لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Towards
a Definition of Terrorism
Ayatullah Shaykh Muhammad 'Ali Taskhiri
Vol V No. 1 (Muharram 1408 AH/1987 CE)
* Terrorism is a term that has been much bandied about in recent
times in the world media. This paper was presented by the author, who is
Director of the International Relations Department of the I.P.O., at the
International Conference on Terrorism called by the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, Geneva, from June 22-26, 1987. It is an attempt to
define terrorism and to put it in a broad perspective.
Resolution 20/5-P (1.5) of the Fifth Islamic Summit supported the idea
of an international conference to be convened under the aegis of the United
Nations in order to discuss the subject of international terrorism and
to differentiate it from the struggle of peoples for their acknowledged
national causes and the liberation of their territories.
This means that we should, at this meeting, take into consideration
the following steps:
(i) To refer, first of all, to Islamic sources in order to set the major
criteria, to identify the principles according to which the humanity aims
and actions is to be assessed, and to make such principles the basis of
our judgement in the various cases.
(ii) To examine genuine human nature unblemished by any considerations
of narrow interests, in order to identify human rules that can be put forth
at the international level as a general human criterion For this purpose,
the results of our studies must cover the various fields of the international
scene and constitute a general action framework.
(iii) From these Islamic and human principles, we deduce a general comprehensive
and exclusive definition, i.e. encompassing all the real attributes of
terrorism and excluding the alleged criteria of terrorism which cannot
be treated as such by lofty principles.
(iv) Then, we should apply the criteria set forth to all the national
and international instances of alleged terrorism. We should examine each
of them closely in the light of the results, then put forward an appropriate
and precise judgement which is free from any ambiguity or connivance and
to confer on each act its true adjective.
In the light of this introduction, we shall confine our study to the
following points:
First Point:
It goes without saying that every international bloc, every State or
indeed every community has enemies and opponents that seek to eliminate
it, and, as the conflict becomes violent, each party tries to undermine
the reputation of the other by attributing to it repulsive epithets, such
as "anarchist", "criminal", "outlaw", "inhuman", "terrorist", and the like.
We may even find that each of the two parties indulges in such allegations
in order to carry out a plan which involves the deprival of the other party
of its rights on the pretext of collaborating with the enemy or plotting
against lawful interests.
To materialize this process, each party uses its international influence
in order to win other parties over to its side either in action or in terms
of support in international fora. The issue thus assumes a public character
and the victory in a case is a matter of pressure, influence and the power
of persuasion rather than a matter of sound logic.
Accordingly, feelings are influenced and sentiments are exploited for
the implementation of such plans motivated by self-interest, under the
banner of "anti-terrorism" for instance. To be sure, terrorism is humanly
reprehensible (if we disregard its motives and objectives), and no one
in his senses would accept any threat to human dignity, freedom, property,
honour, security, work, etc. This feeling is instinctive, genuine and incontestable.
Second Point:
If we consider the meaning of the word "terrorism" on the one hand,
and its fallout and traces left on human life on the other, we note that
terrorism may be carried out on different levels. There is a terrorism
which threatens security, honour, property and the like; there is a cultural
terrorism which tears human identity apart, and leads to the abyss of perdition
and aimlessness; there is an information terrorism which deprives man of
his freedom to breathe in an unpolluted atmosphere. We can cite other types
of terrorism such as economic terrorism, scientific terrorism, diplomatic
terrorism, military terrorism, etc.
There exists, however, a division based on the type of perpetrators,
which must be taken into account. It is the division into official and
unofficial terrorism. Official terrorism - which is the more dangerous
- consists of all acts that are supported by an internationally recognized
quarter or State, whether by the army of that State or individual elements
or in the form of an operation for the benefit of the said quarter. Opposing
this type of terrorism is unofficial terrorism.
Third Point:
We may focus, in any act or conduct, on two determining factors:
1. The motives of the perpetrator.
2. The human acceptability of the act itself.
These are not inseparable aspects. The personal motives of the perpetrator
may look humane to him but not so to the public. Conversely, the perpetrator
may have no human purpose in mind or may indeed have a purpose that he
perceives to be inhumane but is considered from the public point of view
to be a humane act.
Therefore, viewpoints may differ in the judgement whether such an act
is good or evil (usuli jurisprudents have done a great deal of valuable
research on the rational basis of differentiating between good and evil
deeds, but this is not the place to go into it). What must be stated here
is that neither of the factors, taken separately, is sufficient to determine
the acceptability or the reprehensibility of an act or to judge such an
act positively or negatively. A positive assessment in regard to both factors
must be carried out in order to judge and act.
