Megalommatis
01-10-2007, 11:11 AM
2007 - 7th Year of War against the Islamic Terror – A breakthrough
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
For six consecutive years, the modern Western Don Quixote has been engaged in a ill-identified war with a non-identified enemy. In the odd war's 6th and 7 th years, the morally collapsed West may face harder times and unpredicted challenges with universal consequences.
In this article that consists in the second part of the earlier published '2006 – 6th Year of War against Islamic Terror, and the Moral Collapse of the West', we intend to provide our readership with a possibly complete definition of the term 'Islamic Terror', something most of the Western political establishments have fallen short of – for too long.
The Warring parts. II – The Islamic Terror
What can possibly Islamic Terror be? A criminal act? A over-simplifying and sick mindset? An extremist ideology? The possible interpretations, emanating from Muslims and non-Muslims, have mostly been deprived of any validity, as they reflect politically annotated / indexed perceptions, justifications of preconceived ideas, and teleologically marked political agendas.
To be simple; when Franco Frattini, the EU's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, shamelessly 'bans' the use of the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' to describe Islamic terrorism, by saying that 'You cannot use the term "Islamic terrorism". People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion', he simply expresses the politically correct approach to the Islamic Terror phenomenon for the European Union's interests and colonial agenda (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1774558,00.html).
This is an aberration, and one could simply answer the disreputable Commissioner, saying that “Muslims in great numbers support and sympathize with those ' who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of Islamic religion' and they do not think that these people 'abuse the name of this religion' at all”. Who will say and who has the right to say who abuses a religion or not? A follower of the religion in question or an outsider like Frattini?
Premeditated European Obscurantism about Islamic Societies
In fact, Franco Frattini bases his bogus-interpretation on absolute falsehood and total ignorance; sure enough that the Westerners are misinformed by the manipulated mass media as regards the Islamic societies, confident that press establishments like Le Monde, Liberation, Der Spiegel, Franfurter Allgemeine, The Guardian, Corriere della Serra, El Pais and their likes will never publish pertinent insights into the Islamic Societies, sure-footed enough that the average public in France, England, Germany, Italy and other European countries will never find (let alone read) necessarily long articles about what average street people of Karachi, Kuwait, Amman, Cairo, Algiers, Damascus, Khartoum, Sanaa, Jakarta, Dakka, and Rabat believe about this issue, he diffuses a criminal falsity.
As long as European policies are shaped by the colonial interests of France and England, and countries like Poland, Germany, Italy and Spain do not realize how lethal is for Europe to keep the reality hidden, European Commissioners will diffuse all sorts of erroneous interpretations.
Organization of the Islamic Conference – an overt backing to terror, thanks to a few .... exceptions!
Let's try another effort of definition; long before the September 11th events, the Director of the International Relations Department of the I.P.O., at the International Conference on Terrorism called by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Geneva, from June 22-26, 1987, in an attempt to define terrorism, underlined the following:
“As may be noticed, the fact that an operation is violent does not constitute a condition for considering it a case of terrorism. In the light of the above definition, we shall be able to ascertain the nature of one act or another and determine whether it is a case of terrorism. We shall confirm that the definition does not apply to the following:
1. Acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers;
2. Resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by the force of arms;
3. Rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism and efforts to undermine their institution;
4. Resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on the latter's strongholds;
5. Retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative”.
Having first undergone an analysis of what a terrorist act is ('terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind'), the author of the paper (http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/definition-terrorism.htm), Ayatullah Sheikh Mohammed Ali Tashkiri, offers an unbelievable backing to anyone who would ascribe his terrorist act to one of the aforementioned exceptions.
This text, which has never been denounced with utmost vigor by the OIC, makes clear that for the Islam's top religious instance, anyone who commits an act involving threat to security of any kind is justified, if the act's reason is national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers! The next step would be to assert that the September 11th events perpetrators were ... rightful, and their perpetrators ....innocent!
The limits of Western scholars
As they have long served disreputable purposes of historical falsification, Western Orientalists are ill-placed to make a constrain-free judgment; their approach remains therefore close to the politically correct and historically false.
Take an example from wikipedia, entry Islamist Terrorism as of today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_terrorism), where reference is made to Fred Halliday for the definition of the term itself. We republish here the first two paragraphs:
"Islamist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners. Fred Halliday, a British academic specialist on the Middle East, argues that most Muslims[verification needed] consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's laws[1]
Where such terrorists seek to establish an Islamic theocracy and impose rule of sharia it is sometimes termed 'Islamist. Another widely used expression is Islamic terrorism, and frequently Islamic extremism is also discussed relative to the concept”.
In other words, the academia compared to the political class are 'more royalist than the King'! Again, the epicenter of the falsification lies on what is definitely known as absolutely unknown among Western readers: the conditions, the way of life, the beliefs, the common sense, the mindset, the prevailing mentality of the impoverished masses of the undeveloped Islamic societies.
That a politician shapes a position on the basis of the average people ignorance can be tolerated to some extent, as we all know that politics have become a most filthy story.
That scholars shape definitions of facts based on what “most Muslims consider” is most atrocious for their false science. It is even comical! What bibliography and what sources could Fred Halliday possibly provide to his unfortunate and misled readership in support of this disreputable lie?
For scholars who continually monitor specialized and average audience publications, it is crystal clear. There is no bibliography on the subject because Western ignorance of the real condition of the Islamic societies is the trickery on which the entire Western Policy towards the Islamic World is based.
It is not a matter of simply false Western accusations of the Islamic World, as extremists of the political right are gullible enough to believe.
It is mostly a matter of an entirely misrepresented reality, a completely erroneous picture that the Western readership has got, a totally falsely presented debate.
The Frame of the Myth of Islamic Terrorism
It all hinges on the following simplified frame that is all wrong:
1 - Some extremist groups that represent tiny minorities among the Muslims perform acts of terror in the name of Islam.
2 - Religious authorities of the Muslim world condemn these acts, stating that the perpetrators do not represent Islam but rather defame it.
3 - Political authorities that – truly speaking – represent nothing but the sympathy or the tolerance of Western governments follow the Muftis, making a higher bid and explicitly condemning the acts and the perpetrators. At times, they impose a tougher control of religious movements and agitators.
4 - Like this the literature about the terrorist event is concluded and the international mass media can focus on something else, until another similar event triggers the same, pathetically identical, hypocritical and criminal points.
A close observation of the aforementioned scheme of alleged machination and vicious fabrications let us understand its contradictory nature that reveals automatically its falsity.
If these groups are said to represent tiny minorities, how they manage to have so strong popular support which is the reason that in some countries hundreds of thousands of people are imprisoned without trial, just because of their beliefs – thought to be 'extremist'?
If the religious authorities, who condemn the terrorist acts' perpetrators, are right and these acts are irrelevant and opposed to the Islamic faith, why the outright majority of the people in numerous countries have no respect for these religious authorities, considering them as simple puppets of the local tyrants, and ingenuously impertinent and totally unauthorized to speak of and represent Islam?
If the local tyrants highlight the terrorist acts' perpetrators as representing tiny and marginal minorities, why these tyrants do not dare oppose in free elections political parties that justify the perpetrators' acts? Why do they prohibit these parties, imprison their leaders and high ranking members, and organize ludicrous elections of non-participation?
How can it happen that the terrorist acts' perpetrators demand the adoption, and/or defend the application, of social ideals and/or models shared by the outright majorities?
Particularly the last point is quite revelatory; it gives a clear, indirect (this is true), answer about the eventual social support and moral backing the terrorist acts' perpetrators enjoy within a great number of Muslim societies.
Possible reasons for an Islamic Terror act
When a suicide bomber blows up a cafeteria in Tel Aviv, in an administration building in post-2003 Iraq or in the London metropolitan, s/he carries out the act in the name of several values that are not respected either locally or globally. It is not simply a matter of foreign land occupation, and it has nothing to do with a fight of national liberation. It is far wider in its moral contents than a political issue. One could maximalize the reasons evoked by the terrorist acts' perpetrators and interpret the acts as perpetrated in revenge of
1) the colonial rule over various Islamic countries,
2) the occupation of Islamic territories by foreign forces,
3) the imposition of most hated local elites that appear to the perpetrators' eyes as traitors (deserving capital punishment), Westernized renegades, and local agents / puppets of the great Western powers,
4) the diffusion of foreign (mostly viewed as alien and Satanic) social – behavioural – cultural models throughout the Islamic World,
5) the dissemination of atheist, materialist and secular social – behavioural – cultural models throughout the entire world, and
6) the misrepresentation of Islam allover the world, among the Islamic nations and in the rest of the world.
