Terrorism is a term that is used almost exclusively to crimes committed by Muslims. What does the term terrorism mean and who gets to define it? According to the FBI, terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Even if we accept this definition, we notice several problems. There are many governments that fit this definition. They use acts of violence for political aims. The only difference is that they establish themselves as the victims of terrorism and therefore justify their acts of violence against civilians. Humanities worst terrorists have always been governing states. For instance, Bashar al-Assad of Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, misplaced and injured millions. He is a secularist.
The US invasion of Iraq has taken the lives of half a million people (let that number sink in for a moment). This invasion was based on the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction and we went to another country to save those poor people from their way of life and convert them to ours. An Iraqi or Syrian child who witnessed her classmates, parents, or sibling murdered or raped will clearly identify the perpetrators as terrorists. According to the FBI, most terrorist attacks in America were not committed by Muslims. Even in Western Europe, terrorist acts by Muslims are miniscule compared to terrorism by non-Muslims (see here). In Europe, the worst modern terrorist attack was the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 by pro-Russian forces in which 300 passengers and crew members were killed. These numbers can all be verified. Why then do we only think of Islam and Muslims when the term terrorism is used?
We remember 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing (where 3 people were killed), and Charlie Hebdo. However, when thinking of terrorism rarely does anyone remember Dylan Roof who killed 9 innocent Americans in the Church with the intention of starting a race war, or Stephen Paddock who shot more than 500 civilians and killed 58, Adam Lanza who killed 20 children ages 6-7, George Hennard who drove his pickup truck through a restaurant and killed 23 people because he hated minorities, or Jeremy Christian who stabbed two men who were trying to protect him from hurting two black women, one of whom was Muslim.
When it comes to terrorism, there is clearly selective memory, hypocrisy, and double standards. Even though most mass suicide shootings, which bear close resemblance to mass suicide bombers, are committed by white men, there are no policies put in place to protect us from “their” rage. We have silently accepted the rage of white men who are mass shooters, contextualize it, try to understand it, and when all fails we blame it on mental illness. This is not to say that mental illness does not exist, but Muslim terrorists are never given the chance to be mentally ill. They are immediately labeled as terrorists. There is no call for a “total and complete shutdown” of white men from entering the country until we “figure out what is going on.”
We have been conditioned to have these double standards. Terrorism only counts when it is committed by a Muslim against non-Muslims. If it is committed by a non-Muslim, or Muslim against other Muslims, it does not matter, we do not condemn it, and we erase it from our memories. When there was a terrorist attack in a mosque in Sinai Egypt, in which 305 innocent civilians were killed, no one cared. Facebook profiles did not change to the Egyptian flag and we did not all “become Sinai” because not all lives are equal.
There is a fear based in fiction, hysteria, and exaggeration that Muslims en masse are concealed terrorists. There is also fear of the individual terrorist, the suicide bomber. The suicide bomber, like the mass shooter, is unintelligible in the sense that no one can understand why someone would commit such a horrendous crime against innocent civilians. For the suicide bomber, the term terrorism is always used. However, the term is never used for mass shooters who are not Muslim. Instead, there is always an attempt to contextualize and understand why they committed their crime. Neutral terms are used to immediately single out the murderer in a manner that ensures there is no larger connection to his race or religion such as “lone wolf” “gunman” “shooter.” If the perpetrator is Muslim, there is always a larger connection made using terms identifying race and religion such as “Islamic” or “Muslim” terrorist. However, statistics show us that “Islamic terrorism” is not the exaggerated threat it is made out to be.
When the word Islam is mentioned, the images that might come to some people’s minds are that of violent and angry extremists. One must question where these images come from and if they represent Islam and the norm in the Muslim world and communities. If our information about the Muslim world is limited to these images then it is likely to taint the lens that we look through. Extreme and sensational behavior is what the media highlights, but these extreme actions not representative of norms or the general population.
Take for example the Jerry Springer show, it begins with Springer sliding down a stripper pole, an audience pumping their hands in the air and cheering his name in anticipation for viewing a violent confrontation between family members. Springer introduces a topic in which we witness different guests confront each other about a relationship problem such as adultery, cheating, fornication, lying and many other atypical situations. Picture living in a foreign country where you are only shown the kinds of Americans that are on the Jerry Springer show. Seeing such images over and over will lead one to conclude that this is the norm in America, while we all know it certainly is not. Or for instance, if all you see about America is white men committing mass shootings against innocent civilians. This will lead to a distorted image understanding of what most of America is. The reality is that the people on the Jerry Springer show or those who commit mass shootings are American, but they represent a small percentage of the American population and are not representative of American values. Likewise, if the only images we see of Muslims is that of extremists, one might mistakenly conclude that all Muslims are inherently violent and out to kill. This mistaken conclusion might be held by many because studies have shown that terror attacks receive five times more coverage if the perpetrator is Muslim. [1]
This leads us to the question of whether groups like ISIS are representative of Islam or the general Muslim population. Let’s look at ISIS in the context of the larger Muslim world and population.
