An Islamic view of terrorism
By Mahan Abedin
Yousuf Baadarani was born in Beirut in 1939. A writer on issues related to human nature and widely considered as an Islamist ideologue, he has written many books on the themes of ideology, conflict and Islam. These include European hatred of Islam: A plot in its second millennium; Christianity; A Roman political scheme; and 9/11 & Hijacking the World: An American plan.
Mahan Abedin: What is your definition of terrorism?
Yousuf Baadarani: The most common definition is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature". Terrorism is an act and not an intention. Its definition springs from ideals and differing points of view of life. The terrorist could be a state or a group or individual. According to human nature every person could commit adultery, lie, betray, blackmail or kill. Only the thought or prospect of being accounted could stop a man from doing what is against his beliefs or to suppress his burst of emotions.
MA: How does Islamic jurisprudence differentiate between terrorism and legitimate acts of warfare?
YB: Islamic jurisprudence sanctions warfare in limited circumstances - normally between armies, and not by armies against civilians. Under Islamic law, warfare may be waged between states, or a state may use violence to suppress a rebellion, or defend against an invading army. Islam stipulates that all acts of punishment of civilians are strictly a judicial duty and responsibility.
According to Islamic tenets, no incompetent person or group of people are allowed to take the implementation of these tenets into their own hands. Such an undertaking is considered illegitimate in Islamic sharia unless in certain cases where the individual needs to protect his life. When an army attacks civilians, as is the case when the US invaded Iraq, killing more than a million people by direct bombardment of civilians or by instigating factional fighting to mask or legitimize its ongoing campaign to kill civilians, then that is - without doubt - a campaign of terror, and a prime example of state terrorism.
MA: What is the greatest source of terrorism in the world?
YB: Today, major world powers like Britain, Germany, Russia, China - and above all the United States - use extensive and innovative intelligence-gathering techniques to gather information on the smallest details of political, economic and military activity in every corner of the world. Hence no militant group can be formed without being noticed and monitored by the intelligence service of one or all of these countries. It is widely suspected that these countries use terrorist groups for their own purposes.
The greatest source of terrorism in the world is the behind-the-scene political conflict between the major powers to dominate the world. When the political means of one major power faces a deadlock, it resorts to local groups, which it supplies with material resources to terrorize the people in its drive to destabilize a local regime. There is no independent source of terrorism as there is no independent group of terrorists.
MA: How do you explain the emergence of so-called Islamic terrorism?
YB: It is the greatest lie nowadays to speak of "Islamic terrorism". Since Islam forbids terrorism, then no terrorist could be labeled Islamic. He would have had to abandon the Islamic path to become a terrorist. However, as the label has been established by the propaganda machine of the superpowers, we should be frank in saying that far from serving Islamic interests, terrorist groups tend to serve American or British interests.
MA: Do you agree with the official version of the incidents on September 11, 2001?
YB: I believe that the most pertinent facts surrounding the 9/11 incidents have been suppressed. What can be said of the real story is the way the US used the issue to execute its geopolitical plans. These plans changed the norms of international relations and the norms of war. Following the 9/11 incidents, the US government overhauled its diplomacy and either abolished or severely downgraded civic international relations and norms to lay the foundation for new forms of warfare.
It legitimized pre-emptive American intervention in any country it suspects of ill intentions towards the US. This meant that it has effectively imposed its control (whether directly or indirectly) over every single state, and legitimized its interference in the local investigation of any crime, money transaction and even media direction. None of these actions are related to the 9/11 incidents but to American plans to become an unrivalled hegemon on the world stage. This is something the US could not have done without 9/11 or a pretext of such magnitude.
MA: How does the 9/11 narrative serve American interests?
YB: As I have just outlined, it has allowed the US to pursue its agenda of global domination in the post-Cold War world. During the Cold War, the US had a pretext to its policies that were based on extending its authority over the rest of the world. Namely, it used the threat of communism to justify this policy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it lost that pretext. It could not continue as an effective world leader with actual authority without a recognized global war theater.
