Terrorism & Civilisation

Question:-

Terrorism, it is perceived in the Western World, comes mostly from Muslims. Is terrorism allowed in Islam?

A Muslim:-

People called "terrorists" come from many walks of life and belong to all kinds of religions, races and nationalities and most of them hardly know or practice any particular faith but act from political or economic motives. There can be no such discussion like "is terrorism allowed in Islam". That is because there is no definitive meanings that can be assigned to the word "terrorism".

Comment:-

This is true politically speaking. That is each side of a conflict will define it according to their own whim or advantage. What is terrorism for one is fighting for justice or freedom from oppression for others. Those who wish to coerce and oppress others tend to call them terrorist who resist and retaliate. This is particularly obvious about the US regime.

However, we can define the word "terrorism" according to its meaning. This refers to "causing terror or fear". This can be done by threats or acts of destruction of property, injury, torture, killing, deprivation of means of livelihood and welfare, coercion, imprisonment and so on.

The question whether it is good or evil is different. There is no doubt that all nations practice terrorism on other peoples and even on their own citizens. When criminals are pursued and prosecuted is that not causing fear and terror to them? This is justified on the grounds that they are the one's that caused terror first and they have to be stopped.

In the case of international "terrorism", it does not take place in a vacuum. People have grievances to which no one is listening. There has been oppression and terrorism perpetrated against them or their community and they are retaliating. They have no other means of making themselves heard or getting justice.

It is said that they are "terrorists" because they are killing innocent people. But in fact, the governments that oppress through political, commercial or military means have also killed, injured, impoverished and caused suffering to thousands and millions of innocent people. And in so far as a nation claims to be Democratic its citizens are responsible for the acts of their governments and they are not innocent to that extent. In wars between communities there is seldom differentiation between the innocent and the guilty. When a country like the USA invades another country such as Iraq and kills its citizens, then only hypocrites would call them terrorists who offer resistance and attack the invaders when it is really the invaders who are the terrorists. And if the citizens of those countries collaborated with the invaders would they not also be attacked as traitors?

This is not to deny that many groups have no real justification for their terrorism, but are true criminals who are merely trying to coerce other people to their (the criminal's) own advantages or point of view at the expense of the interests and welfare of these others.

Certainly, terrorism is evil and ought to be stopped, but that is not what is taking place. On the contrary, those who claim to be fighting terrorism are the greatest terrorists, support it globally, and stimulate and provoke terrorism in retaliation. They are trying hard to continue their terrorism, injustice and oppression with impunity by suppressing retaliation against it.

While injustices and oppression continues, retaliation will continue and terrorism will thrive, especially when a culture of violence is cultivated in the USA and exported worldwide through films, television and video. The US government also maintains military bases, a sophisticated spying network and a secret subversive organisation throughout the world in order to bully other nations to conform to US interests. It has supported many Dictators and Tyrants, destabilised and toppled many democratic governments, and created political chaos, economic disasters, spreading bloodshed, poverty, disease and ignorance in many places. Wherever in the world one finds political unrest and oppression, there the hand of the USA is most likely to be found. But the same is the case with all other governments to a lesser degree that varies with their wealth and power. This tendency arises from the focusing of the collective characteristics that all human beings have to various degrees.

With the collapse of Communism, partly engineered by US policy, the next target for attack is Islam which is seen as a major threat to Western secular values. Religious values are certainly a contradiction of secular ones and their source Christianity had already been defeated in the West. Islam proves much tougher and needs more intense, subtle and overt action. But this provokes also opposition of various kinds and intensities. There is, therefore, a war, though an unconventional one, in which each sees the other as a source of terrorism. It is known that the Shariah, the Islamic Law as interpreted by the Ulema, Islamic Scholars, that has stood against dictatorships and tyrannies in Muslim countries. It is also well known that the majority of Muslims, those who have not been Westernised at the expense of knowledge about Islam, want to establish an Islamic nation based on the Shariah. But the so called champions of Democracy have put great efforts to sabotage any such development, thereby encouraging despots and tyrannies in these countries which they also actively support.

