The 'truth' that the Mujahidin are talking about is that Islam sanctions the use of violence including the killing and destruction of properties of civilians when Muslims are in mortal danger. They argue that theulama, in league as they are with the Indian state, have distorted this 'truth' of Islam by stating that there is no place for violence in Islam; that civilians should not be harmed and most recently that terrorism is un-Islamic. The Indian Mujahidin marshal hadiths to'prove' that Islamic sharia does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians and that the only distinction is between the combatants and non-combatants. They define combatants as anyone who help(s) in the fight with his body, wealth or opinion. Furthermore, they argue, according to the above criterion, the 'people of this country' become combatants because 'they have willingly elected their leaders and representatives inparliament who draw up policies which murder our children, dishonor our women, occupy our houses and plunder our wealth'.
N
ow Islam, like all religions, is open to interpretation. Like a magician's box, with some ingenuity, one can take out different things from the same box. The same Quran and Hadith get marshaled in Indonesia to 'prove' that Islam sanctions family planning while the Indianulama are still prevaricating on the issue. Obviously, therefore, who interpretsand how assumes centrality, with 'truth' residing with the interpretation of the powerful.