If one desires to go beyond the non-representative level of the local interlocutors of the West, to access the average local masses of a great variety of Islamic countries from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Yemen, from Pakistan to Nigeria, and from Morocco to Jordan, and to truly learn what the vast majority in these countries believes, one will be amazed.
One will therefore meet average people in Ouarzazat, Tizi Ouzou, Benha, Assiut, Benghazi, Zerqa, Haleb, Taiz, Saada, Multan, Quetta, and in a great number of cities, who will all say openly, clearly, explicitly and unreservedly that the aforementioned six reasons impose acts of this sort, and that by perpetrating these acts, the Muslims who sacrifice their lives in this world gain eternal life and rejoice in the Hereafter. One can easily fill thousands of pages of related literature, collecting the purposes of local average people who are not given a chance to say in public what they mean in private.
Of course, in a brutally totalitarian country one should not expect an informative gallup to be carried out and offer an approximate barometer of the public opinions on these issues. But this is part of the falsification and distortion policies pursued by Western and local elites to the prejudice of all. This is the real danger for the entire world: that by diffusing a most confused and distorted picture of the Islamic societies, the Western elites facilitate – in extremis – the further rise of the Islamic Terror.
How can we therefore define correctly and accurately this phenomenon?
Definition of Islamic Terror
One should first avoid the term 'terrorism'; this word bears an ending (-ism) that hints at an ideology, philosophical system, theological school and religion (Communism, Platonism, Pelagianism, Protestantism).
One should avoid the term 'extremism' that denotes ideas and actions, ideologies and theoretical systems that are outside the perceived mainstream currents or the ideological – political – cultural center of a society. In a way, this qualificative term is used as pejorative by those who reject the contents of what may be 'extremist', but this may drive us to the concept of an entire society being 'extremist', and this makes no sense. If an entire society adopts an 'extremist' system, the system is automatically mainstream, and no one gets more clarity by calling the entire society 'extremist'; one must always keep in mind that what is sought after is lucidity, perspicuity, unambiguity, as a way to the Truth. Insults and expressions of disparagement are useful only for further confusion.
Terror is a better word as it describes the nature of the act perpetrated in the name of any possible reason and idea. Devoid of the confusing ending -ism, the word 'Terror' describes the act in its totality, and as such is sufficient.
Islamist would be the wrong adjective to add; as such, it relates to Islamism which is an ill-defined term to which one can ascribe contradictory and conflicting ideological and political systems emanating out of the modern Islamic societies. Even the term 'islamism' in itself has been discredited as erroneous in describing and good only for misinterpreting these political – ideological systems.
How could we suggest the expanded use of a term that may already be wrong in its limited use? In addition, an “Islamist” terrorist may reject the terms, saying that s/he should not be considered as “terrorist” and that s/he is not “Islamist” but just a Muslim.
Identifying ideologically someone in a way that s/he rejects does not add to clarity! Whereas the word “terrorist”, originating from “terror”, can be easily attributed to the act perpetrator (although this is still a matter of ideological debate, as we already saw in the case of the Islamic Conference Organization paper), the term “Islamist” cannot be a matter of insistence. It is as simple as that: you cannot call “Communist” someone who rejects that s/he is “Communist”.
Contrarily to “Islamist”, “Islamic” is a term that, denoting the perpetrator's link to the specific religious system, would be widely acceptable. Speaking within the context of Islam, a terrorist act perpetrator would accept for him/herself the term 'Islamic”; of course, the local religious and political authorities would deny the link, stating for zillionth time that the perpetrators do not act according to Islamic principles, do not represent Islam, and are guilty, if judged according to Islamic criteria.
