Politicians’ frothy rhetoric gives undue credibility to extremists and thugs

Stephen Harper, in the aftermath of the horrific mass murder at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery store in Paris, took to the airwaves to warn the “international jihadist movement” has declared war on countries around the world, and vowed Canada will do what it can to eliminate the threat and protect Canadians.

He could start by eliminating using the war label and other overheated hyperbole and instead try to understand what the word jihad actually means to the vast majority of those who belong to the Islamic faith.

The Islamic Supreme Council of America gives the following definition of jihad:

WHAT JIHAD IS:

• The Arabic word “jihad” is often translated as “holy war,” but in a purely linguistic sense, the word ” jihad” means struggling or striving;
• In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, “jihad” has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam;
• If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents – such as women, children, or invalids – must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted;
• Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: “This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad,” which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment;
• In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of “just war” is very important;
• The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam;
• Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims’ defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

Giving them titles of practitioners of war or even jihadists is giving them credibility and a legitimacy that they may actually crave and which could attract others.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

• Jihad is not a violent concept;
• Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as “people of the book” who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims;
• Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam. Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.

If this authoritative meaning of jihad is correct, we should stop calling them jihadist waging war, just as we do not claim that extremely violent criminals and mass murderers in any society are not soldiers in a war, but are outlaws that must be caught and punished while also taking all reasonable steps in a democratic society to prevent their actions in the first place.

Giving them titles of practitioners of war or even jihadists is giving them credibility and a legitimacy that they may actually crave and which could attract others. The fact that they should be devoid of any Islamic religious credibility is that they executed Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim policeman, as he lay injured on the pavement and pleaded for his life.

Harper asserted that the “trio of hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles — freedom of expression, freedom of the press — they assaulted democracy everywhere.” Yes, they did that, but their horrendous actions was not in any way condoned by the vast majority of the over billion people who practice Islam as peaceful a religion.

In many respects the violent extremists are waging war against the mainstream of Islam. A counter narrative and preventive actions must be established around this reality.

The atrocities in Paris, like last year’s attacks in Quebec and on Parliament Hill that killed two soldiers, require a concerted and massive police and security response in response to those who have violated the foundations of the religion they have horribly cloaked themselves in.

We need to have a much more sophisticated, and an overall government and societal approach to create a counter narrative that both undermines the credibility and legitimacy of these violent criminals that can effectively combat homegrown terrorism. This includes encouraging far more community involvement. A most significant piece of information on the Paris attacks concerned the fact that the neighbours of one of the Kouachi brothers had discovered that before the attack, he had been storing large weapons in his apartment. After being threatened by him, the neighbours did not inform the authorities. Imagine the different result if community relations with the local security agencies had given those neighbours courage and incentives to ignore the threats and report their suspicions.

Preventing future similar attacks perhaps also requires a “whole of government” effort– indeed a societal one — to deal with youth at risk prone to crime and radicalization via the Internet or through radical Islamists found locally and internationally. These youth, when imprisoned, could become further radicalized.

Just using war talk for political advantage in a looming election year and bringing in draconian laws that infringe on hard-fought-for Canadian rights and liberties may well be giving the criminals exactly what they want, the undermining of the most fundamental democratic values of the society they are attacking.

It is only if the evidence clearly demonstrates that more effective national security laws are needed to combat these actual or potential murderers and criminals that such laws should be promoted and legislated. We should have learned from the legacy of the George Bush presidency that conflating crime, no matter how inhuman, with war could lead to overreaching domestically and abroad and damaging the reputation of the country, wasting billions of dollars and opening up the country to new security threats.

It should also not be forgotten that several of our most seasoned police and security officials have asserted that they need more financial and human resources needed to conduct surveillance and other effective preventive strategies to deal with these actual or potential criminals. The granting of these resources could be far more important than draconian laws that are motivated more by election prospects than really needed to give greater protection to Canadians.

—

Errol Mendes is a professor of Constitutional and International Law and is the founding editor of the National Journal of Constitutional Law now in its 25th year. He is also the co-editor of the historic 5th edition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms text, 2014 published by LexisNexis.

Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Errol Mendes