Once
again I watched the nauseous devastation and
massacre, this time in the heart of my city, near
the universities and libraries, where I have spent
much of my adult life.
After
Madrid and Bali, Casablanca and Riyadh, I have
come to predict al-Qaeda's responsibility for a
given criminal act through the following test. If
I find myself at a loss for an answer to the
questions: "Why the innocent?" and
"For what purpose?", then, in all
likelihood, the crime is of al-Qaeda's doing.
The
absurd, random mass carnage of young and old, male
and female is its trademark. Residential
buildings, tourist resorts, rush hour trains and
crowded buses turn into grand spectacles of mass
murder where no heed is paid to the victim's
identity and the extent of his/her responsibility
for the policies of a country defined as the
enemy. The boundaries between the world of
politics and that of organized crime are blurred,
as political demands get wedded to criminal
methods.
Al-Qaeda,
it must be said, is no pioneer in this field. For
although it founds its ideology on religious
references and speaks a language overwhelmed by
religious symbols, al-Qaeda falls largely within
the modern tradition of revolutionary anarchists -
from the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks down to
latter-day Marxist guerrillas like the
Baadr-Meinhoff Gang.
Destruction
as a Passion
|
|
Al-Qaeda
belongs to a tradition of revolutionary anarchists. |
|
Like
these modern revolutionary nihilists, al-Qaeda
warriors subscribe to an instrumentalist logic
that recognizes no distinction between the
legitimate and illegitimate, thereby sanctioning
acts of terror for the attainment of their ends.
Like them, they are more interested in the act of
destruction than its effects. As the father of
Russian anarchism Mikhail Bakunin put it,
"the passion for destruction is also a
creative passion."
Al-Qaeda
is also a revival of the radical currents that
surfaced in Islamic history from time to time only
to be defeated by moderate mainstream Islam led by
the Ulama (scholars). In particular, they appear
to be a continuation of Kharijite thought with its
dualistic puritanical conception of the world and
the community of Muslims and of Gnostic
underground organizations like the Assassins and
Qaramita, who sought to disrupt the stability of
Muslim societies through acts of terrorism.
Al-Qaeda
would be best seen as a mixture of these political
and ideological strands. Apart from the
ideological justifications it takes recourse to,
one would, indeed, be hard put to find much that
distinguishes it from Latin American anarchist
groups. Their acts share the same destructive
ferocity, the same absurdity. The difference is
that where one finds its ideological legitimacy in
Marxism, the other seeks it in the Islamic
religion.
Islam
Misinterpreted
|
|
The
terrible irony is that Muslims currently find themselves helplessly
trapped between two fundamentalisms, between Bush's hammer and bin Laden's
anvil. |
|
How
can the murder of the innocent be perpetuated in
the name of a religion that likens the loss of one
human life to the loss of humanity at large? How
can Islam be said to sanction such acts of
aggression when it openly forbids revenge and
declares in no less than five Qur'anic chapters
that: "No bearer of a burden bears the burden
of another"?
How
can the killing of ordinary men and women going
about their business be permissible when even the
battlefield has been regulated by the strictest
moral code: "Destroy not fruit trees, nor
fertile land in your paths. Be just, and spare the
feelings of the vanquished. Respect all religious
persons who live in hermitages or convents and
spare their edifices"?
Perhaps
the one thing al-Qaeda militants have proven good
at, apart from the shedding of innocent blood, is
fanning the flames of hostility to Islam and
Muslims. From the darkness of their caves and
hiding places, these self-appointed spokesmen for
about one and a half billion Muslims worldwide
have excelled in stirring latent negative images
of Islam within the Western psyche. Through their
senseless crimes, Islam, in the minds of most, has
become a euphemism for mass slaughter and
destruction. Thanks to them, racism, bigotry and
Islamophobia could rear its ugly head unashamedly
in broad day light.
The
terrible irony is that Muslims currently find
themselves helplessly trapped between two
fundamentalisms, between Bush's hammer and bin
Laden's anvil, hostages to an extreme right wing
American administration, aggressively seeking to
impose its expansionist and hegemonic will over
the region at gunpoint, and to a cluster of
violent, wild fringe groups, lacking in political
experience or sound religious understanding.
|
|
It
didn't take the neo-conservative world supremacists long to spot the
immense opportunities 11 September handed them. |
|
"Us"
and "Them"
Although
the two claim to be combating each other, the
reality is that they are working in unison, one
providing the justifications the other desperately
needs for its fanaticism, ferocity and savagery.
No
wonder, it didn't take the neo-conservative world
supremacists long to spot the immense
opportunities 11 September handed them. Their
puritanical missionary belief in being God's
instruments on earth and grand imperial ambitions
could now be realized through shameless emotional
blackmail and bogus moral claims.
The
two share a shallow, myopic, dualistic conception
of the world populated by "us" and
"them" in Bush's language,
"believers" and
"non-believers" in bin Laden's.
Al-Zarqawi and his fellows then brandish the sword
of excommunication (takfir) against the Muslim
body itself in an endless orgy of maiming and
mutilation.
Some
are to be expelled, because they are Shi`ah,
others because they are Sufis, or Mu'tazilites
(rationalists) and so on in a perpetual
elimination process that spares no one but a
handful of puritan elects from its deadly reach.
The
vast stock of common denominators is ignored, that
which tears and divides is sought. These would
rather see the world turn into an ever-raging
battlefield, Muslim societies into blazing scenes
of sectarian schism and civil war in a region rich
in ethnic, religious, sectarian and linguistic
diversity.
I
daily use London's trains and buses and could have
been one of Thursday bombings' victims. I hardly
think that killing or maiming me would have aided
the causes the bombers claim to defend. The truth
is that these narrow-minded fanatics are a scourge
to the causes they purport to champion.
Ask
any Iraqi or Palestinian if the bombing of the
innocent in Bali, Casablanca, or London has helped
alleviate their suffering. If anything, they have
handed their oppressors with an open permit to
butcher and destroy, safe in the knowledge that
blame has been shifted from them to their victims.
Just
Causes, Unjust Means
|
|
Al-Qaeda's
acts have turned the aggressor, who colonizes, massacres and pillages,
into a victim. |
|
So,
Sharon demolishes the homes of Palestinians,
expropriates their lands and sends his helicopters
to massacre them in their hundreds in the name of
combating terrorism. Arab regimes stifle
dissenting voices, imprison and assassinate in the
name of resisting terrorism. American tanks and
gunships invade, occupy, kill and rampage, all in
the name of terrorism.
Al-Qaeda's
mindless acts have turned the aggressor, who
colonizes, massacres and pillages, into a victim.
For all their material vulnerability, victims have
a very powerful asset: their moral case as
innocent victims. Perhaps, this is the cruellest
dimension to these senseless crimes: That the
powerless has been stripped even of his
victimhood. Even this has been appropriated by the
powerful.
The
causes al-Qaeda extremists speak for are certainly
just causes. The sanctioning of genocide and
occupation in Palestine, slaughter of hundreds of
thousands in Iraq through exposure to depleted
Uranium and years of barbaric sanctions first,
then through bombing and shelling without
bothering to count the dead, brutal invasion of
the country, destruction of its infrastructure and
humiliation of its people undoubtedly rank among
modern history’s bloodiest crimes and darkest
tragedies.
But
the mindless killing of the innocent in Madrid, or
New York is the wrong answer to these real
grievances. These are illegitimate responses to
legitimate causes. Just as occupation is morally
and politically deplorable, so, too, is this blind
aggression masquerading as Jihad.
*
This article was originally published on
al-Jazeera
(http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/06C38FCF-7A1B-4444-9DAB-757C9E1A6DA8.htm)
on July 11, 2005, and is here republished without
any changes.
**Soumayya
Ghannoushi is
a researcher in the history of ideas at the School
of Oriental & African Studies, University of
London