My Response to Tarek Fatah

Taj Hashmi

History Department

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver

I enjoyed reading Tarek Fatah's article, "Politics, Religion and Terrorism", which he presented at a seminar organized by the Family of Hearts in Toronto on 11th December, 2005. It is indeed a very thought-provoking and timely piece, worth responding to for further elaboration of the very important theme in our times, both among Muslims and non-Muslims, believers and non-believers in the traumatic transition that the world is going through since the Nine-Eleven.

We should congratulate Tarek Fatah for authoring this essay on such varied themes as politics, religion and terrorism with absolute objectivity and without any attempt to be an apologetic, not uncommon among fellow Muslim scholars of our time. This, however, does not mean that I agree with everything that Tarek Fatah has to say about terrorism, politics and religion.

Without being critical of the main theme of the essay that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate have been creating terrorists among Muslims in general and Iraqis in particular by waging their "war on terror" with a view to "liberating and democratizing Iraq". Tarek's citing Tariq Ali's famous book, The Clash of Fundamentalisms, in support of his thesis is very pertinent as well. One may agree with him that someone's "terrorist" is someone else's "freedom fighter".

Having said this, I find Tarek Fatah quite ambivalent, if not a bit lost, in his arduous journey in the steep terrain of "politics, religion and terror". While defining terrorism as "unconventional use of violence for political gain", which he rightly points out "fall outside the laws of war", Tarek inadvertently throughout his essay draws no distinction between terrorism and conventional wars. He even draws synonymities between terrorism and secret killings, violent attacks, invasions by Sultam Mahmud, Halagu Khan or Nadir Shah, killing of brothers by Awrangzeb, the tragedy of Karbala and the conversion of "Ismaili" Egypt into a Sunni Sultanate or the transformation of Sunni Iran into a Shiite kingdom. These sweeping assertions have grossly weakened the main arguments of the essay, which could be very useful towards understanding how politics has been terrorized and terror politicized, especially since the Nine-Eleven. Consequently, Muslims and Islam have been forced to be defensive against the Western hegemony and their neo-Orientalist allies.

Further appraisal of Tarek Fatah's essay requires an understanding of terrorism. We may accept David Whittaker's definition of the term helpful in this regard. To Whittaker, terrorism is "premeditated threat or use of violence by sub national groups or clandestine individuals intended to intimidate and coerce governments, to promote political, religious or ideological outcomes, and to inculcate fear among the public at large" [ Terrorism: Understanding the Global Threat, Pearson Education Limited, London 2002, p.10]. So, only when "sub national groups" or "clandestine individuals" resort to intimidate, coerce and terrorize people or governments to promote their political and ideological goals, their acts come under the broad definition of "terrorism". Napoleon's invasion of Egypt or Hitler's invasions of Poland or Russia and even the pogroms of Jews were not terrorist acts at all. They were atrocious crimes against humanity, but NOT terrorist acts.

It is very problematic as Tarek Fatah has generalized that terrorism was "the norm" before the advent of modern democracy. He thinks overthrew of dynasties by violent means were terrorist acts. On the contrary, terrorism is a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon, began in the early dawn of colonial expansion and democracy. It is simply an a historical proposition that pre-colonial North America was free from violence, although one may agree with Tarek Fatah that possibly it was free from the malady of terrorism.

I am not sure why Tarek Fatah assumes that Islamic history, "religious and political", is "sprinkled with terrorism" as a means of achieving power. Why the assassination of Caliph Ali (Umar and Usman as well) should be considered a terrorist act is beyond me! Why the battle of Karbala should be brought under the broad category of terror is also very problematic.

The removal of the minority Fatimid regime in Egypt (which for the sake of legitimacy among the bulk of the Muslim Egyptians and North Africans who were Sunnis, even adopted the title of caliph (Khalifa), a Sunni institution) by Sunni Aybides cannot be a terrorist act from the widest stretch of the imagination. The Safavid Shah Ismail of Iran, who was a disciple of a Sunni Turkish Sufi of the Qizilbash (Red Headgear) order, adopted Shiism as the state religion of Iran after his defeat by Sunni Ottoman Sultan Selim I at Chaldiran in 1510. It was a politically motivated expediency. He wanted to draw a line between Sunni Ottoman (Turaninans) with his Iranian subjects and kingdom. If we consider this forced imposition of Shiism as the state religion a terrorist act, then Henry VIII was also a terrorist as he adopted Protestantism as the state religion of Great Britain, called Anglican Church, to divorce his queen to marry his mistress, Anne Boylen, as Catholicism would not allow him a divorce.

Another big problem with Tarek Fatah's analyses of terrorism is that on the one hand he defines terrorists as "actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules" and hence are "rogue actors"; but on the other, he classifies Halagu Khan to the Crusaders as terrorists, although they had "recognized armed forces" under their command.

The Bolshevik Revolution (Russian Revolution, 1917) was not a terrorist revolution either. By the way, it was not Albert Rhys Williams but John Reed who authored Ten Days that Shook the World, based on his first hand experience of the Russian Revolution. Albert Williams, another American journalist, wrote several books on Russia, including Questions and Answers about Russia; Through the Russian Revolution; and Lenin: the Man and His Work.

I do not understand Tarek Fatah's citing Sam Harris's book, The End of Faith, in his essay on politics, religion and terror. Religion per se has NEVER been the main factor behind terror. Most terrorist acts, so far, have been committed in the name of secular ideologies like nationalism and rights of self determination of concerned people. The PLO, the Mau Mau of Jomo Kenyatta, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the JKLF, Sein Finn, IRA, Bader Mainhoff, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and scores of other "terrorist" groups are not inspired by any religion. So, Sam Harris's sophomric argument that once religions are done away with, there would not be any violence and terror in the world cannot be taken seriously. As if, the unequal distribution of wealth and pwer would also disappear with the disappearance of religion!

I have responded to Tarek Fatah's thought-provoking essay not to undermine his scholarship but to raise more questions for a healthy debate for our mutual intellectual stimulation and maturity, which the Muslim Diaspora needs very badly to live with dignity and self-esteem in hostile, racist, hypocritical North America.