The world theater after the collapse of the Soviet Union became a diplomatic one. This subjected American authority to many other qualifying factors, including political differences with other countries. The Americans came to the conclusion that allowing a multilateral approach to world politics would greatly undermine the US’s global position, authority and role. Because America is not a country of ideals as it claims, America’s posture in the world is based on its military capacity and not on its ideology. It claims to be based on an ideology only to justify its military actions against other countries. No nation in the history of the human race has killed people as much as the Americans have killed.
No country since humans started gathering in defined territorial spaces has murdered more civilians on the pretext of war necessities as the US military did directly or through its agents. No ideology could justify that unless this is a false pretext. America needed 9/11 to justify imposing the military theater on the world because America cannot dominate this world without its military power. If America does not dominate the world militarily, it would become just another great power and would have to continuously justify its global position through conventional or quasi-conventional political, economic and cultural norms and discourses.
MA: Are the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan justifiable from an Islamic point of view?
YB: The insurgency, if it is against an invading army, is of course legitimate. However, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan against civilians like random bombing or explosions in civilian quarters like markets, streets, public buildings, places of worship, buses and the like could not be acts of insurgency but illegitimate acts, and is absolutely unjustifiable and illegal in Islam. Here it should be stated that these acts are only part of the American political and strategic plan to fragment the social fabric of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and any other place where the Americans are bent on destabilization as a prelude to intervention or a full-blown invasion.
MA: Under what conditions can Muslims attack American interests?
YB: In the absence of an Islamic state anywhere in the world, Muslims’ most urgent priority is to rally to establish the Islamic state that alone has the right to undertake military actions. In the absence of this state Muslims can only take action against an invading army of any Islamic territory and not outside of that.
MA: Is military conflict between the future Islamic state and the United States inevitable?
YB: It is not that the Islamic state when re-established will have a priority of declaring war against any other state or against the world. Declaring war is tied to many issues and circumstances. Unlike the United States, the Islamic state is not a war-loving state but a complex ideological entity that discharges its responsibilities in every sphere to the highest standards.
Mahan Abedin is a senior researcher in terrorism studies and a consultant to independent media in Iran. He is currently based in northern Iraq, where he is helping to develop local media capacity.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
By Mahan Abedin
Yousuf Baadarani was born in Beirut in 1939. A writer on issues related to human nature and widely considered as an Islamist ideologue, he has written many books on the themes of ideology, conflict and Islam. These include European hatred of Islam: A plot in its second millennium; Christianity; A Roman political scheme; and 9/11 & Hijacking the World: An American plan.
Mahan Abedin: What is your definition of terrorism?
Yousuf Baadarani: The most common definition is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature". Terrorism is an act and not an intention. Its definition springs from ideals and differing points of view of life. The terrorist could be a state or a group or individual. According to human nature every person could commit adultery, lie, betray, blackmail or kill. Only the thought or prospect of being accounted could stop a man from doing what is against his beliefs or to suppress his burst of emotions.
MA: How does Islamic jurisprudence differentiate between terrorism and legitimate acts of warfare?
YB: Islamic jurisprudence sanctions warfare in limited circumstances - normally between armies, and not by armies against civilians. Under Islamic law, warfare may be waged between states, or a state may use violence to suppress a rebellion, or defend against an invading army. Islam stipulates that all acts of punishment of civilians are strictly a judicial duty and responsibility.
According to Islamic tenets, no incompetent person or group of people are allowed to take the implementation of these tenets into their own hands. Such an undertaking is considered illegitimate in Islamic sharia unless in certain cases where the individual needs to protect his life. When an army attacks civilians, as is the case when the US invaded Iraq, killing more than a million people by direct bombardment of civilians or by instigating factional fighting to mask or legitimize its ongoing campaign to kill civilians, then that is - without doubt - a campaign of terror, and a prime example of state terrorism.
MA: What is the greatest source of terrorism in the world?
YB: Today, major world powers like Britain, Germany, Russia, China - and above all the United States - use extensive and innovative intelligence-gathering techniques to gather information on the smallest details of political, economic and military activity in every corner of the world. Hence no militant group can be formed without being noticed and monitored by the intelligence service of one or all of these countries. It is widely suspected that these countries use terrorist groups for their own purposes.
