V 

E d i t o r i a l  

Islam, World Peace, 
and the Discourse of Revenge 

Every time anger and frustration take over the human spirit, reason and 
rational thinking fade into the background. High emotions cloud minds, 
subvert justice, and undermine peace. In the absence of reason, new 
terminology takes hold. The discourse on terrorism that rages today in the 
aftermath of the horrific terrorist strikes on New York and Washington is 
ripe with emotions triggered by sinister and apocalyptic attacks on unarmed 
and non-combatant civilians. On television and radio talk shows across the 
United States, countless self-acclaimed experts on terrorism counsel that we 
strike back against a host of countries suspected of supporting terrorism. 
Statements from the White House have been more balanced and measured, 
but the theme is the same: an all-out war on terrorism. 

Terrorism we must fight, and we must fight with determination and vigor. 
But for the fight to be effective, it must be carried on according to fair rules, 
and must aim at the real target. An effective war on terrorism requires 
two elements. First, we must have a clear understanding of the sources of 
the anger and frustration that lies at the root of global terrorism and a clear 
definition of what constitutes a terrorist act. Second, we must have a clear 
vision of a global society based on the universal principles of equal freedom 
and mutual respect. A war on terrorism that employs moral themes but 
advances the narrow interests of a privileged few can bring more evil than 
good, as it is likely to result in harming innocent bystanders. 

Judging by the discourse of revenge and war, we have a long way to go 
before true understanding and clear vision come to bear on the strategic 
thinking of political leaders. This puts an extra burden on intellectuals and 
scholars. Scholars of all regions, religions, and persuasions are called upon 
more than ever before to bring reason and enlightenment to a world filled 
with emotion and ignorance. 



vi The Amuicvl J o d  of ldnmic S o d  Sciences 18.4 

Anguish over "Why?" 
To understand the extent to which our current political discourse is 
insufficient and found lacking in approaching the serious task of 
eliminating terrorism and bringing about the world peace so essential for 
the globalizing world of today, let us look briefly at the way the "why?" 
question concerning the rise of global terrorism is being handled. 

In a televised address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush 
raised the very question that continues to puzzle Americans: Why would 
anyone want to harm America? What motivates nineteen Middle Eastern 
men to shatter the lives of several thousand civilians, and to bring pain, 
grief, and anguish to even greater numbers of their families, friends, and 
countrymen? What in the world would produce the degree of anger, hate, 
and hostility we all have seen explode in front of our eyes, as we sat 
watching with bewilderment and horror the two civilian jetliners crash into 
the World Trade Center's twin towers? 

"Why do they hate us?" Bush asked in his statement to Congress. His 
answer was short and straightforward: "They hate what they see right in this 
chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are 
self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our 
freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with 
each other." Bush's answer, while containing elements of truth, seems to be 
lacking on several important points. 

It is true that the radical groups who attacked the United States have 
little appreciation of freedom and democracy. Most peoples in the Middle 
East have had no experience in recent memory of freedom of speech and 
assembly, and no experience of true and functional democracy. However, 
while radicals, who constitute a fraction of Middle Eastern societies, are 
involved in destructive endeavors that are bound to shake the foundation of 
world peace, the bulk of the people in the Middle East yearn for an open 
political system, in which freedom of religion, speech, and assembly 
are part and parcel of their political experience. It is also true that self- 
appointed leaders, who rely on military force to keep their populations in 
check, rule most regimes in the Middle East. 

It is equally true that Americans hold the values of freedom and 
democracy in high esteem. Americans have been vigilant in ensuring that 
the freedom and democracy they have inherited from the founders of this 
great nation are not usurped or taken away. The combination of political 
and religious freedoms on the one hand, and the accountability of elected 



vii 

officials on the other, give this country an edge over others, and attract 
every year hundreds of thousands of creative and hardworking people who 
find in America’s freedom a atmosphere conducive to improving their 
personal lives and enriching the life of their community and adopted 
country. 

National Interest vs. Human Rights 
The sad fact, which President Bush has overlooked, is that in many parts of 
the world, and particularly in the Middle East, America is associated not 
with freedom and democracy but with suppressive and autocratic regimes. 
For the last fifty years, successive United States governments have stood 
behind self-appointed leaders, providing them with financial and military 
support as well as security and political guidance. Far from being viewed 
as the guardian of freedom and democracy, the United States is often seen 
to be the power behind military regimes and unscrupulous dictators. 

The United States’ engagement in Iran is a case in point. In the fifties, the 
United States Central Intelligence Agency was directly involved in 
engineering the coup #’tat that removed the democratically elected 
government of Mohammed Musadeq and installed the regime of the Shah 
in 1954. Despite his abuse of the civil liberties of his people, and his 
extensive use of state security forces to suppress critics and opposition, the 
Shah continued to receive the blessing of American leaders. President 
Carter, who insisted that the United States’ foreign policy must be informed 
by American concerns over human rights, praised the Shah during a visit 
shortly before the latter was ousted by the Islamic revolution. The United 
States later took an active part in arming Saddam Hussein in a bid to 
topple the revolutionary government in Tehran. To ensure the cooperation 
of the Iraqi military government, the Reagan Administration kept silent 
when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranians as well as against 
the Kurdish opposition in Northern Iraq. It was only when the belligerent 
Saddam tumed his newly acquired military strength against the oil-rich 
Gulf countries that he was declared a renegade. 

