War on terrorism: A political slogan or the real thing?
War on terrorism: A political slogan or the real thing?
Many say the United States government has gone too far in its war on terrorism. American Muslim scholar Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor of Islamic studies at Temple University in Philadelphia speaks to The Jakarta Post's Muhammad Nafik after addressing an international seminar on Islam and the West in Jakarta last weekend. Excepts follows:
The U.S. is intensifying its international campaign against terrorism following the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Is the campaign on the right track?
I think the war on terrorism has become a political slogan, a task without real meaning, because we define terrorism as we like. They say Palestinians are terrorists if they are trying to liberate their land from Israeli occupation, but Israelis are not terrorists although they kill Palestinians. Everybody wants to show sympathy over the Sept. 11 tragedy and I do the same. But what's the difference between it and the Israeli massacre at the camp of Zenin, where even now they don't allow an investigation by the UN and other agencies to find out the extent of the killings? Why is then Israel a terrorist state? It is an interesting thing. The U.S. and the West in general do not speak of a state terrorism because a state terrorism has been practiced by many states, including America. They just speak about a state that harbors terrorism, a rouge or onslaught state. I agree that there are Muslim terrorists. But Islam is not related to terrorism.
Do you think the campaign is successful or effective in fighting terrorism?
No. They won't be because how do you identify them (terrorists). I wish Americans tell Bush that by this war on terrorism, they are not actually eliminating terrorism but increasing it. Many Muslims then become anti-America and they join fringe (radical) groups that commit an act of terrorism. I think what America should have done after the Sept. 11, 2001, was to sit down and think why the tragedy happened. I don't think it happened because America is Western or Christian, but because what Osama bin Laden said -- and this also the idea of others -- that America dominates the land of Muhammad and supports Israel against the Palestinians. America also exploits the wealth and natural resources of Muslims by backing the corrupt Saudi regime. All these ideas are also responses from many other Muslims. The problem is that his (bin Laden's) way of dealing with the situation. Resorting to violence is not a good thing. It really created a problem for all Muslims everywhere and did not achieve anything, except for a dramatic idea of hitting America's importance both symbols of political power in Pentagon and economic power in the World Trade Center.
Do you agree with what many believe that Bin Laden and his al- Qaeda masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedy, while others claim there is no hard evidence on the accusations?
I don't know. I can't say a hundred percent. I think there is a lot about this that we do not know. And when will we know? Wallahu a'lam (God knows better). But we can call them (bin Laden and al-Qaeda) a modern version of al-Khawarij (a group of soldiers from Iraq who defied the rule of Caliph Ali bin Abi Thalib and other Muslims in the first century of Islamic history. The group claimed itself to be the only true Muslims and allowed its followers to kill others because they were considered infidels). Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda hit America, but their main target was actually the Muslim regime who is corrupt, who they think its rulers are kafir (infidel) and should not be allowed to lead or even to live. But it is interesting that although al-Qaeda's ideology is among other things against the Saudi regime and its society, it is based on the same ideology, al-Wahabi, which is important for both Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda.
After the terrorist attacks, fundamentalism is on the rise right now in many countries, especially Muslim nations. What's your comment?
I agree that there are Muslim terrorists. But Islam is not related to terrorism. I don't like the term of Islamic fundamentalism because it doesn't describe anything. There are also fundamentalist Christians who are also terrorists. They, for instance, support Israel and want to see it use its nuclear weapons against its Arab neighbors. I think there are more religious terrorism in the Christian West than that in Islam.
In Indonesia there are also several militant groups that are very active in campaigning against the West and for Islamic sharia law to be adopted. Your opinion?
It's natural for groups like Laskar Jihad and others to appear because many Muslims are very angry with the West for the double- standard (stance) that they follow in the treatment of Muslims. The West, America in particular, for instance, wants to really destroy Iraq but they support Israel. So this thing then creates extremist movements and sympathy with their brothers in the Palestine and other places. I don't agree and I don't have evidence that Indonesian (fundamentalist) movements are branches of al-Qaeda. Nor I do believe that there are followers of al- Khawarij here because al-Khawarij or al-Qaeda and so on usually work underground, while Laskar Jihad is on the streets collecting money. So, I don't think they are (followers) of al-Khawarij. They are only angry Muslims. I advise the Indonesian government not to let America interfere too much in the Indonesian internal politics because it may create extremist movements in Indonesia, which we should not have.