From 9 11 to Hiroshima- Two Acts of Terrorism Against Humanity

From 9/11 to Hiroshima: Two Acts of Terrorism Against Humanity

Introduction and Welcome

On behalf of the Muslim Student Association at UC Davis, I'd like to welcome everyone tonight to our event titled, From Hiroshima to New York, Two Acts of Terrorism Against Humanity. My name is Shuja Sajjad, and I will be your host for tonight. This evening is about critically examining, as a mission, our past, present, and future in regards to dealing with politically motivated violence.

The term terrorism is usually applied in this day and age by politicians to label violence against innocent people. But would the definition still stand if it were applied in the context of acts of violence against civilian populations, but backed by state perpetrators? To examine this further, we are very lucky to have with us Imam Zayd Shakir from the Zaytuna Institute.

Biography of Imam Zayd Shakir

A Berkeley native, Imam Zayd accepted Islam in 1977 while serving in the United States Air Force. He obtained a BA with honors in international relations at the American University of Washington, D.C. and later earned his master's in political science at Rutgers University. While at Rutgers, he led a successful campaign for divestment from South Africa and co-founded a local Islamic center, Masjid al-Qura.

After a year of studying Arabic in Cairo, he settled in New Haven, Connecticut and continued his community activism. He co-founded Masjid al-Islam, the tri-state Muslim education initiative, the Connecticut Muslim Coordinating Committee. As Imam, or religious leader, of Masjid al-Islam from 1988 to 1994, he spearheaded a community renewal and grassroots anti-drug effort and also taught political science in Arabic at the Southern Connecticut State University.

He then left for Syria and Morocco to pursue his studies in the traditional Islamic sciences. After several years of studying with some of the most renowned scholars in the Muslim world, he moved to Hayward, California to serve as a scholar-in-residence at the Zaytuna Institute, where he now teaches courses in Arabic, Islamic law, history, and Islamic spirituality. He is a frequent speaker at local and national Muslim events and has emerged as one of the nation's top Islamic scholars and a voice of conscience for both American Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

After the main talk tonight, there will be a question and answer session. It is an honor to present to you tonight, Imam Zayd Shakir.

Opening Remarks

Greetings, good evening, and welcome. And I'm glad that we could all be here. And thank the organizers for putting this program together. I'd like to thank all of you for coming here tonight, taking time from your schedules to be here. And hopefully we can have a productive evening.

The Inspiration for This Talk

The issue, or the topic, rather, was actually inspired, as I was informed by the organizers, by a talk I gave at our institution dealing with political violence. It was called From Hiroshima to London. The reference being the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the American military undertook at the end of the Second World War. And at that time, the bombings that had occurred in the subway of London was referred to in England as 7-7. So that provided a context, if you will, to discuss the issue of what's commonly referred to as terrorism, what I refer to as, in a more general term, political violence.

And to try to look at how we view these disparate events. So that's the inspiration for the talk, but I'm not going to repeat that talk here. I'm going to touch on some of the points that were made without going into a lot of the detail and historical background and facts that that talk involved. And then I'm going to, inshallah, God willing, just give you a brief overview of the attitude of Islam as we understand it towards the issue of peace and warfare. And then open the floor for questions. And we hope to have plenty of time for your input so we can have a lively discussion. But you're not allowed to throw anything at me.

The Legacy of Megaviolence in the 20th Century

So we've inherited, we being the people, the populations of these Western nations, the United States included, a legacy of what some commentators have referred to as megaviolence. The megaviolence of the 20th century. We had two world wars that collectively, by some estimates, resulted in the deaths of upwards of 200 million people. World War I and World War II.

We had many lesser, smaller conflagrations, but in their respective regions, in some instances amounted to the bloodiest conflagrations that those regions have witnessed. And we can just go back, Rwanda, for example. More recently, beginning in the 1990s and extending into our day, the situation in the Congo, which by some estimates has resulted in anywhere between 3 and 7 million deaths. Most of them civilians.

In Rwanda, most of those people perished civilians. The 1980 to 1988 Iran-Iraq War, which resulted in upwards on both sides to a million and a half deaths. Many of them Iranian volunteers that were killed in waves, of human waves going through Iraqi minefields into machine gun fire. But others on both sides were one of the, if not bloodiest, conflagrations in the history of the Middle East.