The failure of successive United States’ administrations to project clear 
and sustained interests in freedom and democracy can be seen in the United 
States’ position vis;-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For decades, Arabs 
and Muslims watched the Israeli government expand its temtories at the 
expense of its Arab neighbors. Israel was allowed to occupy the West Bank 
and Gaza, the Golan Heights, and South Lebanon with the tacit approval 



V i i i  The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.4 

and blessing, and occasionally with the open support, of the United States 
government, in spite of successive UN resolutions and clear violations of 
international law. 

Over the past year, Middle Easterners have watched countless pictures: 
of Israeli soldiers shooting at rock-throwing Palestinian kids, of US-made 
Apaches, designed to destroy tanks, used for assassinating Palestinian 
activists, and of US-made tanks and rocket launchers used to suppress the 
Palestinian Intifada. 

Singling out Islam 
The president, along with several American leaders, counseled against 
targeting Mush Americans, and went out of his way to disassociate Islam 
and terrorism. Still many, particularly in the media, continue to make both 
subtle and direct attacks on Islamic beliefs and values. Among all 
religions, Islam has been singled out by media groups, and unfairly blamed 
for acts of terror carried out by Muslim groups. The blame is frequently 
subtle, articulated through the old and primitive instrument of "guilt by 
association." It often takes the form of using Islam as an adjective to 
describe terrorism, hence the catch phrase "Islamic terrorism." 
Alternatively, Islamic symbols and sounds - e.g., mosque, prayer, call to 
prayer, etc.-are played in the background every time a terrorist act is 
reported. Occasionally, the blame is laid at the doorstep of Islam by 
"experts" on terrorism, a la Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, who find it 
convenient to point fingers at all practicing Muslims in order to push their 
narrow political agenda. 

The efforts to blame Islam for terrorism are not only baseless and 
erroneous, but are unmistakably malicious and ill-intended. Islam, like 
many religious traditions, stresses charity, mercy, and compassion. 
Historically, Islam is recognized for its tolerance toward other ieligions, 
even when bigotry and intolerance were widely accepted and practiced in 
medieval times. But like other religious traditions, Islam recognizes the 
right of peoples to fight aggression, even though it puts a higher 
premium on forgiveness. Reciprocity, an eye for an eye, is found in 
Christianity and Judaism as well. Further, like other religions, Islamic texts 
contain statements that emphasize forgiveness and peace, along with others 
that permit the use of force for fighting back against aggression and for 
achieving a just peace. 



In Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Torah, Moses narrates to the 
Israelites a fiery message from God as they prepare to enter the promised 
land "I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall 
devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from 
the beginning of revenge upon the enemy." 

Likewise, the Gospels contain texts that call for the use of force to avenge 
the rights of people and to punish the unjust. In the Gospel of Matthew, a 
statement attributed to Jesus reads: "Think not that I am come to bring 
peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but the sword." 

A partial and out-of-context reading of religious texts, combined 
with a desire to reciprocate against real or perceived injustice, may lead 
misguided individuals and radical groups to commit atrocities in the name 
of religion and justice. Muslim scholars and leaders must speak against 
using Islam and Islamic doctrines to undertake acts rooted in political 
ambition or frustration. 

By the same token, media organizations have the duty to present a 
balanced picture of Muslim society and faith, rather than feeding on the 
frenzy of bigotry and stereotyping. The media more often than not focuses 
on the eccentric and extraordinary, and as such brings distorted pictures of 
Middle Eastern realities. Rather than showing that radical Islamic groups 
stand on the fringe, outside mainstream society, the media reverse the 
picture by projecting radicalism and extremism as the norm in the Middle 
East. The sight of a handful of Palestinian youths celebrating an American 
calamity is newsworthy, but a demonstration by thousands of sympathetic 
Arabs is not. 

Global Peace and American Leadership 
The recent tragic events put the world in general, and the United States in 
particular, at a crossroads. We have the choice of marching forward toward 
global peace, rooted in rules of equitable law, and fairly administered to all, 
the strong and the weak, the far and the near; or of immersing ourselves in 
empire building, in which the strong conquer and dominate everyone else. 

The United States is in a unique position-culturally, economically, and 
politically-to lead the world in either direction. And given the choice, 
I am confident that Americans would choose global peace over world 
empire. But for America to make the right choice, political leaders, as well 
as the leaders of public opinion, have to play a pivotal role in helping the 
public make the right move by choosing American values over America's 



X The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.4 

narrow and short-term interests. It is true that lending support to corrupt 
governments makes it a bit easier, in the short run, for the United States 
to influence the foreign and domestic policies of these governments. In 
the long run, however, a foreign policy oblivious to moral standads is 
bound to corrupt American politics. The terrorist attacks on New York 
and Washington have brought forth loud voices calling for compromising 
the precious freedom Americans enjoy in exchange for a false sense of 

Terrorism can be fought not through military war, but by bringing 
justice and eliminating the mots of desperation. History, both old and new, 
is rampant with examples of great powers that wasted their resources, 
and hence lost their privileged positions in the world, by improving war 
apparatus and overlooking the need for justice. 

While fighting terror and strengthening the foundation of world peace is 
the concern of all enlightened peoples throughout the world, American 
scholars and intellectuals have greater responsibility in leading the rest of 
the world in promoting global justice and peace. To do so, they must put 
the requirements of right and justice over narrow interests and temporary 
privileges. They must speak out and oppose aggression, the killing of 
unarmed civilians, and the use of violence for silencing opposition 
and suppressing dissent the world over. 

security. 

Louay M. safi 
Editor