* Terrorism is a term that has been much bandied about in recent times
in the world media. This paper was presented by the author, who is Director of
the International Relations Department of the I.P.O., at the International
Conference on Terrorism called by the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Geneva, from June 22-26, 1987. It is an attempt to define terrorism and to put
it in a broad perspective.
Al-Tawhid Journal Vol V No. 1 (Muharram 1408 AH/1987 CE)
Resolution 20/5-P (1.5) of the Fifth Islamic Summit supported the idea of an
international conference to be convened under the aegis of the United Nations in
order to discuss the subject of international terrorism and to differentiate it
from the struggle of peoples for their acknowledged national causes and the
liberation of their territories.
This means that we should, at this meeting, take into consideration the
following steps:
(i) To refer, first of all, to Islamic sources in order to set the major
criteria, to identify the principles according to which the humanity aims and
actions is to be assessed, and to make such principles the basis of our
judgement in the various cases.
(ii) To examine genuine human nature unblemished by any considerations of narrow
interests, in order to identify human rules that can be put forth at the
international level as a general human criterion For this purpose, the results
of our studies must cover the various fields of the international scene and
constitute a general action framework.
(iii) From these Islamic and human principles, we deduce a general comprehensive
and exclusive definition, i.e. encompassing all the real attributes of terrorism
and excluding the alleged criteria of terrorism which cannot be treated as such
by lofty principles.
(iv) Then, we should apply the criteria set forth to all the national and
international instances of alleged terrorism. We should examine each of them
closely in the light of the results, then put forward an appropriate and precise
judgement which is free from any ambiguity or connivance and to confer on each
act its true adjective.
In the light of this introduction, we shall confine our study to the following
points:
First Point:
It goes without saying that every international bloc, every State or indeed
every community has enemies and opponents that seek to eliminate it, and, as the
conflict becomes violent, each party tries to undermine the reputation of the
other by attributing to it repulsive epithets, such as "anarchist", "criminal",
"outlaw", "inhuman", "terrorist", and the like.
We may even find that each of the two parties indulges in such allegations in
order to carry out a plan which involves the deprival of the other party of its
rights on the pretext of collaborating with the enemy or plotting against lawful
interests.
To materialize this process, each party uses its international influence in
order to win other parties over to its side either in action or in terms of
support in international fora. The issue thus assumes a public character and the
victory in a case is a matter of pressure, influence and the power of persuasion
rather than a matter of sound logic.
Accordingly, feelings are influenced and sentiments are exploited for the
implementation of such plans motivated by self-interest, under the banner of
"anti-terrorism" for instance. To be sure, terrorism is humanly reprehensible
(if we disregard its motives and objectives), and no one in his senses would
accept any threat to human dignity, freedom, property, honour, security, work,
etc. This feeling is instinctive, genuine and incontestable.
Second Point:
If we consider the meaning of the word "terrorism" on the one hand, and its
fallout and traces left on human life on the other, we note that terrorism may
be carried out on different levels. There is a terrorism which threatens
security, honour, property and the like; there is a cultural terrorism which
tears human identity apart, and leads to the abyss of perdition and aimlessness;
there is an information terrorism which deprives man of his freedom to breathe
in an unpolluted atmosphere. We can cite other types of terrorism such as
economic terrorism, scientific terrorism, diplomatic terrorism, military
terrorism, etc.
There exists, however, a division based on the type of perpetrators, which must
be taken into account. It is the division into official and unofficial
terrorism. Official terrorism - which is the more dangerous - consists of all
acts that are supported by an internationally recognized quarter or State,
whether by the army of that State or individual elements or in the form of an
operation for the benefit of the said quarter. Opposing this type of terrorism
is unofficial terrorism.
Third Point:
We may focus, in any act or conduct, on two determining factors:
1. The motives of the perpetrator.
2. The human acceptability of the act itself.
These are not inseparable aspects. The personal motives of the perpetrator may
look humane to him but not so to the public. Conversely, the perpetrator may
have no human purpose in mind or may indeed have a purpose that he perceives to
be inhumane but is considered from the public point of view to be a humane act.
Therefore, viewpoints may differ in the judgement whether such an act is good or
evil (usuli jurisprudents have done a great deal of valuable research on the
rational basis of differentiating between good and evil deeds, but this is not
the place to go into it). What must be stated here is that neither of the
factors, taken separately, is sufficient to determine the acceptability or the
reprehensibility of an act or to judge such an act positively or negatively. A
positive assessment in regard to both factors must be carried out in order to
judge and act.
