Muslims, Terrorism, and Islamophobia

Some say that while not all Muslims are terrorists, a significant percentage of terrorist acts we witness are committed by Muslims. Conversely, others argue that the role of Muslims in terrorism is exaggerated; a situation that does not occur with non-Muslim terrorists. Alireza Namvar-Haghighi, a history professor at the University of Toronto, and Mehdi Jalali Tehrani, an international security researcher, are this week's guests on Taboo. We do not specifically want to discuss state terrorism. Not because state terrorism does not exist, but because it is a subject for another program. Our topic in this program is the relationship between Islam and Muslim terrorism, which is now referred to as Islamophobia. This relationship, whether we like it or not, has been added to the concepts we have in the world, especially after September 11, and we want to address the reasons for this issue. If you allow me, I will start the discussion with Mr. Jalali Tehrani and ask you, Mr. Jalali Tehrani, if you could briefly explain what you think are the reasons for the formation of these concepts I mentioned? Mehdi Jalali Tehrani: You see, concepts like Islamophobia are terms that have been later assigned to a feeling in order to derive a series of political results and to explain a series of political purposes. We cannot say about people's feelings that if people around the world fear Islam or witness Islamic terrorism, or see it in the media or may encounter it in their lives, they have a purpose against Islam and have maliciously wanted to portray Islam negatively. This is a natural emotional and psychological reaction that occurs. Mr. Namvar-Haghighi, Mr. Jalali Tehrani believes that this emotional response of people regarding the connection between Islam and terrorism and Muslims and terrorism in Europe and the West, for whatever reason, is not something designed. What is your opinion? Alireza Namvar-Haghighi: You see, we first have the Crusades, which state that Islam and Christianity are values that cannot coexist, and the result was that one must be eliminated. The second mindset is that of great powers when they attacked Islamic countries, portraying them as savage, barbaric, and uncivilized, with the aim of stealing their wealth resources, and naturally, Islam as the culture of that collection was something that reproduced regression and backwardness. In the second period, the Cold War arises. In this period, the West changes its position and supports a version of Islam that can fight communism, even a militant and fighting version. If you pay attention, groups like Al-Qaeda that later formed received material and military support from the West itself. In American politics, there is always a threat for the system to advance itself. The issue of democracy is that democracy fights against these phobias. Mr. Namvar-Haghighi, you are saying that these phobias are produced by Western governments, but we may not believe that all Muslims are terrorists, yet most of the terrorism that has occurred in the last twenty years has been committed by Muslims. So is this a phobia being produced or is it a suspicion that… Namvar-Haghighi: No, right-wing groups, neo-Nazi groups have actually committed more violence in the West. You have Oklahoma or that Norwegian man, Anders Breivik, who showcased the most violent type of terrorism in the world with a manifesto that supported Christianity and spoke against Islam. He killed 69 people one by one and also provided a 1500-page manifesto; he is called insane or mentally ill, not a terrorist, while his manifesto clearly shows that it is inspired by a Christian idea. The violence that right-wing and neo-Nazi groups have perpetrated in America has been reported by the New York Times to be more than the violence committed by Islam. Well, let’s see what Mr. Jalali Tehrani thinks about the arguments you are making? Namvar-Haghighi: People who have been killed by guns and by teenagers in America… Well, that’s another discussion, Mr. Namvar-Haghighi. The fact that many crimes are committed in America due to freedom of gun ownership is a separate discussion from the terrorism we are talking about. Namvar-Haghighi: Yes, but phobias are not created about them. Let’s see what Mr. Jalali Tehrani’s response is to your statements. Jalali Tehrani: You see, in order to find a logic and not fall into logical fallacies, meaning not to confuse connections with causes and effects, we must consider a few things. The conflict between Islam and Christianity existed during the Crusades; these two religions have characteristics that actually prepare both for terrorist operations and for waging war, and most of our wars have also been religious wars. Both of these religions claim to be universal and are missionary, meaning they invite others to join them. Both of these claims in Christianity have almost disappeared throughout history and after the Protestant Reformation, and the culture of Christianity has become secular, and such a claim was not made by Christianity, but Islam still holds this. We must sometimes look back at our own projection. For me, who grew up in a clerical family or studied in schools like Alavi and Nikan that specifically prepared us for the emergence of the Mahdi, this messianic view inevitably has a complete readiness for terrorism to defeat Western culture, which will ultimately lead to Islam taking over the world, and the entire world will become Muslim, until the knees of the horse of the Mahdi are soaked in blood, and we must be ready for that period when the whole world will become Muslim. In any case, your statements go in the direction that Islam and Western civilization have problems with each other. This is also one of the issues that is raised. When some examine the history of conflicts between Islam and the West, they say that Islam lacks principles and shared values with today’s world and other cultures, and that is why such a situation has arisen. Mr. Namvar-Haghighi, do you want to explain this produced situation, and do you accept such an argument? Namvar-Haghighi: You see, if you read George Bush’s viewpoint, he says I have a historical mission. He actually gives an apocalyptic and religious view to his political action. You see, if you go to Muslim societies, they say that