have no right to practise their beliefs.

FINDING THE RIGHT SOLUTIONS

Viewing terrorism through the religious lens has also affected how many think the solution to terrorism ought to be. There is talk that through empowering religious scholars (such as the ulama), terror attacks could be reduced. The assumption is that these scholars have legitimacy in society and can speak on behalf of the Muslim community.

While I believe states should not force their ideology on the religious scholars and leaders as this would curb their freedom to preach, there are also several limitations to this solution.

First, the religious scholars’ theological training means that they may not have the capacity to discuss complex problems in the world. To understand the causes of terrorism, one has to have knowledge on politics, history, psychology and sociology. For instance, an explanation of what happens to ISIS recruits from South-east Asia remains wanting: Are they treated equally with other Middle Eastern fighters?

One likely solution is for religious scholars to preach what is “correct Islam” versus “wrong Islam”. This was a suggestion by some panellists during the recent Regional Outlook Forum organised by ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. They believe terrorism exists because of misinterpretation of religious texts.

But I do not think texts have been misinterpreted. Instead, it is the social conditions that cause people living in certain regions to interpret texts in a certain way.

There was also a suggestion by an audience member during the forum that Muslims should refer to the way Prophet Muhammad taught Islam in Mecca before his migration to Medina 1437 years ago. However, the perception that Islam taught in Mecca is moderate compared with post-migration is inaccurate. Not only is Islam’s message of peace consistent before and after the Prophet’s migration, Medina was also a cosmopolitan city that respected rights of minority groups; this was enshrined in the Medina Constitution.

Second, rather than saying ulamas must speak on terrorism, the more important issue is the ulama’s religious orientation.

I believe that the ulama speaking on behalf of the community should be progressive, someone who does not look at religion only in terms of rightness or wrongness, but also how the religion should be in sync with modern, cosmopolitan life that respects plurality and a person’s right to believe and to privacy.

This is, however, not the case in South-east Asia where there are Muslims who feel their version of Islam is the correct one and those not conforming to it are deviants.

Third, asking the religious elites to be more assertive in condemning terrorism only entrenches the view of terrorism as a religious problem.

As some panellists in the forum argue, economically marginalised Muslims are likely to be the people travelling to the Middle East to join ISIS without any intention of returning home. They want to rebuild their lives under the utopian notion of an Islamic caliphate. Their mentality is different from those who went to Afghanistan to join Al-Qaeda, where they wanted to learn how to organise Al-Qaeda chapters in this region.

This is not to say that ISIS attracted only those from the lower rungs of society. There were cases, though few in number, of economically privileged and professional Indonesians and Malaysians who wanted to join ISIS. Indonesian women too have been forthcoming in wanting to be part of the terrorist group.

To be sure, treating the preaching of the correct Islam or ensuring Muslims have the correct understanding of jihad (struggle) as the solutions to the ISIS problem are insufficient.

While we can continue asking the religious elites to condemn terror, there is a need to ensure youths remain employed and not left on the fringes of society.

The solutions include having the right balance of economic conditions, and ensuring that they feel a sense of belonging to their country. They must also think that they have a role to contribute to a multicultural-secular-modern setting.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr Norshahril Saat is fellow at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. He researches on Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore politics.