Consequently, we have to ensure objectivity in our investigation in
order to find a criterion for identifying the acceptability and humanity
of an act from the standpoints of both Islam and mankind in general.
As regards the Islamic standpoint, we have to refer to the principles,
concepts and judgements which relate to the question of terrorism - in
its literal sense - to give a general definition of condemnable terrorism,
i.e. the terrorism that is rejected by Islam as contrary to the process
of the human being's perfection determined by God Almighty for mankind
through human nature and prescribed through revelation.
When referring to Islamic teachings, we find that Islam is very rich
in this field, and we notice that Islamic jurists have delved into the
various aspects that relate to the subject.
We have the judgements on al-baghy, i.e. armed revolt by a group
against a just and legitimate government, intimidation of the general public,
and pursuit of divisive political goals that damage national unity.
We also have the judgements on al-harabah, which is defined as
"the use of weapons, on land or sea, by day or night, to intimidate people,
in a city or elsewhere, by a male or female, strong or weak." God Almighty
declares in the Qur'an:
This is the recompense of those who fight against God and
His Messenger, and spread corruption in the land. they shall be put to
death, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate
sides, or be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in
this world; and in the next awaits them a mighty chastisement (5:33)
As may be noticed, the verse mentions the subject and the purpose, namely
war against society and spreading of corruption in the land. It has also
mentioned the severe punishment to be dealt out to the perpetrators, which
points to Islam's concern for the subject.
There are also the laws about theft and murder which can be mentioned
in this regard. Likewise, we come across in Islamic texts terms which relate
to the matter at hand, such as homicide (al-fatk), deceit (al-ghilah),
and seditious conspiracy (al-'i'timar).
There are also texts which stipulate utmost respect for covenants and
treaties even if it is discovered later that they favour the other party.
As long as he adheres to their provisions, these must be observed.
Furthermore, we have the requirements of the Islamic ethical system
which consists of concepts unknown to positive law yet are deeply-rooted
in this system. Lying may, for instance, reach the degree of a major sin
and so may calumny. We thus find that Islam seeks earnestly to protect
all kinds of true human freedoms, and to defend the dignity of the individual
and society, as well as the cohesion of society and integrity of the family,
considering any attack on them to be an atrocious crime liable to the sternest
punishment which may go as far as execution, crucifixion and the like.
Islam upholds the principle of personal responsibility and considers
any attack on innocent people as a major crime. It focuses on the defence
of the weak, the humble and the oppressed and enjoins jihad for
their protection:
And why should you not fight for the cause of Allah, and
for the helpless old men and women.... (4:75)
The Muslim is required to always stand up for the oppressed until they
get their rights. Imam 'Ali (A) gave this advice to his two sons:
Be opponents of the oppressor and defenders of the oppressed.
He also said:
To me the lowly are noble until I get their rights for them,
and the powerful are weak until I get such rights from them.
Perhaps the mention in the Holy Qur'an of the blessing of security "And
hath made them safe from fear" (106:4) is the best proof of the importance
it attaches to security.
However, it would take too long to elaborate on all the related matters.
Nevertheless we wish to state that the first criterion for identifying
humaneness is the intention of the perpetrator and the general acceptability
of his act is Din with all its spirit, laws and concepts.
Turning our attention to the second framework, namely the general human
framework, we can accept those principles that are unanimously respected
by mankind as represented by its official organs, its popular organizations,
its conscience and sentiments, as another set of criteria to determine
the presence of humaneness or its opposite in the intention of the
perpetrator, and of the above-mentioned general acceptability (although
we believe the two criteria to be mostly overlapping).
As an example of the foregoing, we may notice the present unanimity
of mankind in considering the following as inhuman:
prostitution and the disintegration of family relationships;
narcotics and the disintegration of individual's rational personality;
colonialism and the undermining of peoples' dignity and plundering of their
resources;
racism and the disintegration of human brotherhood;
violation of all recognized rights and the breaking of covenants:
bombardment of populated areas, use of chemical weapons. attacks on civil
aviation, national railways, commercial and tourist vessels, and similar
methods which are universally condemned in war.
There is no divergence whatsoever as regards the anti-human nature of the
above instances. Therefore, these and similar violations suggest the acceptable
criteria which should form the basis of our definition, and any act to
eliminate and oppose them is a human act which must be supported if itself
not accompanied by violation of other human values.
