Main Points:

Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence and former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology is rooted in a strict interpretation of Islamic governance. It rejects nationalism, democracy, and secularism, advocating instead for the revival of a unified Caliphate under Islamic law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir remains one of the most enigmatic and controversial Islamist movements in the modern era. With a highly disciplined structure and a clear ideological vision, it has survived despite decades of repression.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), an international pan-Islamic political organization, has long been controversial and debated. Established in 1953, its stated objective is the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, which it sees as the only legitimate governing system for Muslims worldwide. While the group insists on non-violent means to achieve its goals, many governments have outlawed it due to its radical political ideology.

This article explores the origins, ideological framework, leadership perspectives, and legacy of Hizb ut-Tahrir, relying extensively on quotes from its leaders and publications.

Origins and Early History

Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence and former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Nabhani, disillusioned with what he saw as the secularization of the Arab world and the failure of existing Islamist movements, sought to create a political party that would focus on re-establishing the Caliphate as a comprehensive solution for Muslim governance.

Al-Nabhani emphasized that HT’s methodology was unique compared to other Islamic movements:

“We do not engage in practical politics in the sense of seeking power through participation in existing regimes. Our work is solely intellectual and political, aimed at changing the minds of the Ummah (Muslim community).”

From its inception, HT focused on recruiting members through intensive ideological training rather than mass activism. The party quickly spread to Jordan, Syria, and other parts of the Middle East, but it faced immediate repression from regional governments, many of which saw its calls for an Islamic state as a direct threat to their authority.

Ideological Framework

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology is rooted in a strict interpretation of Islamic governance. It rejects nationalism, democracy, and secularism, advocating instead for the revival of a unified Caliphate under Islamic law.

The Role of the Caliphate

The Caliphate, according to HT, is the only legitimate system for Muslims because it is divinely mandated. The party argues that all Muslim-majority countries today suffer from “man-made” laws rather than divine rule, leading to corruption, oppression, and weakness.

As Abdul Qadeem Zallum, a later leader of HT, wrote:

“The Ummah has been living in darkness since the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924. Only by re-establishing it will Muslims regain their dignity and rightful leadership in the world.”

HT envisions a Caliphate that stretches across all Muslim lands, ruled by a single leader (Caliph) implementing Islamic law (Sharia) in all aspects of life—governance, economy, and society.

Rejection of Democracy

Hizb ut-Tahrir firmly rejects democracy, arguing that it is a Western-imposed system incompatible with Islam. In HT’s view, sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, not to the people.

Al-Nabhani argued in his writings:

“Democracy places legislation in the hands of humans, whereas in Islam, legislation comes only from Allah.”

HT considers electoral politics under secular governments to be illegitimate and sees participation in them as a betrayal of Islamic principles.

Opposition to Nationalism and the Nation-State

One of HT’s most distinctive ideological positions is its absolute rejection of nationalism. It views national borders in the Muslim world as artificial divisions imposed by colonial powers to weaken Islamic unity.

Zallum, elaborating on this point, stated:

“The so-called Arab world, the so-called Muslim world—these are colonial constructs. Our loyalty is to Islam, not to nations.”

This anti-nationalist stance has often put HT at odds with various governments that see national identity as crucial to their stability.

Methodology: Non-Violent but Radical

Despite its radical rhetoric, Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to follow a non-violent methodology. The group insists that it seeks to bring about the Caliphate through intellectual and political work, rather than armed struggle.

One of HT’s spokespersons stated:

“We reject terrorism and violence. Our method is one of ideological struggle, exposing the corruption of existing regimes and preparing the Ummah for Islamic rule.”

However, critics argue that HT’s rhetoric can inspire extremist violence by portraying secular governments as illegitimate and Western influence as a form of colonialism.

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Global Expansion

Since its founding, Hizb ut-Tahrir has spread far beyond the Middle East. Today, it operates in over 40 countries, with strongholds in Central Asia, South Asia, and Europe.

Presence in the Middle East

HT’s attempts to gain traction in the Arab world have been met with repression. Many Middle Eastern governments, particularly in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, have outlawed the group and imprisoned its members.

Despite this, HT continues to have underground networks in many Arab countries, particularly in Syria, where it has attempted to influence Islamist factions.

Strength in Central Asia

HT has a significant presence in Central Asia, particularly in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. The governments of these countries view HT as a major security threat, accusing it of attempting to radicalize the population and undermine state authority.

The Uzbek government has been particularly aggressive in cracking down on HT, imprisoning thousands of its suspected members.

Growth in South Asia

HT has made notable inroads in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where it has targeted the military and educated elites for recruitment. It has repeatedly called for a military coup in Pakistan to establish an Islamic state.

A prominent HT leader in Pakistan stated:

“The Muslim armies must remove the traitorous rulers and establish the Caliphate, for they hold the power to do so.”

This open call for military intervention has led to multiple government crackdowns on HT activities.

European Presence

HT has also gained a following in Western countries, particularly in the UK, where it has a visible presence in Muslim communities. While it is banned in Germany and Russia, it continues to operate legally in some Western countries under the banner of free speech.

