VIEW: Kital and jihad – Gulmina Bilal Ahmad

Jihad, as is well known, is a constant struggle against one’s will or, in the terms of psychology, against one’s own id, i.e. the part of the self that is wilful and without any restraint

What motivates a militant Taliban who is not fraught with poverty? The answer to this question is complex. There is no easy answer. However, at a dialogue organised to discuss the possibilities of peace, an interesting answer was given by a psychiatrist-turned-religious-scholar, Dr Muhammad Farooq. This gentleman is involved in the army-supported and led Swat Taliban children rehabilitation project called ‘Sabawoon’, literally meaning in Pashto ‘a new dawn’. He was of the opinion that a basic difference between a conservative Muslim and a militant Taliban who takes it upon himself/herself to adopt violent means is the latter’s understanding of jihad.

From interviews of children studying at the centre, it has been gauged that they were taught that jihad in terms of armed struggle is mandatory on them and that an individual can wage armed jihad. However, a moderate Muslim’s understanding is that armed jihad is the prerogative of a state and not that of an individual. Jihad, as is well known, is a constant struggle against one’s will or, in the terms of psychology, against one’s own id, i.e. the part of the self that is wilful and without any restraint. Misunderstood globally as meaning only armed struggle, jihad, as any elementary Islamic lecture would tell you, is about the struggle against self-urges and injustice, etc. Famously, in the words of the Prophet (PBUH), “The greatest jihad is the one against your own desires.”

This is not to say that the Quran does not mention armed struggle. Armed struggle is referred to as kital in the Quran. However, it is clearly mentioned in the Quran that kital is only the responsibility of the state. An individual cannot wage kital; s/he can only wage jihad through non-violent means against self or untruth. The injunction to take up arms for a cause is only the prerogative of the state.

This is an important difference to understand. While debriefing children trained to be suicide bombers in Swat at the Sabawoon Rehabilitation Centre, this important difference came to light. The Taliban taught the children that kital could be waged by an individual. In fact, since according to the Taliban teachings, there is no shariah in Pakistan and that Pakistan is governed by ‘infidels’ as exemplified by the local brown sahib or the gora, i.e. the foreigners, it is the obligation of every child to wage kital against them.

While the audience at the dialogue listened attentively to Dr Muhammad Farooq’s inputs, I could not help but wonder how many people actually knew the difference between kital and other forms of jihad? Those of us who have been educated at government or even private schools and made to rote-learn ayats from the Quran, do we know about kital and who can wage it?

We repeat ad nauseam that Islam is a complete code of life. It covers political, social, economic and, of course, personal aspects of our lives. The market is full of pocketbooks that have all sorts of duas for every action that an individual takes in his/her life. However, how many of us can differentiate between the individual and social parts of the Quran or Islam? How many of us are cognizant of the fact that Islam being a religion and thus a personal regulator, has injunctions focusing mostly on the individual’s life and not of a state? This is where we incorrectly understand Islam, in my opinion, as we look it as a collective code of life rather than an individual one. Hence, the more overzealous amongst us take it upon themselves to ‘check others’ and even take up arms to implement their understanding of religion or the world.

In fact, we go a step further. We refer to various political and historical events as injustices against Muslims. Analyst after analyst elaborates the real and alleged global injustices against Muslims. Palestine is on top of the grievances list. Closer at home is, of course, Kashmir. However, how have we equated disputes over land with religious disputes?

The struggle of the Palestinians and the Kashmiris is a political one, just as the cause of the Taliban is a political one. It actually speaks volumes about the communication skills of the Palestinian and Kashmiri fighters that they have successfully painted their political demands in religious colours. Or perhaps the skills of the political governments and other political actors behind the Palestine and Kashmir issues. The Taliban and al Qaeda are trying to do the same. For instance, the Swat Taliban also taught the children that there are six pillars of Islam instead of five. The sixth one being jihad, defined as armed struggle against the state, the government functionaries and, of course, the western world.

It is important for thinking Muslims to consider the difference between religious and political struggles. We also need to proactively educate ourselves about religion and determine its footprint in our daily lives. The decision to say a prayer before a meal is a personal one. It should not be binding upon all people of a Muslim majority country, just as it is not the task of the government to regulate who fasts in the month of Ramadan and who does not. Similarly, an insurgent and a militant, whether he is fighting for the cause of South Waziristan or Swat against the state, is a terrorist and an individual motivated by his individual understanding of Islam. To refer to such people as shaheed or hold them in reverence (reference Hamid Mir’s alleged reference to such terrorists) is the sign of a confused mind. For the Quran clearly states, “Do not kill yourself. God is merciful to you. If someone does so through oppression or injustice, We shall cast him into hell” (4:29, 30).

The writer is an Islamabad-based consultant. She can be reached at contact@individualland.com