Consequently, we have to ensure objectivity in our investigation in order to
find a criterion for identifying the acceptability and humanity of an act from
the standpoints of both Islam and mankind in general.
As regards the Islamic standpoint, we have to refer to the principles, concepts
and judgements which relate to the question of terrorism - in its literal sense
- to give a general definition of condemnable terrorism, i.e. the terrorism that
is rejected by Islam as contrary to the process of the human being's perfection
determined by God Almighty for mankind through human nature and prescribed
through revelation.
When referring to Islamic teachings, we find that Islam is very rich in this
field, and we notice that Islamic jurists have delved into the various aspects
that relate to the subject.
We have the judgements on al-baghy, i.e. armed revolt by a group against a just
and legitimate government, intimidation of the general public, and pursuit of
divisive political goals that damage national unity.
We also have the judgements on al-harabah, which is defined as "the use of
weapons, on land or sea, by day or night, to intimidate people, in a city or
elsewhere, by a male or female, strong or weak." God Almighty declares in the
Qur'an:
This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and
spread corruption in the land. they shall be put to death, or crucified, or have
their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land.
That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the next awaits them a
mighty chastisement (5:33)
As may be noticed, the verse mentions the subject and the purpose, namely war
against society and spreading of corruption in the land. It has also mentioned
the severe punishment to be dealt out to the perpetrators, which points to
Islam's concern for the subject.
There are also the laws about theft and murder which can be mentioned in this
regard. Likewise, we come across in Islamic texts terms which relate to the
matter at hand, such as homicide (al-fatk), deceit (al-ghilah), and seditious
conspiracy (al-'i'timar).
There are also texts which stipulate utmost respect for covenants and treaties
even if it is discovered later that they favour the other party. As long as he
adheres to their provisions, these must be observed.
Furthermore, we have the requirements of the Islamic ethical system which
consists of concepts unknown to positive law yet are deeply-rooted in this
system. Lying may, for instance, reach the degree of a major sin and so may
calumny. We thus find that Islam seeks earnestly to protect all kinds of true
human freedoms, and to defend the dignity of the individual and society, as well
as the cohesion of society and integrity of the family, considering any attack
on them to be an atrocious crime liable to the sternest punishment which may go
as far as execution, crucifixion and the like.
Islam upholds the principle of personal responsibility and considers any attack
on innocent people as a major crime. It focuses on the defence of the weak, the
humble and the oppressed and enjoins jihad for their protection:
And why should you not fight for the cause of Allah, and for the helpless old
men and women.... (4:75)
The Muslim is required to always stand up for the oppressed until they get their
rights. Imam 'Ali (A) gave this advice to his two sons:
Be opponents of the oppressor and defenders of the oppressed.
He also said:
To me the lowly are noble until I get their rights for them, and the powerful
are weak until I get such rights from them.
Perhaps the mention in the Holy Qur'an of the blessing of security "And hath
made them safe from fear" (106:4) is the best proof of the importance it
attaches to security.
However, it would take too long to elaborate on all the related matters.
Nevertheless we wish to state that the first criterion for identifying
humaneness is the intention of the perpetrator and the general acceptability of
his act is Din with all its spirit, laws and concepts.
Turning our attention to the second framework, namely the general human
framework, we can accept those principles that are unanimously respected by
mankind as represented by its official organs, its popular organizations, its
conscience and sentiments, as another set of criteria to determine the presence
of humaneness or its opposite in the intention of the perpetrator, and of the
above-mentioned general acceptability (although we believe the two criteria to
be mostly overlapping).
As an example of the foregoing, we may notice the present unanimity of mankind
in considering the following as inhuman:
- prostitution and the disintegration of family relationships;
- narcotics and the disintegration of individual's rational personality;
- colonialism and the undermining of peoples' dignity and plundering of their
resources;
- racism and the disintegration of human brotherhood;
- violation of all recognized rights and the breaking of covenants:
- bombardment of populated areas, use of chemical weapons. attacks on civil
aviation, national railways, commercial and tourist vessels, and similar methods
which are universally condemned in war.
There is no divergence whatsoever as regards the anti-human nature of the above
instances. Therefore, these and similar violations suggest the acceptable
criteria which should form the basis of our definition, and any act to eliminate
and oppose them is a human act which must be supported if itself not accompanied
by violation of other human values.