So, if we look at the 20th century, it was a very, very bloody century. And the blood flowed and the blood was shed by all parties. It's not confined to a particular religion. It's not confined to a particular region. Certainly, the two world wars were the most stark examples of the megaviolence, if you will. But not the only ones. So, that's the legacy that we have inherited, unfortunately.

The Military-Industrial Complex

Part of that legacy affects us directly in this country, because as a result of our involvement as a nation, the United States, in the Second World War, we built up a tremendous military infrastructure. What the late President Dwight Eisenhower referred to as a military-industrial complex. And that, in and of itself, takes on its own logic, in terms of what sort of policies are demanded or dictated by that infrastructure as long as it's in place.

And whether we want to deal with it or not, it demands the sort of tensions that justify the sort of budgets and the infrastructure that has arisen to support or to constitute, probably more accurately, that complex. And today, it's... Yesterday, it was Saddam. And today, it's Ahmadinejad. And tomorrow, it's going to be someone else. But unless and until we come to grips with that infrastructure that's developed, we're going to need new boogeymen to justify either new conflagrations or new threats to continue to spend the massive amounts of money that are being spent on war. What I like to call the Department of Offense, usually referred to as the Department of Defense.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Acts of Terrorism

In any case, the Second World War, which we referenced, culminated with the bombings, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, in our... These countries, which we are all members, or most of us, in any case, in our political vocabulary, we usually do not refer to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of terrorism. Say that they were acts that were necessary to stave off an invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in untold deaths of American combatants and other justifications.

But based on all definitions of terrorism that I've ever studied or learned, those acts were terrorism. The intentional targeting of random civilians, the overwhelming majority of the people who perished in the atomic bombings of those two cities were civilians. Killing civilians to affect a political outcome. That outcome was to end the involvement of the Japanese in the war. So, as I understand it, that's terrorism. But we don't refer to it as terrorism.

Three hundred thousand and upwards, by some estimates, 300,000 people dead. That, including the firebombing of Tokyo, which preceded, by a few months, those atomic bombings. 100,000 people dead in the attacks of a single night. Tokyo burned to the ground. Most of the structures at that time, wooden structures, incendiary bombs, dropped. By the thousands, the city burned to the ground. 100,000 people burned to death. Followed by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, another 100,000. Nagasaki, another 100,000. 300,000 people dead, the overwhelming majority of them civilians, to bring about a political outcome.

September 11th: The Signature Terror Event

Now, recently in our history, we've witnessed the 9-11 events. Specifically, the bombings and collapse of the towers in New York City, the World Trade Center towers. Upward to almost 3,000 people who died. And the act, usually described as undertaken to affect a political outcome, depending on who it's attributed to, by parties across the spectrum of ideas and conspiracies and analysis, has become known as the signature terror event of our lifetimes. The signature terror event of our lifetimes.

So, we're not here to discuss what actually happened, why it happened, but we'll take it at face value. 3,000 civilians dead to affect a particular political outcome, be that terrorizing the American population into leaving

Political Violence Affects Our Collective Humanity

So, that's the second point. Political violence affects all of us. It affects all of us because collectively, as we sit back, observe the affairs of the world, and not speak out against acts of violence that target innocent civilians, no matter who they are, whether they're Muslims, whether they're Jews, whether they're Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, whoever they are, then those acts destroy something of our collective humanity. They destroy something of our collective humanity.

A part of all of us died in the rubble in New York when those towers collapsed. All of us have been contaminated and deformed by the projectiles of depleted uranium and now the hundreds if not thousands of birth defects resulting from that contamination. That's deforming all of us because we're human beings and those are members of our human family. So, it behooves all of us to look deeper at these issues and to look at our lives and try to see in humble ways what we can begin to do to end these situations. It's our collective responsibility.

Islamic Teachings on Violence, War, and Peace

Now, what I'd like to do in the balance of this talk, as we mentioned, Islam contemporarily, and in some circles almost exclusively, is associated with indiscriminate violence, is associated with a propensity towards violence. Islam is associated, as we mentioned, with terrorism. So, what I'd like to do is to look at what fundamental Islamic teachings say about violence, war, and peace.