However, we cannot afford to take this crap longer! The Islamic societies in their outright majority accept, support and approve of these acts, methods, mindset, mentality, attitude and behaviour; and at the same time, they overwhelmingly reject the tyrannical and unrepresentative local elites, and their bogus-spiritual lackeys. As consequence, the latter cannot be taken seriously into consideration.
Is a term 'Islamic Terror' correct enough?
This is the most critical question about the subject, if we truly seek the truth. We must first ask ourselves what the term is good for, for what use we need it, and to what extent we want describe a simple act or the overall context within which the act is repeatedly, uninterruptedly, and expansively generated.
If we want to describe just the New York September 11th acts, the London July 7th events, the Madrid March 11th incidents, as well as many other similar occurrences, then certainly the term is correct. These are acts of Islamic Terror.
But do we truly want to limit ourselves to the fleeing moments (or hours) of an event? Are these events coincidental and unrelated? Or do they have a straight connection and direct link with other, of lesser spectacle and publicity, similar facts that have taken place in Israel, Palestine, Yemen, Kashmir and elsewhere?
What is more important after all?
The fact, quasi-momentary in its nature, that some perpetrators perform the acts of Islamic Terror
or
The reality, perpetual in its dramatic essence, that dozens of millions of human beings, who share this same Earth with all the rest, passionately desire to perform similar actions for they believe this would be just, correct, ethical, human, and most rewarding (in the Hereafter)?
What is more significant in the end?
The lethal incident performed by a few Islamic terrorists
or
The even deadlier state of hundreds of millions of human beings, who share this same Earth with all the rest, and
* agree with the reasons of the incident, as presented by the terrorist acts' perpetrators,
* support and justify the perpetrators in the light of these reasons,
* admire the perpetrators and believe they will get excellent divine reward for these very acts of theirs,
* share with the perpetrators a great number of common ideals, principles, concepts, wishes, expectations and dreams (here little matters whether these ideals would have been rejected by the Islamic Ages' Philosophers and Erudite Scholars – what matters practically is that all these masses share these ideals along with the terrorist acts' perpetrators, believing that they are Islamic of content),
* believe utterly that theirs are the correct Islamic ideals, and that the best way to practice them is to act as the terrorist acts' perpetrators have so far,
* are convinced that, through their acts, the Islamic terrorists defend in the best possible way the rights of Muslims allover the world and the Cause of Islam,
* would offer any sort of support, help and assistance to these acts' perpetrators anytime anywhere, thinking that like this they
- contribute to the Ultimate Victory of Islam,
- revenge the West for all wrongdoings performed against Islam,
- avert further anti-Islamic plans of the West that involve (according to them) eradication of Islam, diffusion of unrestricted and pernicious Sexualism, and total disfigurement of all the non-Western peoples at the cultural, religious and behavioural levels?
What is worse finally?
A simple murderous act
or
the setup of an entire society (involving many nations in this regard) where the Islamic terrorists are gradually conceived, born, grown, educationally prepared, culturally equipped, religiously helmeted, ideologically panoplied, spiritually armoured, and technically outfitted, before being sent to commit their simple murderous act?
Could one be foolish enough to surmise that a few criminals are as important an entire (spanned over dozens of states) society - fabric of Islamic terror act's perpetrators? Who forgets the scene with the 'cultural factory' of the movie 'The Wall” memorable for the mass fabrication of dolls – a metaphor for thought control in modern societies? This imaginative factory is best materialized by today's Islamic societies whereby nothing is allowed to challenge the system and outmaneuver the production of the Satanic dolls of Islamic Terror.
If we want therefore to describe this overall phenomenon that gains continuously momentum, and threatens the entire Mankind because of its ultimate target of turning it to a society similar to theirs (this is called 'islamizing the world' or 'imposing Islam allover the world'), then we cannot afford to use the term of Islamic Terror anymore. The term falls short of describing the entire situation in all its dimensions.
Like this, understanding that we have to deal with a vast societal phenomenon, we reach the correct term 'Islamic Terror Societies' that stands as real second warring part in the ongoing (for 6 years) but ill-defined War of the morally collapsed and philosophically Don Quixotic West.
The real essence of the 'Islamic Terror Societies' – the great unknown opponent – we will analyze in the next article.