Fourth Point: Definition of Terrorism
In the light of the above, we can arrive at a comprehensive definition
of terrorist acts, a definition which is unanimously acceptable and on
which we can base our positions. Yet before putting forth our suggested
definition, we may recall that we should note therein the following elements:
intimidation and violation of security of any kind;
presence of inhuman intention and motive;
unacceptability of the end and purpose and the act itself by humanity.
Accordingly, our definition may be as follows:
Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt
(mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind,
and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind.
For the sake of clarity, we may add the following points:
1. We have used the term 'human' instead of 'international' for the
sake of wider consensus, official or otherwise, so as to emphasize the
general human character of the statement.
2. We have introduced the epithet 'corrupt' (mufsid) to connote
the attribute accompanying inhuman objectives, i.e. the spreading of corruption
in the land, and to include the imperative to avoid such objectives.
3. We have referred to various types of terrorism with the phrase; "security
of any kind".
4. We have mentioned the two criteria, i.e. religious and human, first
to be consistent with our belief and then to generalize the criterion.
5. As may be noticed, the fact that an operation is violent does not
constitute a condition for considering it a case of terrorism. In the light
of the above definition, we shall be able to ascertain the nature of one
act or another and determine whether it is a case of terrorism. We shall
confirm that the definition does not apply to the following:
a. acts of national resistance exercised against occupying
forces, colonizers and usurpers;
b. resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by
the force of arms;
c. rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism
and efforts to undermine their institutions;
d. resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on
the latter's strongholds;
e. retaliation against any aggression if there is no other
alternative.
Similarly, the definition does not apply to any democratic action unaccompanied
by terrorism even if it does not have a humane objective. Nor does it apply
to individual destructive acts if they have no social effects.
The above definition, however, does apply to the following:
a. acts of piracy on land, air and sea;
b. all colonialist operations including wars and military expeditions;
c. all dictatorial acts against peoples and all forms of protection
of dictatorships, not to mention their imposition on nations;
d. all military methods contrary to human practice, such as
the use of chemical weapons, the shelling of civilian populated areas,
the blowing up of homes, the displacement of civilians, etc.;
e. all types of pollution of geographical, cultural and informational
environment. Indeed, intellectual terrorism may be one of the most dangerous
types of terrorism;
f. all moves that undermine adversely affect the condition
of international or national economy, adversely affect the condition of
the poor and the deprived, deepen up nations with the shackles of socio-economic
gaps, and chain up nations with the shackles of exorbitant debts;
g. all conspiratorial acts aimed at crushing the determination
of nations for liberation and independence, and imposing disgraceful pacts
on them.
The list of examples that fit in with the suggested definition is almost
endless.
Fifth Point:
Although many meetings have been held and many attempts made to combat
terrorism, they have generally failed because of the following reasons:
- They were not based on international human considerations but were
aimed primarily at achieving narrow interests.
- They did not deal with the circumstances that generate terrorism,
nor did they seek the real motives of terrorism. It is indeed comical that
the United States of America, which is the mother of international terrorism,
and the author of all the circumstances of oppression and subjection of
peoples, by strengthening dictatorial regimes and supporting occupation
of territories and savage attacks on civilian areas, etc. should seek to
convene symposia on combating "terrorism", i.e. any act that conflicts
with its imperialist interests.
Killing a person in a forest is an unforgivable sin,
But the massacre of a peaceful nation is a debatable question.
At any rate, the real cure of terrorism - acts of individual terrorism
in particular - consists, in our view, in removing the conditions that
have brought it about.
Islam, in its treatment of all cases of deviation, strongly stresses
this aspect. It seeks first to reform the social atmosphere and eliminate
all inducements to crime. It also emphasizes self-restraint through education
of the innermost soul and through giving the latter a unique human mould
that causes it to spontaneously shun any transgression of prescribed human
norms and rules by the Shari'ah. In addition, Islam does not omit to lay
down a comprehensive, realistic and flexible code of sanctions that deals
with facts according to their social effects.
Going back to our current reality, we must seek the prevalence of a
just system and prevent aggression and encroachment upon other peoples'
rights. Under such circumstances when a person allows himself to be induced
to commit terrorism or aggression, the whole mankind will stand up against
him. If, however, we fail to fulfil this standard, all our treatments will
be local and palliative; though they may alleviate pain, they will not
eradicate the cause of the disease.
