The three questions were raised by Noor Salik in his comments on ” Today’s Friday Prayers’ Sermons( Khutba )-Courageous And Right on Target.

Question # 1: If the objective is ideological, can the terrorist actions be justified?

The term “terrorism” is derived from the Latin word terrere which means to make tremble or to frighten. It came to be recognized as “terrorism” via French word terrorisme associated with the regime de la terreur or the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution from 1793 to 1794. In Europe the concept of terrorism developed in the French Revolution which JUSTIFIED terrorism as an INDISPENSABLE TOOL TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRATIC ORDER, and thus the word “terror” entered the political lexicon. The French thinker, Maximilien Robespierre, supporting the view that only terrorism would produce true democratic disposition, said, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.” Sergius Stepniak, a Russian-born fighter for democracy, argued in his manual on guerrilla warfare that “the terrorist … is noble, terrible, irresistibly fascinating, for he combines in himself the two sublimities of human grandeur: the martyr and the hero.” Within these contexts, revolutionary Europeans justified terrorism as a struggle for the restoration of liberties and elevated it to heroism and martyrdom.

Definition of Terrorism: Though there is disagreement on the definitions of terrorism, but according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including the actual acts, its perpetrators and their motives, as criminal acts. Today throughout the world there is a consensus, that all acts of terrorism are unacceptable under any circumstances. The United Nations has not yet been able to define a “consensus definition” of terrorism, but the one written by the Dutch terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid is applied for general interpretation by the political and social scientists: “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 generations. Threat-and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) 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,^“ (Wikipedia).

Question # 2: In modern times what is the definition of Muslim identity? (i.e. in term of terrorism).

The Muslims following the Qur’anic injunction: “And fight them until persecution is no more,” sought their own justification that to be a martyr is to be killed fighting in the way of God. “How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!” (Q. 4:75). The only term in Islam close to terrorism or acts of violence against a society or a state are termed as “fitna” meaning sedition, revolt, mutiny, tumult and mischief, and “fasad” meaning disturbance, discord, violence and fighting. In the Qur’an people who perpetrate fitna are mentioned as “those [who] cause mischief in the earth: theirs is the curse and theirs is the ill abode.” (Q. 13:25). Islam considers a revolt or fight as fitna and disruption of peace. It does not support an armed conflict or revolt against a lawful ruler; however, if the ruler is unjust it prescribes a peaceful disobedience. The Prophet of Islam said that, “there is no obedience in transgression. Verily obedience is in good deeds.”Clarifying this precept Maulana Fazlul Karim, the translator of Mishkat ul Masabih opines, “this rule applies not only to rulers but also to their officers in the state. In case of A STATE INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE DUTIES OF ISLAM, it is not lawful to raise a common revolt against the ruling power, but it is lawful to disobey the unlawful order.” All this does not mean that there were no terrorism like acts in the History of Islam. The Kharijites were the first terrorists type fighters. The Assassins created terror for at least a century until they were crushed by Hulegu Khan. The Algerians following the French concept of terrorism as a way to freedom used terrorism as a war to seek freedom.

Bernard Lewis, the famous historian of Middle East and Islamic societies, in the early 2nd half of the 20th  century divided the world in four civilizations, the Chinese, Indian, Western, and Islamic. Samuel Huntington following Bernard’s lead, presented his book “The Clash of Civilizations” in the end of 20th century. However, today the Chinese and Indian civilizations are rapidly adopting Western culture and tradition. Western philosophy is rapidly taking over Chinese and Indian philosophies in their academic curriculums. Today the whole struggle in the world is between the Western and the Islamic civilizations. Since, economically and militarily Muslims are weak and technologically behind, they are fighting to protect their religious, traditional, and cultural identities with the help of terrorist tactics. Islam does not follow “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” On the other hand, it rigorously holds that it is as evil to suffer evil not protesting as to commit evil and it is the slavish sufferers who create tyrants. The DEFINITION of ISLAMIC IDENTITY according to Rumi is: “EVERTHING, INCLUDING DIVINITY, IS AN EXERCISE IN AWARENESS.”

Questions # 3: Muslims in western societies (North America and Western Europe) are very successful in professional achievements but we tend to live in isolated cultural clusters. What about cultural integration of Muslims in western culture?

Cultural integration is an on-going evolutionary process and no one has control over it. Parental nurturing or community instructions is a self satisfying complex to pass on their identities to the next generation, which in itself is a natural and on-going process. Only first generation entering into a cluster of different cultures succeeds to preserve its cultural legacy and that also within its community circle. The second generation lives in between the stream of widening, deepening and speeding up of cultural inter-connectedness in all aspects of its contemporary environments and social life. The third generation completely assimilates into the mother culture of the region where it is living. Since the Muslims are not conquerors here, they as a subject of the ruling social order, are under the pressure of the ruling culture. Today, globalization which is not merely on account of a technological advancement, but is also a result of trans-cultural and trans-civilizational relations which is about modern man’s sense of his self in a world being perceived as a single space. Though seemingly the world is changing, but as a matter of fact it is an individual’s idea of the self that is expanding. Since human being’s self is impregnated with multiple deep prints of identity—religion, nationality, ethnicity, class, gender, and so on—if one of these starts to give way (say, nationality as is seen in the case of Muslim immigrants adopting USA nationality), it is quite natural that CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE ADOPTED NATIONALITY WOULD EVENTUALLY COME TO FILL THE VACUUM.

Mirza Ashraf