In a community disrupted by armed conflict, the first loss is not just lives, but also trust. Streets are deserted, schools are closed, markets are silent, and neighbors regard one another with distrust. Islam does not see this as a peripheral matter. The tradition unequivocally states that instilling panic, assaulting individuals, and disrupting public order is a serious offense. In ancient terminology, it corresponds with fasad fil arz, denoting corruption on earth, a notion including actions that undermine the security essential for individuals to live, work, and worship. When a faction attempts to promote violence and terror as a tenet of religion, Muslims are obligated to identify it accurately: a rebellion against the moral order that Islam aims to uphold.
The notion that suicide strikes and the murder of noncombatants might be deemed justifiable is not a trivial contention among academics. This perspective has been consistently repudiated by mainstream academics throughout masaliks, both publicly and in writing, via unanimous fatwas that uphold the sanctity of human life and the prohibition of vigilantism. This is significant as it exposes the facade. A movement may use Arabic slogans, reference texts out of context, and designate its recruits as “martyrs,” but when it transgresses the fundamental tenets established by the religion, it is not practicing Islam; it is misappropriating Islam.
Public life is not a luxury in Islam; it is an obligation that a community must sustain. Achieving objectives by bombs, killings, and threats is not virtuous; it is corruption
The phenomenon referred to as Fatinat al Khwaraj should be comprehended as a fitna, a detrimental experience that distorts emotions and incites rage. The first Kharijite model was not only a political insurrection; it included moral hubris masquerading as piety, accompanied by a readiness to shed innocent blood. The contemporary iteration adopts that framework. It designates ordinary Muslims as unclean, categorizes groups as acceptable targets, and regards public venues as permissible targets. This lacks Sharia validity. Islamic jurisprudence, ethics, and prophetic tradition impose stringent constraints on the use of force, beginning with the safeguarding of people. A religious assertion is not substantiated by vociferous declarations. Obedience to the regulations established by religion is shown, particularly in emotionally charged situations.
Additionally, there exists a profound harm that is not reflected in fatality statistics: the defamation of Islam itself. When a bomb detonates in a marketplace, the casualties extend beyond the deceased and their mourners. The victims include all Muslim children compelled to explain their beliefs in educational settings, every Muslim tourist subjected to distrust, and every sincere scholar whose extensive contributions are ridiculed by acts of violence. Such groups do not “elevate the banner of Islam”; rather, they tarnish it.
They provide adversaries of Muslims with a simplistic narrative, complicating the reception of genuine dawah, philanthropy, and research. Their brutality is not just a crime against individuals but also a betrayal of the faith they profess to uphold
Characterizing this as hypocrisy is not just name-calling; it is an accurate depiction of a recurring trend. Hypocrisy manifests when a person uses sanctified language to pursue material advantage. Numerous such organizations exemplify corruption, drug misuse, extortion, abduction for ransom, and the exploitation of teenagers seeking purpose. They pledge honor, subsequently transforming young men into instruments, and leaving families devastated. They advocate for sacrifice, but see others’ children as expendable. They assert their commitment to defending Islam; nonetheless, their activities consistently jeopardize Muslim communities first, since these areas are the most susceptible to intimidation and control. This behavior is inconsistent with that of genuine reformers. It is the behavior of offenders who have mastered the art of cloaking robbery and brutality in religious rhetoric.
Their selective indignation further reveals their true nature. They vociferously advocate for combating “infidels,” but they avoid engaging with entities that perpetrate mass violence against Muslims when such engagement is arduous, dangerous, or politically impractical. They may vociferate about remote adversaries, but their firearms are directed at local communities, municipal law enforcement, community leaders, and local laborers. This discrepancy should alert individuals.
If a group were really driven by justice, it would not expend its efforts on killing others who worship with them, shop in proximity, and communicate in the same language. Selective jihad does not constitute jihad. The approach often pertains to territory, finances, and authority
What should a Muslim answer entail? It starts with ethical lucidity. Excuses such as “they were provoked” are unacceptable when people are massacred. While anger at tyranny is legitimate, Islam prohibits allowing fury to override established principles. Communities need to elevate reputable academics, assist victims, and safeguard youth from recruiters who use sorrow and pride. Families and educators must communicate explicitly about the mechanics of manipulation, the manner in which slogans may obscure illicit intentions, and the true essence of bravery, which often manifests as patience, service, and reconstruction. States must also behave justly, since injustice and corruption serve as catalysts for extremism, regardless of the unjustifiability of extremist actions.
Fasad fil arz serves as a warning, since it identifies the fundamental issue: the entitlement of ordinary people to exist free from terror. Fatinat al Khwaraj constitutes slander since it weaponizes religion against the devout. The duplicity is evident, since the trajectory results not in emancipation but in exploitation, dependency, and the squandering of youth. Islam advocates for the safeguarding of life, dignity, and stability. Any initiative that utilizes murder as a message and terror as a tactic does not constitute an Islamic resurgence. It constitutes a rebellion against divine boundaries, and Muslims have to unequivocally repudiate it in speech, legislation, and moral conviction.