The Nuclear Threat

Right now, we're obsessed with Iran and the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. If I was an Iranian, I'd be more concerned with the fact that America already has nuclear weapons and has also used them in her history. And not about a hypothetical weapon that Iranians might get sometime in the future and they might get a delivery system to deliver that weapon sometime in the future. I'd be more concerned about what actually exists and the characteristics that lead us to fear those weapons being in the hands of the Iranian leadership.

The proclamations of the American or the Israeli leadership does not cause me any ease knowing that America and Israel already have nuclear weapons and have targeted major centers in the Muslim world with those weapons. And the fact that Muslims have no credible defenses against those weapons. And that all we want to do is to maintain a system of dominance, full spectrum dominance, that will not allow any nation to begin to even realistically defend themselves. Or to, in their particular region, compete on an even playing field to disrupt the idea of full spectrum dominance.

That's what I'm afraid of. Not as a Muslim, as a human being. Because if there's some sort of nuclear conflagration, I'm going to be breathing atomic fallout as it makes its way around the earth. And we know what happened at Chernobyl with primarily underground leakage of atomic radiation. And the widespread damage that did say nothing of exploding these things above the ground.

Peace as the Norm in Islamic Principles

In any case, briefly, basic Islamic principles, contrary to reigning dogma, view war as an aberration. That the norm in human relations is peace. In relations between nations and now states, the norm is peace. And war is the aberration, just as in relations between individual human beings, murder is the aberrant state.

Anyone in here murder anyone lately? Don't raise your hands. No, seriously, think about it. Murder is an aberration. And amicable, or at least tolerant relations between human beings, that's the norm. Just as war is an aberration. And peaceful relations between social or political actors contemporarily usually designated as states is the norm.

The Sanctity of Human Life in Islam

So, why do I say this in the case of Islam? In terms of murder, many teachings in Islam, for example, from the Quran:

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

From the sunnah of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم peace and mercy of God upon him, he says:

(Source Name)

the first person who commits murder, the first son of Adam shares a portion of that blood because he is the one who introduced murder in the human family.

So, this is a blameworthy innovation. This particular prophetic tradition is in a chapter in a book called Riyad al-Salihin, the Gardens of the Righteous, the one who introduces a praiseworthy or blameworthy innovation. And this is considered a blameworthy innovation, something new and unprecedented that's undesirable in relations between human beings.

The Undesirable Nature of Warfare

In terms of the undesirable nature of warfare, the Prophet Muhammad mentioned in an originally authenticated tradition, peace and mercy of God upon him and upon all of God's messengers:

(Sahih Bukhari 3025, Sahih Muslim 1742)

"O People, don't long to meet any enemy. Ask God for safety, security, and well-being."

So, if war were desirable, it wouldn't be something he's warning the people not to look forward to or to anticipate. And if well-being, safety, and security were not the norm or the desired state, he wouldn't be instructing the people to ask God to give them well-being, safety and security. وَاسْأَلُوا اللهَ الْعَافِيَةَ - Ask God for well-being.

The Preference for Well-Being Over Trials

Abu Bakr, the first caliph or khalifa, the successor of the Prophet as head of the Muslim community after the passing of the Prophet, he mentioned that I am given well-being and thank God for that well-being is more beloved to me than I'm placed in a trial and patiently persevere through it. So, I prefer well-being and thanking God for that well-being to being thrown into a trial or tribulation and patiently persevering. Because we don't know how we're going to fare in the face of a trial.

And war is a tribulation. And a person who longs for that doesn't know how they're going to stand up. Doesn't know if they're going to go crazy. Doesn't know if they're going to lose any trust of their fellow human being. Doesn't know if they're going to leave that warfare situation and come out as a homicidal murderer.

As of today, how many Afghani and Iraqi veterans in this society have left the war, entered civilian life and murdered someone? Usually their wives. 101 so far. So, how many are afflicted with post-traumatic stress syndrome? Upwards to two-thirds.

So, we don't know and if Muslims say, well, we have Iman. So, you know, jihad. We have jihad, fi sabilillah and our faith going to protect us. I recommend a book for you. Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth. A lot of

people read it, but for other reasons. They read it as the handbook of the Third World Revolution in the 50s and 60s.

The Psychological Effects of War

The last chapter in that book is entitled Mental Disorders of Colonial Warfare. These are Muslim people, Algerians. Probably 99.9% Muslims. Fanon refers to them frequently in the book as the Mujahideen. And Fanon is a psychiatrist by training. And he documented what warfare did to those Muslims. Systematically.