Fourth Point: Definition of Terrorism
In the light of the above, we can arrive at a comprehensive definition of
terrorist acts, a definition which is unanimously acceptable and on which we can
base our positions. Yet before putting forth our suggested definition, we may
recall that we should note therein the following elements:
- intimidation and violation of security of any kind;
- presence of inhuman intention and motive;
- unacceptability of the end and purpose and the act itself by humanity.
Accordingly, our definition may be as follows:
Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid)
objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights
acknowledged by religion and mankind.
For the sake of clarity, we may add the following points:
1. We have used the term 'human' instead of 'international' for the sake of
wider consensus, official or otherwise, so as to emphasize the general human
character of the statement.
2. We have introduced the epithet 'corrupt' (mufsid) to connote the attribute
accompanying inhuman objectives, i.e. the spreading of corruption in the land,
and to include the imperative to avoid such objectives.
3. We have referred to various types of terrorism with the phrase; "security of
any kind".
4. We have mentioned the two criteria, i.e. religious and human, first to be
consistent with our belief and then to generalize the criterion.
5. As may be noticed, the fact that an operation is violent does not constitute
a condition for considering it a case of terrorism. In the light of the above
definition, we shall be able to ascertain the nature of one act or another and
determine whether it is a case of terrorism. We shall confirm that the
definition does not apply to the following:
a. acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers
and usurpers;
b. resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by the force of arms;
c. rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism and efforts to
undermine their institutions;
d. resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on the latter's
strongholds;
e. retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative.
Similarly, the definition does not apply to any democratic action unaccompanied
by terrorism even if it does not have a humane objective. Nor does it apply to
individual destructive acts if they have no social effects.
The above definition, however, does apply to the following:
a. acts of piracy on land, air and sea;
b. all colonialist operations including wars and military expeditions;
c. all dictatorial acts against peoples and all forms of protection of
dictatorships, not to mention their imposition on nations;
d. all military methods contrary to human practice, such as the use of chemical
weapons, the shelling of civilian populated areas, the blowing up of homes, the
displacement of civilians, etc.;
e. all types of pollution of geographical, cultural and informational
environment. Indeed, intellectual terrorism may be one of the most dangerous
types of terrorism;
f. all moves that undermine adversely affect the condition of international or
national economy, adversely affect the condition of the poor and the deprived,
deepen up nations with the shackles of socio-economic gaps, and chain up nations
with the shackles of exorbitant debts;
g. all conspiratorial acts aimed at crushing the determination of nations for
liberation and independence, and imposing disgraceful pacts on them.
The list of examples that fit in with the suggested definition is almost
endless.
Fifth Point:
Although many meetings have been held and many attempts made to combat
terrorism, they have generally failed because of the following reasons:
- They were not based on international human considerations but were aimed
primarily at achieving narrow interests.
- They did not deal with the circumstances that generate terrorism, nor did they
seek the real motives of terrorism. It is indeed comical that the United States
of America, which is the mother of international terrorism, and the author of
all the circumstances of oppression and subjection of peoples, by strengthening
dictatorial regimes and supporting occupation of territories and savage attacks
on civilian areas, etc. should seek to convene symposia on combating
"terrorism", i.e. any act that conflicts with its imperialist interests.
Killing a person in a forest is an unforgivable sin,
But the massacre of a peaceful nation is a debatable question.
At any rate, the real cure of terrorism - acts of individual terrorism in
particular - consists, in our view, in removing the conditions that have brought
it about.
Islam, in its treatment of all cases of deviation, strongly stresses this
aspect. It seeks first to reform the social atmosphere and eliminate all
inducements to crime. It also emphasizes self-restraint through education of the
innermost soul and through giving the latter a unique human mould that causes it
to spontaneously shun any transgression of prescribed human norms and rules by
the Shari'ah. In addition, Islam does not omit to lay down a comprehensive,
realistic and flexible code of sanctions that deals with facts according to
their social effects.
Going back to our current reality, we must seek the prevalence of a just system
and prevent aggression and encroachment upon other peoples' rights. Under such
circumstances when a person allows himself to be induced to commit terrorism or
aggression, the whole mankind will stand up against him. If, however, we fail to
fulfil this standard, all our treatments will be local and palliative; though
they may alleviate pain, they will not eradicate the cause of the disease.
Comments posted are the sole opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of AIM. |