The US government is run by the same group that owns and runs the large commercial corporations and industries that have international links, and run all things to increase their own profits, power and prestige, by fair means or foul. Intense US government propaganda broadcast through the media made the people believe, for instance that the US was justified in invading Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds that they were a threat to US security. But an examination of the facts showed that they were looking for excuses to invade these countries long before that because of oil which was required by a greedy US industry and which they were running out of. So the attack on the Twin Towers in the USA presented them with a perfect excuse to invade Afghanistan from whence the attackers came, though the perpetrators were Arabs not Afghans. The anxiety and terror so caused was played on, maintained and exaggerated in order to invade Iraq accused of developing weapons of mass destruction for use against the US. There were no such weapons, so the excuse was changed to establishing Democracy by toppling a Tyrant He was the very one who had previously been supported and financed by them in a war against the Democratic government of Iran which had deposed the dictatorial regime of the King that supported US interests. Having subdued these two countries with much destruction, loss of life and chaos, the US corporations were able to make enormous amounts of profit from so called reconstruction of these countries. They also mounted a “War-on-Terror” campaign with the help of a worldwide propaganda through the media they owned or controlled in order to make their own interests and terrorism safe against the opposition. Had it been a genuine program against terrorism they would surely have arrested, prosecuted and executed the heads of the government that conducted the invasions and their henchmen.

As this psychopathic and criminal behaviour is determined by motives of materialism, greed, pride, vanity, lust, envy, and rationalisations based on these, traits that are common to all human beings, it can be attributed, in religious terms, to submission to the temptations of Satan. But Satan is a creation of Allah and also has a function in the scheme of things. He has his uses. It is by overcoming his temptations that spiritual development takes place. It is not difficult to see that the desire to increase their wealth and the resulting accumulation of wealth in the USA have enabled the scientific and technological development which could not have taken place in poorer places. It is these that lead to the relief of poverty, disease, disability, ignorance and misery which are basic problems for humanity. And yet the pursuit of the wealth required to bring this improvement is based on the increase in these problems. It seems inevitable that all development requires sacrifice. The capital that is required for investment must be extracted from immediate needs and uses, either by self-sacrifice or sacrifice of others. It is easier to sacrifice others, specially when one has power and can make excuses. Resources must be transferred from uses of lesser value to greater value. Growth and development depends on this.

It is also evident that people who have made no progress at all, but have degenerated are the ones that are dominated and exploited by the better of. This can be regarded as punishment for them, but also an education, an awakening and a stimulus.

This does not, however, mean that this condones the evil perpetrated by the USA and others throughout the world. No doubt, they will be punished. Indeed they are increasingly suffering from the consequences of ill-gotten gains in several ways. Not only from the fear created by the retaliation of terrorists, but also from measures taken to protect them against terrorists and from the diseases of over indulgence, and from various forms of neurosis, psychopathy, criminality; numerous social problems connected with drug and alcohol abuse, gambling, and from the environmental consequences such pollution, wastage of resources, ecological disruption and adverse weather and climatic changes.

There appear to be three causes of terrorism, though these are inter-dependent. Apart from the pursuit of self-interest there is also the desire to impose Western or more specifically, American values on other peoples, something that stems from self-righteous arrogance, lack of self-awareness and narrowness of mind. It is supposed that their values are the only legitimate ones which other people wish to adopt or should want to adopt, and that they should be encouraged and helped to achieve even with force of arms. As others have their own values this obviously brings about resistance and retaliation. It is not realised that many Muslims reject these values because they see US culture as consisting of violence, depravity, materialism, crudity and bigotry and that the West has created many psychological, social and environmental problems. But certainly they see the value of science, technology, organisation and education which they wish to adopt but when integrated within the Islamic context. The Political masters and many others in the USA boast that they have and are champions of Freedom, Democracy and Civilisation. But this can be denied when these terms are properly understood and not used as mere slogans or as means for public deception, conditioning and propaganda as has been shown. The fact is that apart from being hypocritical they have no idea what these terms really mean.

