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.