First published in: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18608
(TO BE CONTINUED)
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
For six consecutive years, the modern Western Don Quixote has been engaged in a ill-identified war with a non-identified enemy. In the odd war's 6th and 7 th years, the morally collapsed West may face harder times and unpredicted challenges with universal consequences.
In this article that consists in the second part of the earlier published '2006 – 6th Year of War against Islamic Terror, and the Moral Collapse of the West', we intend to provide our readership with a possibly complete definition of the term 'Islamic Terror', something most of the Western political establishments have fallen short of – for too long.
The Warring parts. II – The Islamic Terror
What can possibly Islamic Terror be? A criminal act? A over-simplifying and sick mindset? An extremist ideology? The possible interpretations, emanating from Muslims and non-Muslims, have mostly been deprived of any validity, as they reflect politically annotated / indexed perceptions, justifications of preconceived ideas, and teleologically marked political agendas.
To be simple; when Franco Frattini, the EU's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, shamelessly 'bans' the use of the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' to describe Islamic terrorism, by saying that 'You cannot use the term "Islamic terrorism". People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion', he simply expresses the politically correct approach to the Islamic Terror phenomenon for the European Union's interests and colonial agenda (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1774558,00.html).
This is an aberration, and one could simply answer the disreputable Commissioner, saying that “Muslims in great numbers support and sympathize with those ' who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of Islamic religion' and they do not think that these people 'abuse the name of this religion' at all”. Who will say and who has the right to say who abuses a religion or not? A follower of the religion in question or an outsider like Frattini?
Premeditated European Obscurantism about Islamic Societies
In fact, Franco Frattini bases his bogus-interpretation on absolute falsehood and total ignorance; sure enough that the Westerners are misinformed by the manipulated mass media as regards the Islamic societies, confident that press establishments like Le Monde, Liberation, Der Spiegel, Franfurter Allgemeine, The Guardian, Corriere della Serra, El Pais and their likes will never publish pertinent insights into the Islamic Societies, sure-footed enough that the average public in France, England, Germany, Italy and other European countries will never find (let alone read) necessarily long articles about what average street people of Karachi, Kuwait, Amman, Cairo, Algiers, Damascus, Khartoum, Sanaa, Jakarta, Dakka, and Rabat believe about this issue, he diffuses a criminal falsity.
As long as European policies are shaped by the colonial interests of France and England, and countries like Poland, Germany, Italy and Spain do not realize how lethal is for Europe to keep the reality hidden, European Commissioners will diffuse all sorts of erroneous interpretations.
Organization of the Islamic Conference – an overt backing to terror, thanks to a few .... exceptions!
Let's try another effort of definition; long before the September 11th events, the Director of the International Relations Department of the I.P.O., at the International Conference on Terrorism called by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Geneva, from June 22-26, 1987, in an attempt to define terrorism, underlined the following:
“As may be noticed, the fact that an operation is violent does not constitute a condition for considering it a case of terrorism. In the light of the above definition, we shall be able to ascertain the nature of one act or another and determine whether it is a case of terrorism. We shall confirm that the definition does not apply to the following:
1. Acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers;
2. Resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by the force of arms;
3. Rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism and efforts to undermine their institution;
4. Resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on the latter's strongholds;
5. Retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative”.
Having first undergone an analysis of what a terrorist act is ('terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind'), the author of the paper (http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/definition-terrorism.htm), Ayatullah Sheikh Mohammed Ali Tashkiri, offers an unbelievable backing to anyone who would ascribe his terrorist act to one of the aforementioned exceptions.
This text, which has never been denounced with utmost vigor by the OIC, makes clear that for the Islam's top religious instance, anyone who commits an act involving threat to security of any kind is justified, if the act's reason is national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers! The next step would be to assert that the September 11th events perpetrators were ... rightful, and their perpetrators ....innocent!
The limits of Western scholars
As they have long served disreputable purposes of historical falsification, Western Orientalists are ill-placed to make a constrain-free judgment; their approach remains therefore close to the politically correct and historically false.
