ISLAM’S STAND ON TERRORISM

ISLAM’S STAND ON TERRORISM

Omar Dawood Kalinge-Nnyago

Abstract

Despite the considerable number of studies that have recently been dedicated to terrorism, they have not, so far, come up with a unified definition for this serious global phenomenon. Definitions have been diverse according to the available interpretations in the different times and places. This paper gives a background discussion on the term terrorism, by presenting the various definitions of the term and suggests possible causes of terrorism. It briefly gives an account the evolution of terrorism. It analyses the general Muslim perception of terrorism especially in light of the stereotypes that equate Muslims and Islam with terrorism. It examines specific texts of Islam for authentic positions of Islam on the subject and proposes possible roles and responsibilities for the East African Muslim community in combating religious (belief) inspired terrorism. It argues, that the exploitation of Islam by various types of extremists, who flaunt the principles of the Quran and the words and actions of Prophet Mohamed PBUH, has favored the confusion and the false image that some have of Islam, linking it to terrorism, although it is nothing else than a global phenomenon that is developing wherever the necessary conditions are present. It disagrees, that extremists have hijacked Islam. What they have hijacked are Muslim causes.                                 

What is terrorism?

Terrorism derives from Latin (terrere, to frighten). The word entered modern western vocabularies through the French language in the 14^th century. The first English usage was recorded in 1528.

Evolution of terrorism

Terrorism (and its latent cause - extremism), are not the new consequences imposed by historical evolutions and the misdeeds of urbanization. More than that, they represent men’s footprint at the beginning of their existence, as demonstrated by recent studies. They date back to the Roman era, when political crimes and terrorism were difficult to differentiate. Since, the world has been facing terrorism, as a means for feudal leaders to impose their authority onto the territories they administered and exercise their diktat on the slaves they used for diverse tasks. 

The beginning of the 19^th century, which consecrated the domination of European States on maritime sea routes, saw the multiplication of trade ships to deal with commercial transactions between the East and the West, leading, as a consequence, to the emergence of acts of maritime piracy, considered as a form of terrorism that continued until the 20^th century.

Plus, terrorism is neither linked to a specific religion nor to a particular nationality, as the phenomenon emerged in Latin America, in Europe (especially in Spain and Italy), and in Africa. For example, there were the Red Brigades in Italy, the Red Army in Japan, the Basque movement in Spain, the separatist militias in Ireland, and the militias in Central and South America.

It is then plausible that acts of terror, which ignore international regulations relative to human rights and international regulations, are not linked to Islam, which preaches for tolerance, respect of the other, and condemns violence and hatred in accordance with the Quran which commands Muslims to preach Islam with intelligence, conviction and to strive for the utmost values.

During the last few years, the exploitation of Islam by various types of extremists, who ignore the principles of the Quran, Sunna and of the Prophet Mohamed PBUH, favored the confusion and the false image that some have of Islam, linking it to terrorism, although it is nothing else than a global phenomenon that is developing wherever the necessary conditions are present. (CAI, 2016).

The definitions

One 1998 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using the term, opting instead for less accusatory words like ‘bombers’, ‘militants,’ ‘extremists’.

Among the different definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups.

Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.  The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determination when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate.

The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.

Edward Peck former U.S. head of Mission in Iraq and Ambassador to Mauritania expressed the following opinion:

“In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force or Terrorism, they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government.

We produced about six, and in each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.” He adds: “….. Yes, well, certainly you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours (USA) is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder”. (Wikipedia, 2006).

Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity has this to say on the word “terrorism”:

“There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as ‘the use or threat of serious violence’ to advance some kind of a ‘cause’. Some state clearly the kinds of group (‘sub-national’, ‘non-state’) or cause (political, ideological, religious). To which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men (and women) armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism, is, after all a tactic not an ideology (emphasis mine). The term ‘war on terrorism’ is thus effectively nonsensical”. (Al Qaeda, Ch 2, p. 22)

Most groups called ‘terrorist’ deny such accusations. No organization has been known to openly call itself terrorist. Many groups call their enemies ‘terrorist’. The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.

Let us for the sake of this paper look at 4 definitions that have gained much currency.

Webster’s University Dictionary:

Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

U.S. Department of Defense

The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate government or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

U.S. State Department

(International) terrorism is terrorism conducted with the support of a foreign government or organisation and/or directed against foreign nationals, institutions or governments

FBI

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Importance of Definition

Until a working definition is agreed to internationally, the problem of state sponsored terrorism and terrorist vs freedom fighter will not be resolved. It is only once nations can agree on who is a terrorist and what is terrorism that the extradition of people accused of terrorism between nations can proceed.

