islam – terrorism or tolerance?rmpckl.rmp.gov.my/journal/bi/civilisationterrorism.pdf · islam...
TRANSCRIPT
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
3
Islam – Terrorism or Tolerance?
After the horrendous killings of September 11, 2001 it has become fashionable to
associate Islam with terrorism. The caricaturing and demonisation of Muslims and
Muslim-nations is, of course, not new but has lately become a popular and profitable
pastime. Thanks to American President George Bush, Samuel Huntington’s thesis of
“civilisations at odds” has been metamorphosed into a “clash between good and evil”
and “between civilized and uncivilized people.”
Does Islam promote violence and terrorism? Are Muslims in a perpetual
state of war with non-Muslims? Does Islam allow the taking of hostages and the
killing of innocents? Does it encourage suicide? If Islam is truly a religion of mercy,
then how can we explain the clear connection between Muslims and terrorist
movements in many parts of Southeast and Central Asia, Afghanistan, Africa and the
Middle East? The answers to these questions are not easy but must, nevertheless,
be attempted. A few cautious generalizations are proposed.
Sanctity of life: Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace and its cardinal principles
amply demonstrate this belief.3 The very name of Islam comes from the root word
‘salama’ which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving
peace through submission to the will of Allah.
Islam stresses the sanctity of human life. The Holy Qur’an in Surah 5:32 lays
down that “anyone who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind
and anyone who has killed another person (except in lieu of murder or mischief on
earth) it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind.” Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) once listed murder as the second of the major sins4 and he warned that on
the Day of Judgment “ the first case to be adjudicated between people on the Day of
Judgment will be those of bloodshed.”5
3 This is not to deny that those seeking to vilify Islam can discover materials that extol war and violence. A “gutter inspector” can find such ammunition in every religious text. Refer for example to Catholic Asian News of December 2001/January 2002 at pages 11-12 that quotes (and explains in context) many passages in the Old Testament that call for killing and destruction of property. Reference may be made to Jos 6; Jos 8; 1 Sam 15: 1-3; 1 Sam 15: 24-26. 4 Saheeh Al-Bukhari # 6871 and Saheeh Muslim # 88. 5 Saheeh Muslim # 1678 and Saheeh Al-Bukhari # 6533.
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
4
Even in times of war, Allah forbids extremism. In Surah 2:190 it is stated
“And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits.
Truly Allah loves not the transgressors.” It is reported to us by Ahmed that Prophet
Muhammad (s.a.w.) once said “those who go to extremes are destroyed.” Suicide
bombing is undoubtedly one such extreme. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) advised his
followers: “Do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a newborn child,”6 And he
also said “whoever has killed a person having a treaty with Muslims shall not smell
the fragrance of Paradise, though the fragrance is found for a span of forty years.”7
He forbade punishment with fire.8
Surah an-Nissaa 4:29-30 is explicit about the principle that Islam forbids
suicide. The messenger of Allah once said: “He who kills himself with anything, Allah
will torment him with that in the fire of hell.”
In the light of the above it can be stated categorically that inciting terror in the
hearts of defenseless civilians, destruction of civilian properties and maiming of
innocent people are forbidden and detestable acts in Islam.
Tolerance: All religions contain a message of tolerance towards other human
beings. History is, however, full of examples of the most horrible atrocities committed
in the name of religion by adherents of one religion against followers of another.
Persecution of the faithful by atheists and agnostics is also a recurrent event in
history. Despite these facts, the civilizing and central role of religions in the life of
human beings cannot be denied. In this part of the note Islam’s attitude towards
other religions will be highlighted.
In the Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah (2:256) it is stated: “Let there be no
compulsion in religion”. In Surah Al-Kafirun (109:1-6) it is stated: “O you that reject
Faith: … To you be your way and to me mine.” In Surah Yunus (10:99) the Holy
Qur’an reminds us that Allah SWT could have made the entire mankind alike and so
no compulsion should be employed to change people from one belief to another.
6 Saheeh Muslim # 1731, Al-Tirmizi # 1408. 7 Al-Bukhari # 3166; Ibn Majah # 2686. 8 Abu Dawood # 2675.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
5
“If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on
earth. Will you then compel mankind against their will to believe?”
Islam shows the highest respect for Judaism and Christianity. In Surah Al-
Baqarah (2:136) it is stated “… we believe in Allah, and in that which has been
revealed to us and in that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and
Yaqub and the tribes and in that which was given to Musa and Isa and in that which
was given to all the prophets from the Lord. We do not make any distinction between
any of them and to Him do we submit.”9 Respect for all previous prophets is part of a
Muslim’s articles of faith.
In the sixth year of Hijrah, Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. granted to the monks
of St. Catherine, near Mount Sinar, a charter of rights:10
“(1) They were not to be unfairly taxed (2) no bishop was to be driven out of
his bishopric (3) no Christian was to be forced to reject his religion (4) no
monk was to be expelled from his monastery (5) no pilgrim was to be
detained from his pilgrimage (6) nor were the Christian churches to be pulled
down for the sake of building mosques or houses for Muslims (7) Christian
women married to Muslims were to enjoy their own religion (8) if the
Christians should stand in need of assistance for the repair of their churches
or any other matter pertaining to their religion, the Muslims were to assist
them.”
