Terrorists who act in the name of Islam, have misappropriated many legitimate and peaceful actions of Islam.

The latest kerfuffle is over the New York terrorist saying “Allahu Akbar” soon after he killed eight and wounded 11, running them over with his rented truck.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” is not found in Islam’s holy book, the Quran. But it is commonly used in many aspects of religious and secular life.

Arab Christians also use the phrase in social settings, similar to its usage by Muslims. Arab Orthodox Christians even say “Allahu Akbar” in their churches.

So what does “Allahu Akbar” mean? Literally it means God is Great, but it implies that God is greater than anything, greater than any of our challenges, aspirations and allegiances. It is a way to remember and praise God, an exercise hardly unique to Islam.

After the New York truck attack, right-wing media unfairly pounced on CNN’s Jake Tapper for saying that “Allahu Akbar” can be used under the “most beautiful circumstances,” which is indeed correct. Missing in the Tapper criticism is the fact that he also noted “Allahu Akbar” is “too often” used by terrorists.

Those committing terrorism in the name of Islam are part of a messianic cult who twist sacred texts to comport to their parochial view of religious supremacy and eschatology. The problem is hardly unique to Islam, although popular imaginations conflate fanatical misappropriation of sacred religious ideas as a particularly “Islamic” problem.

Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” many times in their daily prayers. The phrase is also used in mundane circumstances, from cheering for a favorite team after every success to whispering it into the ears of a newly born child.

An average Muslim will say “Allahu Akbar” well over 20 times a day, which translates to over 20 billion “God is Great” a day! So why is its misappropriation by terrorists normative of Islam but the billions of peaceful expressions not?

Islamic exceptionalism is pushed by both terrorists and Islamophobes.

Those who commit terror in the name of Islam want to present themselves as warriors in a cosmic battle between right and wrong.

Islamophobes suggest that militant interpretations of Islam are the norm and not the exception in a faith practiced by over 1.6 billion worldwide.

Often such cues comes from the top. President Donald Trump never wastes an opportunity to fan the flames of divisiveness. After a white man in Las Vegas killed 58 people and injured over 500, the president and his supporters decried any attempt at gun regulations, saying it was too soon to act after a tragedy.

But after New York, they wasted little time arguing against a diversity visa program that the New York killer used to gain entry. The Las Vegas killer was not called an “animal,” while the New York killer was.

Liberals have their own culpabilities. Ayan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher are the leading edge of such bigotry.

Hirsi Ali once said that anyone who says “Insha Allah” (God-willing), another common phrase among Muslims, ought to be treated as a “red-flag.”

Maher noted that he never heard a Christian say “Merry Christmas” before detonating a bomb. Religion reporter, Sarah Harvard pointed out that the Christian equivalent for “Allahu Akbar” is not “Merry Christmas” but “Deus Vult” a Latin phrase that means “God wills it” and was used by Pope Urban II at the start of the first Crusade.

Today “Deus Vult” is a common hashtag among the far-right and has been used in several recent acts of violence.

Muslims will continue saying Allahu Akbar daily. Neither the terrorists nor Islamophobes are going to intimidate Muslims from peacefully expressing their religious identity and upholding their deeply cherished religious culture. We can use tragedy to drive deeper wedges or heal exacerbating wounds. That choice remains ours.

Islamists, defined by AP as those who favor, “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam,” view their interpretation of Islam as Islamic, often to the exclusion of other point of views. In the West, an amalgam of ideologues, from the far-right conservatives to the libertarian atheists, also insist that any and all bad action by Muslims are derived from Islam and thus Islamic. Several years ago, I wrote an article questioning the authenticity of using the label “Islamic” to characterize otherwise secular functions such as politics, art or finance. Labels such as, Islamic Republic, Islamic Finance, or Islamic State, are an exercise in hubris arrogantly suggesting that whatever takes place under such banners is sanctioned by Islam. Islamic Finance, for example, may reflect certain values of Islam, but in practice it often violates the spirit of Islam, if not its letter.

The Arabic for “Islamic” is “Islamiyyah,” a word that is not found in the Quran. When opining on the permissibility or the impermissibility of any action, classical scholars of Islam eschewed using “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” as a label. They often opted for legalistic terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” to determine Islamicity. This legal paradigm allowed for nuances and contextualization. For example, drinking alcohol is impermissible in Islam but if life depended on its consumption then an impermissible action becomes obligatory, as saving life takes precedence. Thus, the binary worldview of “Islamic” versus “un-Islamic,” does not find support in the sacred texts of Islam. Ironically, the proliferation of the label “Islamic” is traceable to the Islamist identity movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islam, which sprang up in the post-colonial Muslim world.

