Dialog, not Confrontation......????!!!

Many things are regretable subsequent to the occurrence of the gloomy Tuesday, or September tragedy at the World Trade Centre in New York and at the Pentagon. Firstly is the revival of the old “sense” in the westerners’ consciousness generally; a sort of a bad presumption about the Muslim world. As described by Edward Said, a Christian Palestinian, in his classic book, Covering Islam, there is the tendency to “generalize” about Islam and Muslim without looking at the soft and small nuances within the real life. From time to time, such presumption resurfaces. It is like a virus which sometimes sleeps, but never truly dies.
Whenever a tragic event occurs in the Muslim world or in the Western world, such presumption reemerges.

A member of the National Security Council, Peter Rodman, wrote in the National Review on 11th May 1992: “Yet now the West finds itself challenged from the outside by a militant, atavistic force driven by hatred of all Western political thought, harking back to age-old grievances against Christendom”. An article with similar tone suddenly reappeared in the daily The New York Times on 16th September 2001: “The airborne assault on the WorldTradeCenter and the Pentagon is the culmination of a decade-long holy war against the United States that is escalating methodically in ambition, planning and execution.”

The word “Christendom” and “holy war” used in both articles seems to show that there is “a holy war” going on between the West and the outer world, especially the Muslim world. However I should highlight that the word “Crusade” and “holy war” are often used by western writers in their common definition, without any religious content. When the controversy on abortion occurred in America several years ago for instance, the advocates of abortion were illustrated as the party performing a “crusade” against the embryo’s life. A title for a book written by Charles A. Scontras about the children labor is an interesting example, In the Name of Humanity: Maine’s Crusade against Child Labor. Of course the word “crusade” here has nothing to do with the crusade in the Middle Age between Muslims and Christians.

The same thing happened in Islam. When the plan of a revenge attack against Afghanistan was announced by President Bush, the reaction of (some) Muslim communities was a call for “Jihad” against America. Even at a worse level, some of them wanted to “raid” foreigners -particularly Americans- in Indonesia. Some Islamic groups created the image as if a total confrontation was occurring between the Muslim world and the Western Christian world. The theory of the “clash of civilization” conveyed by Samuel Huntington was suddenly quoted everywhere.

Yet, we know that such an impression is not true. There is an attempt to build a bridge through an interfaith dialog. The “dialog of inter-civilization” is even more common than the “clash of civilization”. Many Muslim students go to Western countries each year, to Europe, America or Australia, to study “secular” science in those countries. We have to admit that most of people who “attack” the West were the alumnus of those countries’ universities. Many Western scholars also go on “intellectual” visits to Muslim countries annually. The attempt to show Islam in various faces and aspects is also done by scholars, journalists and so on.

We remember the attempt of the President of Iran, Ali Khomeini, who campaigned for an inter-civilization dialog as an attempt to prove that “clash” is not the only possible way. Apart from several bad presumptions underlying the Western media’s consciousness of the Muslim world, as discussed critically by Edward W. Said in his book Covering Islam, we should not forget several “good intentions” of the Western scholars to understand the Muslim world as well. I thinkthe best seller book: History of God written by Karen Armstrongis a good example. Popular books written by American anthropologist named Elisabeth Warnock Fernea is another example. Fernea wrote a best seller book about Iranian people by the title Guest of the Sheik. She also wrote two other books, Street in Marrakech and In Search of Islamic Feminism. With her anthropologist husband, Robert A. Fernea, she wrote a witness of living “within” muslim community in Middle East, The Arab World: Personal Encounters.

The famous as well as the mostly misunderstood name in the muslim world is John L. Esposito who wrote four volumes of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, an important source for Muslim and Western scholars in general. With several intellectuals in Georgetown University, Esposito established the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. In this centre, several famous scholars are assembled like John O. Voll, Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, and a Malaysian intellectual, Osman Bakar. Georgetown University was established by the Catholic Church in Washington, DC.