HT’s European branches focus heavily on intellectual debates, organizing lectures and conferences that critique Western democracy and foreign policy.

Legacy and Controversy

Impact on Islamist Movements

Hizb ut-Tahrir has played a significant role in shaping Islamist discourse. While it has never succeeded in establishing a Caliphate, its emphasis on the unity of the Muslim world has influenced many contemporary Islamist movements.

Some jihadist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, have been indirectly influenced by HT’s vision of the Caliphate. However, HT officially rejects these groups’ use of violence, creating a paradox where it shares a similar ideological goal but differs in methodology.

Government Crackdowns and Bans

Many governments view Hizb ut-Tahrir as a threat to stability and have banned it. Countries that have outlawed HT include: Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, Germany, China (particularly in Xinjiang, where HT is accused of inciting separatism)

Despite bans, HT continues to operate clandestinely in many of these regions.

Internal Challenges

HT has faced internal struggles, including leadership disputes and strategic debates over whether to engage with existing political structures or continue its purist approach.

Additionally, the rise of violent extremist groups has made it difficult for HT to maintain its image as a non-violent organization. Many view its ideology as a stepping stone to radicalization.

Hizb ut-Tahrir remains one of the most enigmatic and controversial Islamist movements in the modern era. With a highly disciplined structure and a clear ideological vision, it has managed to survive despite decades of repression.

While it has not achieved its goal of restoring the Caliphate, HT’s impact on Islamic political thought is undeniable. Whether it will ever translate its ideology into tangible political power remains to be seen, but its presence in global Islamist discourse is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

A Detailed Refutation of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Ideology: Voices from Moderate Islam

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) presents itself as an intellectual and political movement dedicated to restoring the Islamic Caliphate. While it claims non-violence, its ideological underpinnings—rejection of democracy, nationalism, and participation in existing political systems—have made it a source of concern for governments and moderate Muslim scholars alike.

Throughout Islamic history, numerous respected scholars and leaders have espoused views that directly contradict HT’s core beliefs. This article presents a comprehensive refutation of HT’s ideology using insights from classical Islamic scholars, modern Muslim intellectuals, and contemporary political figures who argue for a more balanced and pragmatic understanding of Islam.

1. The Misuse of the Caliphate: A Historical and Theological Perspective

HT’s Claim:

Hizb ut-Tahrir asserts that the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 marked the beginning of the Muslim world’s decline. It claims that re-establishing a centralized Caliphate is a divine obligation and the only solution to the problems faced by Muslims today.

“The Ummah has been living in darkness since the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924. Only by re-establishing it will Muslims regain their dignity and rightful leadership in the world.” – Abdul Qadeem Zallum, former HT leader

Refutation: The Caliphate is Not a Religious Pillar

Islamic scholars throughout history have debated the nature and necessity of the Caliphate. While governance in Islam is important, it is not one of the five pillars of Islam (Shahada, Salah, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj), nor is it a core tenet of faith.

1.1 Classical Scholars on the Caliphate

The famous Islamic jurist Imam Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) argued that the unity of Muslims is more about faith and moral values than a political structure:

“The welfare of the people is not dependent on the existence of one ruler or a single Caliphate, but rather on the just administration of affairs, ensuring security, and upholding the principles of Islam.” – Al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulum al-Din

Similarly, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), the great historian and sociologist, observed that political leadership in Islam evolved naturally over time and that power should be based on the needs of society rather than rigid historical models:

“The Caliphate as envisioned in early Islam was suitable for that time. Governance is shaped by economic and social conditions, and no single model can be deemed mandatory for all ages.” – Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

1.2 Contemporary Scholars on the Caliphate

Renowned modern Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (1926–2022) refuted the idea that a single political entity is necessary for the Muslim world:

“Nowhere in the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah is there a command that Muslims must have only one ruler. Unity in faith and cooperation in good deeds are required, but political unity under one state is neither a necessity nor a divine obligation.” – Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Even within early Islamic history, the concept of the Caliphate evolved and was never universally agreed upon. The Rightly Guided Caliphs (632–661) ruled differently from the later Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, demonstrating that governance structures changed according to circumstances.

The insistence on reviving the Caliphate as an obligation ignores both historical realities and Islamic jurisprudence. Justice, security, and good governance—rather than a single political entity—are the true Islamic ideals.

2. Rejection of Democracy and Elections: A False Dichotomy

HT’s Claim:

Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects democracy, arguing that only divine law (Sharia) should govern Muslims and that elections under secular systems are illegitimate.

“Democracy places legislation in the hands of humans, whereas in Islam, legislation comes only from Allah.” – Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, HT founder

Refutation: Islam Encourages Shura (Consultation) and Public Participation

HT’s opposition to democracy stems from a rigid and literalist interpretation of governance. However, Islam itself encourages Shura (consultation), accountability, and public participation, all of which align with democratic principles.

