Fortsetzung: Terrorism, Jihad, and the Muslim Community - A Malaysian Perspective
Elina Norr
Jihad and the Root Causes of Rage and Terrorism
Regrettably, the word jihad has become synonymous with the term "holy war" not only in the West but also among sections of the worldwide ummah which similarly equate it to "martyrdom" in the context of acts of terror such as suicide bombings which kill, maim and injure innocent bystanders. Scholars have argued that the Arabic term for "holy war" would be al-harb muhadassa,instead, and thatthe more accurate translation of jihad would be "to struggle" or "to strive for". While various forms of the core word jihad appear in the Qur'an in different contexts, the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad p.b.u.h., expounded the internal struggle within the individual self against harmful desires in the rightful path of God as being the greater jihad. Indeed, upon returning from a battle, Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. is quoted as having said, "We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad", referring to the struggle of God's believers against their lowly desires.
But there is a tendency to lose sight of this greater jihad when rallying calls to the physical battlefront in the name of God appeal to the emotions so much more. There is also a sense of comfort and strength in numbers that far outweighs the lonely struggle of battling one's own demons. What is of utmost importance is the understanding of the psyche that favours violence, and correspondingly, identification of the causes of acts of terror - what drove the hatred that led to the type of quiet, unrestrained fury in the plane attacks of September 11? What continues to fuel the emotions and resolve of ever-willing suicide bombers in Israel and the Occupied Territories, the cadre of whom have come to include even women?
What becomes apparent when twisted religious rhetoric is stripped off its terror equation is the political motivation that underlies the route to terror in the name of religion. Beyond even the simplest cast of "Islam versus the Infidels" that drove the cause of South-East Asian militant groups such as Jemaah al-Islamiyyah (JI) and the Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia (KMM) (latterly renamed to Kumpulan Militan Malaysia) to form a greater Islamic region - Darul Islamiyyah - spanning Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia, lies the desire to effect a systemic change in the political administration of a country. But more than that, beyond mere political aims, are the powerful human emotions that hold sway over the choice of actions taken. For Muslims worldwide, the Middle East situation is the living symbol of continuous injustice, oppression and humiliation that underlie the bitter sense of frustration, anger and resentment in the majority. For nearly four decades, expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; house demolitions to mere rubble; the misery and bleakness of Palestinian life in refugee camps; and stringent Israeli checkpoints that have resulted in delayed medical treatment, and sometimes, even death for Palestinians, have fanned the flames of rage even harder. The deemed bias of the United States of America in favour of Israel, the lack of political will by the international community, and the paralysis of the Muslim world, itself, to resolve this issue have pushed a number to the extreme.
While military action may be a necessary tool in the immediate fight against terrorism, the mid- to long-term focus should undoubtedly be in the removal of its causes - in redressing inequity and injustice; in educating awareness and tolerance in diversity; in rebuilding shattered lives and communities; and in helping develop third world economies to encourage active participation, and consequently, wealth-creation, in a competitive global economy which seeks to prosper and not oppress its players. As Abdullah Ahmad Badawi emphasized at the recent Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Terrorism, 21-22 May, 2002, in Kuala Lumpur, "If we understand that human development and dignity is an important deterrent to terror, we must take a common stand to reduce instances where these fundamental rights are denied." Much has been made of a global "hearts and mind" campaign. Malaysia's experience in this began as a reaction to the Communist insurgency of the late 1940's. While there was a physical battle to uproot the Communist terrorists from their hideouts, action was also taken to reduce their support base, which was largely drawn from the Chinese community who felt alienated because they had not been given citizenship status by the ruling British administration in what was then the Malay Federation. When Malaya (Malaysia's present name was established only in 1963) achieved independence, the Government gave more than a million citizenships to the Chinese, which came with the right to meaningful participation in the democratic representation of the country. Slowly, the causes for support of the Communist terrorist activities diminished as more and more Chinese significantly integrated into society.
