| By Laila307,
on 02-04-2006 23:21
|
Views : 2017  |
Favoured : 67 |
Published in : , Articles |
“They are hurting my people, killing them and disrespecting Islam! . . . They make fun of my Muslim brothers and sisters!”
I ask, “Who is?”
“They are motherf**kers; tell your people to get out. I will not talk to you any more, you are American. Tell your military to get out."
Introduction
The conversation above is real, conducted with a young man in the Iraqi Army in Baghdad. I have known this man for approximately one year, conversing with him over Yahoo! Messenger. When we first started talking he was very positive and upbeat; he had visions of a new Iraq and a lot of pride to be training and working with the U.S. forces.
Over time, though, a transformation has taken place. Now he is trapped. Insurgents and other Sunnis consider him a traitor. Due to the horrors of combat reality, unfulfilled promises by the United States concerning his education, and fears of his personal safety, this young man is unable to return to his hometown and family. Nothing I could say to him could soothe his heart. He is in the middle of an individual, social, and psychological transformation. I have not heard from him since our last conversation and can only pray this transformation does not ultimately end in an act of terrorism. He has become a victim of the circle of fear, of threats, and of terrorism perpetrated by various groups and individuals in different contexts. His situation is a small but graphic example of a person whose life has been directly touched by transnational political and interreligious conflict.
Since September 11, many studies and writings on terrorism have appeared. This paper has been inspired by conversations I have had with people around the world via the Internet during the past five years. While most of these individuals have been Muslim, I have also participated in conversations with individuals who support far-right beliefs of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Over the course of these conversations, I have witnessed the transformation of people’s beliefs and lives. I have seen individuals’ lives being torn in different directions, both positive and negative. A few people I spoke with have moved towards Islamic insurgency and terrorism as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Others have gone to the Christian far-right, justifying war against anyone who does not believe what they do.
The objective of this paper is to develop a better understanding of what terrorism is—and is not—and to compare the definition of insurgency with the “conflict strategy” of terrorism. This includes exploring the different definitional concepts of terrorism, a brief history of terrorism, and the use of fear as a conflict strategy to affect collective thought within the political and religious frameworks of the Abrahamic religions. The creation of fear is the most immediate aim of terrorism; but this fear can be directly or indirectly psychological, symbolic, or a physical tool for controlling mass targets. Individuals, organizations, governments, religious groups, and the mass media can further nurture this fear—and can even be manipulated by terrorist groups to further propagate terror.
To begin this investigation, we must first examine the current definitions of terrorism and explore how these definitions fail to conform to an agreed-upon, international standard.
Definitions of Terrorism
A major issue surrounding terrorism is its definition. As of March 2005, there isn’t a global consensus defining the method, act, or nature of terrorism. Both the United States and the United Nations have different views and definitions. The U.S. definition places terrorism in a political context while the United Nations has four different “proposed” definitions and has yet to reach a conclusion concerning these definitions (see Appendix 1).
According to the U.S. State Department,
The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country. The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
Furthermore, in the State Department’s definition of terrorism is a footnote addressing the definition of “combatant targets,” including “military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty.” Despite differences between definitions of terrorism offered by the United States, the United Nations, and other countries and cultures, the idea of political motivation is consistent.
Although political motivations may or may not exist, some religious terrorist organizations deem their acts as being religiously motivated. In order to fully understand the background of terrorism, we must temporarily suspend our experience, education, beliefs, and perceptions and step into “their reality.” I am not asking the reader to be sympathetic to groups that embrace terrorism—but empathic—in order to understand the method of terrorism, the use of fear as a conflict strategy, and the transformation of moderate, religious individuals, who have been pulled into different organizations that utilize these methods. It is, after all, their perceptions of reality that motivates their behavior.
