Saturday, March 13, 2010

Terrorism: Negated by Religious Ideology?

Dear Readers,
Sallams to you. Recently, we have seen a lot of terrorism. Most notably though, are terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims. I have written about terrorism in the past and those of you who read my posts frequently know that I do not support it. However, I am not here today to talk about whether terrorism is justified or not. Rather, I am here to help us redefine terrorism--from the perspective of people who hate Islam and make a living out of hating us. What do I mean by this? Well, consider the incident in which a man flew a plane into an IRS building. Is this terrorism? How about the man who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day 2009. Is this terrorism? How about a man who drove from California to the Pentagon with the intention of killing government officials, and ended up shooting and wounding two officers. Is this terrorism? How about Nidal Malik Hasan. Is he terrorism?

The Christmas Day bombing was labeled as an act of terrorism which actually prompted the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) to introduce a whole new line of equipment to airports, the controversial body scanners. Nidal Malik Hasan's Fort Hood shooting was dubbed as an act of terrorism, and he was claimed to have "contact with radical Islamic clerics overseas." This is all well and good; keep these points in mind, it's important here.

Consider the IRS plane crash. According to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security,) it was a "deliberate criminal act." Terrorism? No, of course not. In another article I read on this topic, the DHS was quoted as saying "this does not appear to be an act of terrorism." People, wake up! A man just flew a plane in to a government building! You're saying it's not terrorism? Are you telling me you must have the name Abdul Malik Hasan Muhammad Hakim for it to be terrorism?

The DHS' dismissal of this terrorist act would not have angered me if I had thought it was a mere slip. However, a while later, a man by the name of Bedell John Patrick drove from the West coast of the US to the East coast to attack officers at the Pentagon (military headquarters of the US for those of you who aren't American.) Yet, I do not see "terrorism" anywhere. In fact, the article from Fox links his actions to depression. That's right...they view him as a victim! The Fox article goes on to mention that the attack on the Pentagon came four months after Nidal Hasan's attack on Fort Hood, which they linked to "radical Islamic leanings." What are you suggesting, that Patrick got the idea of shooting people at the Pentagon because of the actions of a terrorist who is a "radical Islamist" and Islam should be the blame for Patrick's actions? Of course, you're a news agency so you can't come out and say that...but that's what it sounds like from what you've written.

Now take all this, and we can answer our questions above.


  1. Are Stack's actions of flying a plane into the IRS building terrorism? According to our government, "No, he's not Muhammad Abdullah Al-Zawiri."
  2. Are Patrick's actions of shooting two officers at the Pentagon an act of terrorism? According to our government, "No, it was Hasan's fault and Hasan gave him the idea. Besides, he suffered from depression."
  3. Are Hasan's actions of shooting military personnel at Fort Hood an act of terrorism? According to our government, "Yes! He had ties with radical Islamists and he was a radical Muslim with radical Jihadi ideas, and he was also radicalized by radical Islamic clerics overseas."
  4. Are the actions of the Christmas Day bomber's actions an act of terrorism? According to our government, "Yes! He was an Al-Qaeda member so he was a radical Muslim with radical Jihadi ideas and he associated with Radical Islamic clerics."


Finally, I have outlined the criteria which constitute a "terrorist" based on recent responses to terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims:

  • Must have a beard.
  • Must be on, or look as if to have the potential to be on, a terrorist watch list.
  • Must pray five times a day, so when we make a movie about you, we can show you praying right before you commit said terrorist act.
  • Must speak Arabic.
  • Must shout "Allahu akbar" before committing said terrorist act. During the act and after the act is optional, but highly recommended.
  • Must have a name similar to Al-X; preferably, the name should include the following:

    • Muhammad
    • Abdullah (or any variation thereof)

  • If death to the said terrorist is inevitable, said terrorist must only speak in Arabic during the last moments prior to his or her death; this includes, but is not limited to, Islamic prayers, curses, and common phrases such as "death to America."

