Equating Islam And Terrorism: An Old Debate Is Back — More Explosive Than Ever

-Analysis-

BEIRUT — Muslims in general, of all sects, complain about the accusation of terrorism being unfairly pinned on their religion. They engage in long debates, refuting all the arguments promoted by research centers and media across the world, in addition to official and governmental bodies authorized to follow up on investigations into any potential terrorist attack on their countries (the scope of the authority of those bodies).

It appears that there is almost a consensus on attaching the label of terrorism to any violent act that kills innocent civilians, and its perpetrator is a Muslim. The Muslim’s question is: Why is this description not applied to acts of violence committed by non-Muslims?!

Aside from the motives and contexts of other acts of violence committed by non-Muslims, the above question ignores a very important fact in defining the phenomenon of terrorism as a violent act that endangers the lives of innocent civilians in order to achieve declared political goals.

In fact, if we look at the overwhelming majority of violent acts carried out specifically by Muslims, we will find that the above definition applies to them.

It killed or attempted to kill civilians to achieve declared political goals, whether for the benefit of Islamic terrorist groups, or for an individual motive to express a political protest in the face of the “oppressive” West.

The “Masterpiece”

These operations appeared and increased in this capacity, especially after September in the U.S., which is seen as the Masterpiece of such attacks.

We can also add those attacks carried out before the emergence of the phenomenon of political Islam, as the would-be “salvation” of the Muslim nation. The phenomenon of hijacking aircraft and taking civilian hostages (the Munich Olympics operation, 1972, falls within this classification) was used to achieve specific political goals by Palestinian left-wing groups.

If we try to search for justifications for this position that completely refuses to accept a clear definition of terrorism, this could be the starting point for a comprehensive legal formula that aims to protect the victim and criminalize the perpetrator.

Arabs and Muslims should aim to find a strong place for ourselves that is neither terrorist, or victim of genocide.

Such a formula will inevitably lead to the criminalization of other acts committed against Arabs, and Muslims in general, from other parties, even after long effort and struggle, but based on clear principles applied to everyone.

Such practice meet even more horrific definitions, “genocide,” for example, which applies to what the Israeli military is doing in Gaza right now.

If we try to search for justifications, we may find only one: it is the reaction of a desperate person when he decides to rebel against a formula in which he finds himself the most weak and vulnerable to accusation, and which does not care about his interests, nor even his very existence.

But, is this really the case? Or is there a broader context we should consider? Trying to leave behind skepticism and the complexes of chronic oppression, we Arabs and Muslims should aim to find a strong place for ourselves in a world that continues to take shape — a place that is far from either becoming terrorists, or victims of genocide.

I think that if the question was crafted in this way, it might help find a way out of that dilemma that keeps affecting everyone, and creates a completely imaginary feeling of suffocation in a world that is absolutely hostile to us, where some see terrorism as the only recourse for legitimate rebellion.

Review of concepts

When considering our opposition to terrorism, we tend to consider that the sanctity of the lives of defenseless civilians as its cornerstone, which pushes Arabs and Muslims to accuse the other (the West) and excuse ourselves of everything… even from moral condemnation of crimes committed before our eyes against thousands of innocent victims ( whether in America on Sep. 11 or in Israel on Oct. 7.

Is Hamas despised only because it is Islamic?

What happened during the last “Al-Aqsa Flood” (Hamas attack on Oct. 7) is a pure example of this tyrannical tendency, as the basis for a grievance dilemma that we impose on ourselves.

When we say that there are innocent civilians who were killed or taken hostage, justifications jump out at us:

*This is legitimate resistance, and those who took hostages or killed are occupiers, not civilians;

*Or, if there is an acknowledgment of civilian victims, it would be blamed on the Israeli military;

*Or that Hamas, – and all its actions – are despised only because they are Islamic, and the use of “terrorism” is a way to mask hatred towards all trends of political Islam.

Arab violence and manhood

Here we can, if we dare and go a step forward, acknowledge that our real problem is not “grievance,” blown to the point of explosion, in the face of a world that does not want us to be a part of it, without abandoning our “values” and “culture.” They want to make everyone submit to them, with a vague promise to benefit from the imposition of that hegemony over the course of many centuries.

However, it seems that history continued its movement, and it became necessary to reduce this world, and thus no one was isolated anymore, making it easier to pursue the interests of “imperialism,” “colonialism,” “capitalism”… call it what you will.

Yet can this obsession with the benefits of a dominant group still be possible, for entire generations of Arab youth, who grew up in the era of social media? Looking at Arabic social media now, after the Oct. 7 attack, sadly confirms that it is not only possible, but that it has become a reality! So…what can we do in a situation like this?

What is required is nothing less than a comprehensive review of the value system that forms the basis of our consciousness (even before Islam), specifically aspects related to central concepts such as “courage” and “manhood” within a fully masculine context.

This is a debate that must challenge those in our region who benefit from the perpetuation of the male culture of violence mentioned above: the tyrannical Arab regimes, in their various forms, and their regional and international allies.

However, in light of what we see and hear now that the broader public has the means to communicate opinions in the digital public square, the “line of conflict” appears to be moving to a completely new place.

“The conflict line”

The “line of conflict” now, in our region and the world, seems to be related to a “system of values”, which is supposed to be “authentic”, confronting another “system of values”, foreign — specifically “Western” — ones that wants to impose its hegemony on everyone.

We can understand how Islam itself was pushed into a corner.

Within this context, we can understand how Islam itself was pushed into a corner, not by those who defined a clear meaning for terrorism, but rather by those who wanted the meanings to be lost, in order to extend their hegemony.

Therefore, defending Islam, in the face of any accusation of terrorism, requires first liberating it from that hegemony, and opening the horizon to enter our new world. Unless some people, and unfortunately there are many, believe that this is not a new world…it is only a “Western” world, which, therefore, does not concern us.

Trump, prophet of revenge

And so what do we make of Arab and Muslim public opinion that is anti-Western and supportive of Hamas? Can we place it under the pretext of an expression of resistance against a West conspiring against it?

When we look, for example, at the Republican Party in the United States that supports Donald Trump, we find such definitions of Arabs and Muslims, and a value system that wants to impose its hegemony.

These new definitions have begun to reconsider previous “heroic” actions, such as the criminal actions of the “Klu Klux Klan” gangs themselves. Indeed, there are “intellectuals” around Trump who did not hesitate for a moment to inoculate the speeches of this new “prophet of revenge” with complete phrases from the speeches of Adolf Hitler himself, without any shame or hesitation.

Add to this the rise of the extreme right across the European political scene, and we see the makings of a kind of horror movie for Arabs and Muslims.

Yet for those who believe in such conspiracy theories against Arabs and Muslims alone, the “West” has enough internal challenges and conflicts. We will realize, even for a moment, that the definition that was established for terrorism, based on costly bloody experiments, was aimed at terrorism itself, whoever is involved, and not just terrorism practiced by Muslims only.