Similar treaties with the Jews of Medina and the Christians of Najran in
Yemen were signed.11 Ameer Ali says of the treaty at Najran: “Has any conquering
race of faith given to its subject nationalities a better guarantee than is to be found in
the words of the Prophet?”12
Even idol-worshippers are not to be abused. Surah An’am (6:108) states:
“Do not abuse those whom they worship besides Allah.” Surah Al-Tauba (9:6)
9The equivalent Christian name for Ibrahim R.A. is Abraham; for Ismail R.A. is Ishmael; for Yaqub R.A. is Jacob; for Musa R.A. is Moses; and for Nabi Isa is Jesus Christ. 10 Ibn Hisham, Sirah, p. 718 11 Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, IIFSO Publication, Kuwait, p. 171 12Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, London, 1992, p. 273.
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
6
commands that “if any pagan asks you for asylum, grant it to him so that he may
listen to the word of Allah and then escort him to where he can be secure.”
If enemies from other countries attack the non-Muslims in an Islamic state,
Muslims are asked to fight in order to protect the freedom of religious worship of the
non-Muslims. Non-Muslims have the right to keep their languages and customs, to
establish their schools and colleges and to be visited by missionaries. In the Turkish
empire, Christians were represented in the Council. In the Mughal Empire state aid
was given to build and restore Hindu temples. In Egypt the oldest churches were
built during the pre-colonial (Islamic) period.13
If a non-Muslim minor is taken a prisoner of war and if his parents die, the
child has the right to continue with the religion of his father.14
There is historical evidence of long periods of peace and harmony between
Muslims and non-Muslims through much of Muslim history. This is in contrast with
the shameful record of Jew-baiting throughout Europe; discrimination against
Catholics; the holocaust against Jews; and massacre of Muslim Bosnians on several
occasions in the last three centuries.
Malaysia is a shining example of how a Muslim country can embrace
pluralism and endeavour to build a cultural mosaic rather than a melting pot.
Malaysia also demonstrates how modernity and religiosity can go hand in hand and
how middle paths can be forged between religious and secular militancy.
In sum, the general history of Islam is one of tolerance towards other
religions. No doubt there are a few incidents of repression but these do not match
the brutality of the Inquisition, the long and barbaric history of Jew-bashing in Europe,
the oppressive practices of European and American colonizers in Mexico, Latin
America, Africa and Asia, the annihilation of indigenous peoples in three continents
and the enslavement and dehumanization of Africans. The world is little aware that
Bosnian Muslims have been the victim of genocide throughout the last three
centuries. For example from 1941 to 1945 about 100,000 Bosnian Muslims were
13 See Abdur Rahman Doi, Non-Muslims Under Shariah, 1979, p. 77-82. 14 Ibid, p. 81.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
7
slaughtered. In the Balkan Wars of 1912-14, around 13,000 Muslims were forcibly
converted to Christianity and over 3,000 were killed. No one was punished for these
crimes. One is left wondering whether the collective amnesia of the European
nations towards these monstrosities contributed to the slaughters and ethnic
cleansings of the last decade15
Terrorism is not a monopoly of Muslims: Terrorism is as old as the times.
Muslims have no monopoly over it especially if we are to view the aberration in all its
manifestations. In a pioneering paper Prof. Dr. Ataullah Bogdan Kopanski of UIAM
has surveyed terrorism in history.16 He has correctly pointed out that throughout the
ages people have suffered the ravages of terrorism. To the ancients of Rome the
Kelts and Germans were terrorists. The Huns, the Vikings, Scottish rebels against
Edward II, the Christian crusaders, the Nazis, the ‘American patriots’ who fought
against the British, the republicans who fought against the monarchists in France
between 1793-1795 were all variously described as terrorists. The European Union
has a list of terrorist groups that includes the Basque separatist group ETA and the
Irish Republican Army. The US list includes Kahane Chai, Liberation Tigers of Tamil,
National Liberation Army (ELN), Real IRA, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia
(FARC), Revolutionary Nuclei, Peru’s Shining Path and United Self Defence Forces
of Columbia. There are other unlisted groups like Germany’s Baader Meinhof gang
and the outlawed Cambodian Freedom Fighters whose members include an
American citizen17. The U.K. has outlawed Sikh groups Babbar Khalsa and the
International Sikh Youth Foundation; 17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17)
and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party. Muslim militants around the world
are regarded as terrorists. But, due to American and Jewish domination of the
media, not much is heard of Zionist terrorism in the Near East between 1944-1948.18
Even lesser is heard of ongoing state-sponsored terrorism by Israel in the Middle
East and periodic forays by the United States into Sudan, Somalia, Iraq and
Afghanistan. All that can be said is that those who are in power are always
15 Alijah Gordon, Bosnia: Testament to War Crimes As Told by Survivors, Malaysian Sociological Research Institute, 1993, pp. xv-xxix. 16 Prof. Dr. Ataullah Bogdan Kopanski, “Terrorism in History.” Unpublished paper at a one-day Seminar on Terrorism on 15 November 2001 organised by the International Islamic University, Malaysia. 17 NST, February 19, 2002, W5. 18 An Official UN Report (A Summary of Zionist Terrorism in the the Near East – 1944-1948 prepared for Dr. Ralph J. Bunche, UN Mediator for Palestine) lists 259 incidents of terrorist attacks by Jewish Stern gangs.