WHERE WAS ISIS BEFORE 2011?
ISIS was founded in 2011. Islam is a religion that is over 1400 years old. If ISIS is part of Islam and representative of the true Islamic teaching, one must question where they have been all this time? The fact that ISIS did not exist before demonstrates that the group did not emerge due to the teachings of religion, but political circumstances. This leads to the next point.
ISIS AND THE MUSLIM WORLD
There are over 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. Besides ISIS being a recent phenomenon, this group mainly exists in Iraq and Syria. Why did it emerge in these two particular countries and not in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates? Iraq is a country that was invaded by America despite the protests of many military experts and American citizens and cautioning of the chaos that will be born due to an invasion of Iraq. Syria is a country that suffers from a brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his people to save his political position. Chaos will result in chaos. The wars in Iraq and Syria resulted in the deaths of about one million people, destroyed the infrastructure, ruined families, jobs, roads, and the economy. ISIS emerged in these two war torn countries because of the destruction that takes place in them. Therefore, ISIS is an extreme reaction to an extreme political, economic, and social situation. If it were inherently part of Islam than it should have emerged much earlier than 2013 and been prevalent in most of the remaining Muslim majority countries.
ISIS AND THE WORLD’S MUSLIM POPULATION
According to the CIA, ISIS has between twenty through thirty thousand members. [2] This estimate likely ignores the qualitative difference between terrorists and fighters. For instance, some of those fighting in Iraq and Syria might be individuals who participate in combat activities against the brutal Syrian regime and therefore not the same as terrorists seeking to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians. Nevertheless, even if we accept that estimate, it is minute when compared to the global Muslim population. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. That means approximately one in every four humans today is a Muslim. If ISIS consists of thirty thousand people, that means ISIS is .0025% of Muslims. This is such a miniscule number that it can in no way represent the main beliefs and practices of the larger Muslim population.
MUSLIMS NEVER AGREE ON ANYTHING, BUT THEY AGREE ON ISIS BEING UNISLAMIC
Islam is a very democratic religion in the sense that there is no pope figure and Muslims are free to differ, especially on legal matters. Because difference of opinion and dissent are the norm in Islamic law, when consensus and agreement do occur they bring certainty. Muslim scholars and institutions, both Sunni and Shia, have all come out to condemn ISIS.[3] Furthermore, most victims of ISIS are Muslims. In January 2016, the United Nations released a report which stated that almost 19,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between January 2014 and October 2015 and much of that is reportedly due to ISIS.[4] ISIS has created many Muslim widows, orphans who lost their parents, and parents who lost innocent children. ISIS is not about the tenets of Islam or about Muslims. It is a group that was the result of foreign invasion and destruction of Iraq and a brutal dictator in Syria. Their main goal is power, and just like other brutal rulers and dictators, they will kill as many innocent people as possible to achieve and maintain that power. The only distinction between ISIS and secular dictators who kill innocent civilians is that ISIS misuses religion to justify its brutality.
Conclusion
Muslims are against ISIS and terrorism just like most Christians are against the KKK. Although the KKK will claim to be Christian and use the Bible to justify their actions, no serious person will think that the KKK represents Christianity or Christian teachings. Likewise, ISIS does not represent Islam or Muslims, neither historically or in the global context. When we are constantly fed images of angry young men seeking to kill everyone, it might be wise to zoom out of that image and look at the greater context of the world. That angry individual does not represent the average Muslims who are athletes, doctors, lawyers, teachers, bakers, students, professors, and businessmen and women. These Muslims hate ISIS, fight terrorism, and put their lives on the line to defend innocent civilians against ISIS.[5] Ultimately, it is important to study Islam and Muslims in an objective and contextualized manner.
[2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/20-000-31-500-fighters-iraq-syria-cia-230059844.html
[3] See https://muslimscondemn.com/ for a list of many individuals and organizations who condemned ISIS.
[4] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf
