|
Despite the current cavalcade of supporters applauding the policy being hashed out by the United States to end terrorism, there are some who feel that other options for resolving the matter exist. By now it should be clear to the public that most people, including Muslims and Arabs, condemn the attacks of September 11th and sincerely want to put an end to terrorism. However, attacking Afghanistan and starting what may turn into the next World War is not the solution that many are cheering for. The most frequent question asked of those who want to avoid war is: What do we do instead? Most, unfortunately, have few answers.
At this time, experts are being called to duty to put their knowledge to the test in this unprecedented crisis. Bernard Haykel, Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies at New York University, is one such expert, dealing with issues in the Middle East and the Muslim world.
After appearing on CNN, Haykel was contacted by England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, whose office he has since provided with advice on Islamic legal systems. "The solution to this form of Islamic extremism can only be found through the help of the Islamic community and through the use of Islamic law against the extremist interpretations advocated by bin Laden and his Salafi peers," he says.
Haykel's theory is that if the instigator of this attack is indeed bin Laden, then he is obviously setting the United States up for a jihad (struggle) or in bin Laden's interpretation, "holy war" - a trap that America must not, by any means, fall into. If this is the case, then according to Haykel, bin Laden is attempting to spark a war between Islam and the West, using emotional blackmail to win over sympathetic Muslims who suffer under corrupt governments.
Haykel lays out six reasons why the recent attacks, according to Islamic law, can in no way be regarded as acts of jihad:
1. Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad; only states can,
2. One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad,
3. One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad,
4. One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practice their religion and proselytize Islam,
5. Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma`) against bin Laden's actions. This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic, and
6. The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by bin Laden's actions, equally making them un-Islamic.
It is true that some Muslims resent the U.S.'s foreign policy in countries such as Iraq, where innocent people pay for crimes they did not commit. Additionally, some Muslims are angry at the U.S. for supporting certain authoritarian regimes. However, this resentment does not indicate that all Muslims around the world wish to declare war on the West, nor does it mean they hate America.
Haykel lays out an immediate plan of action for the United States, which includes the following:
First, says Haykel, the United States should avoid the trap of falling into a war with Afghanistan on the account of killing bin Laden. In doing so, America could unwittingly create a martyr who could become a hero in the eyes of some for resisting Western domination. Instead, Haykel suggests that the United States encourage Muslim countries, including the Northern Alliance and Pakistan, to be the leaders in this fight. He asserts that if the United States does go to war, then it cannot afford to do so without the support of Muslim forces.
Second, the United States must not use irrelevant, provocative words like "crusade" that imply a war between Christianity and Islam. Haykel explains that, "Such a word evokes monstrous historical memories in the minds of Muslims, namely barbaric Europeans rampaging through the Eastern Mediterranean."
Third, Haykel suggests that a list be published "of all the Muslims and women and children who died in the WTC attack, since Islamic law categorically prohibits the murder of such innocents."
Fourth, says Haykel, America must convince Islamic scholars around the world to issue legal rulings, or fatwas, in order to reach a consensus between Muslims. These rulings would declare bin Laden's practices and teachings illegal. Haykel proposes that, "We must engage our own Muslim community leaders here in the U.S. and, particularly, send the respected ones among them with these facts to the Middle East and South Asia to meet with impartial and respected Islamic legal scholars, people who are respected by the man on the street and who are clearly not in the employ of their respective governments. Scholars in Mecca, Medina and Riyadh will be central in this regard, as will scholars in India and Pakistan."
Lastly, advises Haykel, it would not hurt for the United States to "put forth subtle hints that we will be willing to reassess our foreign policies in the world."
While some of Haykel's assertions and various elements of his plan of action can be debated, they do at least represent a balanced level of thinking. And to have individuals exploring options that can be reconciled with Islamic thinking on issues at hand is a potential advantage for those seeking alternatives to war.
|