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
8
exempted from the charge of atrocities of terror. It is often the retaliating victims who
are branded as terrorists. Thus Israeli policy of assassinations of Palestinian
leaders, its slaughter of thousands of refugees in Sabra, Chatilla and Jenin, its
indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas using Apaches and F-16s supplied by the
US, its murder of stone-throwing children, the brutal and collective punishment it
inflicts on Palestinians who reside in camps or villages inhabited by leaders of the
intifada, and its bombing of an Iraqi nuclear plant would satisfy any definition of a
terrorist act. Likewise American hijacking of a plane over the Suez, American
shooting-down of a civilian Iranian plane, US bombing of civilian targets in Sudan,
Libya, Somalia and Afghanistan, the American bombing of Vietnam, Laos,
Kampuchea, and the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks
that escaped condemnation. In early 2002 the BJP dominated government in the
Indian state of Gujrat colluded with Hindu extremists to butcher more than a
thousand Muslims. The world took little note because the victims were mostly
Muslims.
There can, however, be no doubt that there are terrorist individuals and
terrorist groups within the Muslim ummah. Many of them clothe their missions in
Islamic religious vocabulary. But in relation to them a few observations need to be
made.
First, we need to distinguish the faith from the misguided actions of the
faithful. Terrorists constitute a small, lunatic fringe of Muslim society. Unfortunately,
however, their words and deeds are given such concentrated publicity by sections of
the Western media that viewers and readers begin to associate the evils committed
by Muslim wrongdoers with Islam the religion.
Second, it is not fair to judge Islam by reference merely to the ground
realities of post-colonial Islamic societies while evaluating Western civilization by
reference to its pristine ideals. Theory must be compared with theory; reality with
reality. When the Western world exploits and demeans Asia and Africa through
colonialism; practices slavery and apartheid; annihilates indigenous groups in three
continents and supports genocide in Yugoslavia, Palestine and Iraq, these atrocities
are not pinned (and rightly so) on the lapel of Christianity. Nazi and Serbian atrocities
and brutal dictatorships in many Christian countries in Africa and Latin America are
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
9
not attributed to Christianity but Saddam’s atrocities and Taliban’s fanaticism are laid
at the door of Islam. Countries with Christian majorities like Brazil, Argentina,
Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Nicaragua and Colombia and political leaders like Hitler,
Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and Videla have been guilty of the worst possible human
rights abuses. Their sins were never laid at the door of their religion – and rightly so.
When Saddam tries to manufacture a bomb, it is an Islamic bomb. But the bombs
that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tens of other countries were not
Christian bombs.
Third, Muslims have no monopoly over terrorism. Due to American and
Jewish domination of the media, not much is known of Zionist terrorism in the Near
East between 1944 and 1948. Even lesser is heard of ongoing state terrorism by
Israel in the Middle East and periodic forays by the United States in 20 countries
since Word war II. Rightly nobody blamed Judaism and Christianity for these cruel
acts.
Fourth, most of the terrorists who belong to the Muslim faith are not engaged
in a struggle for Islam. Except for Afghanistan’s Taliban which had a very
obscurantist and medieval view of Islam, most other so-called “Muslim groups” are
primarily motivated by historical, political and economic grievances. Foremost in this
category are “Islamic groups” in Palestine, Lebanon, Kashmir, Central Asia and
Mindanao. Religion provides them a rallying point. But the root causes of their
rebellion are economic and cultural.
Fifth, like the rest of humanity the Muslims of Palestine are entitled to human
rights and human dignity. Those who condemn these suffering and starving people
need to ask themselves why the Palestinians have descended to such depths of
desperation that they are prepared to kill and be killed in the most horrible way
possible.
The concept of jihad: The concept of jihad or religious struggle does not necessarily
refer to holy war. It could be a war of words, an effort to make the doctrines of Islam
accepted and acceptable. Jihad could take place by persuasion. The Qur’an enjoins:
“Invite (all) to the way of the Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue
with them in ways that are best and most gracious” (xvi: 125). According to a famous
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
10
saying the best jihad is by the one who strives against his own self for Allah. (Sahih
Ibn Hibban # 4862). In Surah Al-Furqan 25:52 it is stated “So obey not the
disbelievers, but make a great jihad against them (by preaching) with (the Qur’an)”.
Islamic Law of War
The great non-Muslims jurist, C.G. Weeramantry, in his study of Islamic
jurisprudence19 has pointed out that modern humanitarian law is seeking to build
increasing protections for civilians, non-combatants and prisoners of war. Many
centuries earlier, Islamic international law worked out a set of principles in relation to
the treatment of enemies in war. Among the acts forbidden in war were:
a) cruel ways of killing
b) killing of non-combatants
c) killing of prisoners of war
d) mutilation of human beings as well as beasts
e) unnecessary destruction of harvests and cutting of trees
f) adultery and fornication with captive women
g) killing of envoys even in retaliation
h) massacre in the vanquished territory
i) the use of poisonous weapons
Weeramantry points out that along with principles now incorporated in the
Geneva Conventions, the Islamic law books contained other principles not yet
incorporated in modern conventions. These principles have been collected from
numerous works of authority, and from the Qur’an itself.
Prisoners of War: At the battle of Badr the prophet ordered, “Take heed of the
recommendation to treat the prisoners fairly.” At the termination of hostilities it was
recommended that prisoners be released either gratuitously or on ransom.
19 C.G. Weeramantry, Islamic Jurisprudence, An International Perspective, Macmillan, 1988, pp. 134-148.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
11
Non-combatants: The prophet forbade the killing of women and children. “Do not
kill any old person, any child or any woman,” runs one tradition (Sunnah Abu
Daud).20 “Do not kill the monks in the monasteries,” runs another, and “Do not kill the
people who are sitting in places of worship,” (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad) states a third.
Others who were protected were traders, merchants, contractors and the like who did
not take part in actual fighting.
Conduct on the field of battle: Unnecessarily cruel ways of killing were expressly
forbidden. So was mutilation.
Enemy territory and property: Time and again the Islamic literature relating to the
rules of war expresses a concern for the preservation of natural vegetation, crops
and livestock. The laws of war, as stated by Malik in the Muwatta, prohibit the
slaying of flocks and the destruction of beehives.
Weapons of war: There is a strong juristic writing in Islamic law restricting the use of
poison. Poisoned arrows and the application of poison on weapons such as swords
and spears were prohibited.
Quarter: Wanton slaughter of the enemy is prohibited. The Qur’an requires that
enemies seeking protection must be protected: “And if any one of the associators
(non-Muslims) seek your protection, then protect him so that he may hear the word of
Allah and afterwards convey him to his place of safety” (ix: 6).
International Law & The American Invasion of Afghanistan
The horrendous acts of reprisal against Afghanistan beginning 7 October 2001 raise
serious questions of international law. Under international law as exemplified in
Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may resort to force against other states in only
two situations. First, in self defence and second, pursuant to a binding decision of the
Security Council.
20 Saheeh Muslim # 1744; Saheeh Al-Bukhari # 3015; Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 4, p. 160, No. 258.
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
12
Self-defence: To claim the right to self-defence the US had to prove a number of
ingredients. First whether an armed attack had taken place or was imminent. There is
no difficulty in proving the former but no clear evidence was ever presented about
whether another attack was imminent and by whom?
Second, was the government of Afghanistan involved directly or indirectly in
the September 11 attacks? The US never presented any evidence of Taliban
involvement in the carnage. In fact the bulk of the suspects were persons of Middle
Eastern origin. However, most of America’s allies were satisfied that prima facie
evidence exists to indicate that Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda group were
involved. As Afghanistan had defied an existing UN Resolution to surrender Osama
and as it had given sanctuary to Al-Qaeda, the Western world was satisfied that
Afghanistan was indirectly or vicariously responsible for the murderous attack on
America. It is a moot question in international law whether nations can be invaded or
attacked for merely giving shelter and refuge to fugitive criminals. The law of
extradition is replete with examples of “political criminals” escaping from one
jurisdiction to another and the request for extradition being refused.
Third, self-defence is limited to situations in which there is “instant,
overwhelming necessity leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation”.
This is similar to municipal law in which the right of private defence cannot be
exercised once the event is over. At that point the law should take over to bring the
culprits to book. In this case did the delay of 26 days defeat the right to hit back at
the perpetrators of the attack?
Fourth, when force is legitimately used, international law states that force
must be proportionate. Excessive force renders the use of force illegitimate. In view
of the fact that the Taliban government put up no fight (or had no capacity to do so
because its planes and tanks had been destroyed) was the devastation, especially of
civilian areas, an act of vengeance (and terrorism) or was it a legitimate and
reasonable exercise of self defence? Only the ICJ can adjudicate on this issue.
Fifth, whatever the legality or legitimacy of the reprisals against Afghanistan
may be, there will be no justification for taking the war beyond Afghanistan to other
targets in America’s axis of evil.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
13
Sixth, America needs to explain to the world whether the WTC tragedy was
merely a cynical opportunity in the race against rivals in Germany and Russia for the
oil resources of the former Soviet Union. How far was this invasion a mask for
building oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean? How far
was this tragedy an excuse for securing a permanent US military presence in Central
Asia? Is it true that before September 11 America was negotiating with the Taliban
for the pipelines?
UN Resolution: The Security Council Resolution of 28 September, while
condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, stopped short of authorizing military
strikes. There is, therefore, no UN sanction for the American and British invasion of
Afghanistan. Their case, if any, must rest on self-defence.
Concept of Terrorism
There is an Alice in Wonderland quality about the term terrorism. Many nations are
using it in a selective and self-serving way.
“When I use a word”, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”.
“The question is”, said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many
different things”.
“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all”.
A fair amount of legislation is emerging in this area. There are 12 counter-
terrorism conventions of the United Nations. The U.K. has the Anti-Terrorism, Crime
and Security Act 2001 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
1974. The USA has the Patriot Act 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996. India has the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
1987 and the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984. Many definitions
abound in the above laws.
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
14
In India the Act of 1984 defines a “terrorist” as a person who indulges in wanton
killing of persons or in violence or in the disruption of services or means of
communication essential to the community with a view to put the public or any
section thereof in fear; to adversely affect the harmony between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; to coerce or overawe
the government established by law; and to endanger the sovereignty and integrity of
India.
The Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36) 2001 states that an activity is a
terrorist activity if it is an offence under one of the UN anti-terrorism conventions and
protocols; or is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and
threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a
person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to harm people or by
interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.
The US President’s Executive Order of September 24, 2001 defines terrorism as
an activity that:
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or
infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended –
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
Aneel Kannabhiran and Rufus Priera in Catholic Asian News (Dec 2001/Jan
2001) offer a survey of definitions. According to them in 1987 the UN General
Assembly described all acts of terrorism as crimes except if they involved a fighting
for self-determination. The European Union defines terrorism as “a deliberate attack
by an individual or group against a country, its institutions or its people, with the aim
of destroying their political, economic or social structures”. Raymond Gastil in
Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties describes political terror as
the attempt by a government or a group to get its way through the use of murder,
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
15
torture, exile, prevention of departure, police controls or threats against the family in
a context where civil liberties are being fought for”. William Brien in Counter terror
Deterrence: Defence and Just War Doctrine, Theological Studies say that terrorism is
the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of violence or other means of coercion,
the bombing of civilian targets, the holding of hostages, the kidnapping and torture of
political figures and assassinations to advance a political or ideological cause or to
secure a demand.
One could quibble endlessly about the definition of the term. The author
proposes the following:
“The use or threat of use, for the purpose of advancing a political, economic,
religious or ideological cause, of acts that are unlawful in international law
and that involve serious violence against persons, properties or
infrastructures.”
An act is a terrorist act if its aim is to overawe the lawful government, or to
compel the government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act
under threat of force or reprisal, or to strike terror in the people, or to alienate any
section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of
the people.
The methods of the terrorists may vary. A terrorist may use bombs,
dynamites, explosives, inflammable substances, firearms, lethal weapons, poisons,
noxious gases, chemicals, biological or other substances of a hazardous nature. He
may assassinate, detain or kidnap persons or threaten to kill or injure such persons.
The consequences of his act may be that there is likelihood of death or
injury, damage to or destruction of property, disruption of supplies or services
essential to the community, starvation, denial of basic necessities of life or economic
strangulation.
It is submitted that terrorism can be committed by individuals or groups or by
the state itself. Terrorism is not confined to hijackings and suicide bombings but
must also encompass such atrocities as kidnappings, deliberate destruction of basic
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
16
amenities and homes and farms, mass rapes, lynchings and willful attempts to
destroy a people’s livelihood or to threaten the economic and social foundations of a
society. Terrorism can be domestic or international, economic or political, religious or
secular. States can be guilty of it in the same measure as individuals. Examples
would be Russia in Chechnya, China in Xinjiang and Tibet, US and Israel in
Palestine, Indian government in Kashmir and Gujrat and the US in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Sudan.
In the commission of terrorist acts it should be no defence that the law of the land
permits the acts in question. Thus, the actions of the Nazis, of the apartheid regime
in former South Africa and of the genocidal regime of Israel today may have a basis
in national law but that does not change the character of the terrorist acts.
The Western mirage of moral superiority
Since September 11, the vocabulary of “crusade”, “axis of evil” “attack on the
civilized world” and “war on terror” is being employed to justify extreme measures.
The assumption is that the perpetrators of the September 11 tragedy belong to an
inferior civilization and the allies of America represent the forces of good. This
assumption needs to be evaluated by looking at one area – the area of human rights.
The nations of the North Atlantic have articulated the ideals of liberty with an
eloquence that has no match in Asia and Africa. But as any historian should know
the quest for human rights was known to other civilizations long before Europe and
America embraced these doctrines. What keeps this fact from being known is a
collective amnesia in the Western world about the contribution of other races and
religions towards the maturing of European culture and the development of its ideas
on civil liberties.
As to human rights violations, these have been committed in all ages and in
all territories. No nation has a clean record. Asia and Africa have much to be
ashamed of. But anyone who knows history will testify that the nations of Europe
and North America have a similarly horrendous record of human right abuses
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
17
stretching back a thousand years. For the most part Western civilization has neither
acknowledged its brutal past nor apologized for it.
The inhuman manner in which slaves were captured in Africa and shipped to
the North Atlantic countries has very few parallels in the annals of infamy except the
holocaust in Germany and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Colonialism was the worst form of human rights violation. It deprived millions of
subjugated people of their dignity. In the last few centuries Western merchants,
missionaries and military joined hands in a systematic programme of colonial
conquest and cultural genocide. In some colonized countries like Namibia, large
sections of the indigenous population were exterminated by the colonial masters in
order to eliminate dissent. The aborigines in Australia, the Red Indians in North
America and the blacks in South Africa and Namibia were often killed in cold blood.
Hollywood celebrated the murder and de-humanisation of the Red Indians with
blockbuster movies about how the West was won. Nearly a hundred years ago, on
the central Philippines island of Samer, US colonial soldiers massacred thousands of
Filipinos in retaliation for an attack that had killed 48 US soldiers. In hundreds of
years of colonial rule, the British killed thousands of Indian citizens. In order to boost
its own industries, Britain systematically destroyed indigenous industries in the sub-
continent. Indians were not even allowed to manufacture salt from the waters off
their own coasts.
In Australia the heads of dead aborigines were cut off from their torsos and
exported to European museums. Australia forcibly removed thousands of aborigine
children from their parents’ homes and put them in state-run institutions where they
suffered years of abuse. The UK had a long practice of exporting orphans to
Australia where they underwent years of physical and sex abuse, some of it at the
hands of missionary orders.
For many decades Australia and UK’s immigration policies were racist in
nature. For many decades France and the UK tested their atomic and nuclear
devices away from home and in Asian backyards. The USA devastated Vietnam,
Laos and Cambodia with intensive bombing and used defoliants which posed mortal
danger to human lives. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
18
Nagasaki incinerated thousands of innocent civilians. Those who died were the lucky
ones. Thousands of survivors were maimed for life and met slow, painful deaths.
In 1948 much of Europe and America watched with satisfaction as Western
assisted, terrorist, Jewish groups backed by the Israeli army destroyed 400 Arab
villages and drove 700,000 innocent Arabs out of their homes into a life of shame
and degradation in refugee camps. European and American complicity in the
dehumanisation and brutalisation of the Palestinians is surely one of the greatest
acts of inhumanity in the twentieth century.21 But the conscience of the self-appointed
conscience-keepers of this world is hardly pricked by this outrage.
The US-led economic embargo against Iraq and Cuba has hurt millions of
children and women. A United Nations Children’s Fund Report confirms that 500,000
innocent children have died as a result of punitive sanctions against Iraq. The former
Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, Denis Halliday, an Irishman, in resigning his
post as coordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq said: “I have been instructed to
implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide…”22
In July 1995 in the UN protected zone of Srebrenica more than 7,000
Muslims were massacred on the orders of Bosnian Serb leaders. Only a few Serbian
leaders have been rounded up to answer this charge.
The way Muslims and Arabs are demonized and caricatured in the Western
press is indicative of deep-seated racism and religious bigotry. It is this same race
and religious bigotry that is behind the Western indifference towards the suffering
and brutalisation of the Muslims in Palestine, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and
genocide in Chechnya and Kosova. Somehow the conscience of the world
community and of the Western-dominated media is not aroused when democratically
elected Muslim parties are denied the fruits of their electoral victory in Turkey and
Algeria; when Muslim girls are expelled from French, Turkish and Singapore schools
because they wore scarves to cover their hair in accordance with religious beliefs;
when the Kashmiri Muslim majority population is terrorised by the excesses of the 21 Public officials, journalists and book publishers who criticize Israel’s policies are intimidated and their careers undermined. See Paul Findley, They Dare To Speak Out: People & Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, 1985. 22 Sunday Star, September 16, 2001, p. 18.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
19
Indian army; when racist murderers like Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko
Mlaadic roam free to direct genocide in that part of the world; when Iraqi children die
because of lack of medicine due to the economic embargo; and when American
soldiers shoot dead 800 Somalis in a botched attempt to kidnap Somali factional
leader Idid.
Neither is there any concern when the industrialized countries export their
toxic wastes to the third world; when medicines banned in America are re-labelled
and sold in Africa; or when the US, Britain, France and Sweden spearhead a
nefarious trade in weapons of war and destruction.
Undemocratic regimes in Asia and Africa are rightly criticized, but selectively,
for their violation of the rule of law and human rights. But at the same time,
democratically elected regimes in Latin America, Africa and Asia that refuse to toe
the American line are overthrown with overt and covert operations.
In the Marianna Islands under US control, immigrant workers are brutalized
and denied any protection of the law. The United States resists pressures to make
the United Nations and other international institutions more democratic in their
composition and more transparent in their decision-making process. Obviously,
democracy is good only within nations but can be dispensed with among nations at
the international level!23
It is to the credit of the Western world that within its own legal systems it has
set up institutional safeguards to protect and promote the rule of law and human
rights for most of its citizens.24 But beyond their shores American and European
governments and the captains of their industries continue to commit flagrant
violations of the rights and dignity of millions of Asians and Africans.
Despite these transgressions, the façade of Western moral superiority in the
area of human rights remains as strong as ever. There are a number of reasons for
the success of this mirage. 23 See generally, essays in Dominance of the West over the Rest, Just World Trust, 1995. 24 But exceptions exist. The detention without trial of hundreds of Muslims in the USA after September 11, and the brutal treatment of prisoners at Camp X-ray off Cuba flout all canons of humanitarian law.