The third factor in terrorism derives from narrowness of mind and consciousness, the inability to reconcile the individualism with the community, and accommodate differences within a unified world view. This creates boundaries which include and exclude, thereby creating antagonism and conflicts such as that between groups, between “them” and “us”. It causes alienation and also forces conformity or the illusion of uniformity within a group while forcing differences or illusion of differences between them. It creates defence and aggression. Among many other things, it creates nationalism whereby double standards arise such that actions that are regarded as good or evil when done to oneself or one’s group or nation are seen as the reverse when done to the others. It suppresses conscience and allows the exploitation of others for personal advantage without qualm. There is no overall international law or police.

Question:-

What is your reaction to the news of the killing of Abu Msab Al-Zarqawi, the alleged terrorist leader in Iraq by US troops? Some Muslims seem to think he was a martyr. Is this a success for the "War against Terror" campaign?

Answer:-

If he was indeed a person as described by Western Propaganda, then it is a good thing, justice for someone who has killed many.

However, the point of view of the insurgents has never been publicised by the Western dominated media. He was regarded in some quarters as fighter for freedom and justice and against US aggression and terrorism and the traitors who collaborated with them.

But I do not see that the actions of the insurgents in Iraq is doing any good, though the present so called elected government is still a US puppet government, the members having been chosen by them, as is also the case in Afghanistan. What is certain is that he murdered and injured far fewer people than the US President Bush and the British Prime Minister, Blair. I would not call the assassination of Al-Zarqawi a victory for the “War against Terror”, but only the victory of a greater group of terrorists against a smaller group of terrorists. If there really was a "War on Terror" as propagandists claim then it would be much more convincing if Bush, his henchmen and puppets were also arrested, prosecuted and executed. That, too, would be justice. Without Justice and only a one-sided view no peace can ever be expected in the world.

Critic:-

You say about Al-Zarqawi that if he was indeed a person as described by Western Propaganda, then it is a good thing. Sorry, but your choice of words implies that you think it was "western propaganda" who painted him black. With the word propaganda you denounce the sources that reported bad about him, indirectly speaking him free of his atrocities.

Comment:-

Let me clarify:-

Most people know that news reports tend to be biased and selective, seldom accurate. I know, as do others, that much of what is reported to us in the West about other people and even about their own citizens, and especially when they oppose Western interests and prejudices is propaganda.

What I said or meant was that in so far as the reports were true about Al-Zarqawi being behind sectarian murders and atrocities then justice may have been done by his execution. But note that there has been no trial except by the news media and that has never been accepted as Justice. The man was assassinated along with several other innocent people.

Was Al-Zarqawi a Muslim, one who submitted to Allah? I do not think so. A hypocrite probably. It is said that he was a criminal who found an outlet and justification for his criminal tendencies. It is also said that he was an embarrassment to resistance movement such as Al Quaida and his removal was seen as doing them a favour.

The interconnected points I wanted to convey was that:-

(1) Newspaper reports are one sided - we do not hear much about how the other side justifies itself. Judgement based on partial knowledge is, therefore, biased.

(2) Perhaps Al-Zarqawi's aim was not to create sectarian conflict as is claimed but to punish those who he saw as traitors, collaborators with the enemy invaders, or to make trouble for the invaders and force them out of Iraq where their continued presence is making things steadily worse. However, I think that even so his actions are not appropriate for several reasons:-

(a) His actions were morally wrong in that they were indiscriminately murderous and destructive and created chaos. Islam allows defence and retaliation against attackers but not aggression or military action against innocent non-combatants.

(b) The purpose of truly Islamic actions is for the sake of Allah, Islam or Muslims. He was not fighting in defence of Islam or of Muslims.

(c) His activities were killing many more Iraqis and probable Muslims than the invading enemies. He is doing what they are doing.

(d) He antagonises the majority of Muslims as well as others and loses support but gains opposition. He also gave a bad name to Islam and Muslims. However, there may be an indirect benefit in that his actions have drawn attention of non-Muslims to Islam and many study it more closely and are converted or achieve better understanding.

(e) He represents a small minority in Iraq which ought not to enforce its will or go against the majority.