Based on extensive interviews, Jessica Stern’s Terror in the Name of God is a valuable resource for understanding different Abrahamic faith terrorist groups. Highlighting her own use of empathy as part of a research methodology, Stern notes that “it is important to point out that empathy does not necessarily imply sympathy. To empathize is ‘to understand and to share the feelings of other,’ without necessarily having feelings of pity or sorrow for their misfortunes, agreeing with their sentiment or opinions, or having a favorable attitude toward them—the feelings that define sympathy.”
Taking in consideration the social, psychological, political, and religious elements of terrorism, in this paper I will draw upon yet another definition, proposed by D. J. Hanle. “Terror,” he writes, “is an intense paralyzing fear, or the dread of it. Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to create terror through a symbolic act involving the use or threat of abnormal lethal force for the purpose of influencing a target group or individual.” We must also keep in mind that the threat of violence is also a form of terrorism.
Although there is not an accepted, universal definition of terrorism, terror has been utilized as a conflict strategy for thousands of years.
A Brief History of Terrorism
Since September 11, there has been an explosion of media coverage on terrorism, but terrorism itself is not new. Ancient historical sources reveal that terrorism existed two thousand years ago during the time of Jesus. The extreme religious organization, Zealots-Sicarri, was known for assassinating its opponents with daggers. Jews who were opposed to the war against Rome were targeted. A Greek philosopher referred to psychological terrorism as “psychological warfare against enemy populations.” The word zealot is defined as “a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too.”
One of the first uses of “biological weaponry” in the history of terrorism dates to the times of the Black Death in the fourteenth century. While little known to most readers, this horrific and tragic plague actually began with a terrorist act. Gabriele de’ Mussi, a historian and notary at the time, wrote about the Black Plague and how the Mongols—sick and dying with the plague themselves—ordered the stricken bodies to be thrown into the Crimean city of Caffa:
The dying Tartars, stunned and stupefied by the immensity of the disaster brought about by the disease, and realizing that they had no hope of escape, lost interest in the siege. But they ordered corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the city in the hope that the intolerable stench would kill everyone inside. What seemed like mountains of dead were thrown into the city, and the Christians could not hide or flee or escape from them, although they dumped as many of the bodies as they could in the sea.
“State-sponsored terrorism” dates back to the Roman emperors Tiberius (reigned C.E. 14–37) and Caligula (reigned C.E. 37–41). In our own time, the Ba’thist party reign of terror in Iraq offers a contemporary example of state-sponsored terrorism. But terrorism is not a conflict strategy limited to political states or large organizations. The Washington Metro area “sniper shootings” of 2002 demonstrates how a very small group of individuals—in this case, two people—can inspire feelings of fear and terror in a large population. It is precisely this aspect of terrorism—the ability of small groups to inspire fear and capture media attention on a massive scale—that makes terror an appealing conflict strategy to groups that otherwise feel powerless.
Definition of Insurgency versus Terrorism
It is important to distinguish between the terms insurgency and terrorism and the terms insurgent and terrorist. The media frequently refers to the perpetrators of violence in Iraq as “insurgents.” But there are both insurgency and terrorism movements in Iraq at this time. Insurgency simply refers to a political movement that utilizes different methods to confront or change the policies of governments or organizations. The intentions of the groups and individuals provide clarity. Terrorism is a violent, fear-producing method or strategy to force change, which highlights the actual difference between a mere insurgent and a bona fide terrorist. An article posted on Terrorism Research differentiates between insurgency and terrorism in the following way:
Ultimately, the difference between insurgency and terrorism comes down to the intent of the actor. Insurgency movements and guerilla forces can adhere to international norms regarding the law of war in achieving their goals, but terrorists are by definition conducting crimes under both civil and military legal codes. Terrorists routinely claim that were they to adhere to any “law of war” or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence, it would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the establishment.
The Department of Defense’s official definition describes an insurgency as “an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.”
Terrorism: A Conflict Strategy of Fear
Terrorism is a conflict method or strategy that strives to evoke fear. Fear is generated in an attempt to force change in the target. Terrorist targets can be actual people, groups, or symbolic objects such as a building or a historic structure. By striking these objects as targets of violence, terrorists hope to precipitate a widespread fear in society.