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
20
What amounts to a “human right” and what amounts to a “human rights
violation” is determined exclusively by a few North Atlantic nations that control the
flow of information and exercise a disproportionate influence on the hearts and minds
of the gullible.
Thus, the existence of preventive detention laws in many Asian societies is
criticized, and rightly so, as a violation of the idea that no one should be made to
suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary
legal manner before the ordinary courts. But in the UK the plethora of laws
permitting the state to arrest without a warrant and to use illegally obtained evidence
are seen as necessary weapons in the fight against crime. Nationality laws with
racist overtones, blasphemy laws which discriminate against religions other than the
religion of the Church of England, harassment of a Sikh bus driver who wished to
wear a turban to work, forced resignation of a Muslim school teacher who wished to
take half-an-hour off to say his mandatory Friday prayers in congregation, are not
seen by human rights crusaders as serious violations of any ideals.
US prisons use chains to restrain prisoners convicted of ordinary crimes.
Gross violations of people’s privacy by an intrusive press in many Western societies
is seen as an expression of free speech. Media trials of persons accused of criminal
offences is not viewed as an attack on due process. Caricaturing, stereotyping and
demonizing of certain religious and racial groups is not seen as a form of racism.
Sometime ago America was prepared to invade a Central American state
and kidnap its head of state on the unproved allegation that he was involved in drug
trafficking. But nothing is said of many Western heads of states involved in arms
trafficking.
The US systems of justice has locked up 1.5 million young black people and
put another 8.1 million on parole. This underclass has no parallel in any other
industrialized country.25
25 The racism of the American system of justice is well documented in four book reviews of Randall Kennedy’s, Race, Crime And The Law in the Harvard Law Review, volume III, March 1998, pp. 1256 – 1322. See also Robert Lefcourt, Law Against The People, Vintage Books, 1971.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
21
At a 2001 session of the UN Human Rights Commission the US opposed
resolutions supporting low-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs; it refused to acknowledge
a human right to adequate food; it refused a moratorium on the death penalty; it
resisted efforts to ban landmines. Within 100 days of taking office US President
Bush rejected the Kyoto accords on global warming (though the US is the one that
contributes to this most serious environmental catastrophe-to-be). He banned US
support for any global organization that provides family planning and abortion
services. He bade farewell to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He slashed spending
on nuclear safety aid for Russia. He “unsigned” the treaty on the International
Criminal Court.
US and Britain continue to bomb Iraq at the smallest pretext. The US helped
to shoot down a missionary plane over Peru. It enforces an illegal and irrational
boycott of Cuba. It bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. It unleashed a contra
army on Nicaragua. It invaded Panama. It bombed Serbia on its own writ.
It advocates war crimes tribunals against foreign miscreants but opposes an
international criminal court due to its own fear of being prosecuted. Its Senate
refuses to ratify several basic human rights treaties. Its international business
community opposes efforts to eliminate child labour. The U.S. is armed to its teeth
with the most devastating weapons of terror. Yet it cries foul when a country like Iraq
seeks to manufacture similar weapons. President Bush is threatening to invade Iraq
because Saddam does not allow international inspectors. At the same time the US
government constantly vetoes UN plans to send observers to Palestine.
Afghanistan’s action of giving refuge to Osama and to the Al-Qaeda organization
amounted to terrorism but America’s military, financial and diplomatic support for an
apartheid and genocidal regime in Israel (with a known mass murderer as Prime
Minister) is nothing but support for an ally. One wonders whether, morally, there is
any difference between Osama and Ariel Sharon?
America professes the ideal of peace and yet it spends billions of dollars to
manufacture the most devastating weapons of war for use and for sale. Here is a list
of countries that America has bombed since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53),
Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba 1959-60), the
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
22
Belgian Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia
(1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s),
Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999) and
Afghanistan (2000-2002).26
In the Middle East America gives unwavering financial, military and
diplomatic support for Israel’s atrocities. An AP report, quoting a January 25, 2002
advertisement by 52 Israeli reserve soldiers complained of “acts of random brutality
towards Palestinian civilians”; “domination, expulsion, starvation and humiliation of an
entire people”; “unwarranted killings of unarmed Palestinian teenagers and the
routine humiliation of Palestinians at the Israeli checkpoints throughout the
territories.”27
The establishment of Camp X-Ray on Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and the
harsh treatment of some 254 inmates from 26 countries is a violation of many
principles of humanitarian law. Many provisions of post-September 11 legislation in
the USA are a flagrant violation of due process and rule of law.
Despite the above, many factors help to suppress news of human rights
violations in the industrialized world and present a larger than life picture of
democracy in the North Atlantic countries. Among these are Western control of the
means of communication and the excellent communication skills of American
government and corporate figures. Colonialism has left its psychological impact and
many Asian and African intellectuals are psychologically conditioned to view the
world through Western prisms. It is one of the surest marks of oppression that the
oppressed begin to act and think in the ways of their oppressors. Western education
has contributed to a feeling that everything beautiful, good and wholesome was born
in the crucible of Western civilization and that other civilizations are poor imitations of
the glory that is the West. The economic, political and military successes of Europe
and America reinforce this myth of the superior record of Western civilization.
