MODERNISM AND TERRORISTS IDEOLOGY
Cornelius Afebu Omonokhua
It has become fanciful for some
people to “create” God in their own image and likeness by interpreting the
sacred books in accordance with their own feelings. Nuriye Akman is very worried that Islam has
carried the label “terrorism” whereas, Islam states, “do not touch children or
people who worship in churches”. This
instruction of Prophet Muhammad was also proclaimed by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and at later dates by Salahaddin
Ayyubi, Alparslan, Kiliçarslan and Sultan Mehmet II, the Conqueror. [1] He
regrets that some religious leaders and immature followers have no other weapon
to hand over to their children other than their fundamentalist interpretation
of religion to serve their own selfish and ambitious purposes.
One of the ways to test the truth of any revelation and the interpretation
of a divine revelation is the fruit and result. No one is a witness to a person
who claims to receive a message from God, so the claim cannot be approved or
denied by another person. A visionary is a sole witness to his or her message.
The only way another person can judge the authenticity of a divine revelation
or vision is if the outcome of the religious experience gives peace and reveals
the benevolence, mercy and compassion of the true God. Otherwise, the recipient
of the message could have heard the voice of a devil, the source of anarchy or
may be hallucinating. Followers of the
TRUE God should be able to coexist in peace as creatures of the Creator. They
should be able to form a union irrespective of religious and tribal differences
to solve common problems, to interpret the universe and study the signs of the
times and project into the future.
Reacting to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, Nuriye said, “One
of the people, whom I hate most in the world, is Osama Bin Laden, because he
has sullied the bright face of Islam. He has created a contaminated image. Even
if we were to try our best to fix the terrible damage that has been done, it
would take years to repair.[2] This reaction came from the fact that the action
of the terrorist was claimed in God’s name thereby contradicting the nature of
the God of peace. Fethullah Gűlen released a press declaration renouncing the
September 11 terrorist attack on the USA and affirms that “terror can never be
used in the name of Islam or for the sake of any Islamic ends. A terrorist
cannot be a Muslim and a Muslim cannot be a terrorist. A Muslim can only be the
representative and symbol of peace, welfare and prosperity” [3]
Fethullah Gűlen believes that the terrorist ideology should be located in
lack of education and failure of parents and the society to properly bring up
their children in a civilized and enlightened manner. Religion has become a
very easy tool for destruction. The glaring fact is that poor upbringing has
led to drug abuse which is a necessary accompaniment of violence. Nuriye Akman alluded to the events in Turkey when on March 12, 1971 everyone became involved
in a bloody fight. The military came and intervened. On September 12, 1980
people were out for one another’s blood. Everyone was killing one another. Some
people were trying to reach a goal by killing others. Everybody was a
terrorist. The people on that side were terrorists; the people on this side
were terrorists. But, everybody was labeling the same action differently. One
person would say, “I am doing this in the name of Islam.” Another would say,
“I am doing it for my land and people.” A third would say, “I am fighting
against capitalism and exploitation.”
Everyone was killing in the name of an ideal. This was nothing less than
terror. These killings came to be a goal that was “realizable.” Killing became
a habit. Nuriye
believes that this
situation could have been prevented by education, the laws and regulations of
the government. Worse still, some of these marginal groups are shielded by
their communities from facing the law and justice. People must understand that
if they do something evil, even if it is as tiny as an atom, they will pay for
that both here and in the Hereafter. [4]
From the above analysis, it follows that some terrorist organizations derive
their ideology from political and economic interests from foreign powers and
direct them to particular goals such as “conspiracy theories” to destabilize
the poorer countries. Another possible ideology could be the internal conflicts
and reactions against the incumbent government of a nation. This is an indirect
coup d’état of a hidden untouchable power.
This ideology is a conflict of civilization and not a conflict of
religion hence Akbar Ahmed in the forward to the book, “Islam” by Hesham A. Hassaballa and Kabir Helminski, proposed a
dialogue of civilization as recommended by President Mohammed Khatami of Iran
in the United Nations. [5]
The first suicide
attack on Israeli soil was committed in 1972 by the Japanese Red Army. [6]
The use of suicide bombing by Hamas falls into the category of strategic terrorism
analysed by Robert Pape. [7]
Terrorism began to appear in Europe at the time of the break-up of medieval
order. [8] The intellectual roots of terrorism could be
located in the European Counter-Enlightenment. In the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, the rational skepticism of Enlightenment thinkers like
David Hume led to a rejection of reason itself. J.G. Hamman rejected rational
inquiry in favour of religious revelation. Kierkegaard defended religious faith
in terms of subjective experience. J.G. Herder rejected the Enlightenment ideal
of a universal civilization, believing there are many cultures, each in some
ways unique. Later in the nineteenth century, thinkers such as Fitchte and
Nietzsche glorified will over reason. Al Qaeda sees itself as an alternative to
the modern world, but the ideas on which it draws are quintessentially modern. Some
scholars argue that terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to
American power akin to a reaction to any strong empire. The Russian, Ottoman, and
Habsburg Empires, for example, all suffered from terrorist attacks and had
terrorist organizations. The Black Hand, Young Bosnia, Narodnaya Volya and
others spawned from their multiple ethnic groups, religions and national
identities. [9]
In spite of this
philosophical evidence, most terrorist ideologies have religious coloration.
This means that whoever is charged with the responsibility of dialoguing with
the terrorists must know what he or she wants to achieve and how he or she
intends to achieve it. Any dialogue with only the mind frame of religion may
likely hit the rocks. Mikhail Bakunin, the nineteenth century Russian anarchist
believes that the passion for destruction is a creative passion. The belief
that human progress requires the destruction of existing institutions animated
a long line of twentieth century revolutionaries that include Lenin, Trotsky
and Mao. According to Francis Fukuyama, Jacobins believe that violence is a
means of regenerating society, which prejudiced Great Terror in revolutionary
France. Despite their position on the political spectrum, neo-conservatives
belong in this Jacobin and Leninist tradition. It is therefore relevant to
carefully study the psychology and the ontology of the terrorists in the
context of modernism to give the world a lasting peace.
Fr. Prof. Cornelius Afebu Omonokhua is the Director of Mission and
Dialogue of the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, Abuja; and Consultor of the
Commission for Religious Relations with Muslims (C.R.R.M), Vatican City
(comonokhua@hotmail.com).
[1] Nuriye Akman in Ergün Ҫapan (Ed), Terror and Suicide Attacks: An Islamic Perspective, (New Jersey, the Light, 2004) Pp 1-6
[5] Hesham A. Hassaballa
and Kibir Helminski, The Beliefnet Guide
to Islam, (New York,
Doubleday, 2006), P. viii
[6] John Gray Pp. 25-26
[7] Robert Pape, Dying to win:
The Strategic Logic of Suicide Bombing, (Random House: New York, 2005).
[8] John Gray P. 9
[9] Frontline: Al Qaeda’s New Front: Interviews: Michael Scheuer”;
Retrieved March 8, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment