“All terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists.”
For a couple of seconds my heart went limp cold, when an American
lecturer, whom I had once held in profound respect, affirmatively
introduced this slur in class, an undiscerning alienating and
misleading line, possibly concocted by a myopic Western demagogue with
little intent or capacity to reason. My father and some of my siblings
are Muslim, I cannot express what shocked me more; his overt
insensitiveness, or his pejorative assertions.
According to Wikipedia,
the UN in 2004 defined terrorism as "intended to cause death or serious
bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an
international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." This
preceding definition belies a contentious subject, where states are
driven by realistic propaganda and sentiments, where the end justifies
the means. Radical fundamentalist islamic groups who carry out terror
attacks on innocent civilians, and have deviated from the mainstream
orthodox islamic doctrine, are no different from some Christian
fundamentalist groups, or from skinheads, Neo Nazi and Aryan groups,
all of whom have been responsible for deaths and other gruesome
attacks of terrorism, in the name of God or of racial hatred.
Arguably in the spirit of fairness, as the international media rants
and raves about "Islamic Terror" attacks, the same should be coded for
"Christian Terror" attacks, instead of alienating and inciting racial
and religious intolerance. Civil wars have their roots in the strive
for resources, but are fought along tribal lines, and the same scene
replicates itself on the international scene, where wars are fought and
justified on religious lines. Any attacks, fighting or war that is
carried out unconventionally where civilians have to pay the price, is
not only intolerable, but a cowardly act of coercion.
The international scene has in the recent times, after the bombing of
two American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 9/11 terror
bombings by Al-Qaeda,
been a Babel of terror accusations, preceding events that bred a
belligerence by America to flex its military muscles on Iraq. What
other suitable term exists than a malignant terrorist invasion, when
the brutal attacks by the British wounded, enslaved and killed
thousands of Africans in their own land, or the Apartheid tyranny in
South Africa, or the unjustifiable bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical
company in Sudan by US armed forces, or the attempted assassination of Muammar al-Gaddafi by America
that left several people injured and dead. On the contrary, any attempt
by a people to resist and liberate themselves from any forms of
imperialism automatically labels them "terrorist."
A pertinent and crucial point in our history where the MauMau
put up a fearful resistance to liberate the Kenyan people from the
claws of colonialism, saw them branded terrorists, a misconception that
has trickled down to this day, unbelievable? (Try being accidentally
caught in a robbery scene with dreadlocks! ). With increasing
globalisation, where borders may soon be infinite, a reasonable point
to start towards world peace is the fostering of mutual respect in
spite of cultural and religious differences.
What unsubjective benchmark exists that qualifies one state to label
another as terrorist since states have egocentric interests that they
jealously protect.
Needless to say, religious and cultural intolerance is far from removed
as some governments utilize the international media to proliferate
their nationalistic propaganda .Nothing justifies the constant ostracization of innocent people by virtue of dress or religion. What do you think ?
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
"What is the difference between a terrorist and a state?"
"Both use bombs, but the terrorist has no planes to carry them."
Alexander