2.1 Qur’anic and Hadith Evidence for Consultation

The Qur’an explicitly commands consultation in governance:

“And those who have responded to [the need for] their ruler with consultation among themselves, and who spend from what We have provided them.” – (Qur’an 42:38)

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) practiced consultation in state matters. He sought advice from his companions before major decisions, even when he had divine guidance. If democracy is about accountability and consultation, how can it be un-Islamic?

2.2 Statements from Muslim Scholars Supporting Democratic Principles

Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905), an Egyptian reformer, argued that democracy was in line with Islamic principles of justice and consultation:

“The essence of democracy—justice, accountability, and consultation—is what Islam calls for. The problem is not democracy itself but those who misuse power under any system.”

Similarly, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (1925–2021), an Indian Islamic scholar, defended democracy by emphasizing that Islam is against dictatorship:

“A government chosen by the people and accountable to them is closer to Islamic values than authoritarian rule. Tyranny is haram, whether in the name of religion or secularism.”

HT’s rejection of democracy is based on a false understanding of Islamic governance. The Qur’an and Sunnah encourage consultation, participation, and accountability, all of which align with democratic principles.

3. Nationalism and the Muslim Identity: A Misplaced Opposition

HT’s Claim:

HT rejects nationalism, claiming that it is a colonial construct that divides the Muslim Ummah.

“The so-called Muslim world—these are colonial constructs. Our loyalty is to Islam, not to nations.” – HT statement

Refutation: Islam Recognizes Diversity and Local Identity

HT’s rejection of nationalism contradicts Islamic teachings that acknowledge diversity and local identities as part of God’s creation.

3.1 Qur’anic and Prophetic Recognition of National Identity

The Qur’an states:

“O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and made you peoples and tribes so that you may know one another.” – (Qur’an 49:13)

This verse clearly recognizes that different identities exist, and they are not inherently un-Islamic. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself acknowledged tribal affiliations but condemned racism and oppression.

3.2 Scholars on Nationalism and Islam

Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), a philosopher and poet of South Asia, argued that Islam could accommodate nationalism within a broader spiritual framework:

“Love for one’s country does not negate love for Islam. A Muslim can be a patriot without abandoning his religious identity.”

Similarly, Prince Hassan of Jordan, a modern Islamic scholar, stated:

“Islamic unity is a spiritual bond, but political unity is not always practical. A just ruler, whether in a Muslim-majority or non-Muslim state, is preferable to an unjust Caliph.”

HT’s rigid opposition to nationalism ignores Islamic teachings that recognize diversity and local governance. Unity in faith does not require the dissolution of nation-states.

Final Thoughts: The Way Forward

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology is rooted in a selective and rigid interpretation of Islamic history, ignoring centuries of jurisprudential development and political realities. Scholars from classical to modern times have consistently advocated for justice, consultation, and adaptability, rather than an uncompromising, monolithic state.

The real challenge for the Muslim world is not the re-establishment of a Caliphate but the promotion of justice, education, and good governance. As the Qur’an states:

“Indeed, Allah commands justice, good conduct, and giving to relatives and forbids immorality, bad conduct, and oppression.” – (Qur’an 16:90)

A better future for Muslims lies in progress, knowledge, and ethical leadership, not in romanticizing a political model that no longer fits the modern world.

Grace Mubashir is a PhD scholar at Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia and a freelance journalist based at Delhi

Article was first published on New Age Islam

The post Hizb ut-Tahrir: Radical thoughts influencing global mainstream politics – Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan police have filed an First Information Report (FIR) against the Rajasthan State Textbook Board following protests over communal claims made in a political science textbook. According to a report in the Times of India, the book published in 2018, meant for class XII quotes “experts” who claim that “Islamic terrorism as a strand of Islam”.

There has been major uproar over this in the last couple of days, and civil society activists. Muslim groups have demanded the removal of ‘objectionable contents’ of the school textbooks. According to a report in The Hindu, the books which were brought out by a private publisher state that “Islamic terrorism” was a strand of the religion itself, and that it had brought havoc to the world by “suicide attacks, unlimited barbarity, blackmail, demand for ransom and heinous killings”.

The book contained a question, “What do you understand by Islamic terrorism?” The answer to this as stated in the book was that terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir was “purely religious” and was the same. The news report quoted another question seeking the answer to the “objectives of Islamic terrorism”, the options given were: “establishing a Muslim nation, implementing Islamic principles” and “fighting non-Muslims with violence”.

Strong objections were raised by the Rajasthan Muslim Forum, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Muslim Parishad Sansthan. The organisations demanded that the textbooks be withdrawn and criminal cases be registered against the writers and publishers for insulting the religion and outraging the religious feelings of Muslims. According to the news report, some activists allegedly ransacked the furniture and bookshelves at the publisher’s office situated in the Walled City of Jaipur, on Wednesday evening. Police have detained three youth in connection with the incident. According to TOI, the FIR against the Board, as well as the private publishing house was registered by Lal Kothi police on the complaint against the “objectionable content” on Islam made by the Rajasthan Muslim Forum.

