A costly glitch in the outlook

Every crisis offers opportunities. The current crisis unfolding around Iran, threatening to reset the geopolitical chessboard, presents a distinct one. We shall examine this shortly. First, let us explore a dangerous anomaly embedded in modern Muslim political thought, which has caused untold suffering across the Muslim world. It is symptomatic of a deeper software glitch which, if left unresolved, will continue causing unimaginable pain.

You might have noticed how swiftly we normalise, and even justify, actions clearly forbidden in Islam, driven by misplaced tribalistic fervour. Two examples immediately come to mind: attacks on civilian populations of enemy nations, especially women, children, the elderly and civilian property, and the vexed question of suicide bombing.

Arguments justifying attacks on civilian populations in hostile nations recall a deeply backward dispute I witnessed at 17. Asked to preside over a panchayat because my elders were indisposed, one case simply shocked me. A man had raped another's daughter. Instead of demanding legal accountability, the victim's father sought communal approval to rape the assailant's daughter in retaliation. I ensured the guilty party was handed to authorities, and his daughter and family were protected from such cruel, twisted logic.

The central point is immutable: two wrongs do not make a right. What is prohibited remains prohibited. The guilt of one person cannot be transferred to another, not even their children. Apply this exact logic to civilian populations, and the answer is clear as daylight. It also raises a terrifying question about what this means for the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arsenals.

Regarding suicide bombing: have you ever wondered how, when suicide is categorically prohibited in Islam, suicide bombing can somehow be permitted? In the annals of Islamic history, the Battle of Uhud holds a distinct place. Among its profound lessons is the story of Quzman, a warrior who fought the adversaries of early Muslims with astonishing valour. Yet, severely wounded on the battlefield, the pain became unbearable, and he took his own life. Upon hearing this, the Prophet (PBUH) did not praise his battlefield bravery; instead, he declared Quzman was destined for hellfire. Neither tribal loyalty nor service to a righteous cause can justify crossing that absolute line.

Yet it took subcontinent clerics a decade and some coercion to issue an edict against suicide bombing. Why? In asymmetrical conflicts, hotheads often set the trajectory of war, inevitably resorting to forbidden methods. Following in their wake, fanatic clerics, driven by misguided tribalism, scramble to find ex post facto justifications for these atrocities. They create theological distinctions where none exist. This is exactly how the categorical prohibition of intihar (suicide) was deceptively repackaged into the celebrated concept of istishhad (martyrdom).

To expose this hypocrisy, consider a modern bioethical dilemma. Imagine a terminally ill patient on life support in a war zone begging to be disconnected so the hospital can redirect critical resources to newly wounded soldiers. Mainstream Islamic bioethics unequivocally rejects this plea. Sacrificing oneself to escape personal pain or to save allied resources remains classified strictly as suicide. Absolute moral duty supersedes mathematical utility. Yet, radical clerics apply this exact utilitarian math to justify depleting enemy resources, flipping a forbidden act into a sacred national cause.

The root cause of this anomaly is a structural glitch in modern Muslim political thought. Classical jurisprudence was coded centuries ago for a borderless empire. When the central authority collapsed, there was no systemic reset to reconcile theology with the modern Westphalian nation state. Consequently, the operating system still views modern borders as artificial and the nation state itself as taghut, an illegitimate and idolatrous construct. Because the state is viewed as taghut, mainstream clerics dragged their feet in condemning violence against it, providing tacit cover for the suicide bombing epidemic.

This glitch is exactly why citizens of Muslim countries routinely berate leaders for failing to militarily intervene in foreign lands far beyond their purview. It is the same ideological bug making life for the Muslim diaspora so difficult, actively discouraging assimilation and framing integration into Western societies as a betrayal of the global community.

The current geopolitical climate presents a rare opportunity to write a patch for this software. We are witnessing a pragmatic shift. The brilliant Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has spearheaded a remarkable modernisation approach in Saudi Arabia, anchoring the kingdom in forward looking pragmatism. Simultaneously, there is a discernible shift in Iran from ideological clerics to pragmatic generals. If the diplomatic thaw between Riyadh and Tehran holds, a crucial breakthrough is possible. Together, these nations hold the key to forging a religious consensus across the two dominant sects of Islam. With esteemed institutions like Al Azhar, they can permanently settle the nation state debate, affirming that sprawling empires were never central to Islam's core. This unified front could yield a binding consensus edict unequivocally legitimising the modern state and categorically outlawing the targeting of civilians and use of suicide bombings.

However, a stark warning is necessary. If achieved, disaffected outlier groups will find themselves stranded. We must recognise that global forces actively seek a permanent conflict with Islam. Hostile actors will inevitably attempt to co-opt such desperate movements, using them to harden interfaith boundaries, manufacture artificial friction and sustain the illusion of an inevitable interfaith clash. We must remain exceptionally vigilant against such elements. Host nations must use their full state influence to enforce the new consensus, dismantling these parallel ecosystems and forcing compliance the moment they step a toe out of line.

If you are one for distinctions, here is an important one. Victory at all costs is different from victory in accordance with your core principles. Without adhering to the latter, what are you even fighting to defend?