islam – terrorism or tolerance?rmpckl.rmp.gov.my/journal/bi/civilisationterrorism.pdf · islam...

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


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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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,



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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”.

islam – terrorism or tolerance?rmpckl.rmp.gov.my/journal/bi/civilisationterrorism.pdf · islam...

Documents