The establishment of the Center of Muslim-Christian Understanding in a University of the Catholic Church is an interesting example, since it shows that dialog between both religions is possible, and it is necessary. It’s interesting that since spring 1999, Georgetown University has appointed a “chaplain” for muslim students in that university. A “Chaplain is similar to an “imam”. This position is occupied by Jordanian ulama, Imam Yahya Hendi.

This does not mean that there is no problem with the US foreign policies towards the muslim world. A paradox which often perturbs many people is the US campaign to disseminate ideas about democracy and human right, while giving unreserved support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which often violates its citizens’ civil rights. The unfair and discriminating US policy regarding Palestine is the source of annoyance and hatred toward the US government in Arab regions. However, mixing the American government and American citizen is improper. Not all American citizens agree upon its foreign policies, hence the “sweeping” upon Americans in Indonesia is unreasonable.

Such sweeping supposes the presence of an equal vision between the government and its citizens, which is not the case. The condition post 11th September tragedy is regrettable, since it seems that the inter-civilization dialog is impossible. It seems that there is a big gap between “West” and “East” which is hard to bridge. People who assume that the world is formed by two contradictory blocks -good and evil blocks- are benefited by such condition. The black-white view is easy to accept since such a view is the simplest to absorb by uncritical thought.

What has been forgotten by many people is what is called as “West” and “Islam” which never have a clear and precise definition. Which part of West? In its popular definition, West often identified to European and American. Obviously there is a big distinction between nations living in both continents. We know that America is a federal country, with a range of societies having various views. The clearest tendency in American society is the strong spirit of “anti-state” because of the historical heritage of Europe where state is identical with oppressive imperial power supported by the (Catholic) Church. This “anti state” ethos explain the strong spirit of federalism in that state, and hatred for centralization. That is why America which is very “imperial” is not accompanied by the “imperial” awareness of its citizens. American people, in my impression, do not care about matters regarding their government’s foreign policy.

This explanation indicates that it is wrong and improper to suppose the Western people as something clear and single; that American society is identical with its government; and that American society is a set of people with a homogeneous opinion.

It is similar to Islam. What is called as “Islam” with a big exclamation mark is not as obvious as they assume. Since eventually, the definition of Islam is a social definition. Islam is not one uniform entity. It is impossible to say about the confrontation between “West” and “Islam”, which Islam? We know that Muslim’s opinion regarding WTC and Pentagon tragedy varies. If we suppose that by such tragedy Islamic world has “incited the spirit of jihad” versus America as often stated by the preachers, which Islam do they mean?

Another misunderstanding is the one about Afghan people-Taliban Government-Afghanistan Country-Islam. Since the majority of Afghan people are Muslim and governed by the Taliban which enforced Islamic sharia, hence the US invasion upon Afghanistan was an invasion of Islam and it should be resisted. But considering such attack as the attack upon Islam is a messy attitude. Deep sympathy must be given to the Afghan people who suffer due to internal conflicts approaching the Soviet Union’s invasion on 1979, due to the invasion itself, due to civil war post the invasion, and due to the repressive policy of Taliban government which eliminate the civil rights of its citizens. The Government of Taliban’s policy carrying tragic consequences on women obviously can’t be considered as “Islamic” (see http://www.rawa.org). It’s regrettable if the Taliban rulers are considered as the representatives of the Muslim world as their treatment of their citizens is against the prophetic values of Islam.

****

Dialog is the only possible road to take currently. Confrontation will only benefit people who have polar views regarding life: “Islam” and “infidel”, good or bad and etc. This way will only benefit the conservative and extreme people of any religion. This way also will benefit any religious elites who will manipulate their community’s ignorance for their own interest.



by: Ulil Abshar-Abdalla

MORE.....