Terrorism today focuses on a large-scale, civilian population; and, indeed, much of the terrorism experienced in the West after September 11 has induced psychological fear. Drawing upon the inevitable coverage that follows—both by conventional and Internet media—terrorists have utilized modern technology to instill fear in U.S. citizens. Religious movements, further dividing the Abrahamic faiths, have contributed to an escalation of fear.
Recent Responses to Terrorism in National Policy and in the Thought of Abrahamic Religious Groups
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, a wide-range of responses have been seen—both in U.S. national policy and the rhetoric of Abrahamic religious groups. In this section, we will explore these responses and compare them, too, with responses generated by the Ba’thist reign of terror in Iraq.
i. Responses in U.S. National Policy after September 11
With the overnight passing of the USA PATRIOT Act only forty-five days after September 11, 2001, one might wonder if this Act was written and planned years ahead of time. Pushed through quickly and in record time, a great deal of controversy surrounds the act, which bears the following, complete title: The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. As of this writing, the Department of Justice is expected to petition for further powers in PATRIOT Act II. Concerning the first PATROIT Act, the American Civil Liberties Union made the following observations:
Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records . . . and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
Surveillance, privacy issues, and discrimination dominates public concern over the PATRIOT Act. Lawsuits, unwarranted detentions, profiling, and other incidents have increase in number following the passage of this Act.
The September 11, 2001 attacks were the result of an outside terrorist force; but the root issues that inspired these attacks have not been adequately addressed in public discourse. These terrorist acts generated fear and inspired various transformations to take place both in the American psyche and in the public and political arenas. These changes include the creation of the PATRIOT Act, various watch-dog groups such as “citizen corps and councils,” the newly developed Department of Homeland Security, and changes that have affected all law enforcement agencies.
In Bradley Olson’s article, “Applied Social and Community Interventions for Crisis in Times of National and International Conflict,” he describes the communal thought, discourse, and action of people in terms of the concept of “locomotion.” Although he applies locomotion to “positive helping behaviors, and restraining factors when this momentum leads to potentially dangerous responses to the conflict,” I also believe that this theory applies to the locomotion—or run-away train of fearful transformation and negative response—in reaction to terrorist attacks.
The role of religion has been another factor at play in the mass transformation of collective thought taking place after September 11.
The U.S. political process can possibly be seen as drawing upon certain religious beliefs as a way of underscoring—and perhaps even inspiring—political ideologies and programs. The most recent and publicly recognized impact of this phenomenon was witnessed during the presidential elections in November 2004. The question remains as to why so many Evangelists, Catholics, and other Christians voted for Bush and his administration. The stated “moral” and “value” issues stressed in media analyses of the elections were important, as this is a bedrock of Christian belief. But it also seems that a not-always-subtle appeal to religious ideology was used to sway voters and the political process.
In addition to the question of moral values, there now appears to be an Abrahamic religious “shadow war” taking place between the Judeo–Christian “Western world” and the “Muslim world,” at least in the subtext of some political discourse. This theory is based on an inner, core belief of the extremist, fundamentalist movements of the Abrahamic faiths—and speculative beliefs of certain Jewish and Christian sects, which indicate that the past three years are the start of Armageddon. Many Muslims also believe that all of the minor signs of the “Last Days” have come to pass in accordance with the Islamic prophecies, the signs of al-Qiyâmah, the Day of the Reckoning. Dispensationalist Christians and other extremist Zionist Jewish and Christian groups have quite openly targeted “Islam” as the enemy. This can be seen in the writings of authors ranging from Anne Coulter and Daniel Pipes to Hal Lindsey. I believe that people are being influenced by the worldviews of these movements, both openly and in more subliminal ways, which has the effect of polarizing opinion along sectarian lines, rather than encouraging more serious inquiry and understanding. That something like this has occurred was reflected both in the presidential election and some recent opinion polls, as we shall see.
ii. Response in the Judeo–Christian Zionist Movement
The extreme strands of Judeo-Christian Zionist “collective thought” in the United States are growing. What started as a small fundamentalist group, evangelical Christians now represent the single largest religious group in the United States. Moreover, this ideology may be beginning to influence individuals who do not consciously identify themselves as part of this movement.
CBS news reported, “For Christians who interpret the Bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.” In this article, Ed McAteer—a major supporter of the Christian Zionist movement, who is sometimes called “the Godfather of the Religious Right”—is quoted as saying, “I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless [sic].” This is an incredibly strong public statement.
During an interreligious conference held in Washington, D.C. in November 2004, a discussion took place between the clergies and people of the Abrahamic faiths concerning the best-selling Left Behind series of Christian books. The worldview set forth in this series of books promotes a literal belief that Armageddon is near. Encouraged by this series, a large number of Christian readers are relying upon this belief as a trustworthy guide to unfolding, contemporary events. In addition to the books and movies developed, which instill fear through Christian–Armageddon propaganda, there is an extensive marketing effort behind the Left Behind series that includes games, forums, clubs, and “gift products.”
Melani Mcalister, in her article “An Empire of their Own,” describes the polarization encouraged by the Judeo–Christian apocalyptic movement, through analysis of the Left Behind:
Left Behind also highlights something important about the way mass culture works. Rather than creating a homogenized McWorld, as so many critics have claimed, popular culture can and does reinforce ideological and cultural divisions, fostering sharp distinctions between communities. The evangelical population in the United States is becoming more numerous, more politicized—particularly around foreign policy—and more powerful than ever before. This transformation is as much cultural as political; or rather, it is inextricably both at once.
One wonders if this process parallels that of the Ba’thist movement, which was also slowly but surely taking over the hearts and minds of the masses until it was too late. This question is also raised by issues surrounding the 2004 U.S. presidential elections and highlighted by various analyses of public opinion.
In analysis of the 2004 election exit polls conducted by Beliefnet, a credible source of religious news, we see the issues broken down. The top concerns of Christian voters were terrorism, moral values, and the gay and lesbian issue. While the core religious group was overwhelmingly the evangelical, including the fundamentalist Christian right, by banding together on these central issues, many other Christian voters—including Catholics and Protestants—were drawn in to create a Republican victory.
The statistics are broken down by candidate, as seen in Figure 1. Another poll taken by Beliefnet, with the support of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found that that 81 percent of the fundamental, evangelical Christian leaders say it is “very important” to evangelize Muslims in other countries (see Figure 2). Furthermore, 77 percent have an unfavorable view of Islam, and the poll offers other startling perceptions about Muslims: 71 percent do not believe Islam is a religion of peace; 66 percent believe Islam is trying to dominate world; and 72 percent believe Islam is a religion of violence. Additionally, back in April 2004—long before Osama bin Laden’s tape came out and long before the major campaigning of the 2004 election began—over 45 percent of respondents believed that “the war against terrorism is basically a war between the West and Islam.”
Other articles discuss the views of the fundamentalist Evangelicals. A May 2003, New York Times article, “Seeing Islam as ‘Evil’ Faith, Evangelicals Seek Converts,” discusses the views behind this movement. As author Linda Goodstein points out,
The sharp language, from religious leaders like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has drawn rebukes from Muslims and Christian groups alike. Mr. Graham called Islam ‘a very evil and wicked religion’ and Mr. Vines called Muhammad, Islam’s founder and prophet, a ‘demon-possessed pedophile.’
In response, professor Akbar Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University, states, “The whole range of Muslims, from orthodox to liberal secularists, are all lined up against these attacks coming from the American evangelists.” Dr. Ahmed, the author of a new book, Islam Under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World, notes that, “Unwittingly, these evangelists have unleashed a consolidation of sentiments for Islam. Even the most moderate Muslims have been upset by this.”
Terrorism was a top issue in the presidential election; and based on the September 11 attacks, the source of terrorism has been broadly equated with “Islam” in popular thought. ABC ran a poll back in September 2003, in which over 50 percent of Americans believed that Islam was not a religion of peace. The most dramatic evidence of this trend comes from Franklin Graham, who delivered the invocation at President Bush’s 2000 inauguration. As Steve Waldman notes, “Graham has been one of the most strident critics of Islam, calling it a ‘very evil and wicked religion.’” In an interview with Mary Alice Williams from Religious and Ethics Newsweekly, Graham is quoted saying, “This nation has been attacked, we’ve been attacked by men who claim to worship Allah. We have been attacked by a people, a group, in the name of Islam, and the clerics, the religious leaders of Islam have not denounced it.”
Islamist Movements
Islamic leaders, mullahs, and other religious leaders did, in fact, denounce the attacks. But certain self-styled “Islamic” movements do play a role in “the quest for the Great Battle”; and the ideologies of these groups, without question, have the effect of leading to greater divisions in the world. As Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda group has become more visible over the past 20 years, other organizations with similar ideologies have also grown more widespread and powerful.
One of the Islamic reformers who has influenced radical “Islamist” extremist groups was the Egyptian born and Western educated writer, Sayyid Qutb. Some Muslims have left traditional Islam to follow his teachings, which has encouraged the development of radical Salafism and Wahhabism over the last decades. This is somewhat ironic, as Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood, which his writings helped to inspire, were originally influenced by some aspects of Sufi thought. But as Nasser’s persecution of the Brotherhood intensified, many of the original founders became more radicalized.
Similarly, other smaller sects are developing and transforming radical theories and practices, which parallel the Judeo–Christian movement, into reality, with their emphasis on the Great Battle—the term used for Armageddon in Islamic teachings. This has come to the surface especially in Iraq and Syria, which are often considered to be the location of Jûj (Gog) and Majûj (Magog). Mentioned in both the Bible and the Qur’an, the Qur’an refers to Gog and Magog as the site of the last Great Battle: “Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill” (21:96).
Iraq, Syria, and parts of Iran are pictured as the site of the Great Battle or Armageddon—a belief that plays into current events via all three Abrahamic religions. As of this writing, insurgents and terrorists are converging in Syria for violent actions in Iraq. Extensive published research indicates that many people in the far-right wings of the three Abrahamic religions believe that current events in Iraq—and those of the past ten years—are signs of the coming “End.”
Peter Bergen explores the Islamic side of this belief in his book, Holy War, Inc. He quotes bin Laden’s statement from 1998, that “despite major destruction to the Iraqi people at the hand of the Christian alliance and the great number of victims exceeding one million, Americans are trying once again to repeat these horrible massacres as if they are not satisfied. . . .We also call upon Muslim scholars, their faithful leaders, young believers, and soldiers to launch a raid on the American soldiers of Satan and their allies of the Devil.”
Another rumor is circulating about the status of bin Laden. Some Muslims believe he is al-Mahdî (“the guided one”), who will come back with Isa (Jesus), and that this is a sign of the Armageddon. Many articles have circulated concerning this issue, including Joseph Farah’s article, “Is Bin Laden the ‘Mahdi’?”:
If bin Ladin—or some other Islamist leader—were to declare himself the Mahdi, should that make a difference to American policy makers? . . . the spread of Mahdist belief in the contemporary Sunni Muslim ethos, wedded to resentment against dire socioeconomic conditions, repressive political regimes, and Western and Christian global dominance, practically ensures that Mahdism will at some point erupt. When it does, it will threaten not only the Islamic world, but very possibly the entire world. This is an eventuality for which the United States would do well to prepare.
Underlying all this are the political–economic dimensions of terrorism, ranging from individuals to the terrorist organizations. What may have started as a religious ideology has also been transformed into a source of economic prosperity for the middle and upper level management figures of terrorist groups. Men who enter these organizations, like the ones entering Iraq from other countries, think that they are going to help the Iraqi people by fighting what they see as a foreign occupation. This thought is based on propaganda by the terrorist organizations through the use of media, the Internet, and the manipulation of collective opinion. U.S. and European media unwittingly contribute to this constant feed of negativity by not reporting the positive developments happening in Iraq to the rest of the world.
The men who join terrorist groups commonly possess insecurities and fears; they see the world changing, and have concerns about their future, including economic survival. Many of the terrorists have a good education; yet, because of the poor economies in their own countries, they are unable to obtain gainful employment. Subconsciously, in joining a terrorist organization, they justify their anger and feel they can control their lives and destiny. They use the veil and deception of this “Holy War” to justify their situation and actions. They really do believe they are aiding both the Iraqi people and Islam. I have painfully watched some of these men, recorded on videotapes after capture, come out of this distorted nightmare, like a person waking up from a bad hangover. Yet their realization of the horror and errors they have committed cannot possibly rectify the tremendous losses, hardships, and fear they have inflicted on the Iraqi people.
Not all of the terrorists, however, are “deceived” into an altered reality. For middle and upper management, contributions of money are flowing in from around the world, and “the terror effort” is a corporate enterprise. At the lower levels, the individuals involved in suicide bombings and other terrorist activities are expendable to support the lifestyles of the upper ranks.
How can the Islamic tradition itself help to remove this veil of deception from the worldviews and collective thought patterns of the extremists?
First comes prevention, and that involves many countries and system-wide reforms; it includes the reformation of economies and meeting the human needs of all individuals. The use of al-jadal (dialogue) and transformative da’wah al-hewar, described at the end of this paper, represents a leading approach in transforming terrorists. Other preventive measures include simplified peacebuilding programs and activities in schools and community centers, educating youth in peace and nonviolence. It is imperative that these measures are developed further and implemented in educational systems. A proposed Islamic School of Dialogue and Peacebuilding and an International Islamic Center for Global Peace would be important first steps in this process.
As we have seen, religious beliefs and media propaganda inspire people and organizations to actively transform their beliefs and theories into action through political and economic means, and through systems of military and terrorist activity. And their goal is to continue transforming their beliefs and ideologies into reality-based action on a widespread scale.
The complex events of the past three years—the Iraq War and beliefs in the “Abrahamic Armageddon”—have further intensified the elements of fear and the need for additional safeguards, such as the PATRIOT Act II. The American people are told that their freedoms are being protected from the enemy through implementing additional measures of surveillance and privacy invasion. Stories and warnings about “the enemy” and the “War on Terrorism” are broadcast each day throughout the media.
Despite intense media attention, there is remarkable lack of news coverage about positive developments taking place in Iraq. For the most part, scenes of bombings and fighting are reported. Dialogue and conferences supporting peace are not considered to be newsworthy. Thus, the media is marketing, in a one-sided way, the collective fear-consciousness quite effectively.
While there have not been further attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, there has been a gradual lost of personal privacy; an increase in religious and ethnic discrimination; and now the war in Iraq. Retaliation and fear override other possible responses. In their article, “The Dark Side of Moral Conviction,” Skitka and Mullen conclude that “to the extent that people have embraced the ‘war on terrorism’ as a morally mandated end, they will be prepared to sacrifice any number of procedural safeguards to achieve it.”
The fact is that we live in a new world. People of all faiths are using violent action in the name of religion and, ironically, twisting thoughts into actions that go against the true teachings of their religious traditions. Unfortunately, these distortions in “collective thought” are growing like a bad virus in religious, political, and social systems alike. Reinforced by fear, normally moderate people are beginning to acquire a more simplistic, “fundamentalist” view of both real and perceived events. Fear is transforming people both mentally and systemically in the United States—and globally—in diverse ways. Furthermore, these complex transformations may not be easily countered by a simplified solution. As it is a process, time is required for a reversal.