Take an example from wikipedia, entry Islamist Terrorism as of today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_terrorism), where reference is made to Fred Halliday for the definition of the term itself. We republish here the first two paragraphs:
"Islamist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners. Fred Halliday, a British academic specialist on the Middle East, argues that most Muslims[verification needed] consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's laws[1]
Where such terrorists seek to establish an Islamic theocracy and impose rule of sharia it is sometimes termed 'Islamist. Another widely used expression is Islamic terrorism, and frequently Islamic extremism is also discussed relative to the concept”.
In other words, the academia compared to the political class are 'more royalist than the King'! Again, the epicenter of the falsification lies on what is definitely known as absolutely unknown among Western readers: the conditions, the way of life, the beliefs, the common sense, the mindset, the prevailing mentality of the impoverished masses of the undeveloped Islamic societies.
That a politician shapes a position on the basis of the average people ignorance can be tolerated to some extent, as we all know that politics have become a most filthy story.
That scholars shape definitions of facts based on what “most Muslims consider” is most atrocious for their false science. It is even comical! What bibliography and what sources could Fred Halliday possibly provide to his unfortunate and misled readership in support of this disreputable lie?
For scholars who continually monitor specialized and average audience publications, it is crystal clear. There is no bibliography on the subject because Western ignorance of the real condition of the Islamic societies is the trickery on which the entire Western Policy towards the Islamic World is based.
It is not a matter of simply false Western accusations of the Islamic World, as extremists of the political right are gullible enough to believe.
It is mostly a matter of an entirely misrepresented reality, a completely erroneous picture that the Western readership has got, a totally falsely presented debate.
The Frame of the Myth of Islamic Terrorism
It all hinges on the following simplified frame that is all wrong:
1 - Some extremist groups that represent tiny minorities among the Muslims perform acts of terror in the name of Islam.
2 - Religious authorities of the Muslim world condemn these acts, stating that the perpetrators do not represent Islam but rather defame it.
3 - Political authorities that – truly speaking – represent nothing but the sympathy or the tolerance of Western governments follow the Muftis, making a higher bid and explicitly condemning the acts and the perpetrators. At times, they impose a tougher control of religious movements and agitators.
4 - Like this the literature about the terrorist event is concluded and the international mass media can focus on something else, until another similar event triggers the same, pathetically identical, hypocritical and criminal points.
A close observation of the aforementioned scheme of alleged machination and vicious fabrications let us understand its contradictory nature that reveals automatically its falsity.
If these groups are said to represent tiny minorities, how they manage to have so strong popular support which is the reason that in some countries hundreds of thousands of people are imprisoned without trial, just because of their beliefs – thought to be 'extremist'?
If the religious authorities, who condemn the terrorist acts' perpetrators, are right and these acts are irrelevant and opposed to the Islamic faith, why the outright majority of the people in numerous countries have no respect for these religious authorities, considering them as simple puppets of the local tyrants, and ingenuously impertinent and totally unauthorized to speak of and represent Islam?
If the local tyrants highlight the terrorist acts' perpetrators as representing tiny and marginal minorities, why these tyrants do not dare oppose in free elections political parties that justify the perpetrators' acts? Why do they prohibit these parties, imprison their leaders and high ranking members, and organize ludicrous elections of non-participation?
How can it happen that the terrorist acts' perpetrators demand the adoption, and/or defend the application, of social ideals and/or models shared by the outright majorities?
Particularly the last point is quite revelatory; it gives a clear, indirect (this is true), answer about the eventual social support and moral backing the terrorist acts' perpetrators enjoy within a great number of Muslim societies.
Possible reasons for an Islamic Terror act
When a suicide bomber blows up a cafeteria in Tel Aviv, in an administration building in post-2003 Iraq or in the London metropolitan, s/he carries out the act in the name of several values that are not respected either locally or globally. It is not simply a matter of foreign land occupation, and it has nothing to do with a fight of national liberation. It is far wider in its moral contents than a political issue. One could maximalize the reasons evoked by the terrorist acts' perpetrators and interpret the acts as perpetrated in revenge of
1) the colonial rule over various Islamic countries,
2) the occupation of Islamic territories by foreign forces,
3) the imposition of most hated local elites that appear to the perpetrators' eyes as traitors (deserving capital punishment), Westernized renegades, and local agents / puppets of the great Western powers,
4) the diffusion of foreign (mostly viewed as alien and Satanic) social – behavioural – cultural models throughout the Islamic World,
5) the dissemination of atheist, materialist and secular social – behavioural – cultural models throughout the entire world, and
6) the misrepresentation of Islam allover the world, among the Islamic nations and in the rest of the world.