(f) Muslims living in any community, Muslim or non-Muslim and benefiting from it are obliged to obey the rules of that community and to do nothing that harms it, but are required to fulfil their obligations to that community and to do what is good. They are forbidden to go into other communities for the purpose of causing disruption, sabotage and mischief. Nor are they allowed to persuade or encourage others to do opposite. However, Muslims, those who surrender to Allah, have a higher loyalty and obligation to Allah.

(g) Whereas the killing the soldiers of the invaders in self-defence or retaliation could be regarded as legitimate at a political level, at a higher spiritual level it can be regarded as unjustified on the grounds that these troops have been sent and are only doing the bidding of others and that had Muslims not been degenerate they would neither have been ruled by a tyrant nor been invaded and that these events are punishments from which they ought to learn a lesson, make the best of the situation, use their intelligence and take advantage of any opportunities to make improvements.

(h) Islam is "surrender" to the Will of Allah, and this has both an active and a passive side. It means (i) giving up, abandoning, relinquishing ones own ego, self-opinions, self-will, prejudices etc. It also means (ii) "acceptance" of what is given, though it also means (iii) obedience to His instructions. But apart from trying to achieve the goal Allah has set for us and the practice of the means by which these are to be achieved, there is also another catalytic or enabling side that depends on faith that the action itself may or may not be successful in its outward aim, but it does create conditions that will ultimately have a good effect irrespective of what we think these are or are not. It seems uncertain that any of these considerations apply in this case.

(i) The people seem to display unthinking reactions. It is not intelligent for those who are weak in physical strength to provoke those who are much stronger; they have to use other more intelligent means. An ant cannot fight an elephant physically and human beings did not achieve dominance over dinosaurs through brute force.

(j) It has to be understood that Islam, being surrender to God, is concerned with Truth, Compassion and Justice as these are attributes of God. It is these which will also define and establish Freedom, Democracy and Civilisation, terms that represent false ideals and are normally illusions, being misunderstood and misused.

(3) Al-Zarqawi and his gang are not the only ones that are murdering, injuring, torturing, destroying and terrorising, but all this is done by a much larger, better equipped and organised global organisation with the most sophisticated worldwide spying technology supported by a much more intense world-wide propaganda. It is an officially recognised and supported organisation. This also creates and supports and provokes the arising of other terrorist organisations. It also has puppets all over the world that control various governments.

(4) It is impossible that things can improve in the world unless this is recognised and something is done to oppose, dismantle this, instead of ignoring or concealing it or making excuses for it or for non-action.

(5) The desire in the West, particularly in the USA is a form of cultural imperialism that tries to impose its values on Muslims and other people. This inevitably provokes resistance and retaliation in ideas, motives and action. Muslims have their own value system which the West has to recognise.

(6) There is a much more fundamental problem which humanity must solve, that of narrow mindedness, intolerance and the accommodation of differences. The development of transport, communication and trade has shrunk the world and the increase in population has created congested such that people are ever more interdependent. This makes the problem increasingly urgent.

A Muslim:-

For over 50 years Israel has used superior military force to bully Muslims, and is now attacking Lebanon destroying bridges, roads and the infra-structure of the country killing hundreds of innocent people. This must now stop. I call upon all the nations of Islam to forget their differences and unite to organise a military response against Israel.

Comment:-

This is an idea that has occurred to many people and retaliation against aggression and tyranny is certainly a Muslim duty, provided it is just and effective. Dealing justly with others, making treaties and peace is also taught. Retaliation cannot be just if it is against reactions to injustice. And if retaliation is not effective then it will have no deterring effect, not may only encourage further acts of terrorism, oppression or injustice.

As far as one can see as an external observer, the two sides of this conflict are provoking each other to violence in a vicious circle, aided and abetted by foreign powers. Neither is able to put itself in the position of the other and has the sense to settle their mutual grievances in an intelligent manner to achieve peace.