In not labeling ISIS or ISIL as an “Islamic” group, President Obama was refusing to play into the narrative of the extremists, who are desperately trying to cloak their heinous actions with the legitimacy of Islam. To President Obama’s detractors, this was not viewed as either smart or strategic, but rather capitulation. If you cannot label the terrorists properly, how can you defeat them, so they howled? This argument over labels has distracted us from the real debate over ISIS – not what to call it but how to defeat it.

In a controversial article Atlantic’s Graeme Wood asserts that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” In the same article, Wood goes on to state that “nearly all” Muslims reject ISIS. How can something be “Islamic” if “nearly all” Muslims reject it? Wood’s main source to determine the religious authenticity of ISIS is Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar of Islam. The fact that Wood did not interview Muslim scholars of Islam to determine the authenticity of the “Islamic” credentials of ISIS, is a major omission. In addition, the only Muslims interviewed by Wood are fringe characters, such as the notorious British extremist Anjem Choudary, who despite claims that he motivated many British youth to join the Syrian war, remains free to give lengthy interviews to British newspapers and casually chat with American journalists in coffee shops. The Muslims interviewed by Wood who purportedly were providing the Islamic rationale behind ISIS, do not command any pulpit or lead any congregation. How can someone with no pulpit and no congregation become representatives of a religious faith practiced by 1.6 billion people?

Haykel notes that ISIS is reviving medieval interpretations of Islam. The fact that ISIS has to rely on anachronistic traditions of Islam certainly places them on the fringe of a modern-day Muslim, a fact that Wood does not adequately weigh when insisting that ISIS is Islamic. Thus ISIS is certainly not universally Islamic although it may rely on using words and images that suggests some tangential connection to Islam. ISIS is as much Islamic as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda is Christian.

Despite glaring weaknesses in his article, Wood perceptively points out important differences between ISIS and its parent al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda remains focused on hitting distant targets, such as the U.S., ISIS is mostly aiming to teach a lesson to “deviant” Muslims in the region and cleanse the land they control from any un-Islamic influence. In other words, ISIS is more of an existential threat to Muslims and Arabs in the region than they are to Western Europe and America. Moreover, ISIS unlike al-Qaeda espouses a brand of eschatology that favors an apocalyptic end-of-time clash between Islam and non-believers. Understanding this ideological underpinning is crucial, as Wood rightfully asserts. Thus, by avoiding characterizing ISIS as “Islamic,” President Obama is denying terrorists the comfort of thinking that the rest of the civilized world will indulge them in furthering their messianic visions. Any armed conflict with ISIS will have to be evaluated on the basis of security for the homeland and stability for the region, not on any messianic vision.

What ISIS wants is less important. They are a violent group that craves and revels in violence. No surprises. Defeating ISIS will depend more on understanding the factors that gave rise to them and less on how to label them. Without the US invasion of Iraq, there will be no ISIS. Without the disastrous post-war polices of de-Baathification, the Sunni minority would not have felt marginalized and gravitated towards their own Sunni devils (al-Qaeda) shunning the Shia devils, who as part of the government in Iraq, were just as brutal. Thus, the primary factor behind the rise of ISIS is a foreign occupation, a lesson that seems to be lost in the hullabaloo over how to label ISIS.

The second factor favoring the rise of ISIS is the repeated failures in governance. Without the failure of the Assad regime in Syria, there will be no space for ISIS to incubate. Not just Assad, but the dictators that have ruled across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have by-and-large failed to provide their citizens with good life. The UN Arab Development Report makes it clear that most of the nation-states in the region failed to make a smooth transition towards the new world order, which required both strong national identities and adherence to international charters. The lack of clear national identities is the result of forced repression of “cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity” that was a fact of life in the region. Pluralism remains an idea too foreign across much of the MENA region. As successive iterations in socialism, capitalism, democracy, and authoritarianism failed (sometimes due to internal follies and sometimes due to undue interventions by America and its Western allies), a “medieval” and thus out-of-context interpretation of Islam began to gain currency among the dispossessed. Islam is the solution, sounded plausible. Lack of human development (economic, social and political) is the root cause of terrorism, a narrative too often ignored in discussions about terrorism in the name of Islam.

