__ By Shaikh Ibraheem Zakzaky
Assalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullahi ta'ala wa bara katuhu.
Well I have no paper to present. I also wish I have been here earlier to benefit from what has been said and papers presented. But I hope the little, I might be saying may be a sort of contribution on the same topic: TERRORISM: IN SEARCH OF A DEFINITION.
From what I heard in the last paper presented, the writer seems to be saying in a way, "all forms of violence are terrorism". Striking terror, or putting people in a state of terror is equivalent to terrorism.
Well, if that is the case, it means terrorism has been part and parcel of mankind and mankind has been a terrorist, right from the beginning. We know from original History written in the Bible and Quran "among the sons of Adam, Habil and Kabil (also known as Cain and Abel), Kabil killed Habil in a violent way. Maybe Kabil was a terrorist. So if act of violence is terrorism, then actually we should sit down and give the word another meaning because as it is, it is not conveying the meaning of what we are discussing here. So, we should give it another definition, so that it will make sense.
"Terrorism". Using that "ism" makes it a sort of ideology, a form of belief system or a certain concept which expresses specifically a meaning either in economics or sociology.
The knowledge I have in Economics suggests there is nothing called terrorism. Maybe there's "economic terror", but terrorism in economics, as a concept doesn't exist.
So if we attempt defining it in a narrow way, it will help us to see what is "terrorism" and what is not "terrorism". Which acts of violence can be categorized as terrorism? And which are not? If you are put in a state of terror, does it mean whoever put you in such position is a terrorist? If that's the case, then armed robbers are all "terrorists", because they keep you in a state of terror, either in the night or in the day or along the highway, but (as we have it today) they are not called terrorists.
DEFINITION:
So, terrorism is actually defined as the use of violence to achieve a political goal. Yes violence is there; striking terror is there, but for what reason? It is either to establish a government or to destroy one, or to establish a state, or to create one, or to destroy a state. Now, when you have a political party, which adopts a way of striking terror either by kidnapping, sexual assault, bombing, striking or any form in order to intimidate the government to succumb to their demands, they are terrorists. I thought before the riot in September 11, 2001, terrorism used to be confined to its real meaning, as a means of achieving a political goal by a group. And it was used to refer to some specifically political entities or political organizations, that used violence in other to achieve their aims, except perhaps the misuse of the word by the Israelis, who actually happen to form a state through terrorism, and in fact one might say on the map of the world today, the only state created by terrorism is Israel. And it is a state where all the citizens, 100% of them are terrorists. But they call others terrorist, so they have defined P.L.O, PalestineLiberation Movement as terrorist.
When one uses it in its real sense, it should be the use of violence in other to achieve a political goal. Now, another question arises, is it justifiable or unjustifiable. Some might say: well, in a way, we are forced to do this, as there was no other way, some might say well it wasn't right to do it. We all know that human beings fight what is called "war", and it seems that war has been legalized by all known states, they have ministries that are in charge of it and allocate huge sums for buying weapons to fight, they have what is called "war colleges". So it seems that somehow, war, though undesirable, has come to be part of human life, so rules and regulations are made on how war should be fought. Nobody will say that is how you should go to war, but if you are in a war, there are rules and regulations. It appears that terrorists do not use theconventional means of waging a war, and that is why they are also qualified as terrorists.
Paharps if they use conventional means, it might be accepted as an act of war.
_ We will Continue at part 2.
© Freedom Fighters Ng.
Tags
Shaikh Zakzaky