web analytics

Aggression v/s Progression- the Dilemma of Muslim Activism

Muslim population has been forced to adopt the aggressive means to achieve their rightful attainments.

It gets discernible after going through a daily newspaper that the Muslims all over the globe are all set to have their voice heard and their existence felt like never before. Almost every region of the world has political movements aiming to establish the rights of Muslims to live their lives as per their own preferences. Where in Middle East and North Africa, they are fighting the tyranny of oppressive and subjugating regimes, on the other part of the world, Muslims are exerting to preserve their cultural values and heritage in Europe and Americas. As a minority, they are fighting for the right to live their life according to their personal choices, whereas as a majority, they want self governance through ideological democracies.

Muslim activism has been seen carrying placards in the streets of London but at the same time, it can also be seen carrying deadly arms in the wilds of Damascus. No doubt that the militancy among Muslims toward attaining their political rights has given a bad name to Islam and the Muslim nations, but on the contrary, unfortunately, it is the only option that is currently seen working. Taking examples of Philippines, Iraq, Libya or elsewhere, the militant movements are able to achieve their outcomes and acquire excessive space in the world media that manifolds its impact internationally.

The use of sectarian differences for their benefits by the tyrant autocrats in order to secure their iniquitous rule in Muslim countries has thrown their population into civil wars as each segment of Muslim society is not willing to be exploited anymore by the other. Ultimately, this infighting among different militias does not protect the rights of the communities that they represent but only assists the cruel autocrats and put curtain on their exploitation and killings of poor citizens. Syria and Iraq are the sad examples of how the oppressive regimes keep their citizens busy with infighting to prolong their vicious rule. Beside, a growing number of Militant movements, the Muslim countries also have some peaceful or at least unarmed political movements as well who are employing the democratic ways to protect their rights and to voice against the injustices carried out by the autocratic regimes.

But non-violent political movements are seeing major setbacks in current times. Whether it is the outlawing of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Jamat-i-Islami in Bangladesh, Muslim population has been forced to adopt the aggressive means to achieve their rightful attainments. (Someone would argue that the Brotherhood was ousted from power due to its poor performance, but would you please explain the rationale behind outlawing the whole party altogether???)

The De-Radicalization of these militias is only possible by allowing them to take part in mainstream politics and let the people reject their radical agendas through electorates so they could evolve themselves and earn acceptability through reformation. There is a relevant learning in the case of Movement of Society for Peace (MSP) in Algeria, in spite of its extreme agendas and affiliations in the past, it is now an important player in country’s politics and has aligned itself with democratic forces and away from radical militias. It emphasizes the need of using fair politics to engage militant factions in order to avoid anarchy and civil wars.

The anarchy prevails when you deny the just democratic mandate of a group and try to remove them through force. It is evident from studying the Algerian Civil War of 1991 when Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) was denied its legal right which further radicalized the organization to its extreme and threw nation into years of brutal infighting. The same can be learnt from the history of post-mutiny Colonial East India, where the militant organizations such as Jihad movement of Syed Ahmed Barelvi were replaced by political parties as soon as British Raj allowed the indigenous population to take part in free politics. So, what are the options left for Muslims in countries like Syria or theological states like Iran and Fundamentalist monarchies like Saudi Arabia, either to militarize the political movements or to forgo the basic rights? What options do you give to China’s Uighur minority??? Fighting Daish, Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia or any other Islamic militancy is only possible by allowing them the non-violent and political grounds.

Such liberties will not only ensure that the aspirations of Muslim population will get reflected in their governance models through peaceful means but the violent ideologies could get reformed to be progressive with aim to provide welfare for the masses of war torn regions and they could get what they deserve- Peace, Prosperity and Respect.

We can never know what really lies under the skin of these militias but it will surely provide with a counter narrative to shun aspiring Jihadists and their sympathizers.

Facebook Comments