In today’s episode of the Telos Press Podcast, David Pan talks with Rabab Kamal about her article “The Curious Case of Islamic Reform: Why the Concept of Holy Violence Remains Disputed and How Nonviolent Islamism Is More Than Problematic,” from Telos 194 (Spring 2021). An excerpt of the article appears below. This article was part of a group of essays in Telos 194 that discussed Elham Manea’s new book The Perils of Nonviolent Islamism, available here for 20% off the list price. To learn how your university can subscribe to Telos, visit our library recommendation page. Print copies of Telos 194 are available for purchase in our store.
The Curious Case of Islamic Reform: Why the Concept of Holy Violence Remains Disputed and How Nonviolent Islamism Is More Than Problematic
Rabab Kamal
“The Thin Line between Terrorism and Jihad” is the title of a presentation that I delivered in a workshop in Cairo back in 2005. The workshop itself was far away from the subject of Islamism. It was rather intended to enhance conversation and debating skills. The tutor asked us to select a topic that we found intriguing, and I had my mind set on preparing a paper that debunks the claims made by Islamic extremist groups. Ridiculing the radicals was my personal mission at the time; I had survived attempts at polarization by the Muslim Sisterhood, the female brigade (Ferqa) of the Muslim Brotherhood, only a year earlier.[1] I collected some Quranic verses and prophetic Hadiths promoting peace, piled them up in a few pages to make and rest my case in one blow, and named it “The Thin Line between Terrorism and Jihad.”
Looking back now, the title that I chose subconsciously implied that jihad was an acceptable divine value for the majority of Muslims. The interpretation of jihad differs, but the concept stands its ground. Hence, my presentation fifteen years ago was about when jihad is applicable, but the concept of jihad itself was undisputed. In a bid to denounce radicalism, I attempted to differentiate between jihad as an act of good faith and the terrorist attacks. This was in fact a rhetoric adopted within the Muslim communities who rejected terrorism committed in the name of Islam.
This is no secret. The term jihad in Arabic is mentioned literally on four occasions in the Quran,[2] and it is noteworthy that the translations from Arabic to English do not necessarily incorporate the word jihad, which is another disputed issue. There are also other variations of the word, such as “fight in the name of Allah” or “strive [jahed] against the unbelievers,”[3] where it is presented in the form of an imperative verb. But in my presentation I adhered to the word jihad as mentioned literally in the Arabic original source of the Quran because it implied self-defense, which I found appealing for my case. It is noteworthy that the topic of jihad in Islamic theology is not only a case of fending off physical aggression.
In my presentation, I emphasized two main verses from the Quran:
And fight in the Way of Allāh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allāh likes not the transgressors.[4]
There is no compulsion in religion.[5]
My case was looking good, and everyone was nodding their head in agreement until the bombing of the Jewish synagogue in 1994 in Buenos Aires came up. With the exception of three people who abstained, the classroom of twenty people, not affiliated with any radical organization, voted in favor of the attack and considered it jihad.
Although the investigation until that date did not ultimately reveal the perpetrators, it was hailed as jihad in that tiny peaceful room by nonviolent people. Deeming an attack against civilians as jihad was a form of support for the Palestinian cause. Yet there was another side to the story, which is the Islamic Scripture’s portrayal of the Jews, a matter discussed in Elham Manea’s The Perils of Nonviolent Islamism.[6]
I argued that the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian crisis toward which we must not turn a blind eye. Atrocities committed against Palestinians should not be downplayed. Nevertheless, both anti-Jewish sentiments and anti-Muslim sentiments should not be tolerated. Likewise fanaticism on both sides must be rejected equally; targeting civilians, regardless of or based on their faith, is unacceptable. One topic led to another, the topic of the Jews led to that of the polytheists (nonbelievers) in the Quran, the stance of Sharia upon the followers of the non-Abrahamic (heavenly)[7] religions, the prospect of apostates, and infidels in Sharia. My paper, which was based on condemning aggression as well as not enforcing Islam as a faith, was challenged by people who do not belong to a radical group. Rather they were well-educated middle-class people who promote moderate faith casually.
My “do not aggress” and “no compulsion in religion” rhetoric, inspired by the Quran, was challenged by other verses from the same source, such as:
Fight against those who believe not in Allāh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allāh and His Messenger (Muḥammad), and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islām) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[8]
Before taking comfort in judging other people for not being tolerant enough, I stopped to contemplate my own stance against the unbelievers. Though I did not incite violence, nevertheless I recited this verse in my peaceful prayers:
O Prophet (Muhammad)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe against them; their abode will be Hell, and worst indeed is that destination.[9]
It felt as if I suffered from a split personality disorder: far from my apologetic self that denounces terrorism, I caught myself condoning a form of peaceful fanaticism. I survived a radical group not because I was entirely tolerant but rather because I was less fanatical. This self-criticism did not occur after that particular incident, but after years of research, activism, several publications, and similar encounters. The rhetoric of nonviolent fanaticism is a rising phenomenon that serves as the backbone of hard-core Islamism.
Continue reading this article at the Telos Online website (online subscription required). If your library does not yet subscribe to Telos, visit our library recommendation page to let them know how.
1. Rabab Kamal, Women in the Realm of Islamic Fundamentalism [in Arabic] (Cairo: Ibn Roshd Publishing House, 2018), pp. 29–52.
2. Quran, ch. 9, v. 24; ch. 22, v. 78; ch. 25, v. 52; and ch. 60, v. 1. English quotations from the Quran are taken from The Holy Qur’an, trans. Dr. Muḥammad Taqī-ud Dīn al-Hilālī and Dr. Muḥammad Muḥsin Khān (Medina: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, 1404 AH/1983), pp. 318, 583, 623, 971. Subsequent references to this translation will include the page numbers in parentheses.
3. Quran, ch. 9, v. 73 (p. 330).
4. Quran, ch. 2, v. 190 (p. 51).
5. Quran, ch. 2, v. 256 (p. 75).
6. Elham Manea, The Perils of Nonviolent Islamism (Candor, NY: Telos Press Publishing, 2021).
7. Islamic theology refers to the Abrahamic religions as the religions sent from heaven but fails to acknowledge any other faith legally in most Muslim-majority countries. The Quran acknowledges Judaism and Christianity as heavenly religions but claims that they are distorted by their followers.
8. Quran, ch. 9, v. 29 (p. 319).
9. Quran, ch. 66, v. 9 (p. 966).