Recommendations on Reverse Transformation
A conflict of the size and complexity discussed is mind-boggling. Since no simple “top-down” solution is possible in such complex situations, I personally believe that working on the grassroots level with individuals from the Abrahamic faiths through education, training, and interreligious dialogue offers a fruitful approach. It is difficult to deprogram another’s religious beliefs. Certainly, positive media coverage would be helpful in transforming fear back into hope. Collective fear originates from a mass of fearful individuals. Helping individuals to engage in dialogue for understanding—and helping them to release their fears and misperceptions—can lead to peaceful coexistence on a collective level.
In the Islamic world, Islamic principles in dialogue, nonviolence, and peacebuilding are now emerging to the forefront. For example, in Yemen, Judge Hamoud al-Hitar has proven the effectiveness of this approach by using Islamic dialogue to expose the Qur’anic perspectives on nonviolence. Employing an al-Jadal style of debate with al-Qaeda prisoners from Iraq, al-Hitar has successfully transformed the prisoners’ terrorist ideology by drawing upon Islamic sources. Describing the process, al-Hitar said, “Before the dialogues began, there was only one way to fight terrorism, and that was through force.” But “now,” he says, “there is another way: dialogue.”
This form of Islamic dialogue is called al-Jadal (dialectics), a discussion similar to a persuasive debate through provable documentation and logic. Other forms of Islamic dialogue are al-Hewar (transformative) and al-Tahâwur (discussion). Among the less desirable forms, al-Jidâl (eristics) is similar to al-Jadal, but denotes an escalation of the discussion into an argument. The fourth term, al-Mirâ’, means “to dispute.” Many traditional conflict specialists are not aware of these different types of dialogue.
Christian and Jewish participants are more open to the traditional Western theories and applications of dialogue and conflict resolution. One of the most difficult conflicts to transform when it comes to extremists involves the elements of religious ideology. Growing awareness of the problems generated by intractable ideologies may help aid in resolving this situation. Recently, more attention has been placed on this issue through conferences and dialogue.
In his article, “Terrorism–Violence–War: There is a Solution!”, Dr. Kulwant Singh describes the ancient theory of overcoming negative with good, and cites Dr. John Hagelin, a Harvard-trained quantum physicist: “Just as anger can spread through a population, so can calm. Humanity is connected at the deepest level of human interaction—an abstract, quiet communication—so that collective consciousness can be influenced in a tangible and measurable way; there is a proven correlation between meditation and reduced social stress.”
Given the delicate nature of the situation in which we find ourselves, complacency is not a viable option. Moreover, there is a need to embrace the complexity of this era’s events, increase our levels of understanding, and turn away from simplistic solutions that might sound good on the surface, but aren’t in harmony with the reality of the situation. Our political leaders and organizations must remain vigilant to the religious ideologies that attempt to sway them, while representatives of the three Abrahamic faiths must commit to rigorously engage in true dialogue, and carefully listen to one another with genuine respect and understanding.
Appendix 1
United Nations. “Definitions of Terrorism.” http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html (accessed: April 2, 2005).
Definitions of Terrorism
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state’s “terrorist” is another state’s “freedom fighter.”
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a “war crime” as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes—deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners—is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as “peacetime equivalents of war crimes.”
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
“All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.”
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
“1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them” (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism).
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
“Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by
(semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought” (Schmid, 1988).
Figure 1
Figure 1. Beliefnet. 2004 Election Exit Polls Results. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15546_1.html
Figure 2
Figure 2. Beliefnet. Evangelical Views of Islam. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/124/story_12447_1.html
*Samaritans Purse is the Christian humanitarian aid organization run by Franklin Graham.
**Survey taken before war in Iraq began.
The survey was conducted during the fall of 2002 and included 350 responses from a national sample of leaders of Evangelical organizations, ranging from churches and missionary associations to relief agencies and political groups. It was supervised by Professor John Green of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, as part of a larger study directed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, supported with a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Bibliography
Ahmed, Rafiuddin. “Terrorism.” Islamabad Policy Research Institute. http://ipripak.org/papers/terrorism.shtml (accessed April 1, 2005).