Democracy and Religious Radicalism

The radical religious movements in Indonesia are being born at the same time as the democratisation process is emerging. For instance, regional autonomy as the reflection of democracy, has resulted in the revival of the will to implement Islamic Sharia. In several regions such as West Sumatera, Aceh, Makassar and Cianjur, a number of regional regulations (Perda) have been arranged for implimenting Islamic Sharia. The emergence of the radical Islam social organizations on a massive scale as the part of a social movement has also occurred in tandem with the democratisation since May 1998, although its seeds were sown long before.

John O Voll, Professor of history at Georgetown University US, has an interesting conclusion regarding the relation between Islam, democracy and terrorism He conveyed this in a discussion about ‘Democracy and terrorism in Muslim countries” at Jakarta several days ago. According to him, the relation between democracy and terrorism in the Muslim countries indicates a paradox. On one hand, the absence of democracy leads to the emergence of terrorism, but on the other hand, the presence of democracy could deliver terrorism as well. Even though it is admitted that terrorism is not an Islamic characteristic and can be performed by anyone besides Muslims, but the assumption that democratization process could eliminate the religious radicalism such as terrorism is invalid in the Muslim countries, because the democratization process in Muslim countries does not eliminate terrorism automatically. (Kompas, 15/01/2002)

John O Voll’s thesis is based on a deep understanding of democratic developments in various Muslim countries. Therefore his conclusion’s offer important truths. The democratisation process has not eliminated terrorism automatically, and has even been used as the inspiration for the resurgence of religious radicalism. In many Muslim countries, the religious radical movements are born during the democratisation process and Indonesia might become a good example of this.

The radical religious movements in Indonesia are being born at the same time as the democratisation process is emerging. For instance, regional autonomy as the reflection of democracy, has resulted in the revival of the will to implement Islamic Sharia. In several regions such as West Sumatera, Aceh, Makassar and Cianjur, a number of regional regulations (Perda) have been arranged for implimenting Islamic Sharia. The emergence of the radical Islam social organizations on a massive scale as the part of a social movement has also occurred in tandem with the democratisation since May 1998, although its seeds were sown long before.

How could this be explained? Democracy ought to make the social order more liquid, egalitarian and inclusive, but the facts show the contrary. Democracy in Indonesia is even congealing tribal and religious identities, religious diversity is being exploited, religious exclusivism is emerging. Surely this is counter-intuitive to the expectations of the democratisation. This phenomenon is like the “illicit child” whose birth is unexpected and cannot be prevented. Even killing the “illicit child” would be considered as a crime. The “illicit child” of democracy in the form of religious radicalism will become a threat to democracy.

A democracy that protects freedom of speech, thought and expression cannot impede society’s aspirations whatever the form. Like it or not, democracy cannot stifle thoughts that are themselves against democratic values, because stifling them is against the meaning of democracy itself. The mature democratic countries show that the full variety of ideologies and thoughts are protected by the state. But here is the problem, because democracy is impotent in facing religious radicalism. The democratic mechanism can only allowing radicalism to compete with other notions and ideas.

The fact that religious radicalism’s revival is often wrapped in democratic cloth is unsurprising though it is actually paradoxical to the democratic spirit. The struggle of enacting Islamic Sharia in some regions, the spirit to revive Jakarta’s Charter for instance, emerged in the name of democracy and liberty. Democracy could even be swallowed by its own freedom such that there is possibility that a nation could even fall into new forms of authoritarianism. This obviously is very dangerous because the new authoritarianism wears a democratic cloth.

From this perspective we can explain why the development of democracy in the Muslim world is always deficient as shown in the survey performed by Freedom House, a research institution at the United State. The survey at the end of 2001 concerning the freedom score for many countries showed that freedom and democracy in the Muslim countries scores very low. Out of the 47 Muslim majority countries, only 11 countries have governments that have been elected democratically. Meanwhile, in the 145 Non-Muslim countries, 110 of them have joined the electoral system. Freedom House’s score issued every year shows little significant change in the Muslim countries.

