|
Dallas News - August 3, 2004
Constant use of 'Islamist' overlooks real threats
By Arsalan T. Iftikhar
With the anticipation of a New York Times best seller, the 9-11 Commission report did not disappoint an eager audience. The report chronicles in acute detail the chain of events leading up to the horrendous crimes perpetrated on Sept. 11, 2001.
In addition to practical recommendations, the commission stated a goal of preventing the growth of "Islamist terrorism." The commission concluded that the threat posed to the United States is not just "terrorism," but more specifically, "the catastrophic threat ... posed by Islamist terrorism."
At times, the report seems to contradict its claims, stating that "Islam is not the enemy," that Islam "is not synonymous with terror" and that America "and its friends oppose a perversion of Islam." Nonetheless, the commission seems to stigmatize anyone with ties to Islam.
A good portion of the commission's sentiments are completely understandable. Deviant criminals, proclaiming to act under the banner of any faith, should be swiftly brought to justice. Extremists who commit criminal acts and purport to be acting under Islamic tenets should be condemned by all of humanity.
Nonetheless, by associating the ill-defined "Islamist" modifier to define "terrorism," the commission has overlooked numerous precedents that show an entirely different historical record.
Prior to Sept. 11, the most catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil occurred on April 19, 1995, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. According to The Washington Post, investigators believe Eric Rudolph, the terrorist responsible for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, was associated with the violent Christian Identity movement, which asserts that North European whites are "God's chosen people."
According to Professor Michael Barkun, author of Religion and the Racist Right, the apocalyptic and racist philosophy to which Eric Rudolph adhered "is practiced by more than 50,000 people in the United States alone; [and] is prevalent among many right-wing extremist groups and has been called the 'glue' of the racist right."
In April 2003, William Krar of Noonday, Texas, was caught with an arsenal containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and neo-Nazi literature. Mr. Krar possessed an actual chemical weapon – a cyanide bomb – big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building. Paul Krugman of The New York Times noted, "It's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim."
The American Muslim community has always condemned and will continue to denounce terrorism in all of its forms, especially criminal acts committed in the "name" of Islam. We will continue to help protect our nation from all criminals and protect our faith from fringe elements. However, the term "Islamist terrorism" is nothing more than an oversimplification of our complex and kaleidoscopic national security paradigm.
As Americans, we must mobilize to help prevent acts of "terror" against our country based on criminal acts, not on demographic associations. If we keep our enthralled focus solely on terms such as "Islamist," it gives me great pause to then imagine the William Krars, Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs of our nation hiding in the corner, laughing at all of us and licking their terrorist chops.
Arsalan T. Iftikhar is legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest American Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, based in Washington, D.C.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/080304dnedicairtalk.a194b.html
|