American Civil Liberties Union. “USA PATRIOT Act.” http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207 (accessed March 30, 2005).
Beliefnet. “2004 Election Exit Polls Results.” (Source of Figure 1.) http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15546_1.html
Beliefnet. “Evangelical Views of Islam.” (Source of Figure 2.) http://www.beliefnet.com/story/124/story_12447_1.html
Bergen, Peter L. Holy War, Inc. New York: Touchstone, 2002.
Blessed Cause Ministry. “Sheep Polled by Wolves” (September 12, 2003). http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Peaceful%20or%20Violent%20Islam%20poll.htm (accessed April 1, 2005).
Brandon, James. “Koranic Duels Ease Terror.” Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 2005. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0204/p01s04-wome.html (accessed July 30, 2005).
Cambridge Dictionary Online. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Central Intelligence Agency. “Terrorism FAQs.” http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html (accessed March 29, 2005).
Furnish, Timothy R. “Bin Ladin: The Man Who Would Be Mahdi.” Middle East Quarterly 12 (Spring 2005).
http://www.meforum.org/article/159 (accessed April 3, 2005).
Ganor, Boaz Dr. “Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare.” International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (July 15, 2002). http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=443 (access date: April 3, 2005).
Goodstein, Linda. “Seeing Islam as ‘Evil’ Faith, Evangelicals Seek Converts.” New York Times, May 27, 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/national/27ISLA.html (accessed March 31, 2005).
Hanle, D. J. Terrorism: The Newest Face of Warfare. Washington, DC: Pergamon–Brassey’s, 1989.
Left Behind website. http://www.leftbehind.com/
Mcalister, Melani. “An Empire of Their Own.” The Nation, September 4, 2003.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030922&s=mcalister (accessed March 31, 2005).
Nationmaster.com. “Encyclopedia: Zealots. Jewish History.” http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Zealots (accessed April 1, 2005).
Nyberg, Eric N. “Insurgency: The Unsolved Mystery.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/NEN.htm (accessed March 28, 2005).
Olson, Bradley D. “Applied Social and Community Interventions for Crisis in Times of National and International Conflict.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2.1 (2002): 119–129.
Singh, Kulwant, and David Leffler. “Terrorism–Violence–War: There is a Solution!” Modern Tribune, February 23, 2003.
http://www.themoderntribune.com/singh.htm (accessed April 2, 2005).
Sixty Minutes. “Zion’s Christian Soldiers,” June 8, 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml (accessed March 28, 2005).
Skitka, Linda J. and Elizabeth Mullen. “The Dark Side of Moral Conviction.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2.1 (2002): 35–41.
Stern, Jessica. Terror in the Name of God. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.
Terrorism Research. “Differences between Terrorism and Insurgency.” http://www.terrorism-research.com/insurgency/ (accessed April 1, 2005).
United Nations. “Definitions of Terrorism.” http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html (accessed April 2, 2005). Reproduced as Appendix 1.
U.S. Department of State. “Patterns of Global Terrorism.” April 30, 2001. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2419.htm (accessed April 1, 2005).
Waldman, Steve. “Why is Bush Afraid of Franklin Graham?” (January 2001). http://beliefnet.com/story/124/story_12422_1.html (accessed date: April 1, 2005).
Wheelis, Mark. “Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 8 (September 2002). http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no9/01-0536.htm (accessed April 2, 2005).
Williams, Alice. “Franklin Graham on Islam.” Religion and Ethics Newsweekly interview with Franlin Graham (August 9, 2002). http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week549/news.html (accessed July 27, 2005).
Ashki, Miriam Sabirah. “Islamic Approaches to Dialogue.” Unpublished paper, December 2005.
Last update : 02-04-2006 23:21
|
|
|
(0 vote)