***

There is a significant questionat hand: Is there something “wrong” in the Muslim countries, so that democracy and freedom is always stagnant or non-existent? Even while democracy develops, radicalism off all sorts emerge, especially religious radicalism. Why so? There is a good explanation from Samuel P Hutington (1991) . Beside the economic and political factors, cultural and traditional factors become the most important obstacles for the democracy’s growth in a country. Society’s culture and tradition – regarding attitude, value, trust and behaviour influence democratic development. A society’s culture which is undemocratic, originating in cultural as well as religious understanding, blocks the spread of democratic norms in the society and does not give legitimacy to democratic institutions and their function.

At least there are two versions regarding this culture. Firstly, a restrictive version, which declares that it is only the western culture which is the appropriate context for the dissemination of democracy. Countries, which have no western culture, are not able to become democratic. This argument emerges due to the fact that modern democracy started in the west; hence since the beginning of the 19th century, the biggest democratic states are the western states.

Secondly, there is a less restrictive version which states that it’s not only specific cultures that uphold the democracy. Confucianism and Islamic culture in the East could become fields of democracy. Confucianism was considered as anti-democratic and anti-capitalist in the 1980’s, yet Confucianism has been able to support democracy and also the tremendous economic growth in East Asian society. Similarly Catholicism as compared to Protestantism was seen as an obstacle to democracy and economic growth. But in the 1960’s and 1970’s Catholic states become democratic and achieved higher economical growth than the Protestant states.

Observing those facts then, as far as it regards religious teaching and tradition, the conditions for the emergence of democracy cannot be see as black and white, “appropriate” and “inappropriate”. Culture and tradition, trust, doctrine, assumption, behaviour and etc., all are very complex phenomenon.

Besides, the culture that later delivers tradition is not something finished, but always in transformation. Therefore, a tradition that is claimed formerly as democracy’s obstacle, in the next generation could be the opposite. Spain is a good example of this. In the 1950’s, Spanish culture was illustrated as traditional, authoritarian, hierarchical, and very religious. But in the 1970’s those values lost their place in Spain. Therefore culture is always evolving and its most determinant factor is economic development. With this explanation obviously the factors of culture and tradition factors cannot be used as permanent arguments to justify the retarded democratic level of certain states.

***

The emergence of religious radicalism is caused by three factors. Firstly, disappointment toward the democratic system considered as secular, where religion has no space in the state. Religion is a private matter that cannot be interfered in, while the state is a public matter. The democratic teaching that placed the people’s voice as the God’s voice (vox populi vox dei) is considered to be subordinate to God. Therefore, religious radicalism movements usually take the form of Islamic state struggle, theocracy or Theo-democracy in al-Maududi’s terms. Although the radical group are disappointed with the democratic system, they utilize democratic momentum to struggle for their political aspirations.

Secondly, disappointment toward the social system’s collapse is caused by the state’s powerlessness to manage society’s life religiously. In the Islamic context, this kind of religious radicalism usually take the from of Islamization of social systems by enforcing strict controls over social activities considered as maksiat (sinful) or as violating religion. This kind of radicalism can be expressed in the form of the destruction of places destruction, prostitution, gambling etc.

Thirdly, political injustice. Religious radicalism can appear as a form of resistance toward political systems which are oppressive and unfair. In the case of a group which is incessantly oppressed and treated unfairly, its internal solidarity allows for a militancy to emerge. This kind of radicalism usually takes the form of opposition toward the government in the name of religion.

Religious radicalism emerged in Indonesia as a variation and mixture of these models considered above. In a democratic state, religious radicalism, as long as it does not result in social anarchy, should be given a space of expression. Therefore, the question of the role of the state is not about how to stifle that radicalism, but how to channel it through political institutions. If that is done, religious radicalism can still be be controlled within a democratic frame.


BY: Rumadi
MORE.....

Colorful Islam

The message called on the Muslim community to reject the idea of a single view of Islam because this belief can be used to justify certain groups actions while denying other groups the right to hold their own views. The idea of a many-faceted Islam was designed to encourage pluralism and social diversity.