But can Islam itself be absolved? Islam like other ancient faith traditions is replete with multiple and even contradictory interpretations, particularly in the realm of social contracts. Taking stock of Islam’s history of development and progress, one can easily detect interpretations that range from accommodationist (accepting of differences) to separationist (positing Muslim exceptionalism and apartheid). The fact that a small band of thugs and criminals are banding towards a separationist camp, is hardly a revelation. However, the fact that thugs now control vast swaths of land and have the capacity to inflict so much violence cannot be trivialized either. Thus, Muslim scholars, leaders and activist should challenge ISIS on their core ideology and discredit their interpretations as invalid and out-of-context. So far, this has not been done at a sufficiently large scale to make any difference.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, a transnational body made up of 57 Muslim majority countries had instituted an observatory for Islamophobia but none to study and debunk extremism in the name of Islam. Muslim groups in the West routinely publish reports on Islamophobia, which is an important problem to be addressed, but so far have not researched and debunked the twisted ideology that undergirds the deranged violence of those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam. While ISIS is producing slick magazines and engaging in impressive social media campaigns (one report suggested 45,000 Twitter accounts by ISIS supporters), the Muslim apex bodies either governmental such as the OIC or non-governmental civic advocacy groups such as CAIR in the US or MCB in UK have not developed any comparable campaign to discredit and marginalize the fallacious ideology that ISIS and their ilk propagate. Neither condemnations by Muslim groups nor dropping bombs by Western and Arab governments is sufficient to defeat ISIS. Security operations and statements of condemnations have to go hand in glove with exposing and discrediting the corrosive ideology being propagated by ISIS.

The debate over labels is thus a red-herring. The call for more condemnations by Muslims often masks ugly stereotyping presuming that Muslims have a monopoly on religious violence. Furthermore, increased militarization as solution is being tone deaf to the lessons from history. The real solution remains the same today as it was after 9/11 – reversing the downward spiral of human development across MENA. President Obama has asked Muslims to do more and certainly more can be done to debunk the ideology of ISIS. But President Obama has fallen short of laying out how he and his Western allies will nudge governments across MENA to speed up reforms that are necessary to give people in the region hope thus giving them less reason to buy into the messianic apocalyptic vision of ISIS.

I admire Charlie Hebdo for standing up against threats to free speech, but I am saddened to see them pay such a heavy price for their beliefs. Cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones, remain vital for a healthy civil society. Only the deranged are threatened by them. Charlie Hebdo wanted to spread a little laughter, albeit in ways that are were often distasteful and provocative.

The killers in Paris did not nothing to defend Islam’s Prophet. They made the faith of 1.6 billion look like a murderous cult that views beheadings, bombings, kidnappings, and mass killings as religiously sanctioned response to grievances. They forget that the pen is mightier than the sword. The very Prophet whose name they are purportedly defending said, “The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

It is indeed heartening to witness Muslim leaders condemn the barbarism in Paris that killed the editor of Charlie Hebdo and several of its cartoonists. The killers also gunned down two policemen, one of whom happened to be Muslim. However, beyond the condemnations lurks a murky question: Why is some of the most egregious violence being repeatedly carried out in the name of Islam? Charlie Hebdo had offended Jews, Christians and a myriad of political leaders. Why did only Muslims lash out in such a violent manner? Certainly Muslims have no monopoly on deranged individuals.

Imams and Muslim leaders have usually responded by asserting that such killers do not represent “real” Islam. While a modicum of truth is indeed inherent in this argument, it does not illuminate the situation. While many acts of violence are being perpetrated in the name of other faiths, by actors ranging from Christian militias in Africa to Buddhist monks in Burma, the acts of violence in the name of Islam shock the conscience like no other. The gunning down of cartoonists, the beheading of journalists, the bombing of schools — all are headlines from just the last two months!

The rage sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora is indeed rooted in the pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. This culture is exasperated by a sense of perpetual victimhood that undergirds the narrative of most Islamist groups. (Islamists are defined as those who use Islam as a fundamental pillar of their politics.) Psychologists define victimhood as a mentality that makes one feel powerless to affect their own circumstances, so for every wrong suffered, they blame and lash out at others. While many Islamists are engaged in peaceful political struggles, their fanning of victimhood often triggers violence, particularly among the marginalized victims.

The grievances of the Islamists and their militant counterparts overlap. Both groups dream about the establishment of a utopian society with Islam and Muslims at the top of the totem pole. However, the peaceful Islamists and the militants differ in their means of achieving this goal. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami want to transform society into voluntarily accepting Shariah as the law of the land. Militants such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS want to implement Shariah by brute force and feel no moral outrage at the idea of killing others to achieve their goals.

Even moderate Islamists such as the AKP in Turkey seem threatened by free speech. In recent months the Turkish government has jailed journalists, cartoonists and even children who allegedly mocked the president. In Saudi Arabia a blogger was publicly flogged for allegedly insulting Islam. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used as tool of political oppression. Such intolerance often gives way to the violence of extremists as the distinction between peaceful advocacy and deranged violence is too easily blurred because not enough commitment has been made to the principles of nonviolence, neither by the state nor by the Islamists. Even amongst the Muslim diaspora in the West, free speech and freedom of religion struggle to find unequivocal acceptance.

It is ironic that the very week that this heinous political violence erupts in Paris also marks the release of the epic film Selma, which chronicles the transformative power of nonviolence in the face of state violence. The Prophet Muhammad urged his followers to never be afraid of learning something useful and beneficial, even from those who do not share their faith.

Therefore it is time to look beyond condemnation. It is time for Islamists to unequivocally embrace nonviolence and distance themselves from all forms of militancy in the name of Islam. It is time for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia to open up their societies to free speech and free exercise of religion. It is time for Muslim democracies such as Turkey to end their paranoid attacks on freedom of the press. It is time for Islamic republics like Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy laws. It is time for Muslim imams to lead their flocks in recognizing free speech and free exercise of religion as integral part of Islam. It is time for Western societies to stop asking Muslims what they feel every time radicals perpetrate yet another spectacular act of violence. Only then will “Je suis Charlie” find real meaning.

Justifying acts of violence in the name of religion has been part of human history since the dawn of civilization. The history of Muslims is no exception. In contemporary times we find al-Qaeda, in general, and Osama bin Laden, in particular, conflating political rhetoric with religious imagery. In his August 23, 1996, “Declaration of War against Americans Occupying the Two Holy Places,” bin Laden evoked powerful religious imagery while speaking about the stationing of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia. He said, “The people of Islam suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice. . . .the latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet . . . . in the occupation of the two Holy Places. Clearly after Belief (Iman) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy from the holy land.” Such language undoubtedly helped catalyze the popular perception that there must be some kind of religious motive behind al-Qaeda’s terrorism.

The early history of Islam also witnessed the claim of a religious mantle to justify acts of extremism and violence. Islamic scholars often narrate the story of the early extremists – the Kharijites or the Khawarij (literally means “those who left or went out”). The Kharijites may be rightly considered the first to terrorize in the name of Islam. Modern day Islamic scholar Tahrir ul-Qadri, who has issued a 600 page fatwa against terrorism, views al-Qaeda and the Taliban as the modern day manifestation of the Kharijite ideology. Dr. Qadri said, “They [terrorists] can’t claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become the heroes of the Muslim Ummah (community). No, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are leading towards hellfire. There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered jihad.”

During the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad a small group of people started an extreme puritanical tradition, which Prophet Muhammad warned against. He said that, “There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Quran with fervor and passion but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow.” The son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, Ali-ibn Abu Talib (also the fourth Caliph) warned about such extremists by noting that even when they say the truth their “ends are devious.”

Studies by modern day scholars have found that terrorists are often the least educated about religion. They are not dumb or insane. Author Louise Richardson in her book “What Terrorists Want?” says that the terrorists are “rational political actors” who often go to great lengths to justify their action to themselves and their followers. This explains their propensity to don the mantle of religion. However, their practice of religion often deviates from the core teachings of the faith. For example it is well known that many of the 9-11 hijackers frequented bars, even though Islam forbids the consumption of intoxicants.

The terrorists of today like the Kharijites before adopt a simple slogan that they are “enjoining good and forbidding evil.” They borrow this idea from the Quran. But to act on this simple idea of “doing good and eschewing evil” (in Arabic it reads “Amr-bil-Maruf-wa-Nahia-anil-Munkar“) requires knowledge and wisdom, a trait lacking in terrorists.