Only an internationally accepted definition of ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ can result in the reduction of tensions between nations in solving international crises.

What are the possible reasons for the emergence of terrorism?

To understand the possible reasons for the emergence of terrorism, one has to first seek to understand the purpose of terrorism, but also the nature of terrorism.

Terrorism has principles, the most important are four:

·         The end justifies the means: no matter how horrific the act, it is justifiable to the terrorists as a means to achieve their goals.

·         Common concepts of law, ethics and morality, logic or religion do not apply to terrorists.

·         The creation of terror, mass hysteria and to demonstrate the powerlessness of government are all designed to force submission to the terrorist goals.

·         Terrorists do not view themselves as terrorists.

Terrorists may or may not have the ability to carry out their act. If the terrorists does not have the ability to carry out an act, they only need to convince you that they have the ability to (hoax). Sometimes by forcing the government to take protective measures the terrorist can gain publicity and affect the public without actually launching an attack.

Terrorism and propaganda

When non-state terrorism in its modern form was invented in the second half of the 19^th century, it was known as ‘propaganda by the deed’. The invention of dynamite in 1867 and the perfection of the rotating (printing) press (1881) which gave rise to mass media were both utilised by 19^th century terrorists for revolutionary and anarchist propaganda. Peter Kropotkin, one of the anarchist theorists, admitted that a few kilos of dynamite could not demolish the historical structures created over thousands of years. Yet as propaganda, terrorism could be effective. By actions which compel general attention, Kropotkin argued, “the new idea seeps into people’s minds and wins converts. One such act may, in a few days, make more propaganda than a thousand pamphlets. Above all it awakens the spirit of revolt”. (Peter Kropotkin, 1977).

Terrorism cannot be understood only in terms of violence. It has to be understood also, and sometimes primarily, in terms of propaganda. Violence and propaganda have much in common. Violence aims at behaviour modification by coercion. Propaganda aims at the same by persuasion. Terrorism can be seen as a combination of the two. Terrorism, by using violence against one victim or sample of victims, seeks to coerce and persuade others. The immediate victim is merely instrumental, like the skin on a drum beaten to achieve a calculated impact on a wider audience (Schmid and de Graaf, 1982).

Causes and motives of terrorism

Terrorism is not an accidental phenomenon. It is the result of different causes and motives, some of which are personal, others have a collective incentive.

First, the personal incentives. Acts of terrorism can be triggered by personal motives which can be summarized with the following:

·         Psychological causes. Studies show that the development of the human body and mind, emotional reactions, and an unhealthy social background have a direct link with terrorist acts. Other analysis have come to the conclusion that most terrorists’ behaviors present similarities, such as problems in their childhoods, withdrawal, conflictual family relationships especially with parents, and giving up on relationships with friends, etc.

·         Political causes. It is possible that acts of terrorism are motivated by political incentives, as terrorist attacks raise the target’s attention. In general, the recourse to acts of terror for political reasons is a response to the practices of dictatorial regimes, the usurpation of citizens’ rights and denial of freedom.

·         Causes motivated by communication. With the important development of new technologies of information and communication, terrorists now possess the necessary means to raise awareness on their acts, plead their cause, expose their conditions and negotiate the release of their hostages, etc. Plus, by covering acts of terrorism, media contributes to making terrorists heroes, which inspires some to emulate their acts.  This is what we are witnessing today with the influx of thousands of young people towards the “Islamic State”, Daesh, following the media reports that show their military conquests. Deprivations, injustice and repression in some countries most probably also contribute to this influx of young people.

Second, the social environment causes: This designates the motives that make the social environment on which one lives have a negative impact and facilitates one’s incline towards terrorism. These motives can be motivated by economic, political, historical, ethnical and ideological reasons.

Economic motives: poverty, destitution and the gap between the poor and rich of the world motivate the desperate individual’s feeling of discomfort that can lead to heinous behaviors towards society. This situation of despair, developed in an environment characterized by the absence of social justice and unfair distribution of wealth, can trigger unhealthy behaviors that can degenerate into terrorist acts.

Social motives: These are the motives linked to individuals’ living conditions; broken families are fertile ground where family conflicts and ignorance dominate, exposing children to all sorts of frustrations. This situation leads to deviant behaviors and to the possibility for terrorist groups to exploit these young people, exploitation made possible by the absence of the educating role of the family and school, but also by unemployment, etc. As a result, these elements create the ideal conditions to raise terrorists’ interest in these lost and abandoned young people.

Historical motives: It is possible that historical events and attempts of vengeance are powerful motives for the recourse to terrorism. Many examples could be cited to illustrate this point.

Ethnic motives: These kinds of motives manifest themselves when an ethnic group seizes power in a multicultural country.

Ideological motives: It is also possible that ethnic or religious reasons explain the use of terrorist acts and extremism in an attempt to impose one’s extremist vision on society. This ambition translates into the willingness, by any means, to seize the reins of power in order to impose one’s societal project. It is also possible that ideological indoctrination and religious fanaticism can lead those who are lost to use violence and undertake terrorist acts with the un-avowed aim to impose the principles they support onto society.  This conviction can lead them to want to seize power by force to impose their will on all.

How do Muslims in East Africa perceive terrorism?

                           No study on Muslim perceptions on terrorism has been conducted in East Africa. However an interesting 2011 study conducted at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia funded by the Japan-ASEAN integrated Fund (JAIF) and published by Canadian Center of Science and Education - entitled “Perception and Attitudes toward Terrorism in a Muslim Majority Country” is instructive. Malaysia was chosen as a case study since it is a multi-religious and multiracial country, yet Islam is an official religion. Muslims represent roughly 60% of total population. Constitutionally, the Malays, the largest ethnic group, are Muslim. Other major ethnic groups include the Chinese, Indians, Iban, and Kadazan. Most of them are Buddhist, Hindus, or Christians. Hence, the study can further to our understanding of how the general public in a Muslim majority country, with substantial non-Muslim populations perceives political violence and terrorism. At the same time, investigated factors that affecting those attitudes and perceptions.  

The study concluded that Malaysian public in general do not support or condone terrorism. Interestingly, however, in general, Malaysians, do believe in aggression as a way to solve conflicts. The study also indicates that the male respondents are more aggressive in their attitude compared to that of their female counterparts. As far as education level is concerned, the less-educated and the better-educated individuals do not differ in their attitudes towards the acts of terror. The findings also reveal that the Malay-Muslim respondents exhibit more aggressive attitudes as compared to their non-Malay and non-Muslim counterparts. Interest in politics also has a significant effect on one’s attitude towards the acts of terror. It is evident in the study conducted that those who have inclination towards politics tend to be more aggressive in their behaviour. This finding does not come as a surprise. Since, terrorism is politically-motivated, it is fair to suggest here that politically-inclined persons tend to express more aggressive attitude. Similar line of argument also explains why religiously inclined individuals tend to be more aggressive in their attitudes.

                           Since terrorism is also religiously-motivated, it is not surprising to expect that more religiously inclined individuals tend to be more aggressive in their attitudes. The Malaysian public also seems to have a low level of trust on media, both local and foreign, as far as reporting on terrorism is concerned. The fact that this variable is negatively correlated with PERCTERROR Perception on political violence or terrorism suggests that the more they trust the media, the greater would be their frustration as well as their support for terrorism, vice-versa.

                           Perceptions of Muslim in East Africa don’t vary much despite being a minority group. They abhor terrorism and are upset that the media seems to often equate their religion to terrorism and profiles Muslims as terrorist risks.

What is Islam’s position on acts of terrorism?

                           The main sources of Islamic Law and guidance are the Quran and the authentic ahadith (plural of Hadith) - (sayings) of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

                           Islam’s position on terrorism can only be derived, as it is not mentioned by that name in both texts. The closest to the concept of terrorism is hirabah which is  forbidden in Islamic law. Hirabah describes a wide range of undesirable actions including brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power.  

                           To examine the position of Islam on terrorism therefore, is to seek to understand what the two texts say about the motives, effects, results or the impact of terrorism.

Islam distinguishes between acts of aggression and defence. Muslims should never be seen to attack other nations, except in self-defence, which is a right and an obligation. Even in defence, indiscriminate harm to non-combatants in sinful in Islam. Nothing justifies the taking of an innocent life.

Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “…and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e., murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). Further, Qur’an  5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-Qur’an, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.

The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah.”

Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months’ notice.

The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” - Qur’an 5:8

The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.

Quran 5:69 says : “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, who so believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”

In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell– quite the opposite.

When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say: in Qur’an 5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”

So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.

What role can East African Muslim play in preventing terrorism?

East Africa occupies a strategic geopolitical position. We live along and on the Indian Ocean. Land locked Uganda has been described as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism mainly from the Sudan. Our proximity to the Horn of Africa is important. The rise of the “Islamists” in Somalia and the increasing Islamic tendencies in Ethiopia and Eritrea all combine to put our region in the spotlight in so far as religiously inspired terrorism is concerned.

Dar es Salaam, Nairobi and Kampala have, I over the years experienced terror attacks at different times. 

It is important that East African Muslims;

·         Preach peace, tolerance and justice at all times to all people

·         Condemn Violence from whoever perpetrates it : be it Muslim or non-Muslim

·         Constantly engage non-Muslims in dialogue and promote inter-religious and inter cultural understanding

·         Support every effort that would cause a change in policy of Western countries, and encourage good thinking like Tony Blair’s recent activism on the Middle East.

·         Vigorously counter any effort to brand Islam a terror belief and Muslims as terrorists however subtly it is done, for this is the most pronounced objective of the war on terror.

·         Engage Western foreign missions in East Africa in purposive dialogue and exchanges, with a view to understanding each other’s position and to influencing their governments to review their “terror breeding” policies especially in the Middle East.

·         Encourage their community to participate in democratic processes at all levels and instil a culture of democratic governance.

·         Establish new and strengthen faith based civil society initiatives to be agents of change and tolerance.

·         Establish youth and women training facilities for leadership, governance, human rights and entrepreneurship.

·         Establish community information centres to disseminate local and global news, and useful information

·         Establish think tanks to aid in policy formulation and research on community needs, assess threats and opportunities and find ways of steering the Muslim community through these turbulent and competitive times, occasioned by international propagandists and the activities of agents of globalisation.

·         Establish their own print and electronic media to inform their communities correctly and to counter any negative propaganda against Islam and Muslims.

·         Through civil their society organisations encourage practical inter-cultural exchanges (especially among young people) between East African Muslims and Muslims.

·         Campaign vigorously and relentlessly against violence as a solution to political problems.

Conclusion

Islam condemns acts of terror. During the last few years, however, the exploitation of Islam by various types of extremists, who flaunt the principles Islam favored the confusion and the false image that some have of Islam, linking it to terrorism, although it is nothing else than a global phenomenon that is developing wherever the necessary conditions are present. We do not agree that extremists have hijacked Islam. What they have hijacked are Muslim causes.

Bibliography:

CC O’Brien. Passion and Cunning: Essays on Nationalism, Terrorism and Revolution. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1989.

D. M. Condit. Modern Revolutionary Warfare: Kensington, Md., American Institute for Research, 1973.

Mao Tse-tung. On Guerrilla warfare. New York, Praeger, 1961.

B. Rubin (Ed). The Politics of Terrorism: Terror as a State Revolutionary Strategy. Washington, D.C., Foreign Policy Institute, 1989.

S. Plegg. One’s Terrorist is Another’s Blockbuster: Political Terrorism in American versus European Films. The New England Journal of Political Science, Summer 2003.

A. Jacobs. Talking to Islamists? : the Transatlantic Debate over Islamist Parties in the Middle East. American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, 2006.

A. El-Affendi. Blowing Up Airplanes is Wrong. The Muslim News, London, August 2006.

O.D. Kalinge-Nnyago. Cartoongate: Danish Prime Minister should resign. The Weekly Message, Kampala, April 2006.

B. Crozier. The Rebels. London Chatto and Windus, 1960.

A. P. Schmid and J. de Graaf. Violence as Communication. London, Sage, 1982.

P. Kropoktin. The Spirit of Revolt.  Ze’ev Iviansky Individual Terror: Concept and Typology. Journal of Contemporary History, 1977

N.O’Sullivan (Ed.) Terrorism, Idelology and Revolution. Boulder, Westview Press, 1986.

A.P. Schmid, A. J. Jongman et al., Political Terrorism:  A new Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Databases, Theories, and Literature. Centre for International Affairs, Havard University. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing, 1988.

Wikipedia, 2006; Internet Resources

http://www.comitatoatlantico.it/en/studi/counter-terrorism-challenges-and-perspectives/Comitato Atlantico Italiano © 2016

K. Abdullah, Perception and Attitudes toward Terrorism in a Muslim Majority Country  Universiti Utara Malaysia, Published April 1, 2012. This article is based on a research project funded by the Japan-ASEAN integrated Fund (JAIF) and is registered at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) under a code number, SK/32/2008/GLAK