Without losing sight of the importance of the Middle East question to Muslims worldwide, a greater, determined effort must be made to resolve the present deadlock but the onus should not lie solely on the U.S.'s shoulders. It would be a big boom to the Palestinian cause if Arab Muslim leaders, in particular, held a united front in assisting negotiations. The Saudi peace plan is a hopeful first step in that direction, yet much work needs to be done in unifying the voice of the Muslim world. A brief survey of the text of the Beirut Declaration during the Arab League summit in March 2002, and the proceedings of the two OIC meetings in Kuala Lumpur mentioned above show the differences in tone and direction of the participating Muslim countries. Reached in the wake of the Israeli incursion into the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the imposed captivity of Yasser Arafat in his own headquarters following the Netanya bombing, the Beirut Declaration issued an emotional condemnation of Israeli action and addressed a "greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people's steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine" and greeted "with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada"[vii]. By the same token, denunciation of Israeli action was repeated in the Kuala Lumpur Declaration in April 2002[viii] although the New York Times had earlier reported that while Arab nations had pressed for the main declaration to condemn Israel, Malaysia had resisted, intending for the conference to avoid emotional rhetoric and be viewed positively by the non-Muslim world.[ix] According to a Palestinian delegate, Zohdi Tarzi, a compromise had been reached to issue a separate statement, "Statement on the Situation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories" - separate from the final declaration - condemning Israel for state terrorism
It had been hoped for by the Malaysian host, that the Extraordinary Session of the OIC Foreign Ministers' meeting would have reached a definition of terrorism by the end of its two-day conference to lay the basis for a U.S. definition of terrorism, and an international policy to deal with the scourge. However, differences in opinion, particularly with regard to Malaysia's proposal that suicide bombers be included as terrorists, prevailed, and the OIC Foreign Ministers decided to leave the task to the United Nations, instead. Malaysian Foreign Minister, and Chairman of the conference, Syed Hamid Albar, defended the conference as a success, citing that even the UN did not have a definition of terrorism. He drew attention, instead, to the fact that the meeting had adopted the KL Declaration - a demonstration of the political will of Islamic countries to contribute towards international efforts to combat terrorism - and the fact that it had established a Plan of Action to be followed up by a "13-member open-ended Ministerial-level OIC Committee on International Terrorism 1".
To be sure, the Plan of Action is commendable, including pledges to "project the true image of Islam" by holding seminars and workshops, as well as to strengthen inter-civilizational, inter-cultural and inter-faith dialogues by building on existing UN efforts. However, with all due respect to, and appreciation of, the difficulties of diplomacy and political sensitivities at the highest level, it is submitted that the April conference was a major disappointment for once again, it showed the lack of consensus amongst Islamic countries in arriving at the most fundamental starting-point of any discussion on, and campaign against, terrorism - its definition. How to build a unified coalition in the fight against terrorism if there is no agreement on its definition? How to battle a faceless enemy if no mask has been fashioned for it? More, specifically, how can there be a condemnation of "acts of international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations"; or a rejection of "any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state with Al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital" if no clear distinction is made between terrorism and the legitimate struggle for self-determination?[x] These are all questions unanswered and yet, political considerations dictate that the veil of unity at such meetings be maintained and that the nebulous question of defining terrorism remain open-ended until an international grouping - perhaps, at the UN, eventually - summons the courage to arrive at an acceptable definition of terrorism, with a base flexible enough to take into account of changing times and circumstances.
Malaysia's stand is that there must be consistency in defining terrorism. Given that Malaysia's support for the plight of the Palestinian people is unequivocal, it would, as the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia noted, in his opening speech at the Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Terrorism, be "politically expedient" not to identify Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists. But the end cannot justify the means and "liberation delivered through terror will be a Pyrrhic victory." In the same vein, Malaysia believes that state terrorism practiced by the Israeli regime should similarly be condemned. Malaysia's definition draws attention away from the perpetrator of terrorism and spotlights the actual terror act. Therefore, the illegitimacy of the act lies in the act, itself, and does not distinguish between whomever its executors - whether individuals, subnational groups or sovereign state entities - may be.
[vii] Taken from the text of the Beirut Declaration, 28 March 2002, <http://news.bbc.co.uk>
[viii] "We condemn Israel for its escalating military campaign against the Palestinian people, including the daily brutalization and humiliation of its civilians, resulting in mounting casualties, strangulation of the Palestinian economy, systematic and indiscriminate destruction of houses and residential facilities as well as infrastructure, institutions and structures of the Palestinian National Authority", para. 13, Kuala Lumpur Declaration.
[ix] "Muslim Leaders Open Conference", reported by the Associated Press in the New York Times On the Web, April 1, 2002.
[x] Kuala Lumpur Declaration, para. 10. Similarly, the Joint Communique, Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Terrorism, 20-21 May 2002, Kuala Lumpur, paras. 4 and 6, faces the same problem in undertaking to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by whomsoever, without making any attempt to define the very object it is seeking to fight.
Fortsetzung: Terrorism, Jihad, and the Muslim Community - A Malaysian Perspective
Druckversion
Seite empfehlenbookmarken bei...