And I was going to bring and read some of it, but I won't bore you with it. But get that book, The Wretched of the Earth, and look at the last chapter in the book, Mental Disorders. And you'll see the same maladies, the same disorders that are afflicting these young Americans who are coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. And who came back from Vietnam. The overwhelming majority of the homeless people on our streets.

So, you never know how you're going to fare in the face of a tribulation.

War as a Contingency in the Quran

War is described in the Quran as a contingency. As a conditional contingency.

"Fight in the way of God those who fight you. So, you're fighting them is contingent on you being fought against. إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ - Indeed, Allah does not love those who are aggressors and transgressors."

So, these are some of the things that we're taught concerning warfare.

Inclining Towards Peace

In the context of war itself, if there's an offer for peace, then accept that offer.

"If your enemy inclines towards peace, then you so incline and put your trust in Allah."

Don't think they're only doing this to regroup, to get the upper hand, to resupply themselves. Wear off that thought, put your trust in Allah وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ

Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi, one of our great scholars, says, commenting on this expression وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ : He says this means, depute the affair concerning the covenant you have entered into to God, in order that He will be a source of assistance for you in maintaining peace.

So, don't think, well, through this, this is a strategy and the enemies are going to get an upper hand over us if we accept this offer for peace. Trust in God and God will help you in maintaining peace no matter what their intention is. So, this is what we're being taught but there's an alternative narrative. There's an alternative Islamic narrative that argues against these teachings.

Working for Peace

And so, what I'm saying, brothers and sisters, we have to understand this religion and teach it and advance it in ways that are conducive to joining forces with people who are working for peace. And there might be a situation where we have to defend ourselves. Pray that God gives us strength. But work for peace. And work with those who are working for peace because it's very difficult to find, as we say, maqasid that the divine law advocates.

The Five Objectives of Islamic Law

So, our legal system is predicated on five overarching concerns. And I'll stop here and we'll go to questions. They're called maqasid. Another terminology, objectives. The objectives of the divine law or sometimes referred to as the five great universals. And that is:

1. Protecting religion
2. Protecting life
3. Protecting intellect
4. Protecting the family and more specifically children
5. Protecting property

Those are the five universals. And as war is contemporarily prosecuted it's very difficult to describe a scenario where any of those five will be protected. Not impossible, but difficult. Because war now is profiteering for the benefit of a small group.

The Cost of War on Society

War now is something that we're led to accept without thinking about how it affects us. There are massive budget cuts coming down the pike here in California. Right? You think it's going to affect students in the UC system? I think so. They're talking about $5 billion cut to meet the $14 billion state deficit without generating new forms of income amongst the $14 billion $5 billion in education. But we can find billions and billions and billions over a trillion dollars to fight these wars. That affects all of us.

To fight the wars to do what? To make us safe? Iraq has become a breeding ground for people who have a deep dislike for the United States. It wasn't that before. No Iraqis implicated at any level in 9-11 attacks. Despite the belief of 57% of Americans that Iraq was somehow involved. Now how do you get to that? You get to that through a media that's complicit with the war machine. That's how you get to that.

The Reality of Modern Warfare

So war is selectively targeting a strawman enemy to keep in place a system that lines the pockets of a select few groups to the detriment of those people who are on the receiving end and to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of people right here in the United States. That's what war is. It has nothing to do with defending the homeland, God and country. It has a lot to do with profits.

Conclusion

Enough is enough. We have to work for peace and we have to get away from this insanity and we have to understand that on no side it has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with patriotism, it has nothing to do with any of these justifications we're presented with. So I'm going to stop here and I'm going to take a seat and we'll have a discussion. Thank you very much.

Question and Answer Session

Question 1: Divine Violence vs. State Violence

Question: I'd like to ask an interesting point that you brought up was the justifications. Whenever governments use violence against civilians there's always justifications involved. So I'm wondering how you compare situations where the United States government has used violence, for example with Hiroshima and Nagasaki to times where Almighty God in the Quran has used violence such as during the time of the Prophet Noah, peace be upon him. How would you compare the violence used by God against civilians to violence used by the United States government?

Answer: I wouldn't qualify or characterize God's actions as violence in the sense that as the acts of God impact on human beings, we are created by God. And God has placed us in a larger context. So the ultimate objective of the life of this world as a Muslim believes, is the attainment of paradise.

