Assalamualaikum everyone. How are you.
Just now, my Facebook friends shared news about what happen in Paris. Another attack happened.
Ah great (sarcastically)… Another attack…
That is among my first sigh. Of course, I googled to make sure that the news is true. Unfortunately it is. Here comes the headache. Some may not realize this, but every time such attack happen, Muslim will be a victim. Hundreds of non-muslim died in Paris. But because of this, when thousands of Muslim dies, deep inside non-muslim will say “serve them right”.
Its not their fault of course. After all, people did die. I would agree that the media do tend to downplay non-terrorist attack, and emphasize on terrorist attack, but the reality is, such attack did happen. Focusing on the media won’t change it. In a few days, there will be anti-Islam rallies all over the world. And I’m going to receive some post in Facebook saying “Such-such country is so anti-islam as they are hosting anti-islam rally”. I don’t think these people understand the issue.
When a terrorist attack, anti-islam sentiment will increase.
Of course it will. What do you expect? Are you going to blame the families of the dead for participating or organizing the rally?
In several days, there will be posts about “Muslim are not terrorist”. I personally believe such thing is merely a ‘damage control’. Several month later, a suicide bomber screaming “AllahuAkbar” will detonate himself, killing more non-muslim. And then what are you going to say? Serve them right for having anti-islam rally? Or Muslim are not terrorist… again?
Various conspiracy theory will emerge, “It’s all hoax! Those terrorist are actually CIA Agent!”, “9/11 was an inner job”, “Its the US who instill extremism to these people!”. Who cares? It happened. As as far as majority of the people on the planet concern, terrorist did it, and terrorist as Muslim. “Terrorist are not Muslim. They are deviant”. Again, who cares? They scream “AllahuAkbar”. They claim they are Muslim.
For me, Muslim should stop focusing on non-muslim, and start focusing on the Terrorist. Non-muslim post an anti-islam post? Ignore it. It is not their fault. The environment make them like this. Instead, we should figure out how do these terrorist emerge? I’ve read somewhere that some ‘Mufti’ permitted ISIS fighter to have sex with their sister. Muslim would recognize this as a clear violation of Sharia law. I mean, clear as black and white. This is not something which is said by one of the Khalifa Arrashidin (like lashing those who drink alcohol). This is something clearly specified in Al-Quran. Why do these people claim the serve Allah when they clearly violate the rules of Allah. Do they even know? That is one. Why do people says that those who migrated to ISIS were former criminals? Drug dealers and such. If so, why do ISIS even take them? Do they even pray five times a day? Are these information even correct? Does it even matter if it is correct or not?
Personally I can only see one solution for this problem.
A country whose sovereignty is not doubt, and whose Islam is not doubt, to eliminate terrorist.
No other situation will fully work. If the sovereignty of the country is in doubt, then the country itself could be labelled as terrorist. If the Islam of the country is in doubt, then a new terrorist group will form, saying that ‘Islam’ is being attacked. If other, non-muslim country attack, then more terrorist will emerge. So which country fulfill this condition? I don’t know. None perhaps. Impossible perhaps. For a country to be considered fully sovereign, the world may demand that it adopt democracy. But if it is a democracy, then most hard-line Muslim would doubt it’s Islam.
Most hard-line Muslim would say, a truly Muslim country must be a caliphate. Well, ISIS is caliphate. Is it a Muslim country? Hisbut Tahrir, an organization who advocate caliphate rule said no, because they do not follow the sharia law. Is that so? Not according to ISIS. But it does have a leader with the title ‘caliph’. What they should be looking for is not caliphate, but sharia law. But what is considered sharia law? I guess, I’m not the guy to define that. But consider this, if you say that scholars are the one who define what is sharia law, ISIS have their own ‘scholar’. Regardless, what matter is that people do not doubt that the law is indeed sharia law.
People would argue, its impossible to have sharia law without a caliphate, let alone in a democracy. But I don’t see why not. If the country parliament voted to cut the hands of thief, would the thief’s hand suddenly be immune to cutting? No, the hand would still be cut. But again, people would argue, that it is impossible that the majority of the parliament would vote for it. My answer is that, that is not the kind of country we are looking for. We want a country in which, not a king nor a caliph, but the people themselves fully, enact sharia law upon themselves. That is the country whose sovereign is not doubt, and Islam is not doubt.
And that, brothers and sisters is what we are looking for.