It was reported that the textbook contains a chapter on “Terrorism, Terrorism, Criminalisation of Politics and Corruption”, where anonymous experts claim that “commitment to a particular religion is the main trend of Islamic terrorism.” Both the state textbook and the guidebook, which also says the same. The communal tilt by the anonymous experts, continues in the chapter that claims, “In Islamic terrorism the the terrorist has excessive devotion to Islam rather than any faction or a group.” It  added, “Martyrdom, perpetrating unlimited barbarism, forcibly amassing wealth and killing and committing atrocities on innocent people ruthlessly in a most ghastly manner in the name of Allah are some of the features of Islamic terrorism.”

The TOI quotes a section titled ‘Nature of Terrorism in India,’ where terms such as “Sikh terrorist and Muslim terrorist in Punjab and J&K demanding a separate state on religious  state on religious grounds” are used. 

Related

Withdraw comments against Quran, apologise: National Commission for Minorities tells Waseem Rizvi
What will Waseem Rizvi gain by antagonising the Muslim community?
Swiss Vote for Burqa Ban and Its Reaction among Indian Muslims?
Modi Yogi’s UP Shia Waqf Board Chief in the dock for Controversial Ayodhya Film
Jamiat slaps Rs 20 crore defamation suit against UP Shia Waqf Board Chairman 
Shia Waqf Board’s Waseem Rizvi calls CAA women protesters “badkirdaar auratein”

The post FIR against Rajasthan Textbook Board for claiming Islamic terrorism as a strand of Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the other hand, when so much of contemporary terrorism seems to be happening in the name of Islam, then it makes sense to engage specifically with this phenomenon. And what better way to do it but within the academia. It also must be kept in mind that clubbing all religions together will de-focus the entire program. If what one is interested in is the linkage between Islam and terror, then the entire focus should be on that particular linkage itself.

 Moreover, in this particular instance, the sound liberal position to take would be to leave such academic matters in the hands of the university or the teachers concerned. The problem is that liberals in India have come to believe that while freedom and autonomy of teachers and educational institutions should be paramount when they are in power, others should be denied such freedoms.

Another level of problem was with the very word Islamic itself. Critics were quick to point out that no religion sanctions violence and therefore using the word ‘Islamic’ for a course on terrorism was going too far. After all, the argument continued, we don’t use Christian terrorism or Hindu terrorism so why should we use the term Islamic terrorism.

This narrative is historically uninformed. Christians, Muslims and Hindus, acting out their belief system have all used violence at some point of time in their histories. If not then how do we understand the crusades, the burning at the stakes and the persecution of Buddhists? The problem is not so much that religions have used terror; rather the bigger problem is that there is no consensus on how to define terror.

For example, the history of independence of third world countries is replete with example where our prominent freedom fighters have used terror and violence as a viable and respectable means to achieve their ends. But then we do not have a problem with this kind of terror. Terror has also been used by various states in the developing and developed worlds on their own population but then since the state has a monopoly of violence, we do not understand this as terror. So it is the word terror which is very difficult to map and define because one’s terrorist might well be the other’s martyr.

 However, this should not deviate us from the more fundamental question of religious terrorism. If acts of terror are carried out in which religious motivation is the prime motivating factor, then why should we shy away from calling the name of religion associated with the terrorists. And more importantly, if those who are carrying out such attacks in the name of Islam, then who are we to say that they are no truly Muslims? 

Disparate Muslim groups opposed the proposed course simply because it would bring a bad name to Islam. They were quick to point out that Islam means peace and that there is no place for violence in this religion. Nothing can be further from truth.

Firstly, it has become fashionable these days to start with the faulty premise that Islam is a religion of peace. No religion is completely about peace or violence. With Islam in particular, the history of the religion is filled with violence right since its inception. What is worse, Muslims started fighting each other over political power soon after the death of its prophet. It is not that Muslims are unaware of their own history. Rather the problem is just the opposite: they are too aware of their violent historical past. And that’s the reason why they now want to proclaim it as a religion of peace.

Properly speaking, Islam should mean submission more than anything else and the Muslim in one who submits. There is no need for Muslims to deny their past: all religions have been violent at some point in their history. The point is to accept the problematic history and see to it that it is not repeated. Merely saying that Islam is a religion of peace will not make Islam into one; Muslims have to actively construct an alternative hermeneutic tradition if they want to proclaim Islam as a peaceful religion.

Against this backdrop, it was rather rich of AMU students Union and the Delhi Minority Commission chairman to write to JNU to change that particular course. The AMU needs to answer some tough questions in this regard. Why is it that it is taking interest in the affairs of another university? Shouldn’t the job of AMU students union be to take care of the needs and interests of student community in their own university? Granted that they have a right to political critique, but then when will they start critiquing the situation in their own campus? If they demand from JNU that it respects ‘their’ sentiments, isn’t it about time that AMU shows the same sensitivity towards its own diverse student population.

How about starting a course on Hinduism in AMU? Similarly, it shouldn’t be the business of a minority commission to seek clarification from a university over the contents of an academic course. Muslims are facing far serious problems in this country and it will be better if the commission actually focuses on the daily humiliations which Muslims are facing today. It is better to leave academic matters to the concerned university.

