Abdal-Hakim Murad, in his "Bin Laden's Violence is a Heresy Against Islam," generally makes the point that violence against civilians and innocents is not in accordance with Islamic scholarship or tradition. According to Murad, it was a 19th century Iranian reformer called "the Bab" who "ignored the accumulated discussion of the centuries and wrote a Koranic commentary based on his own direct understanding of scripture." (Murad) Over time, Murad asserts that this led to many Muslim groups ignoring Islamic tradition and making their own pronouncements on what the Koran means. One of these groups were the Wahhabi Muslims of Saudi Arabia, who traditionally have been considered "heretics" by mainstream Islamic scholars, but with the influx of oil money in the 1960's, began to export this extreme view of Islam around the world. Because of their seeming ability to decide the meaning of the Koran, Muslims who follow this type of theology can be aroused to anger by their perceptions of the actions of the Americans and their Allies and "read their own frustrations into the text." (Murad) It also allows them to ignore Islamic tradition and seize direct control of political power, become the government, not just guiding it. When one compares the philosophies of Bin Laden and Qutb with Murad, they seem to be in complete disagreement. Murad maintains that it is traditional Islamic scholarship that should decide how to interpret the Koran, while both Bin Laden and Qutb interpret the Koran as they see fit. Qutb and Bin Laden represent the modern view of personal interpretation, while Murad remains with the traditional view that the scholars know best. Murad claimed that Al Qaeda's proclamations read more like a "list of Anti-American grievances," than a theological discussion. (Murad) And he may be correct, Bin Laden's statement "Urging Jihad against Jews and Christians"...

According to Murad, because Bin Laden and Qutb do not respect the wisdom of centuries of Islamic scholarship, they allow their personal grievances to seep into their theology, twisting it into a violent and ultimately un-Islamic way of life.
Of the three points-of-view presented, two allow for violence and even terrorism against innocent civilians, while one does not. Osama Bin Laden and Qutb both feel that violence is an acceptable means to accomplish their divinely inspire goals. Qutb even uses Islamic scholarship as a means of justifying the modern acts of terrorism: as the only practical means of fighting the infidels, terrorism is therefore acceptable. On the other hand is Abdal-Hakim Murad who claims that Islamic tradition does not allow for attacks against innocent civilians, or acts of terrorism. Murad claims that it is a heretical branch of Islam, an offshoot from the 19th century, which is to blame for the other points-of-view that disagree with his. He claims that the ignoring of centuries of Islamic tradition and scholarship allows for the heretics to then make any interpretation of the Koran they want, and they usually blend personal grievances with their theology. According to Murad, this is what Bin Laden does to justify his violence, and Qutb does to justify taking control of political governments. While all three may be Muslim, they seem to have opposing views of how Islam should operate in the world.

Works Cited

"Al Qaeda in its Own Words." (2008). ed. By Kepel, Gilles and Jean-Pierre Milelli. Cambridge Mass: Harvard UP. Print.

Murad, Abdal-Hakim. "Bin Laden's Violence is a Heresy Against Islam." Islam For Today. Retrieved from www.islamfortoday.com

Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. Indianapolis: American Trust, 1990. Print.