Why a theological counter-terrorism narrative is useless

Every time there is new terrorist attack the deniers and Islam apologists go in hyperdrive to prove that it cannot be justified using Quran and it is few miscreants who misunderstand and over-interpret some verses which call for Jihad. It is actually Jihad against oneself and purification of soul rather than Jihad against the Kafir which motivates the pious Muslim. But being a Muslim is more of a product of social conditioning than theology. It’s unlikely that after hearing a scholarly seminary’s rebuttal of the Quran’s alleged misinterpretation*, a Muslim will suddenly go “Holy shit! So, I’ve been following the wrong commandments? Let me immediately give up hostility towards the kafirs and become an enlightened individual”. If you listen to Tarek Fateh, 80% Muslims haven’t even read the Quran (not that it would have a positive impact on humanity even if they did). So making theological arguments is not going to derail the average Islamist from his pursuits. Denying terrorists and suicide bombers the right to call themselves true Muslims is stupidity at best and Taqiya at worst.

*The claim of being misinterpreted itself is false. There is ample objective and unequivocal mainstream endorsement in the religious texts for the kind of ethos that Muslim societies espouse all over the world. Not for nothing has it turned into a monolith of anti-kafir hysteria despite spanning from one corner of the world to the other and despite having sway over people of different ethnic background and languages.

Take for example the claim that blasphemy laws don’t have their genesis in the Quran. But they do! There is a mention in the Quran where a woman disagrees with Mohammad and he sends killers to get her assassinated. Although it is possible that some sort of moderate preachers are propped by the intel agencies of some western countries as a part of their anti-radicalization counter-narrative drive, and maybe they should be allowed to promote a lie if there is a hope that at least a few Muslims might fall for it, but let’s not kid ourselves by believing that it is actually true.

Some commentators criticize later-day Islamic scholars and make it look like the corruption of ideology crept in fairly recently, but in reality it started immediately after the death of Mohammad. The Ummah was inherited by four of Muhammad’s most devout followers: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali. At the same time, the Muslims form Medina were going to elect their own leader. Abu Bakr gate crashed the party, convinced the Medina folks to call off their election, persuaded Umar to forsake his claim to Muhammad’s legacy (due to age issue) and became the leader of the people. Leader was a vague term at that time since he had inherited the flock of people from Muhammad, but Abu Bakr himself wasn’t a prophet (since Muhammad had already declared that he was the last prophet), nor was he a king. So for the sake of unity of the Bedouin Muslim tribes, they created a new political position called ‘Caliph’. The rights and responsibilities of this Caliph were made up as time passed, taking guidance from various instances of Muhammad’s life. Of course, not everyone was pleased with Abu Bakr’s ascension, especially the followers of Ali. The sectarian war has been going on ever since (The followers of Ali are Shias). So So anyone telling that the sectarianism and political Islam is a recent phenomenon or a perversion is a blatant lie. It is the mainstream Islam.