Surveys have shown that over 90 percent of Americans support bombing strikes against Afghanistan, and see a military response as the only viable option in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks. Yet, as the rows of peace protestors that gather every Sunday in Amherst and Northampton prove, there remain many who oppose such actions. They fear that the violence is misguided, and will serve to punish civilians rather than terrorists.
The concerns of anti-war advocates were voiced at Smith College yesterday by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im, an Emory University law professor. An-Na`im delivered a lecture, titled, “Islamic Reformation Between September 11 and October 7: Irrational Optimism Against All Odds,” in which he criticized both the actions of terrorists and the US government.
“As a Muslim, I acknowledge responsibility for Islamic terrorism,” he said. “It’s only by acknowledging my responsibility for mine, that I can demand that you accept responsibility for yours.”
Before mentioning the attacks or the US response, however, An-Na`im began his lecture by giving a historical background of Islamic extremism.
“Despite its prominence, Islamic militancy of the nature we encountered is a modern phenomenon, post-1950s,” he said. “It’s the exception rather than the rule throughout Muslim history.
“An item I have to explain,” he continued, “is ‘Sharia’ – often translated as Islamic law. Sharia is more than a law, though, in that it is a blueprint for a total way of life. It is less than a law, though, in that it is not a positive law – to enforce Sharia as the law of a state is a contradiction of terms.
“Sharia is a very rich, exciting aspect of Muslim life,” he said. “But it is being hijacked by so-called fundamentalists.”
One aspect of Islam that is widely misunderstood is the concept of Sharia-supported war, or “jihad”.
“The notion of jihad has been hijacked in a lot of ways,” An-Na`im said. “Let me be clear about what it means. War is forbidden by the Sharia except in two cases: self-defense, and the propagation of the Islamic faith.
“Does September 11 constitute a jihad?” he asked. “In my book, it does not.” An-Na`im pointed out that jihad forbids attacks on non-combatants.
It was at this point in the lecture that An-Na`im responded to America’s military actions against Afghanistan.
“I have nothing but unqualified condemnation for the crimes of September 11,” he said, “and nothing I am saying about the US and its retaliation diminishes or takes away from that condemnation…but what has happened since October 7 [the date when the US began bombing Taliban strongholds] has diminished modernist Islamic voices. It is an illegitimate use of force that undermines modernist projects of Muslim scholars and intellectuals.”
An-Na`im described what he saw as a “consistent lawlessness” on the part of the US. He accused America of legitimizing terrorism and the use of force in international relations, and cited as examples US involvement in the Congo, Nicaragua, and Iran.
He called the bombing strikes examples of the use of inappropriate force, and condemned the US for what he saw as an attempt to act outside of the bounds of due process.
“By international law, there are only two acceptable uses of force,” he said. “One is self-defense, and the other is preservation of international peace.” An-Na`im feels that the American response cannot be said to fall into either category.
“What is the difference of the decree of the US [to wage war outside legal boundaries], and the decree of the Ayatollah Khomeini to kill Salman Rushdie?” he asked. “Khomeini was condemned for issuing a fatwa outside of the bounds of law. Bush is equally guilty of this in sanctioning assassinations.”
An-Na`im ended his speech by saying that he would have preferred the US to enter into negotiations with Muslim countries, and try Bin Laden in a court of law, than to respond with violence.
At the conclusion of his speech, he opened the floor to comments and questions. Many in the audience supported his claims, while other were outraged.
“I notice a lot of people chuckling in the audience about American hypocrisy,” said Rich Hoeckh, a UMass alumnus. “But nothing has been brought up about the hypocrisy of Middle-Eastern countries.”
“There’s more our history than, ‘let’s make some bucks at the expense of others'”, he continued. “Is there anything,” he asked An-Na`im, “that you can find in US history that you think is redeemable?”
“If I had no faith in the ability of your country to do what is right, I would not be here tonight,” said An-Na`im. “But the US is the sole superpower of the world. There is a difference between the hypocrisy of a superpower and the hypocrisy of Sudan, which is at the bottom of the heap in terms of its ability to influence other people’s situations. You should not be judged by the same standards as smaller countries.”
One attendee compared the Taliban’s harboring of Bin Laden to a man who shelters a serial killer in his home. Shouldn’t a police force, he asked An-Na`im, break down the man’s door?
“I would use negotiations,” An-Na`im said. “You’ve had many similar situations in the US, where you haven’t broken down doors and killed people who might be innocent.”
Many attendees remained in the auditorium to discuss the lecture, and were divided in their responses to it. Two Smith international students, who asked not to be identified, said that they agreed with An-Na`im’s comments.
“He said things that we are thinking about, but don’t say,” said one of the students, a citizen of Italy.
“There is no need for such a violent reaction,” the other student, a citizen of Spain, said in agreement.
Darlene Willey Sliwa, a Belchertown resident, had a different view.
“The most disturbing comment I heard [An-Na`im say] was about due process,” said Willey Sliwa. “I believe in due process, but I have no reservation in my mind that this is not a case that warrants it. I am most concerned about the millions of people who have fought for over 200 years for us to be here. I try to convince my college-age daughters that we must fight to protect what others have lost their lives for.”