After a huge uproar, JNU decided to drop the course and even denied that they were planning to introduce any such course at all. However, it is now learnt that they are planning to introduce it as a research theme by altering the title from ‘Islamic’ terrorism to ‘Islamist’ terrorism. But even the research theme has run into trouble. Muslim critics have been quick to point out the ‘nefarious’ designs of the university behind introducing the research theme. Even if we grant that given the political discourse in the country, the usage ‘Islamic’ terrorism might have disturbed Muslims, one doesn’t understand why ‘Islamist’ terrorism should have the same effect.

We need to differentiate between Islamic and Islamist: the latter only attests the political use of Islam to capture state power where violence is indeed one of the many options. Isn’t this the ultimate aim of Islamists the world over and isn’t it that they have used terror as a method to achieve that end? How do we understand the Taliban and more recently the ISIS except through the lens of Islamist terror? Worldwide, even amongst Muslim scholars, there is now a consensus that it is the ideology of Islamism which needs to be resisted.

 So what’s the problem in a course or a research theme which is intends to teach and research different aspects of this phenomenon and why should Indian Muslims resist it? The only reason seems to be lack of clarity to differentiate between Islam and Islamism. Additionally, Indian Muslims seems to have a problem with any usage or reference of Islam made by others which is non-flattering.

This is a huge problem and the sooner Muslims address it, the better it will be for them. They should have the willingness to openly debate any existing criticism of Islam. Without this self-introspection, it is difficult to see how we as Indian Muslims, can come to terms with the world around us. Not accepting that Islam, like any other religion, can lend itself to terrorism will only push us towards a dystopic worldview where Muslims become the perpetual victim and terrorist incidents like 9/11 appear to be the handiwork of the Zionists. 

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist  

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why Should an Academic Course on Islamist Terror Rile Muslims? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Within a few weeks I have to submit my PhD thesis at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Given that the deadline for my submission is at hand, I should have spent all my energies on my thesis rather than writing this letter to you. But I couldn’t help doing this. Through this letter, I would like to bring to your notice a very serious issue that has recently come up in JNU. Since you are the Visitor of this University, I think I should bring this matter to your notice. You are requested to make an urgent intervention.

As the media reports suggest, the Academic Council (AC) of JNU, held on May 18, 2018, took a decision to open a new course called ‘Islamic Terrorism’. It is learnt that the AC meeting approved in principle a new course called ‘Islamic Terrorism’. This course will be one among other courses offered by the proposed centre to be known as Centre for National Security Studies (CNSS). However, some people say that ‘Islamic Terrorism’ is not a new course but it is a theme of a paper on national security that includes other themes like ‘Naxalism’,

‘Insurgency’, ‘Demographic changes’ etc. Dear Sir, much confusion still persists and we are still waiting for the JNU administration to come out with all relevant facts and clarify its stand on these highly controversial issues. But the apprehension among us is growing that the current JNU administration appears adamant to change the character of JNU and push several hawkish agendas ahead.

Through this letter, I request you to order a proper inquiry into the whole issue. If the JNU administration has decided to offer a new course (or sub-theme) called ‘Islamic Terrorism’, it should be withheld because it goes against the very idea of JNU and its stated aim of ‘social justice’, ‘secularism’, ‘democratic way of life’, ‘international understanding and scientific approach to the problems of society’ enshrined in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act 1966.

Dear Sir, the apologists and the masterminds of the course are not ready to accept that nothing can be more unfortunate and self-defeating than to open a course called ‘Islamic Terrorism’. Speaking to the media, one such apologist shamelessly defended the move, saying that the course would be called ‘Islamist Terrorism’, not ‘Islamic Terrorism’. By creating such a distinction, the apologist was pretending that she/he was not against Islam or Muslims. However, she/he did not realise that her/his binary between ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’ reminds many of a similar binary created by the former USA president George W. Bush post-9/11.  He similarly differentiated ‘good’ Muslims from ‘bad’ Muslims.

To my best of knowledge, no university in the world, which is based on secular and progressive ideas, has ever offered a course like ‘Islamic Terrorism’, ‘Christian Terrorism’, ‘Jews Terrorism’, ‘Sikh Terrorism’ ‘Buddhist Terrorism’ or ‘Hindu Terrorism’. If this is so, why is JNU going to set such a bad precedence? Needless to say, terrorism cannot be linked to any religion or social group.Those who often raise the bogey of terrorism never define what terrorism is.

So far, the world community has not reached an ‘acceptable-to-all’ definition of terrorism. History tells us that the image of a terrorist is consistently constructed and re-constructed. Who will deny the fact that construction of the image of terrorists is a political act, mediated through the power? For example, many of our freedom fighters were perceived by the colonial British government as ‘terrorists’. In the post-colonial India too, several individuals and social and religious groups were demonized as ‘terrorists’. Is it not a fact that a particular religious group was demonized as ‘terrorists’ in the 1970s and the 1980s but the American discourse of ‘War on Terror’ at the end of the twentieth century brought another religious group as new ‘terrorists’? The new terrorists in the post-9/11were portrayed as a threat to ‘peace’, ‘modernity’, ‘human rights’, ‘gender rights’ and ‘democracy’ all across the world.