However, the US Government is most probably behind these attacks. Certainly they are condoning Israeli action. And yet they say the others are terrorists!!!. Are they not obvious hypocrites? Those politicians and governments that order or condone the destruction of a country, killing innocent citizens and causing hundred of thousands to flee their homes in terror, or those who merely look on doing nothing are they not barbaric, criminal psychopaths? There appears to be no one to stand up against this aggression, except those hypocritically called “terrorists” by these cowards.

We notice from the news reports that it is entirely conveniently ignored that this present conflict began because an Israeli gunship shelled and killed some innocent Palestinians relaxing on a beech. Retaliation for this led to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. This is now used to justify a rampage of killing and destruction. So we see that perception is selective and one-sided and talking and negotiation is unlikely to work.

The fact is that power corrupts and Israel would not have embarked on this terrorism had it not felt relatively immune, not only because of its own military power produced by US aid, and the weakness of the opposition but also because of the promise of US backing. Israel wishes to broaden the conflict by accusing Syria and Iran of supporting and supplying the resistance movements of Hamas and Hezbollah, but neglects to mention the USA as their own supporters and suppliers. This suits the USA. It has been pointed out several times that all nations need Nuclear weapons as deterrents against the terrorist aggression by the US and its satellites.

The Muslim world is militarily weak and cannot respond. It is also divided and many of its rulers are either Western puppets or their self-interest is tied up with Western ones. Muslim opposition can, therefore, only come from private individuals who remain unorganised and inadequately financed and qualified. They are, therefore, relatively ineffective and their actions are suicidal, which reduces their number with little effect. They will have to develop a different kind of organisation that allows individual but co-ordinated initiative, undergo a period of training and learn new techniques.

All things tend to be interdependent in any culture and it is not generally possible to attain a goal just by acting on one particular facet of it without obtaining unpredictable and undesired side effects. It is usually a case weighing up good and evil consequences. Wars can be fought not just by means of armed confrontation, but also in more subtle ways and through infiltration and through political, economic, cultural, social, ideological and psychological means.

The better policy would be to bide their time, devote themselves to personal development, change their government, become independent and develop their education, organisation, science, industry and military strength. But this is a long term policy that may be obstructed or diverted by immediate events. It probably cannot be done unless Muslims return to Islam from which they can obtain the moral power, motivation and spiritual development.

There are many more evils in the world than only military, political and economic terrorism and injustice. There are also many other social, moral and psychological evils in the world. There appears to be little opposition against it. It is certainly a Muslim duty as Vicegerents to stand up against it. (3:103-104, 110). They are required to strive, to undertake Jihad against outer evils, but also those within their own community and within themselves, their own minds and soul.

And indeed, if they have no Objective Goal, is there any objective benefit if this or that community or nation wins or loses, dominates or is dominated? Does it make any difference to the World or Universe?

Question:-

There seems to be a turning point in the affairs of Iraq and the Middle East (December 2006). The criticism in the US by a committee of its leading citizens of the conduct of the war in Iraq by the Bush Administration and its recommendations for change appear to be a good thing. What do Muslims think - will it improve the situation in the Middle East?

Comment:-

As far as I can see not much has changed particularly in the attitude of the US President Bush. Both President Bush of the USA and Prime Minister Blair of Britain still appear to suffer from delusions about the real situation in the Middle East and their plans. They will, therefore, be quite unable to solve any real problems. They wish to win rather than discover and implement what is really possible, let alone what is useful or good. It is wholly unlikely that they will win either in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other place they want to invade. Things are likely to get worse. Their actions, as in Lebanon will probably be counter-effective, the reverse of what they wish to achieve.

The fact is that they are invaders and that they wish to impose their own ideas on others who have quite different values and goals. Whereas the invaders regard themselves as civilised, virtuous, champions of freedom, democracy and human rights, all this is denied by the victims and resisters, and the perception of many Muslims about them is almost the exact opposite.

They fail to understand that they are regarded as terrorists in the same way as they regard their opponents as terrorists. They will have to negotiate with those whom they call terrorists and who regard them as terrorists. But this they are not prepared to do.

But perhaps this will change on both sides and each will modify their ideas. Allah knows best.

----------<O>----------

Contents