Islam and Terrorism: Myth vs. Reality

By El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan

terrorism, n. the use of terror and violence to intimidate, etc., esp. as a political policy

At the time of this writing, a controversy has erupted within the Muslim-American community regarding comments made at a U.S. State Department forum by the leader of an organization known as the “Islamic Supreme Council of America.” The speaker, Mr. Hisham Kabbani, spoke on the issue of extremism and U.S. national security. The core of Mr. Kabbani’s message, intended or not, was that 80 percent of the Muslim-American community represents a potential danger to the U.S., due to the presence and influence of “extremists.”

Given the present climate in the U.S. and much of the world regarding resurgent political Islam, Mr. Kabbani’s remarks were incendiary and unfortunate—and will, no doubt, be used to justify even more draconian policies vis-à-vis Islam and the Muslim world (see box).

In the Sept. 22, 1997, edition of The Washington Post, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote an op-ed piece entitled “Limits to What the U.S. Can Do in Bosnia.” Kissinger’s commentary opened with a very revealing and provocative observation: “Every American foreign policy setback, from Indochina to Somalia, has resulted from the failure to define objectives, to choose means appropriate to these objectives, and to create a public opinion prepared to pay the necessary price over the requisite period of time.” (emphasis mine)

One can argue that public opinion has been so deviously manipulated in America, that for the average person the words Arab, Islam, Muslim and terrorism have become almost synonymous. And the consequences have been enormous. As Voltaire once said, “Those who can make us believe absurdities, can also cause us to commit atrocities.”

Facts on Terrorism

In his book, My Life As A Radical Attorney, William M. Kunstler wrote (p. 317): “In recent years, I have taken on many Muslim clients and have earned myself even more hatred and disapproval than for my representation of black [political] defendants. Today Muslims are the most hated group in the country; the moment a Muslim is accused of a crime the specter of terrorism is raised, and everyone panics.” But is the panic justified? You be the judge.

On Feb. 10, 1995, a counterterrorism bill drafted by the Clinton administration—The Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995 (which would later become law)—was introduced in the U.S. Senate as S.390 and in the House of Representatives as H.R.896.

The legislation was immediately assailed, in certain quarters, on the grounds that it posed numerous serious threats to constitutional rights. One such criticism came from the Center for National Security Studies: “The administration’s proposal begins with nearly eight pages of ‘findings’ that are seriously misleading, because they omit some key facts: that terrorism in the United States, especially terrorism of international origin, is very rare, and that terrorism abroad, including terrorism against Americans abroad, continues to decline.”

Muslims and Muslim organizations were also justifiably concerned about the proposed legislation, for it was clear to all that its primary targets were Muslim activists, and what has commonly become known as political Islam. Indeed, even before the bill was introduced, President Clinton issued an executive order on Jan. 24, 1995, “Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.”

Unfortunately, time and space limitations will not permit me to provide detailed information on how this constitutionally questionable policy has been implemented in the U.S. Suffice it to say that in addition to removing the standard presumption-of-innocence rule in law, it has been very oppressive to law-abiding Arabs and Muslims, to say the least. The facts on terrorism in the U.S. are as follows:

In 1994, the year before the Anti-Terrorism Act was adopted, there were no terrorist incidents in the United States (nor were there any attempted but prevented incidents), according to statistics maintained by the FBI.

In 1993, 11 of the 12 incidents of terrorism in the U.S. were domestic. Nine of the 11 occurred on a single night, when animal rights activists placed small incendiary devices in four Chicago department stores that sold furs. (And, according to the FBI, “the most active domestic terrorist groups” in recent years have been animal rights activists and “skinheads.”)

In 1992 there were four terrorist incidents in the U.S.; in 1991, five; 1990, seven; 1989, four.

In fact, in the 11-year period prior to the administration’s initiative, there were only two international terrorist incidents in America. (An international terrorist incident is defined by the FBI as one committed by a group, or individual, that is foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside the United States, or whose activities transcend national boundaries.)

The aforementioned facts are probably the reason why FBI Director Louis Freeh decided to send two subordinates to represent the bureau at the American Muslim Council (AMC) convention in June of last year, instead of coming himself. A former district court judge, Mr. Freeh is fully aware of the many violations that Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. (not unlike other socially and politically marginalized communities in the past) have had to suffer at the hands of his, and other law enforcement organizations.

It is also worth noting that prior to the AMC convention Mr. Freeh was the keynote speaker at a program held in the crowded auditorium of the Jewish Community Center in Pittsburgh, PA. The occasion was the opening of “The Holocaust: A Poster Exhibition.”