Please note: Anyone who shows hatred an anger and carries out an act of extreme violence, will not qualify as a terrorist unless he or she meets the criteria above--it does not matter how similar the act is to an official terrorist. Failing to meet these criteria will result in the following:

  • A diagnosis of mental health issues, and possible transfer from the category of "aggressor" to "victim" due to any mental health issues found.
  • Front page headlines for only one (1) day.

If you do meet the criteria for "terrorist" as listed above, your benefits include the following:

  • You will be dubbed "radical Islamist". This will allow you to blame Allah instead of yourself for your actions.
  • You will receive front page headlines for at least one (1) month--even if you managed to kill no one.
  • Our president will give a speech about your act, even if it failed, and you will completely change how passengers are scanned before they board public transportation.
  • When we see another act similar to yours, we will remember you.
  • We will come up with all sorts of dramatic names for your actions (examples of this include "Ground Zero" and "Christmas Day Bomber.")
  • We will use your actions to say how bad Islam is, even though inside we know better.
  • We will claim we suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because of your actions, but we're perfectly okay with one of our guys committing the same act you did; because of this, you will be remembered forever.
  • We will have fun saying your name for years to come.
  • We will blame every similar act on you. In this way, you will help us ignore how distressed our people are, since you will give us a solid reason for why one of our own guys did what you did.
  • You will give us another excuse to hate everyone who is not us. In this way, we will praise you for years.


Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey,

I completely agree with every single point here. Nice work! This is my favorite entry from you so far. :)

Nafisah said...

Salams, yes, I agree with everything you have said also. Terrorists are only terrorists if they are somehow associated with Islam or claim to be Muslim. However, they don't call Timothy McVay, the Oklahoma city bomber a terrorist. Now I'm not saying that it's okay for what these radical Muslims are doing, claiming they're walking in the path of Allah. But their practice of Islam has caused much chaos in society. And it's not because of Islam itself, it's due to their own ideology that has reached such a point so as to contradict that of the West. But the west is really not the best, and neither is the east. There is just a sharp contradiction between the two. And the west serves to perpetuate terrorism even more by fighting fire with fire. It doesn't work and it hasn't ever worked before. Ideology is really a partial revelation of truth/reality; it masks half and uncovers the other half, and the uncovered portion is thought to encompass the whole truth. In application to terrorism, we see what's on the face of it: death, weapons, threats, etc. But we don't really know what's behind it, and this is certainly the case for those against whom it is being committed. And this comment is running on longer than I intended, so I'll say this in closing: remember that all Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. So, as you've said, if their name sounds like that of a Muslim, and they somehow look how a Muslim is supposed to look (whatever that appearance is supposed to be), and they happen to commit an act of evil against the right-thinking, democratic, diverse and culturally/religiously free Westerners, then they definitely are terrorists. It seems they only have to look, think and act Muslim in order to be thought of as terrorists.

Nafisah.

Munawar Bijani said...

Sallams,
Glad you liked the entry, Jimlah. Unfortunately this obvious situation isn't quite so obvious to most people.

Nafisah: You're correct about most terrorists being Muslim. What I've seen is, particularly with the West, if they don't like the way you're doing something, it's a problem. Granted, I like that America got rid of Saddam and is fighting the Taliban, but I don't like how they completely toppled the Iraqi government and put Democracy in place of a mainly Theocratic government. Needless to say, I think they've paved the road for Iraqis to be "modernized." After all, we are seeing a lot of car dealerships and such and I fear that in due time Iraq will be a Capitolistic society where one's goal is to make money, then make more money, then make more money--just like the west. A consumer run economy is dangerous and Iraq is headed that way. We've already seen the results when the economy is based on us taking money out of our pockets. As soon as we tighten up a bit, banks don't have anyone to charge interest to, the profits banks make from overdraft fees are down, and we had an economic collapse.

Sorry to stray off topic however. Yes all we have to do is "look like them" and we're terrorists. In fact, I've known many women for not wearing hijab because of this. People look at them weird. I've also gotten dirty looks as reported by my friends; to this day, people stare at me as if I was responsible for 9 11. It amazes me how arrogant we are, yet so smart. I really thought humans knew better.