For her brilliant book ‘Killing in the Name of God’ Harvard Professor Dr Jessica Stern interviewed religious extremists from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths in a quest to understand why religious militants kill. She identifies five main factors which drive individuals to join extremist groups. These five factors are alienation, humiliation, demographics, history and territory. While watching details of the life of the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik in the aftermath of his cruel and murderous acts, I was reminded of these factors. Breivik may not claim to be a religious man and he may not have killed in the name of a particular religion but these factors still remain relevant. Regardless of what any journalist says, Breivik is a terrorist and not an ‘assailant’. He used violence against a population (his own) in furtherance of his extremist political views. That is not an ‘assailant’ or ‘a lone shooter’. That is a terrorist, pure and simple. I will also argue that Breivik shares more similarities, than many would admit, with a Taliban terrorist who kills Pakistanis. Below I explain why.
The last decade has brought home a disturbing reality that has been reinforced constantly across the globe; the reach and ability of terrorists to strike at the heart of daily life and murder innocent civilians. But I want to argue that there is another twist to this tale that is changing the face of terror. Terrorists in recent times have expanded the definition of ‘the enemy’ or ‘the other’ and have therefore increased potential targets. Now ‘the other’ is a category that is growing in ways we did not imagine before. ‘The other’ is, of course, by definition inferior and now can and does come from the terrorists’ own country and faith. Syed Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood and before him Hassan-al-Banna justified attacks by Muslims on Muslims if they were not ‘pure’ enough. Dr Stern notes that both the far-Right and far-Left extremist outfits in the West have admired terror outfits like Al-Qaeda to plot attacks in the West. Europe already has a bloody history involving the Baader-Meinhoff duo where the far-Left resorted to violence against Europeans.
This evolving face of terrorism threatens the promise of an inclusive and multi-cultural world. Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (‘TTP’) and Breivik both deemed it legitimate to attack people sharing their respective faiths and living within the territorial boundaries of their respective countries. It was an essentially similar world-view in which the precise details of the motive are eventually irrelevant. Certitude can be a dangerous thing. Anyone who, in the deadly calculus carried out, does not agree with the terrorists’ world view is rendered impure and a target. And if an extremist group or individual does not have the technology to hit across borders then those at home are even more vulnerable.
The TTP has killed thousands of Muslims in Pakistan while citing modernisation of society and secularism as ‘dangers’ that threaten corruption of their version of Islam. Breivik, a Christian Norwegian, murdered and injured innocents (all in his country) because the ‘pure’ Europe that he wanted was not being preserved.
Where does all of this leave us? It is my contention that this calls for a re-evaluation of the way we look at terror and anti-terror. Certain realisations can bring us closer together to better fight this menace. Essentially, the fight of our generation will be a fight between those who believe in a more inclusive, tolerant and multi-cultural world and those who are willing to oppose it with violent means. The terrorists will hit home/host societies too and not just those abroad.
In Pakistan, we now have a choice where we can either single-mindedly focus on Western media reports that unjustifiably cried ‘Islamist terror’ even though no details had come through regarding the Oslo terror attacks or we can realise that the reaction was irrational but not malevolent. We do not need to harp on divisions for our enemies see us with the same lens. And if someone does not buy this argument then instead of going into a shell we must advance a better understanding of the emerging threat.
This essentially is a battle of ideas and of world-views. Armed response will only be a part of the long-term solution. The ideas threatening a connected and tolerant world must be countered with a narrative which takes cognizance of the fact that no particular religion or culture inherently advocates or legitimises violence. In essence, the question is whether the world should be based on openness and integration versus division. Bigotry often has to do with a rigid belief in the inferiority of the other and it is not the exclusive province of one religion/culture. We are all actual and potential victims in this struggle; equal and equally vulnerable. And those threatening us will often be within our borders. In one sense, our faiths, nationalities and ethnic backgrounds are irrelevant to those who are targeting us. They will often in fact share our faith, nationality and background.
This then is the biggest danger facing those who believe in openness, progress and multi-cultural values. This danger should bring the world together. We have all suffered and we are all threatened. But it is imperative that we stand together. In that sense, we are all Pakistanis. We are all Norwegians.
The writer is a Barrister and has a special interest in Anti-trust/Competition law. He can be reached at wmir.rma@gmail.com