Director Freeh stated: “The core values of police in a democracy are the values that should have come to the aid of the Holocaust victims.” And further: “Law enforcement officials should protect not only property rights, but human rights as well. We are to protect people from fear and terror and do so with compassion and absolute respect. Events like the ones we talked about tonight remind police of their obligations and the consequences if they ignore them.”

Life is indeed full of ironies; these remarks would have been far more timely and relevant had they been delivered at the AMC convention a few days later. For in the present anti-Muslim, anti-Islam climate, the American ideal is being further eroded (once again in the name of law and order) by authorities in the U.S. who pay nothing more than lip service to the concept(s) of “innocent until proven guilty” and “equal justice for all.”

Islam and Terrorism

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (a man who has studied Islam closely and who has traveled extensively throughout the Muslim world) made the following observation in a 1995 address before an audience of Muslims and non-Muslims: “Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives; for any hope for dignity in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity!”

Unfortunately, because of the effective disinformation campaign waged against Islam and active Muslims since the early 1980s, this is not the image that most non-Muslims have. Instead, the propagandists would have us believe that: (a) every legitimate freedom fighter who opposes U.S. or Israeli policy is a terrorist; (b) Islam embodies an aggressive, violence-prone, bloodthirsty ideology; and lastly (c) there is some genetic or sociological defect in the very nature of Arabs and Muslims which makes them prone to terrorism.

In truth, while Islam (a religion/code of living that embraces every aspect of life) does indeed denote confrontation, as signified by the core foundational principle—“There is no deity except Allah (God),”—in a world where modern man has made gods of almost everything under the sun (e.g., science and technology, money and materialism, sex, human beings, etc.), it is also a religion of peace and moderation.

Islam has sought historically to spread its message, and establish its way of life, first and foremost through reasoned argumentation and reflection. And while jihad fisabelelah (the struggle in the way of Allah on all levels, inwardly and outwardly) is incumbent upon all Muslims, in all places and times, the conduct of Muslims on the battlefield is governed by divine law.

For 13 years, in the midst of some of the worst forms of torture and oppression the world has ever known, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his companions observed an unparalleled practice of nonviolent resistence. When the revelation did come to the Prophet for military defense, it came with the following admonition: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.”

The Messenger of Allah would later expound upon the aforementioned “limits” in these words: “Proceed in the name of Allah, and for Allah, and upon the religion of Allah’s apostle. Do not kill a very old man, a child or a woman, and do not press heavily by exceeding the limits.”

Volumes have been written by Islamic jurists and scholars over the past 1,400 years concerning this very important issue. A representative opinion can be deduced from the writings of one of contemporary Islam’s most prominent Qur’anic scholars, Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

On the issue of jihad—specifically qital fisabelelah, or fighting in the way of Allah—he wrote: “When undertaken it must be pushed with vigor, but not relentlessly. Only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed; women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down; nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms.”

Does this sound like a religion of extremists and terrorists? To any objective and reasonable person the answer would have to be, absolutely not!

El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan is a Washington, DC-based human rights advocate, and executive director of The Peace and Justice Foundation.

SIDEBAR

On Mr. Muhammad Hisham Kabbani’s remarks:

Mr. Kabbani’s remarks at the U.S. Department of State represent, in this writer’s opinion, one of the most callous, self-serving, and irresponsible presentations that I have ever heard of a “Muslim leader” giving before a U.S. government agency.

Among other things, Mr. Kabbani served as an apologist for injustice and defined the “authentic, traditional voice of Islam” as being one of stoic capitulation—as nothing more than non-confrontational (in the face of injustice), turn-the-other-cheek ritualism. Reading the full text of Mr. Kabbani’s presentation I am reminded of the reaction of a British officer upon hearing the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, for the first time (a scene captured in the British war journals). The officer reportedly turned to one of the natives and asked, “Is what I hear a threat to her majesty’s government?” And the native responded, “No. It is only the muezzin calling the people to prayer.” Upon hearing this the officer replied, “If that is all it is let them pray as much as they wish.”

Lastly, I am reminded of a prophecy made by the last Messenger of Allah (God) to humanity, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (pbuh), wherein he reportedly said: “A time is soon coming to mankind when their learned people will be the worst people under heaven’s skies; corruption will come from them and return back to them as smoke returns to the hole, and this will be a time when knowledge departs.”

One of the companions asked, “O Messenger of Allah, how could knowledge depart, when we recite the Qur’an and we teach it to our children, and they [in turn] will teach it to their children up to the Day of Resurrection?” The Prophet (pbuh) reportedly looked at the companion and said: “O Zaid, I am astonished at you, I thought you were the most learned man in all Madinah. Do not the Jews and Christians teach their children the Torah and the Injil (Gospel), and yet they know nothing of what it contains?