The public service advertisement “Colorful
Islam” which was prominently displayed several weeks ago on Indonesia’s two
biggest national television stations, RCTI and SCTV, suddenly disappeared. As
communicated through the media, those in charge of both television stations
declared that they had decided to withdraw the advertisement because of threats
from the Majelis Mujahidin, an Islamic organization taking a hard line in the
campaign against Islamic reform.

Many people have criticized this. They
argue that the attitude of Majelis Mujahidin is one of arrogance. How can one
group claim the sole right to interpret Islam? Thus many parties feel that RCTI
and SCTV have been “irresponsible” especially in that they simply withdrew the advertisment
without discussing the retraction with Utan Kayu’s Islamic community (KIUK),
the group which sponsored the advertisement.

Widespread objection to this event has been
expressed amongst members of the group Liberal Islam. I don’t want to prolong
the debate about the anxiety and the reactionary nature behind this decision by
both televisions. In this limited space, I just want to explain the origin of
the advertizing slogan and to what extent the term “Colorful Islam” phrase can
held accountable for being offensive to anti-reformist Islamic groups. I was
involved in the preparation of the advertisement with other members of KIUK. We
discussed and thought over every word deeply and why such ideas should have
been advertized. The phrase “Colorful Islam” was the final option we came up
with after very careful consideration.

The message conveyed through that
advertisement was that Islam is not a single monolithic entity but a religous
belief open to different interpretations. The message called on the Muslim
community to reject the idea of a single view of Islam because this belief can
be used to justify certain groups actions while denying other groups the right
to hold their own views. The idea of a many-faceted Islam was designed to encourage
pluralism and social diversity.

In the modern world, slogans are essential.
They are not simply effective phrases for transmitting messages but serve as
psychological jargon for the audience as well. The KIUK staff, who work with
the mass media, obviously understood the psychological significance behind the
choice of the slogan. “Colorful Islam” is not just an exotic selection of
words, but a slogan based on theological (kalamiyyah), Islamic
jurisprudential (fiqhiyyah), and sociological (ijtimaiyyah) arguments
as described in the plan for the advertisement. The slogan was the result of
careful contemplation over Islamic doctrine and history.

Theologically, Islam has many forms. Since
the death of Prophet Muhammad, Muslim communities have always held a variety of
beliefs (Aqeeda) regarding divinity, prophecy, revelation, and other
immaterial matters. Islam is by its nature diverse, for example, in the forms
of Murjiah, Syiah, Khawarij, Muktazilah, and Ahlussunnah. The Fiqh tradition in
particular highlights diversity in endorsing the doctrine of aktsaru min qaulayn
(to hold more than two opinions). This means that there is always a
possibility of other’s truth outside of our own beliefs of what constitutes
truth.

One Prophetic tradition says: la yafqahu al-rajulu
hatta yara fi al-qur’ani wujuhan katsiratan (someone is not considered as faqih
until he observes many aspects of the Qur’an). Accepting different views is
at the core of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) teaching. ThusAziz Azmah, a
Syrian intellectual, writes that: “sociologically we cannot talk about the one
Islam, but Islams” (Islams and Modernities, 1996). Indeed, there are many forms
of Islam in the modern world: NU Islam, Muhammadiyah Islam, FPI Islam, Wahaby
Islam, Laskar Jihad Islam, Liberal Islam, and so on.

Ever since the time of the Prophet, Islam
has existed in the form of many beliefs, or symbolically speaking—in many
colors. This colorfulness in Islam is not a problem which should be regretted
or criticized. But, on the contrary, as said by the prophet, it must be
appreciated because it is part of Allah’s blessing (ikhtilafu ummati rahmah).

Al Qur’an itself reminds us clearly that
the diversity in Islam was deliberately made by Allah. In sura Hud (11) verse
118-119 and sura al-Ma’idah (5) verse 51, Allah clearly denies the unitary view
(wahidah) and on the contrary emphasizes diversity (mukhtalifin). Thus denying
a colorful Islam involves the denial of the sunnah given by Allah in the Al Qur’an.

BY: Luthfi Assyaukanie
MORE.....

Why Anti-Americanism?

Bush’s response fails to explain the anti-Americanism that is growing in Arab countries. Bush statement even confirms one belief is frequently affirmed about America that it is increasingly inwardly oriented. Moreover their mass media is parochial rather than global, it is not sensitive to the outside world, especially the Islamic world. When they were attacked, their myth of isolation was destroyed. Subsequently, their comprehension of global anti-Americanism remains insufficient as seen in George W. Bush’s response.

A year after the 11th September tragedy, anti-American sentiment within Arab and Muslim countries is on the increase. For example, in The Jakarta Post several days ago, a report claimed that although many Muslim societies have conveyed their sympathy towards the victims of the WTC tragedy, hatred towards the US is escalating. Large numbers of Egyptian people, for instance, are expressing their rage toward the US due to its policy regarding Israel and Iraq. In Syria, the newspaper Tishrin has even claimed that it is Arab nations who have paid “the highest price” for the 11 September, while Israel is free-riding the campaign against terrorism by unjustifiably comparing the Palestinian struggle with terrorism. Even in Kuwait, which in 1991 crowned the US as the liberator in the Iraq invasion, people now take Osama bin Laden for a hero.

Where does this anti-Americanism come from? Why do people hate America? A year ago, following 9-11, many Americans ask themselves these questions. As President George W. Bush, in his statement before the congress on the 20th September 2001 said: “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate our freedom—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” According to Bush, the hatred towards the US is a hatred of freedom. Others would argue that the terrorists hate the US because of their jealousy of America’s wealth and supremacy.

This kind of answer might partially explain why the flames of American patriotism have burnt so brightly over the last year during the war against the international terrorism’s network. Indeed for the US, the idea of freedom is at the heart of their identity, so when it is attacked the spirit of patriotism becomes inflamed.

Bush’s response fails to explain the anti-Americanism that is growing in Arab countries. Bush statement even confirms one belief is frequently affirmed about America that it is increasingly inwardly oriented. Moreover their mass media is parochial rather than global, it is not sensitive to the outside world, especially the Islamic world. When they were attacked, their myth of isolation was destroyed. Subsequently, their comprehension of global anti-Americanism remains insufficient as seen in George W. Bush’s response.

The anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is not in the main generated by an abhorrence of American freedom, and not by jealousy towards American prosperity, but due to the deep frustration toward the US policy over the Middle East, which is constantly based on short-term American interests.

US policy in the Middle East is based on access to 2/3 of the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas. At the same time, minimal attention is given to the democratization process there. The US frivolously supports the secular authoritarian regimes that are corrupt and repressive as long as they can maintain stability and sustain production. Islamic regimes that are undemocratic and oppress human rights but maintain American interests such as Saudi Arabia are considered as partners. In other words, what matters are US interests, and not democratization or human rights.

Another feature that decreases US honor in the Muslim world is the lenient and passive attitude toward the Palestiain affair. The state terrorism that is practiced by Israel upon the Palestinians is obvious but the US seems to merely understand the Israel’s justification for state terrorism that it is a form of self-defense. Meanwhile, the US agrees with Israel’s view that Palestine’s resistance is terrorism.

I think the Palestinian affair is one of the main reasons driving anti American sentiment. This sentiment has deepened particularly after the Arab defeat in the six day war against Israel in 1967 in which the US supported Israel. This defeat was the lowest point of Arab dignity in recent history.

This anti-American sentiment could have been hardly imagined as emerging in the 1950s or beginning of 1960s because at that time the US was a model for Arab nation’s progress. A famous Egyptian journalist Mohammad Heikal illustrates the mood of that period very well: “The total picture of the United States of America… is a glamour world… British emporium and France has been faded and hated. The Soviet Union is so far away, and the communism ideology is anathema for the Muslim. But America after the Second World War appear as the more prosperous, more powerful and more attractive than before.”

The re-evaluation of US policy in the Middle East, especially in regards to Palestine should be reconsidered if they want to fight terrorism. The US should ask itself, using the title of Bernard Lewis latest book “what went wrong?” Lewis also suggests that the Muslim world should similarly ask themselves “What went wrong?” How could the 9-11 terrorists have been born among them?

It is unnecessary for the Muslim to deny that there is something pathologically wrong with the Muslim community as exemplified by the Al-Qaida network, Abu Sayyaf Group and etcetera. These terrorist groups have hijacked Islam for their own objective by impressing the world that they are the true bearers of the face of Islam. To cure this kind of disease, resorting to ideas of a Western conspiracy against Islam is contra productive. The right attitude is admitting to the pathology and healing it by promoting an alternative image of Islam as friendly, pluralist and inclusive.

Nevertheless, Muslim introspection should be matched by American introspection regarding its attitude to the Middle East affair. America should have been supporting the democratic and pluralistic regimes and upholding civil society in the Middle East. Secondly, America should be more open to the suggestions of Arab society concerning Israel and be more emphatic toward Palestinan suffering.

These two preventive actions would be effective in the long-term in reducing terrorism. Through committing themselves to democracy and the freedom of expression, the Islamic movements could moderate their views and by entering into a dialectic with democracy reject terrorism. If they could gain support democratically, the terrorists would find themselves alienated.

That sort of alienation is what is happening now within the al Qaeda network. On this point, Gilles Kepel’s analysis is enlightening. In his latest book, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, this French sociologist reverses the public assumption that the terrorist attack on America last year represents a growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism. According to Kepel, that attack is instead a sign of the bankruptcy of the radical Islam movements, that such acts are “symbolic of the despair due to the isolation, fragmentation, and the declination of the Islam movement, and not the sign of its power and greatness.

Ironically, the US is not asking, “what went wrong. Their approach against terrorism is unilateral and works on the principal that “whoever is not with us is our enemy.” The US also insists on categorizing Iraq and Iran as the axis of evil and subsequently planed the invasion of Iraq even though none of the WTC terrorists came from either country. Saddam Hussein is certainly a repressive tyrant but attacking Iraq now would only uphold its position. Moreover everyone knows that Iran, through the leadership of moderate president Khatami is clearing a path towards democracy. History does not side with the Mullah as in Iran now. But what can be done about it? The US has been blind on this matter.

Whereas the US has been working out a more romantic relationship with Saudi Arabia even though the fact is that 15 out of 19 of the WTC terrorists were identified as Saudi nationals. The US does not want to damage their relationship with the Saudis because their interests are being fulfilled there.

The excessive fear of terrorism has also led the US to give priority to security issues above everything else, even at the risk of sacrificing civil liberties and human’s rights. In the name of the fight against terrorism, thousands of people could be arrested and interrogated secretly without any access to legal assistance. In the name of the fight against the terrorism, hundreds of Taliban captive have been brought to Guantanamo without sufficient human rights safeguards. And in the name of the truth, the US supports the third world’s military including the Indonesian military despite their human rights problems as long as they are capable of arresting anyone accused of being a terrorist.

In conclusion, this campaign against terrorism ends up being used by authoritarian rulers to suppress political pposition. So the government of China for instance, dares to prosecute the Uighur Muslim resistance in Xinjiang province. The government of Singapore is using ISA to arrest anyone considered as terrorist and Mahathir in Malaysia as well as president Nursultan Nazarbaev in Kazakhstan and Askar Akaev from Kirgizstan are using it to suppress the opposition. Last but not least, in the name of anti terrorism, Ariel Sharon has used it to increase the intensity of the attack on Palestinians.

If America continues down this road, the chain of terrorism will not be cut, instead, its seeds will find fertile ground to grow in. Don’t be surprised then if anti Americanism doesn’t vanish but grows instead.


by: Ahmad Sahal
MORE.....