Islamophobic forces never realise that they have uncritically internalized the ‘clash of civilization’ discourse. They never look at the question of violence beyond ‘cultural’ logic. Their deep-seated prejudice is that the Islamic/ Muslim world is trapped in a ‘pre-modern’ world, gripped by ‘religious fanaticism’ and ‘superstition’, posing a serious threat to ‘modern values’. They Islamophobic forces often do a textual reading of Islam/Muslims.They are least interested in approaching Islamic/Muslim society from political economy point of view. They are not willing to consider that Islamic/Muslim society is also shaped by the forces beyond Islam and its holy scriptures  that include colonialism and capitalism. The Islamophobic forces are reluctant to consider colonialism, neo-colonialism and capitalism as factors in contributing or generating violence in society.

Their roots in ‘cultural explanation’ never allow them to raise some cardinal questions like these. Who benefits most from terror discourse? If the so-called terrorists are not sold modern weapons by the advanced countries, can they become so lethal? If modern means of communication is controlled by the advanced countries, how do the so-called terrorists get access to it? Is not peace bad for the arms-manufacturing companies mostly located in the first World? Why are the acts of ‘terrorism’ only confined to the non-state actors? Is not the state also involved in act of terrorism? Is not the scale of the state terrorism often much bigger than that of non-state actors because the state has much more resources and power at its disposal?

Instead of interrogating these questions, the Islamophobic forces blame Islam for all the wrongs. But history tells us that Islam plays a great role in the field of knowledge, science and production.Contrary to the charges against Islam for being ‘anti-modern’, the historical reality is that the western renaissance owes a lot to Islam.

The India history also affirms the same fact.Islam brought about many positive changes in this society, contributing to every walk of life from knowledge to production, from art and culture to architecture and music. Egalitarian ideas of Islam also confronted the caste society and gave much relief to Dalits and lower castes. The Historian Sulaiman Nadvi (1884–1953)—who was associated with the establishment of Jamia Millia Islamia-has shown that before the coming of Islam, education was denied to the lower castes but things began to change under the egalitarian influence of Islam. History also tells us that the country’s relations with Muslim/Islamic countries have always been friendly. Even today, lakhs of Indians work in Muslim countries and send huge remittance back home, boosting Indian economy. Needless to say, the country’s energy security is very much dependent on these Muslim countries.

Moreover, it is also an exaggeration that the national security is being ‘threatened’ by Islamic forces.Such a view is informed by statist and hawkish notion of security.I, instead, consider human approach to security as more relevant.If government does not live up to the expectation of people, no government, howsoever mighty it may be, can ensure and maintain the country’s security.

Given all of this, I make an urgent appeal to you as the Visitor of JNU to look into the matter. If such a course called ‘Islamic Terrorism’ is introduced, it may help some people and a few organisations gain some personal benefits, but ultimately it will create religious tension in our society and bring a bad name to our country outside.

Abhay Kumar is a doctoral scholar at Centre for Historical Studies, JNU

Courtesy: Kafila.online
 

The post The Danger of ‘Islamic Terrorism’ Course in JNU – An Open Letter to the President of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Image: Sushil Kumar Verma

Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) Chairman, Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan has issued a suo motu notice to the registrar of JNU to explain – on what basis a course on “Islamic Terror” is being launched by the university. Press reports said that the decision to introduce such a course by the JNU administration has been taken despite opposition from many members of the Academic Council (AC) of the university.
 
Zafarul-Islam told Sabrangindia that the JNU administration is bringing politics into academics and that if the students are asked to write papers on ‘Islamic Terrorism’, it will disturb the atmosphere of campus and country as well. Khan also said that this is a trick of the people with Sanghi (that of RSS) mindset only to defame Muslims and to keep the community on the back foot. “Same pattern they used to follow during former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government, but later they kept silent,” he said. 
Khan added that if DMC doesn’t get any response, he will send a reminder to them and if this doesn’t work, he will summon them. 
 
In the formal notice, DMC has asked JNU administration to reply to the following queries:
“Is there any concept paper or proposal to include a course on “Islamic Terror” in the proposed “Centre for National Security Studies”? If so, please provide a copy;
Is the subject of “Islamic Terror” being taught in any Indian or foreign university, if so, please provide details;
What areas are to be covered under this subject and what are (a) the sources, (b) methodology, (c) reference books/works/studies to be followed, and (d) who are the main experts who will take part in the implementation, research and teaching of this subject?;
Has the current administration of JNU considered the implications of introducing this subject in the campus, on its students and on the broader society outside? If so, please provide a copy of any such assessment note prepared on this subject;
Please provide a full list of the members of the Academic Council of JNU marking those who were present during the meeting where the above proposal was adopted;
Since there is report that “many members” of the Academic Council objected to the introduction of this subject, was there any voting and if so what was the result; and
Please provide a copy of the minutes of the said meeting where the subject was discussed and approved.”