The greatest source of terrorism in the world is the behind-the-scene political conflict between the major powers to dominate the world. When the political means of one major power faces a deadlock, it resorts to local groups, which it supplies with material resources to terrorize the people in its drive to destabilize a local regime. There is no independent source of terrorism as there is no independent group of terrorists.
MA: How do you explain the emergence of so-called Islamic terrorism?
YB: It is the greatest lie nowadays to speak of "Islamic terrorism". Since Islam forbids terrorism, then no terrorist could be labeled Islamic. He would have had to abandon the Islamic path to become a terrorist. However, as the label has been established by the propaganda machine of the superpowers, we should be frank in saying that far from serving Islamic interests, terrorist groups tend to serve American or British interests.
MA: Do you agree with the official version of the incidents on September 11, 2001?
YB: I believe that the most pertinent facts surrounding the 9/11 incidents have been suppressed. What can be said of the real story is the way the US used the issue to execute its geopolitical plans. These plans changed the norms of international relations and the norms of war. Following the 9/11 incidents, the US government overhauled its diplomacy and either abolished or severely downgraded civic international relations and norms to lay the foundation for new forms of warfare.
It legitimized pre-emptive American intervention in any country it suspects of ill intentions towards the US. This meant that it has effectively imposed its control (whether directly or indirectly) over every single state, and legitimized its interference in the local investigation of any crime, money transaction and even media direction. None of these actions are related to the 9/11 incidents but to American plans to become an unrivalled hegemon on the world stage. This is something the US could not have done without 9/11 or a pretext of such magnitude.
MA: How does the 9/11 narrative serve American interests?
YB: As I have just outlined, it has allowed the US to pursue its agenda of global domination in the post-Cold War world. During the Cold War, the US had a pretext to its policies that were based on extending its authority over the rest of the world. Namely, it used the threat of communism to justify this policy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it lost that pretext. It could not continue as an effective world leader with actual authority without a recognized global war theater.
The world theater after the collapse of the Soviet Union became a diplomatic one. This subjected American authority to many other qualifying factors, including political differences with other countries. The Americans came to the conclusion that allowing a multilateral approach to world politics would greatly undermine the US’s global position, authority and role. Because America is not a country of ideals as it claims, America’s posture in the world is based on its military capacity and not on its ideology. It claims to be based on an ideology only to justify its military actions against other countries. No nation in the history of the human race has killed people as much as the Americans have killed.
No country since humans started gathering in defined territorial spaces has murdered more civilians on the pretext of war necessities as the US military did directly or through its agents. No ideology could justify that unless this is a false pretext. America needed 9/11 to justify imposing the military theater on the world because America cannot dominate this world without its military power. If America does not dominate the world militarily, it would become just another great power and would have to continuously justify its global position through conventional or quasi-conventional political, economic and cultural norms and discourses.
MA: Are the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan justifiable from an Islamic point of view?
YB: The insurgency, if it is against an invading army, is of course legitimate. However, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan against civilians like random bombing or explosions in civilian quarters like markets, streets, public buildings, places of worship, buses and the like could not be acts of insurgency but illegitimate acts, and is absolutely unjustifiable and illegal in Islam. Here it should be stated that these acts are only part of the American political and strategic plan to fragment the social fabric of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and any other place where the Americans are bent on destabilization as a prelude to intervention or a full-blown invasion.
MA: Under what conditions can Muslims attack American interests?
YB: In the absence of an Islamic state anywhere in the world, Muslims’ most urgent priority is to rally to establish the Islamic state that alone has the right to undertake military actions. In the absence of this state Muslims can only take action against an invading army of any Islamic territory and not outside of that.
MA: Is military conflict between the future Islamic state and the United States inevitable?
YB: It is not that the Islamic state when re-established will have a priority of declaring war against any other state or against the world. Declaring war is tied to many issues and circumstances. Unlike the United States, the Islamic state is not a war-loving state but a complex ideological entity that discharges its responsibilities in every sphere to the highest standards.
Mahan Abedin is a senior researcher in terrorism studies and a consultant to independent media in Iran. He is currently based in northern Iraq, where he is helping to develop local media capacity.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