26Arundhati Roy, ‘Brutality Smeared in Peanut Butter’, Commentary, International Movement for a Just World, December 2001, p. 6. 27 NST, February 19, 2002, p. W8.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
23
Conclusion
A genuine inter-civilisational dialogue is needed to understand the concept of
terrorism in all its manifestations. No nation should be allowed to tailor-make this
concept to suit its own grand design. Third World and Islamic views must be heard.
Terrorists cannot be subdued merely with weapons and brute force. No
nation is powerful enough or can ever become powerful enough to defend itself
against unconventional means of terror like letters in the post. No military
establishment can snuff out the flame of freedom or douse fires of hatred stoked by
decades of exploitation, humiliation and oppression. Root causes must be
addressed.
The “war on terror” (selective though it is) must be addressed to causes that
breed terrorism and not just to symptoms. Desperation breeds violence. The United
States and Israel must stop confusing between cause and effect. America, more than
other nations, has a duty to heal the wounds that have sparked off so much hatred.
A purely military approach will, understandably, be attractive to the defence
establishment and to the arms merchants in America, Britain and France. But, for a
lasting solution, attention must turn to winning over people’s hearts and minds.
A distinction ought to be drawn between genuine liberation movements
(whose right to self-determination is recognized by Article 1(1) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and fringe and anarchist groups led by
misguided or psychopathic leaders. The former like the Palestinian Hamas, the
Islamic Jihad, the Irish IRA, Sinn Fein and the Sri Lankan LTTE deserve the world’s
understanding. But leaders of these movements have to be reminded that just ends
must be achieved through just means. No matter how noble a cause may be, it
should not use human beings as pawns and as mere means towards ends. The non-
violent movements of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the USA
offer a moral alternative to violence.
Muslims who feel the pain of vilification should respond rationally and
peacefully to the undeserved and continuous insults in the US media and in Western
Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
24
corridors of power. Though the followers of Islam are facing some of the same
prejudices that were faced by European Jews right up to World War II, they should
not despair. There are lessons to be learnt from the way the Jews overcame
vilification and persecution to turn the tables on their tormentors. Through determined
action the Jews have acquired such a stranglehold over key political, economic and
educational institutions in the US that today no American President, Senator,
Congressman or woman, captain of industry, media practitioner or academician can
dare to speak the truth about Israeli atrocities without seriously jeopardising his/her
career.28
Muslim intellectuals and Muslim nations should unite with non-Muslims all
over the world to assist the United Nations to fight the scourge of terrorism and the
causes that breed it. At the same time all peace loving nations must oppose the
unilateralism and illegal exceptionalism of the United States.
America and its allies must remember that a nation’s greatness is not derived
only from glittering wealth or brute power but also from its commitment to moral
principles. After the way the USA pulverized Iraq and Afghanistan, it has to pause
and reflect on whether it wishes history to remember it as a Tyrannosaurus rex of a
nation with overwhelming, ruthless force or whether it wishes to be respected for
fidelity to the ideals that gave it birth. Rehman Rashid puts its poetically. “How then,
could Liberty’s beacon ever have become an infernal incendiary glow: the lurid trace
of bullets; the crimson billow of bombs; ‘the rocket’s red glare’? From (being) the light
at the end of the tunnel for the world’s dispossessed and damned, America has
become the express train bearing down on the world’s ‘un-American’.29
While the United States prosecutes its war on terrorism, it must remember
that the ordinary people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan and Cuba feel that
Washington has been waging an undeclared and unjust war against them for
decades. In the matter of Afghanistan the US has the might and perhaps also the
right to invade the country. But it had no right to inflict the kind of devastation it
28 For a rare publication complaining about this tyranny, see Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out, Lawrence Hill, 1985. The book was refused publication by William Morrow and Company, Random House, W.W. Norton and Company, Dodd-Mead, St. Martin’s Press, Dell Publishing, Pantheon Books and Franklin Watts. 29“The American Notion” in Catholic Asian News, December 2001/January 2002, p. 16.
Civilisation and Terrorism
Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College, 2003
25
inflicted. Also, having a right does not always translate into righteousness. The US
knows how to kill those who hate America. It must now learn to overcome the hatred
as well.
Nobody can deny that the murder of thousands of civilians on September 11
was a moral outrage. But at the same time it must be said that just as innocent
Americans should not have been sacrificed for their government’s political follies, the
innocent Afghani farmers – who were in the grip of a three-year drought and on the
verge of mass starvation and who had probably never heard of the WTC or the
Pentagon – should not have been killed for their leader’s obstinacy.
In sum, the US and its allies must tackle the underlying injustices that animate
terrorist activity. As our DPM said at a recent ISIS seminar: “Terrorism feeds on
many things: territory forcefully occupied, land wrongfully seized, homes bombed and
bulldozed, religious persecution, trampling of legitimate political aspirations,
oppression, poverty, deprivation and, most of all, the absence of satisfactory avenues
to seek redress”.