JNU administration has been asked to file its reply to these questions by June 5.

The post Minorities Commission Notice to JNU Admin Over Course on “Islamic Terror” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Law enforcement agencies say several hundred members of Islamist extremist outfits have been found to have previously studied the sciences

 

Students of computer science, engineering and medicine are increasingly the target of radicalisation by militants who view their technical ability coupled with sharp but uncritical thinking skills as an asset, experts have said.

Prof Dr Nehal Karim, chairman of the Department of Sociology at Dhaka University, made the assertion that such students generally lack analytical skills and are less able to critically weigh the basis and reasoning behind statements presented as facts.

Law enforcement agencies say several hundred members of Islamist extremist outfits have been found to have previously studied the sciences.

They include the two top leaders of the ISIS-affiliated New JMB, Mainul Islam alias Musa and Fardin alias Piyas, who were killed in drives against militancy.

Dhaka Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime Unit (CTTC) also said the head of New JMB’s Information Technology wing – Basharujjaman alias Chocolate Bashar – is a software engineer.

“The reason why students from these educational backgrounds are so susceptible to militant grooming needs a lot in-depth studies into their psychology,” said Prof Dr Mehtab Khanam, the chair of the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at Dhaka University.

One line of inquiry considered by Intelligence agencies is that these students are equipped with technical know-hows of bomb making for when the militant outfits expand to carrying out terrorist activities.

Mirroring Dr Nehal’s opinion, Police Bureau of Investigation’s Chief Deputy Inspector General Banaz Kumar Majumder also said science students tend to perform better within such organisations without resorting to questioning, while students from the arts or social sciences are more apt at reasoning without much technical knowledge.

RAB’s Additional Director General (Operations) Colonel Anwar Latif Khan said: “We have found that is increasingly common for New JMB, Ansar Al Islam, Hizb-ut Tahrir, Harkatul Zihad and some other extremist groups to recruit science students.”

In the case of two mid-level New JMB leaders – Oliujjaman alias Oli, 28, and Anwarul Alam, 29 – the grooming was a slow but inevitable process that took years.

Having graduated from BUET in 2012, electrical engineer Oli expressed an interest in learning more about Islam early on in his student life, and this was exploited by his recruiters.

New JMB’s leader Sarwar Jahan alias Abdur Rahman, Tamim Ahmed Chowdhury and some others started exploiting his desire to learn more about Islam by giving him books with extreme ideologies. They eventually succeeded in radicalising him fully.

Oli formally joined the militant outfit in 2015 and was made a recruiter for the Kafrul area.

Together with chemical engineering student Anwarul Alam, he maintained a virtual learning centre for their members, teaching them how to make anti-Islam fake news on the internet and make them go viral.

They were both arrested along with three others by RAB on March 20.

On April 7, RAB also arrested eight members of New JMB from Narayanganj and Comilla who disguised their militant actives in the form of an e-commerce business.

The leader of that group, Md Jamal alias Rasel Sirajee, 45, has a diploma in computer hardware while of the other members, Kashem Munshi, 31, is a bachelor of science, Zabir Hawlader, 22, has a diploma in computer graphics and hardware, and Nurul Absar, 27, was studying  homeopathy when arrested.

“During their initial interrogations, they confessed to conducting militant activities online and admitted to being expert bomb makers,” said RAB-11 Commanding Officer Lt Col Kamrul Hasan.

This article was first published on Dhaka Tribune

The post Bangladesh: Science students more prone to extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Militancy map: A look at how they are spread across Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

FBI officials mark evidence near the site of an explosion in Manhattan on Sept. 18, 2016. REUTERS/Rashid Umar Abbasi

On Monday morning, a shootout with police in Linden, New Jersey led to the arrest of a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Afghanistan in connection with the attacks.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio initially called the bombing an “intentional act.” His reluctance to use the word “terrorism” drew criticism from retired security officials who felt he was being too cautious while the investigation was ongoing.

Why is terrorism so hard to identify?

As a professor of criminology and program director of a homeland security master’s program, I study how terrorism and political violence have evolved in modern history.

Because terrorism is so sensationalized by the media and oversimplified by authorities, it is important to demystify common misconceptions. Only then can we understand why individuals carry out political violence and put today’s acts of terrorism in historical context.
 

What is terrorism?

Terrorism is not an ideology like communism or capitalism.

Rather, terrorism is a tactic – a strategy used to achieve a specific end.

Terrorism is often used in asymmetric power struggles: in other words, when a weaker person, or group, is fighting against a powerful nation-state. The violence is aimed at creating fear in the targeted population and often provokes prompt and violent response from the state.

Terrorism followed by violent crackdowns can become a cycle that is difficult to disrupt.

Recently, terrorist groups have begun using the internet and the media to spread fear and impact public opinion with their political or social message. For instance, the Islamic State has been prolific in using the internet to recruit followers.

