Zhou Suli

There has been a constantly growing consensus amongst groups opposed to violent extremism that the only effective way to permanently neuter support for these extremists is to attack their ability to recruit via the de-legitimization of their ideology. This can be done through provision of a counter-ideology. There are two basic approaches in this ideological battle. The first approach is the paternalistic approach of imposing an alternative view on the Muslim community on what is the true interpretation of Islam. The second approach emphasizes the practice of ijtihad or a more consensual and textual approach to understand Islam.

When one looks at Al Qaeda’s message, he sees that it is simple, comprehensive and accessible to a wide audience. It states that Islam is under attack from the West and its allies, and conveniently interprets all world events in accordance with this view. Hence, disparate regional conflicts, involving Muslim populations in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan provide powerful evidence for Al Qaeda’s conspiratorial calms. Regardless of the different socio-political and economic conditions, Al Qaeda’s solution to the problem is simple. All Muslims are to take up armed struggle against the West and their lackeys. The compact narrative is easily transferable from current battlefronts to relatively peaceful areas such as Southeast Asia. For example, Indonesia terrorist group Jemmah Islamiyya, which has adopted Al Qaeda’s transnational ideology, seeks establishment of its brand of Islamic rule in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and Australia.

On the other hand, the opposing voices have been weak and unclear. In one camp are those who propose to hand out to the public an equally compact and palatable diet of counter-ideologies that would also be accessible to them. Psychological operations are to be conducted where information, packaged in an easily comprehensible way, are fed to a wide audience. A new set of ideas is to replace that of Al Qaeda’s. These ideas are carry the opinion that Islam is not under attack, nor it is compatible with democracy and nor it is necessary to implement Shariah as understood in accordance to the stringent standards of the legal traditionalist.

Education of the masses is necessary where there is a need of replacement of the “wrong” ideas with the “right” ones. A kind of paternalism is involved, where individuals are fed counter-ideologies, without encouraging them to critically question these “right” ideas. The true agenda of such an approach is that of fighting terror, while generally preserving the current status quo.

In the other camp are those who understand the rise of violent extremism as reflective of a crisis in the Muslim world where individuals are no longer practicing Islam’s essential value of ijtihad (personal reasoning). Many religious institutions have also adopted an unquestioning attitude. This has allowed the revival of radical approaches to Islam. One example would be the call for a return to the legalist tradition, where states must strictly apply classical interpretation of the Shariah laws without questioning its applicability in the current context. Another example is the revival of the theological puritan tradition, where one must live as the Prophet and his companions had lived. And Wahabi Movement claims of having followed this trend.

The point then is to seek the revival of the practice of ijtihad, and scholars have been busy doing so in the study of Islamic texts. Applying different conceptual tools to understand the Hadith (collection of the Prophet’s words) and Shariah, scholars argue that it is important to understand the socio-political context in which the words were spoken or codified in the texts. For example, the circumstances of Revelation (circumstances in which the Prophet revealed God’s words) must be understood in order to decipher the true meaning of the Prophet’s words. Who was he addressing? What was the social context? What was the value which he held important when these words were spoken?

The same applies to the understanding of Shariah. It must be understood that the jurists developed the Shariah over the span of a few centuries after the Prophet. The Jurist had studied the Quran and the Sunnah (Prophet’s ways) to extract principles and values of Islam and apply them in the existing social context. It is therefore also essential in modern ages to decode the Shariah to understand the true meaning of Islam.

However, some problems arise. For example, having decoded the text, some scholars find that the principles and values extracted from the text turn out to be rather universal values such as justice, benevolence, compassion and wisdom, creating the problem of a watered-down version of Islam. It has also been suggested that there exists a hierarchy to Quranic values that are revealed in the verses. Scholars again debate which values are more important. For example, is it more important to punish someone for committing a crime in order to uphold justice, or is it more important to show benevolence and help the perpetrator reform?

The important and, still unanswered question, is how accessible are these debates to the general public? As long as these issues are not adequately addressed, can the intellectual practice of ijtihad on Islamic texts be of any value to counter-terrorism? As Islamic scholars are engaged in intellectual debates and unable to provide true guidance to ordinary Muslims, what is to happen to counter terrorism efforts?

Paternalism and the practice of ijtihad have become a dilemma to Muslim Ummah. Paternalism negates the essence of ijtihad where true intellectual debate is to take place. Paternalism looks for quick fixes to the current violent extremist problems, proposing a set of ideas taken to be the correct one, whilst the practice of ijtihad in decoding the ideas of Islam is still subjected to much debate, unable to lend much help to current counter-terrorism efforts. However, it is the practice of ijtihad that has the ability to make a true interpretation of Islam to guide not only Muslim but also non-Muslim, who are unable to see true picture of islam.

Which way should efforts be concentrated? It depends on one’s goal: if one is looking for a quick fix and to protect the current status quo, or if one is ready for genuine change or progress to take place? Regardless of the existing tension between paternalism and ijtihad, ultimately, a difficult balancing act is preferred, where Islamic scholars could draw up a practicable conclusion of ideas that could then be actively promoted, whilst at the same time they should continue the existing intellectual debates. Most importantly, the greater Muslim population must be engaged in these practices of ijtihad.

Zhou Suli is PIPS contributor and research analyst at International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Singapore.