That's the ultimate objective. So paradise involves, I'm sure most Christians would relate to this, eternal life and eternal bliss. So actions that befall us in this world are our means of ensuring and assisting us to the attainment of paradise.

So I'll give you an example. There's a prophetic tradition that says one who is killed by drowning, one who is killed by fire, one who is killed in a collapsed structure, one who is killed by severe stomach malady, dysentery, and one who is killed advancing religion are martyrs. In other words, their entrance into paradise is guaranteed.

So what we might see as an act of violence in terms of what God's decree may contain of calamity and misfortune for us in a worldly sense is a means for us to go to paradise and anything that happens to us in this world is forgotten at that point. Now on the other hand, a person who lives a life of no trial, no tribulation, no tsunamis, no earthquakes, no fires, no drought, nothing. Bliss, one Whataburger a day and lives out their natural term and then leaves this world without being exposed to a tribulation, we're taught nothing afflicts a believer in this world even to the extent of a thorn pricking except that that's a form of expiation for some of their sins. And so leaves with a burden of sin and then their entrance into paradise might be problematic.

Question 2: How Can Young Muslims Correct Misconceptions?

Question: Imam, you tied up Islam with terrorism in the subconscious of a lot of people right now. Now we have all this young generation. But how do we correct that? All this young generation who is here, American, if you can give us a word of wisdom.

Answer: That's what I was trying to do. Maybe I didn't do such a good job. I think it's very important for our young people to adopt a vision of how you can contribute to eradicating many of the problems of this world. And predicated on the fact that or the realization rather that the status quo is unacceptable.

Once we accept that or agree on that, the status quo is unacceptable. What can I do in my capacity to work for a different sort of world? What would that involve? What can I do to work for a world that doesn't accept constantly refined methods, efficient methods of killing each other?

And this is why I think it's imperative that one of the great projects for this generation of young people is working just as previous generations. If you read one of the professors at UC Berkeley, Adam Hochschild, who's written a book, two incredible books really, King Leopold's Ghost, on the colonization of the Congo and the brutality that was involved during the reign of King Leopold.

But also more relevant to this issue, Bury the Chains, the ending of slavery in the British Empire. And he outlines how a handful of people conceived of and orchestrated a campaign against all odds to end the most lucrative slave trade, the British slave trade that primarily was focused on growing sugar cane in the Caribbean, and ended that.

So they had a vision, and then they began to organize themselves and to arm themselves with the information and the tools necessary to effectively address that issue. So one of the great issues we have to address, and you as young people should definitely address, is ending in a real sense the proliferation and even the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Because as things are now, we're in a race to determine how we can more effectively and more efficiently kill a greater and greater number of people.

So now where's the research? The research is now beaming down electromagnetic beams from satellites in outer space and scrambling the brains of a whole population. That's where it's headed. Where does it stop? Where does it stop? And what is the responsibility of a Muslim in the face of that sort of potential?

So we have to have a vision that says, number one, certain things like the militarization of this planet. Certain things like the corporate global corporate domination of this planet. Certain things like the ecological destruction of this planet are wrong and they threaten our collective human existence regardless of our nationality, ethnicity, religion. And so as a human being, first and foremost, I have to do whatever I can to eliminate those things.

And so once we have a vision that there's something wrong, look at your individual skill sets and see what skills do you possess or can you make available to dedicate towards the eradication of those things. So I think that's where young people have to start. A vision that, number one, allows us to see that there's some things terribly wrong with what's going on in this world.

The inequalities, not just between nations, within nations. There's never been a time in American history when the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in this society has been greater. And with the assault on the middle class, it's going to get worse. They just had a primary in Michigan, highest unemployment in the nation. Most of it, the elimination of blue-collar industrial jobs. And most of those in the auto industry. And so that's creating stark inequalities.

There is no middle class. The middle class is declining, is losing its savings, is losing its social mobility, is losing its economic mobility. Now when that happens in a society, there are great implications. So there are things that are terribly wrong. And that's just a microcosm of the world.

We have people who are overfed, overhoused, overheated, overcooled. And other people who are underfed, underhoused, and definitely undercooled. And some people are underfed, undercooled, underhoused. And so how do we begin to bridge those gaps? We start by acknowledging that something's wrong with the existence of that gap in the first place.

And by acknowledging that the ideological tools that are in place to keep those overfed, overhoused, overcooled individuals from realizing something's wrong. And then beginning to address that. So that's a starting point. Where it goes from that is the question that history and your collective imaginations will answer. I can't do it from this chair sitting at this table. But your engagement. And that's why it's like human engagement with history.

Question 3: The Problem of Ahistorical Islam

Now, we have a lot, some of the main problems with the Muslim world. It's not all America. A lot of problems we as Muslims have. One of the problems we have is this idea that Islam is what the Prophet, peace upon him, did. Then after that, there's no Islam until us. And to get to the real Islam, we have to go back to that era.

So what does that do? That negates 1400 years of real human beings trying to apply this religion in the light of real social, political, economic factors in real society that's generated a wealth of information, a wealth of literature, a wealth of knowledge that can assist us to carry on that project. So we don't have to reinvent the wheel because if we do, what are we going to do?

We're going to now, with this idealized mythical image of Islam that we've created, take that and engage the world. And then we're going to find the same obstacles that Muslims, men and women, human beings have encountered for 1400 years facing us without the benefit of their experience to assist us in that engagement with reality.

So we have to really begin to understand that human struggle based on the ideals that we carry is the stuff of history. We're not going to change the world just reading about it. We're not going to change the world

theorizing about it. It's going to happen through our engagement with the world and that engagement, as the engagement of Muslims with the world, is going to result in a lot of trial and error.

And so the Mujtahid thought about things and derived rulings and then rethought things and derived different rulings because there were obstacles here that needed to be circumvented. So the struggle of all of you, that's what's going to make history that subsequent generations will read about. And what should propel you is the vision that you have. A vision that something's wrong and a vision of how we can begin to set things right.

Question 4: Self-Defense and Strategic Resistance

Question from Carlos: Although we should seek peace with our human family neighbors, if our allies in countries are invaded, such as Israel and Palestine, America and Iraq, the USSR and Afghanistan, at what point should we have a right to self-defense in our allies?

Answer: The right of self-defense as described by the Declaration of Independence and other pivotal doctrines that formed the core of political thinking and philosophy here in the West. Ensuring self-defense some view as an inalienable human right.

So every people have a right to defend themselves, but we have to have the wisdom to know when a defense in military terms is feasible and will conduce to bringing about results. Otherwise we might find ourselves out of desperation, number one doing things that aren't sanctioned by the religion, speaking as Muslims, and on the other hand, strengthening the hand of far superior military forces.

And you mentioned Palestine. The Israelis are bombing us. We have to do something. So we'll send a few of these primitive rockets that might, on a good day, hit an Israeli house and result in a death or an injury. What does that do? It provides the justification for whole villages, possibly whole towns, possibly the entirety of the Gaza Strip being flattened. And then what's the justification? We have to stop these rocket attacks.

So I think it's very important for us, while acknowledging the right to self-defense, to look at a deeper level to see what is the most effective means of defense in light of the resources we possess and in light of the objectives, ideology, and strategic realities that those who are aligned against us as Muslims are dealing with. And then begin to think outside of the box and to look at creative ways to resist.

And probably at this juncture, one of the most creative ways would be a serious non-violence campaign. Because why? One of the greatest assets that the Palestinians have, number one, is the truth, and number two, is under reasonable situations, warm public opinion. But when those resources are squandered and public opinion, because of the way media resources are allocated, our acts are used to undermine even the truthfulness of our cause, then it's incumbent upon us to begin to look at other strategies.

Otherwise, you see, painting ourselves into a corner that we can't get out of. These are difficult issues and God knows best and we pray that the people there, throughout that region, can find a way to live in peace and that we can do something constructive to help to facilitate that.

Question 5: The Sahaba and Trials

Question: In regards to the statement that you made earlier, can you please comment on the traditions that say

that the Sahaba would actually be worried when they were not being tested because they thought something was wrong with their faith?

Answer: Well, the believer's balance is between fear and hope. So, I think it's important for us to acknowledge, as I said, there are always alternative narratives, and to try to understand what is the realm of possibility in terms of the choices we can make to inform policy, if we're policy makers, or to inform how we live our personal, individual lives, if we're not policy makers, or how we might contribute to addressing some of the problems that I alluded to earlier. So, there's a realm of possibilities.

We can feel that, as a tradition mentions, there are some people whose faith is only rectified or set in order by ease. So, God gives them ease. If they had difficulty, they couldn't bear with it, and then they start blaming God. God, why did you do this to me? Why did you take my little baby? How could you be just, and you didn't let this baby live? That's my only child. And so, if that type of person is cast into a tribulation, they might lose their faith. So, God gives them ease.

Another sort of person, their faith is strengthened by tribulation, and they see it as a test, and it serves as a motivation to push them to trust in the promise of God, that he takes nothing except that he gives something better than what he's taking. That any difficulty in this world would lead to unimaginable ease and bliss in paradise. So, those trials and tribulations strengthens the faith of that person by challenging him or her to put their trust in God and to rely on God's promise.

And if they didn't have those trials, they would become complacent. So, I think each person has to look at the range of possibilities and then determine what is most conducive for their situation.

The Contemporary Context of Warfare

What I'm saying in terms of the strategic picture, there was a time when we would say, you're crazy if you don't pick up your spear or your sword and go out there and fight, because people are invading each other, that's the nature of the pre-modern world, and if you don't get them, they're going to get you.

So, when we're fighting with spears and swords, and nothing that we're going to do is going to wipe this planet away and all life on it, that should be, that's the reigning and dominant philosophy. And that's something that we can justify based on various proofs from Islamic teachings.

But now we're in a world that has a proliferating number of atomic weapons, of increasingly destructive kill ratios, conventional bombs now, these fuel vapor, daisy cutters, and the biggest one is called a MOAB, and why they call it a MOAB, maybe it's because it's going to kill the Arabs, I don't know.

But these things now, the Russians recently exploded one that has more force than the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. So, this is the world we're living in. We're experimenting with electromagnetic beams. Some people are saying that some of these weapons are being used and maybe they're right. They're finding corpses that are dead and there's no physical harm to their bodies.

So, we have concussion bombs, we have neutron bombs that kill people and leave buildings intact. So, if that's the kind of world and these things are proliferating, now it's time to look at another side of the teachings and

Question 6: Comments on American Foreign Policy

Comment: Just a couple of comments for the young Muslims. Because we do have to start a dialogue with non-Muslims. And it is important that the next generation that they should also pay attention to the world history or the political situations in different countries.

I'll give a couple of examples. For example, the Kashmir problem. It is the oldest UN resolution that has not been implemented. So when Muslims go to the United Nations they have no recourse. Which country has violated the most UN resolutions?

Why do Americans hate the Iranians? Everybody goes back to 1979 when the Iranians had taken over the US embassy. However, it started in 1953 when the Prime Minister of Iran was assassinated because he wanted to use the oil resources of Iran for the Iranian people.

So these things are important. We should emphasize to the non-Muslims that America as a nation is a great country. However, the foreign policy is biased and defective. And that's what we should address.

Question 7: Pakistan as a Totalitarian Regime

Question: I've been watching the news and saw our government had turned modern Pakistan into a totalitarian regime. How do you think about the struggle in Southeast Asia?

Answer: Well, I would situate Pakistan more as South Asia. First of all, I don't think the American government turned Pakistan into a totalitarian regime. I would call it an authoritarian regime, but not a totalitarian one by any stretch of the imagination. Secondly, I think certainly there's a lot of things we can implicate our government in.

I did some of the last comment mention a few things. I mean, Mossadegh is just the tip of the iceberg. You can go from there to Greece, to Guatemala, to Gaddafi being bombed, Noriega, and the bombing of Panama, Maurice Bishop in Grenada. You can go down the list, but I think it's also important for us to understand and look at the internal dynamics.

Pakistan, since independence, its promise has been undermined by a lot of internal factors in addition to foreign interference. A lot of it coming from the United States, but the feudal landowners, Benazir Bhutto's family is an example of, may she rest in peace. The military, who Musharraf is a representative of, just recently had him taking off his military garb. The intelligence services and the industrial elite.

Collectively, you have an oligarchy that undermines, an authoritarian regime whose interests in certain areas dovetail with the interests of the United States and the region. So, I think a lot of the problem there is internal, although there is a large degree of American meddling and a lot of it is due to the dynamics or, secondly, it's not a totalitarian regime. So, that's what I would say to that.

In terms of South Asia, I think the dangerous trend is, you saw the huge overture. Historically, the thinking was that the Democrats were good for India, and the Republicans were good for Pakistan. American Democrats and Republicans. Now, you had a huge initiative last year by the Bush administration, an overture to India.

And so, you see, allowing essentially India to expand its nuclear arsenal. Tremendous trade relationships, most of which threatened to destroy the small, bazaar culture of India, bringing in Walmarts, for example. And a de facto military alliance between the United States, India, and Israel at a time when Hindu nationalism is on the rise.

So, to me, that's the most dangerous development in South Asia and is something that should be watched very closely. And if I were a Muslim leader, I would be thinking of ways to counter that emergent alliance between Israel, India, and the United States and how that might play out in the region. So, it's an uphill battle. I mean, well, I don't want to get too late. I'll leave it there.

Question 8: Etiquette and Rules of War in Islam

Question: Can you please comment on the etiquette or rules of war in Islam, such as rules regarding nature, women, and civilians, and also the concept of shaheed and martyrdom?

Answer: I mentioned shaheed. There are many forms of martyrdom. I mentioned one, in fact, one who dies in a plague or an epidemic of some sort. One who has some stomach malady or cholera, dysentery or some waterborne plague, the one who dies, the one who dies in a collapsed structure, one who dies in the cause of religion. All of those are forms of martyrdom. There are other categories.

In the specific context, a martyr is the exact same concept that's specific in the Catholic tradition. Some of you might be Catholic. It's a person who dies defending the faith in the face of overwhelming odds. That's what a martyr is. A martyr is not a person who kills himself or herself and then kills an innocent civilian person for what they believe is advancing the cause of the faith.

A martyr is a person who defends the faith in the face of overwhelming odds and is killed in the process. Hamza or Mus'ab or Mus'ab ibn Umair or Sumayyah, Ammar, Yasir are people who were killed in the early days of Islam against overwhelming odds and they're standing up for the truth and for the faith. That tradition endures to this day.

It's exactly parallel to what most Christians would understand a martyr to be. I don't understand. God truly knows best.

Final Question: Religion and Violence in Iraq

Question: Thank you first of all. I'm sorry if I terrorize English language because I just arrived here. I'm from Iraq and you said that something about religion has nothing to be considered in terms of terrorism. But I'm sure you understood all of the history of Islam and you have understood what's inside the Quran.

I think there are many things, many ideas, many events in our history as a Muslim history, not just an Islamic history which has to be considered in terms of terrorism. If we don't talk about these things in our history, if we don't talk about these things in the Quran which right now embody a lot of bad ideas or immoral ideas which lead us to terrorize people, to terrorize civilians or innocents in Iraq or everywhere around the world.

What's going on right now in Iraq is not about occupation or peace. Most of what's happening in Iraq right now is about religious people killing themselves among themselves. I just arrived here and I understand what's going on there. We all know this is about religion. It's not about the core of religion, it's about ideological religion, about Shia, about Sunni, about these other doctrines which derive from Islam, from Quran, from history or from whatever you believe. So we have to examine all these ideas. We have to acknowledge that in our history, in our Quran maybe, in our intellectual themes, in our theological things, whatever you name it. There are many things that we have to consider that maybe somehow they contribute to...

Answer: No, no, I understand what you're saying. I'm not denying the religious factor, but I'm looking at cause. As an Iraqi, let me ask you a question. Who knows your history better than you? Were Sunni and Shia in Iraq during the British occupation? They were. Were they there during the monarchy period, the time of King Faisal? They were.

Were they there during the time of Abd al-Karim Qasim? They were. Were they there during the time of Iran-Iraq war? They were. Were they there during the time of the American sanction, Sunni and Shia? They were. Ayatollahs, Shias, Wahhabis, Salafis, they were all there.

Why is it that during the British occupation, during the British mandate period, during the monarchy period, during Abd al-Karim Qasim's time, during the Ba'ath before Saddam, the Ba'ath after Saddam, the time of the sanctions, they weren't slaughtering each other like they are now? What's the variable that's been introduced into the formula now?

Questioner's Response: Sorry about my English again. If you know about all of this history, but all of these groups were in existence during this history, all of these doctrines which right now are behind these activities right now were in existence in this situation, but during this history, there was a powerful government, a dictatorship government, which suppressed most of these doctrines. Secondly, at this time, politicizing Islam as we see right now, or ideologizing Islam as we see right now...