The Mujahadeen and U.S. Navy Seabees establish water service at the Kandahar airfield in 2001. REUTERS/Dave Martin

States also use terrorism tactics. For instance, states can sponsor terrorist groups in other countries in order to support foreign policies or safeguard their own national interest. Iran is known for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon against Israel. The United States supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against the communist government of Gamal Abdel Nasser and the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
 

What do terrorists want?

Terrorists are not all after the same thing.

Terrorists often justify their bloody acts on the basis of perceived social, economic and political unfairness. Or they take inspiration from religious beliefs or spiritual principles.

Many forms of terrorism were inspired by warfare between races, struggles between the rich or poor, or battles between political outcasts and elites.
Some are ethnically based separatism movements, like the Irish Republican Army or Palestine Liberation Organization. The former cartel of Medellin is considered narco-terrorists because they combine terrorist tactics with drug trafficking.

Movements led by the extreme left like Colombia’s FARC are an example of terrorism inspired by a socioeconomic doctrine – in this case, a belief in communism.

Many terrorist groups are inspired by a specific interpretation of religious or prophetic scriptures. Al-Qaida and IS are two related groups that justify their violent action as a crusade against nonbelievers. IS wants to establish a Caliphate, or an Islamic-ruled state.

How different terrorist groups act is informed by what they are trying to achieve. Some adopt a reactionary perspective aimed at stopping or resisting social, economic and political changes. Examples include IS, al-Qaida and the Army of God, a Christian anti-abortion group based in the U.S.
Others adopt a revolutionary doctrine and want to provoke social, economic and political changes. Examples include FARC, the former Red Army Faction in Germany, the Irish Republican Army or Basque separatists in Spain.

Some terrorists seek revenge or what they see as justice. They are guided by a single issue such animal rights (PETA) or pro-life (Army of God).
Strategically, most terrorist groups have territorial claims or want to control financial resources like oil fields to support their struggle.
 

Where is terrorism coming from?

Terrorism is not new. Rather it has a long history.

In a seminal work, “The Four Waves of Terrorism,” David Rapoport of UCLA demonstrates how terrorism evolved from the end of the industrial revolution until today:

The anarchist wave lasted from 1880 to 1920. During this period, terrorists were seen as liberators against Tsar Regime in Russia.

The anti-colonial wave took place from 1920 to 1960, when World War II led to the breakup of the colonial system after the debt of Western countries provoked a power struggle in colonial countries. The National Liberation Front in Algeria and the IRA were iconic groups of this wave.

The new left wing lasted from 1960 to 1980 and emerged from the anti-war movement in Vietnam and the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The global expansion of the new left terror movement was supported by the former USSR during the Cold War era.

The religious wave, from 1980 to the present, emerged from the Iranian Revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and grew as a movement of resistance against Western influences. This modern wave of terrorism is not limited to jihadists. It also includes violence perpetrated by Christian extremists like the Lord’s Resistance Army operating in central Africa as well as fringe cult such as Aum Shinrikyo, who gassed the Tokyo Metro system with neurotoxic gas in 1995.
 

Is terrorism worse today than before?

Terrorism is not more frequent today than few decades ago.

According to the Global Terrorism Database, Western Europe, where many terrorist attacks happened recently, has been experiencing relatively low terrorist activity during the period 2000 to 2016 compared to the period 1970 to 1995.

In the United States, terrorism attacks were in sharp decline between 1970 and 2011, decreasing from approximately 475 to fewer than 20 incidents per year.

Worldwide, terrorism is highly concentrated in a handful of countries.

According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index, terrorist attacks in 2014 were mainly concentrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria. These countries saw 78 percent of the deaths and 57 percent of all attacks in the world. Conversely, since 2000, only 3 percent of deaths caused by terrorist attacks took place in Western countries, including Australia, Canada, member countries of European Union and the United States.

In the U.S. alone, the number of deaths represents 2.2 percent of the worldwide terrorist death toll. The violence committed in Western countries by organized terrorist groups such as al-Qaida or IS represents approximately 30 percent, while the so-called “lone wolfs” account for 70 percent of the attacks.

All in all, a historical review of terrorism activity in Western countries shows that terrorism is not worse than before the 9/11 era. The opposite is true.
As we watch unfolding terror attacks perpetrated by IS in Western countries, one must keep in mind that death by terrorism is extremely low compared to homicide. For instance, approximately 13,472 murdersoccurred in the U.S. during 2014, but the 24 private citizens' deaths worldwide by terrorism in 2014 got a great deal more media attention.

According to American University professor Audrey Cronin, terrorism as a tactic does not work well. Cronin studied 457 terrorist groups worldwide since 1968. The groups lasted an average of eight years. No terrorist organizations that she studied were able to conquer a state, and 94 percent were unable to achieve even one of their strategic goals.

Author is Professor and Program Director of Bachelor in Police and Security Studies; Master’s in Homeland Security; Master’s in Cybersecurity Strategy and Information Management, George Washington University

This article was first published on The Conversation
 

The post What is terrorism, and is it getting worse? appeared first on SabrangIndia.