If one desires to go beyond the non-representative level of the local interlocutors of the West, to access the average local masses of a great variety of Islamic countries from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Yemen, from Pakistan to Nigeria, and from Morocco to Jordan, and to truly learn what the vast majority in these countries believes, one will be amazed.
One will therefore meet average people in Ouarzazat, Tizi Ouzou, Benha, Assiut, Benghazi, Zerqa, Haleb, Taiz, Saada, Multan, Quetta, and in a great number of cities, who will all say openly, clearly, explicitly and unreservedly that the aforementioned six reasons impose acts of this sort, and that by perpetrating these acts, the Muslims who sacrifice their lives in this world gain eternal life and rejoice in the Hereafter. One can easily fill thousands of pages of related literature, collecting the purposes of local average people who are not given a chance to say in public what they mean in private.
Of course, in a brutally totalitarian country one should not expect an informative gallup to be carried out and offer an approximate barometer of the public opinions on these issues. But this is part of the falsification and distortion policies pursued by Western and local elites to the prejudice of all. This is the real danger for the entire world: that by diffusing a most confused and distorted picture of the Islamic societies, the Western elites facilitate – in extremis – the further rise of the Islamic Terror.
How can we therefore define correctly and accurately this phenomenon?
Definition of Islamic Terror
One should first avoid the term 'terrorism'; this word bears an ending (-ism) that hints at an ideology, philosophical system, theological school and religion (Communism, Platonism, Pelagianism, Protestantism).
One should avoid the term 'extremism' that denotes ideas and actions, ideologies and theoretical systems that are outside the perceived mainstream currents or the ideological – political – cultural center of a society. In a way, this qualificative term is used as pejorative by those who reject the contents of what may be 'extremist', but this may drive us to the concept of an entire society being 'extremist', and this makes no sense. If an entire society adopts an 'extremist' system, the system is automatically mainstream, and no one gets more clarity by calling the entire society 'extremist'; one must always keep in mind that what is sought after is lucidity, perspicuity, unambiguity, as a way to the Truth. Insults and expressions of disparagement are useful only for further confusion.
Terror is a better word as it describes the nature of the act perpetrated in the name of any possible reason and idea. Devoid of the confusing ending -ism, the word 'Terror' describes the act in its totality, and as such is sufficient.
Islamist would be the wrong adjective to add; as such, it relates to Islamism which is an ill-defined term to which one can ascribe contradictory and conflicting ideological and political systems emanating out of the modern Islamic societies. Even the term 'islamism' in itself has been discredited as erroneous in describing and good only for misinterpreting these political – ideological systems.
How could we suggest the expanded use of a term that may already be wrong in its limited use? In addition, an “Islamist” terrorist may reject the terms, saying that s/he should not be considered as “terrorist” and that s/he is not “Islamist” but just a Muslim.
Identifying ideologically someone in a way that s/he rejects does not add to clarity! Whereas the word “terrorist”, originating from “terror”, can be easily attributed to the act perpetrator (although this is still a matter of ideological debate, as we already saw in the case of the Islamic Conference Organization paper), the term “Islamist” cannot be a matter of insistence. It is as simple as that: you cannot call “Communist” someone who rejects that s/he is “Communist”.
Contrarily to “Islamist”, “Islamic” is a term that, denoting the perpetrator's link to the specific religious system, would be widely acceptable. Speaking within the context of Islam, a terrorist act perpetrator would accept for him/herself the term 'Islamic”; of course, the local religious and political authorities would deny the link, stating for zillionth time that the perpetrators do not act according to Islamic principles, do not represent Islam, and are guilty, if judged according to Islamic criteria.