Chapter 9 Verse 5 of the Quran reads, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans (or idolators) wherever you find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

This verse if read without any understanding of the historicity of revelations can mislead people to conclude that Islam sanctions the killing of disbelievers. Muslim extremists such as al-Qaida or the Taliban often misuse this verse to justify their nihilistic world view. Also, those who are predisposed to believing that Islam is spread by the sword often cite this verse as evidence towards their spurious claims.

When read in context and in conjunction with the overall message in the Quran this verse reflects the conditions of a certain time and place. Generalizing this verse to sanction the killing of non-Muslims will be a misreading of the verse and an abuse of the message of Islam.

Comparatively speaking it will be the same misreading of divine will if someone interprets the saying of Jesus, “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.” (Gospel of Matthew 10:34) as sanction for spreading Christianity by force.

What is the context of this verse?

During the first 13 years of his mission, Muhammad and his companions faced torture, repression and assassinations. This forced Muhammad and his companions to flee their homes and seek refuge in the neighboring oasis city of Madinah. But the hostility of the pagan Arabs from Mecca did not stop. They tried to extinguish the light of Islam once and for all. It is in this context that the command came from God allowing Muhammad and his companions to take up arms in self-defense. Prior to this explicit command to fight back, Muhammad and his companions did not fight back, even in self-defense.

After the proclamation of 9:5 the principle of fighting was further clarified to be undertaken in self-defense: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid…If God did not defend one set of people by means of another, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure, would surely have been destroyed…” (22:39-40)

Notice that the reason the Quran gives for waging war is for the protection of the houses of worship for all religions. Note the explicit mention of churches, synagogues, and mosques.

Even in war Muslims are commanded to be just and fair. “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors” (2:190).

In addition, at the first opportunity for peace, Muslims are commanded to cease hostilities: “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace.” (8:61).

The guiding principle of Islam is one of tolerance and mutual respect: “God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes: for God loves those who are just.” (60:8)

Muslims have condemned terrorism.

CLICK HERE to read some of the “Islamic Statements Against Terrorism”

CLICK HERE to read Prof. Juan Cole’s response to Tom Friedman:

CLICK HERE to see a listing of condemnations of terrorist attacks by individuals and organizations:

See below the statement released by all major American Muslim organizations on September 11, 2001.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 9/11/01

U.S. MUSLIMS CONDEMN TERRORIST ATTACKS

(WASHINGTON, DC – 9/11/2001) – The American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), today condemned the apparent terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and offered condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured.

The AMPCC statement read in part:

“American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”

Leaders of the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC) held a meeting in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to issue the following points related to the terrorist attacks:

1) We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious values and our identity as American Muslims;

2) We do not need to defend every maniacal incident emanating from the Muslim world or the Muslim community, just as other religious groups need not defend their extremists;

3) We offer compassion to the victims and solidarity with all Americans in the face of danger;

4) Notwithstanding the disbelief that anyone following the faith of Islam could commit such a heinous crime, we condemn the act regardless of the identity of the perpetrators;

5) We deplore the irresponsible reporting that twists the realities and complexities of the Muslim world in order to project only anti-American sentiment during this disturbing period when we are all attempting to move beyond the state of mourning for the national tragedy;

6) We warn against opportunists who will exploit the misery and hysteria of the public in order to promote a political agenda aimed at tarnishing the name of Islam and Muslims;

7) We should not diminish our resolve to be active in protecting the civil liberties of all Americans and struggling for justice both locally and globally;

8) We need to organize activities to help the victims medically, psychologically and in every other way we can.

MAKING SENSE OF THE SENSELESS (Huffington Post, 2009)

PEACE IS AN ELEMENT OF ISLAM (Florida Times Union, 2008)

ISLAM HAS NO TIES TO TERRORISM (Miami Herald, 2007)

A SENSIBLE WAY TO DESCRIBE TERRORISTS (Florida Times Union, 2006)

I am also providing an interview with author and educator, Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. He has done pioneering work trying to determine the “logic of suicide terrorism.” Here is interview:

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, 2005

Also read the following from the CATO INSTITUTE:

In addition, read my published paper, Terror in the Name of Islam – Unholy War Not Jihad in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2007-2008.