||2017-11-29 10:15:35, 조회 : 404, 추천 : 85
Chapter 7 (Part 3)
Last week we continued to learn about what is jihad and how its roots are embedded in the Qur’an and the hadith. We learned about the jihad against Christianity and how many Christians are suffering under violent oppression. Groups like Boko Haram have made it their goal to attack Nigerian Christians specifically. Places like Saudi Arabia have also persecuted Christians by raiding their homes to bring up false charges. They also teach that Jews and Christians are “Apes and Swines.” Today, we will try and understand why Jihadists are winning and if jihadism is curable.
In July 2014, there were talks about a flag containing the “shahada” being placed in Downing street. The “shahada” is the Islamic Creed, one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The word “shahada” comes from the verb shahida, meaning “he testifies” or “he bears witness.” In reciting the shahada, a Muslim bears witness that Allah is the only true god, and that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet. The shahada “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” is uttered by millions of Muslims around the world. However, Qari Muhammad Asim, a imam at Makkah Mosque in Leeds states, “Islam itself has been hijacked and [some] people...have been completely brainwashed. It’s completely ridiculous to say that people, fellow human beings, are enemies and as a result they should be blown up. Obviously, social media plays a huge part, the Internet plays a huge part, in brainwashing and radicalizing people.” While Qari Muhammad Asim and many other British imams have made strides to stop future jihadists, there are many other imams who are working hard against this. There are many imams who have come to areas like London in order to give sermons and hand out audio tapes that call for jihad. Yet, the British government continue to allow many of these imams enter; they come as “asylum seekers” but have a different agenda. For example, Abu Hamza al-Masri was a imam at Finsbury Park Mosque. Among his congregation, he had many terrorists that listened to his preachings. Some of these terrorists are the “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and 9/11 “twentieth hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui.
In order to stop jihad from spreading, the British government created the “Prevent Strategy.” This strategy is intended to help stop Britons from being lured into terrorist activity. The government and law enforcements also help with this prevention tactic. For example, this strategy helps immigrant authorities weed out extremist imams that wish to enter the country. While this prevention strategy may seem effective, Ali points out that jihad itself still has an internal problem that no prevention strategy can actually avert. For example, Umma Haritha decided to join IS in 2013. She left Canada and traveled to Syria to marry an IS fighter. He was killed shortly after and then she turned to blogging to help others that wanted to marry jihadists and move to Syria. In her interview, she stated the reason why she joined jihad. She wanted to "live a life of honor" under Islamic law rather than by the laws of unbelievers. She also writes that "Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty." Another example can be seen with Abu Osama. He wants to establish a caliphate in the Islamic world and believes that he can revive it. He states that Britain is evil and that if he were to ever return it would be for a different reason. He says, "If and when I come back to Britain it will be when this Islamic State comes to conquer Britain and I come to raise the black flag of Islam over Downing Street..." The deeply rooted problem in Jihad, that can be seen by Haritha and Osama, are that both people believe that jihad is for a good cause.
The question that arises from this, is whether or not jihad is curable. Jessica Stern describes how a Saudi Arabian jihadist rehabilitation program has treated thousands of militants. She writes that the program gets these militants to "abandon their radical ideology or renounce their violence or both." They do this through "psychological counseling, vocational training, art therapy, sports and religious reeducation and career placement." The program doesn't end upon completion, rather, the ex-jihadists are then monitored for their entire life. The "guiding philosophy" behind the program is that "jihadists are victims, not villains, and they need tailored assistance." However, Ali notes two issues. For example, in the program they note the problematic nature of selective reading of the Qur'an. One participant writes, "Now I understand that I cannot make decisions by reading a single verse. I have to read the entire chapter." Yet, the message of jihad is throughout the entire Qur'an and it keeps the concept of jihad alive. Another example is that the program itself is being funded by the rulers of those countries. Nabeel al-Fadhel, a member of the Kuwait Parliamet writes that the people who donate money to this program "think they are getting closer to God by giving this money, instead, it is going to places they never dreamt of."
IS member Abu Muhammad al-Adnani calls Muslims "to answer the call of Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to what gives you life... What He says gives you life is jihad." Jihad isn't going anywhere and it cannot be a term that can be played with. Instead, Ali writes that clerics, imam, scholars and national leaders should be firm in declaring jihad as "haram" (forbidden) and may it very clear that jihad cannot b accepted. If jihad cannot be renounced, then it must be questioned whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. Next, week we will look at how the Western world has tolerated Islam and what kinds of problems arise from this.
1) What is the "Shahada?" Why is the shahada problematic?
2) What is the "Prevent Strategy?" Do you think this strategy will be helpful? Why or why not?
3) What kinds of conclusion can be drawn from Umma Haritha and Abu Osama?
4) What is the "jihadist rehabilitation program?" Do you think this program is effective? Why or why not?