However, we cannot afford to take this crap longer! The Islamic societies in their outright majority accept, support and approve of these acts, methods, mindset, mentality, attitude and behaviour; and at the same time, they overwhelmingly reject the tyrannical and unrepresentative local elites, and their bogus-spiritual lackeys. As consequence, the latter cannot be taken seriously into consideration.
Is a term 'Islamic Terror' correct enough?
This is the most critical question about the subject, if we truly seek the truth. We must first ask ourselves what the term is good for, for what use we need it, and to what extent we want describe a simple act or the overall context within which the act is repeatedly, uninterruptedly, and expansively generated.
If we want to describe just the New York September 11th acts, the London July 7th events, the Madrid March 11th incidents, as well as many other similar occurrences, then certainly the term is correct. These are acts of Islamic Terror.
But do we truly want to limit ourselves to the fleeing moments (or hours) of an event? Are these events coincidental and unrelated? Or do they have a straight connection and direct link with other, of lesser spectacle and publicity, similar facts that have taken place in Israel, Palestine, Yemen, Kashmir and elsewhere?
What is more important after all?
The fact, quasi-momentary in its nature, that some perpetrators perform the acts of Islamic Terror
or
The reality, perpetual in its dramatic essence, that dozens of millions of human beings, who share this same Earth with all the rest, passionately desire to perform similar actions for they believe this would be just, correct, ethical, human, and most rewarding (in the Hereafter)?
What is more significant in the end?
The lethal incident performed by a few Islamic terrorists
or
The even deadlier state of hundreds of millions of human beings, who share this same Earth with all the rest, and
* agree with the reasons of the incident, as presented by the terrorist acts' perpetrators,
* support and justify the perpetrators in the light of these reasons,
* admire the perpetrators and believe they will get excellent divine reward for these very acts of theirs,
* share with the perpetrators a great number of common ideals, principles, concepts, wishes, expectations and dreams (here little matters whether these ideals would have been rejected by the Islamic Ages' Philosophers and Erudite Scholars – what matters practically is that all these masses share these ideals along with the terrorist acts' perpetrators, believing that they are Islamic of content),
* believe utterly that theirs are the correct Islamic ideals, and that the best way to practice them is to act as the terrorist acts' perpetrators have so far,
* are convinced that, through their acts, the Islamic terrorists defend in the best possible way the rights of Muslims allover the world and the Cause of Islam,
* would offer any sort of support, help and assistance to these acts' perpetrators anytime anywhere, thinking that like this they
- contribute to the Ultimate Victory of Islam,
- revenge the West for all wrongdoings performed against Islam,
- avert further anti-Islamic plans of the West that involve (according to them) eradication of Islam, diffusion of unrestricted and pernicious Sexualism, and total disfigurement of all the non-Western peoples at the cultural, religious and behavioural levels?
What is worse finally?
A simple murderous act
or
the setup of an entire society (involving many nations in this regard) where the Islamic terrorists are gradually conceived, born, grown, educationally prepared, culturally equipped, religiously helmeted, ideologically panoplied, spiritually armoured, and technically outfitted, before being sent to commit their simple murderous act?
Could one be foolish enough to surmise that a few criminals are as important an entire (spanned over dozens of states) society - fabric of Islamic terror act's perpetrators? Who forgets the scene with the 'cultural factory' of the movie 'The Wall” memorable for the mass fabrication of dolls – a metaphor for thought control in modern societies? This imaginative factory is best materialized by today's Islamic societies whereby nothing is allowed to challenge the system and outmaneuver the production of the Satanic dolls of Islamic Terror.
If we want therefore to describe this overall phenomenon that gains continuously momentum, and threatens the entire Mankind because of its ultimate target of turning it to a society similar to theirs (this is called 'islamizing the world' or 'imposing Islam allover the world'), then we cannot afford to use the term of Islamic Terror anymore. The term falls short of describing the entire situation in all its dimensions.
Like this, understanding that we have to deal with a vast societal phenomenon, we reach the correct term 'Islamic Terror Societies' that stands as real second warring part in the ongoing (for 6 years) but ill-defined War of the morally collapsed and philosophically Don Quixotic West.
The real essence of the 'Islamic Terror Societies' – the great unknown opponent – we will analyze in the next article.
First published in: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18608
(TO BE CONTINUED)