Americans sell 210 billion dollars in weapons to the Middle East region. That is, the ones who benefit the most from these wars are the Westerners. The shares of arms manufacturing companies rose by six percent just after the Paris incident, meaning 20 million dollars. Who is responsible for the violence that is currently taking place? You see, the U.S. government has created Yemen, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where thousands of people are killed daily. Well, they say the same thing. You have cases where an American soldier went just to take a souvenir photo, went and killed someone, and took a photo with him… How prevalent is this, Mr. Namvar-Haghighi? The fact that you say who is responsible for this… Namvar-Haghighi: This phobia is about highlighting a small thing and addressing the whole idea… I ask you to answer this question of mine here: highlighting a small thing means what? Does it mean that all terrorist operations that have been carried out in the West are something small that has been highlighted, and that when you say who is responsible for this, it means that those who commit these acts of violence have no responsibility and those who trade arms are responsible? Namvar-Haghighi: No, my point is that we must look at it in a package. Now, against whom is the most violence of terrorist groups directed? Against Muslims. 95 percent of those who fight against these terrorist groups are Muslims. This same Mr. Trump should say that selling weapons to countries in the region that are engaged in violence is prohibited. Mr. Jalali Tehrani, you heard Mr. Namvar-Haghighi’s statements. I want to know what your response is? Jalali Tehrani: Some of the hypotheses that Mr. Namvar-Haghighi has are correct, but these are not the causes of the phenomenon we are currently examining. Again, some of the hypotheses he puts forward are not provable, which is why I do not accept them. For example, that the West always wants to create an enemy for itself. In response to that enemy, for example, what should it do? I consider this a conspiracy theory. Or on the other hand, how much role do arms manufacturing companies play in the global economy? Yes, 30-40 years ago, we mentioned the names of arms manufacturing companies and oil companies that provided a large volume of the Western economy and their interests had a significant impact and their lobbies were very powerful, but now they have significantly declined; when we have other markets like the market created by Google, Facebook, or Silicon Valley, they have become very weak. The issue that Mr. Namvar-Haghighi refers to and which I think is an important issue is that Muslims themselves are the main victims of Islamic terrorism. What does this mean? The body of Islamic societies has been afflicted with this cancer, and naturally, this body sacrifices itself, and it must be stopped. Societies can be Muslim but under liberal and secular laws. We have this in the world. We have it in the West and we have it in the East as well. But when the idea of Islamic governance is proposed, which ISIS also actually took from Khomeini’s idea of Islamic governance, it just believed that these are not right and it is right itself and has brought Islamic caliphate; this idea believes that Islamic law should take over the entire world and has nothing to do with whether Westerners go there to fight or not and give money and arms. These are not their discussions. Because they come to London and explicitly say that they want to establish Sharia in the West and in these countries. Their goal is this issue. The difference between the idea of Islamic governance and societies that can be Muslim is exactly this. Mr. Namvar-Haghighi, you who speak about Western governments, the question I will have for you is what will you say about Islamic governments that can promote terrorism or may support groups from them in terrorism around the world? Namvar-Haghighi: In all ideologies, there are those who can claim something. Just as you can consider Mr. Trump a symbol of democracy, ISIS can be a symbol of Islam. If they discuss theology in Islam and the issue of jihad, there is no case in which you can use violence, except for four cases: when a covenant is violated, when you are attacked, when your land is to be conquered, or when you are in a situation under a tyrannical regime. Well, of course, the history of Islam shows otherwise, Mr. Namvar-Haghighi. Namvar-Haghighi: Yes, I am saying the same thing. In the theology of the religion, there is no permission for you to use violence to convey the message. Not only is this not the case, but many of the policies during the time of Prophet Muhammad aimed to reduce violence. But Mr. Namvar-Haghighi, I cannot overlook this question that in the wars that occurred in the early Islam or during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the same level of violence existed… Namvar-Haghighi: You have no war that was directly intended to convey a message. These are directly in the text of the Quran. You cannot wage war for money and power. What happened in history; fascism also came out of democracy. In Christianity, which has a message of peace and friendship, you have 30 years of the Westphalian wars in Europe. Mr. Jalali Tehrani looks at it unilaterally. Islamophobia ideas have racist roots. The ideas that reproduced racism in the West always had grounds for societal fear and social mobilization, and now Islam has taken this place. Isn’t it true that bombs are planted daily in the streets of Baghdad? What weapons are these with? Where are the weapons made? Isn’t it in Yemen… You keep returning to arms trade and not answering my question about Islamic governance and… Namvar-Haghighi: Look, can the idea of Islamic governance produce violence? Yes, it can be violent like any other ideology. I want to say that the fundamental issue is the power and interest that all systems have and the cover they use. Cultural cover. [Here] Islam. Why do you go far? Burma. A place where there is no violence among Buddhists, but now the issue of the genocide of Muslims has been proven by the United Nations. Who takes responsibility for this? Is this related to Islam? Mr. Jalali Tehrani, Mr. Namvar-Haghighi also seems to be among those critics who say that we ourselves are also critics of terrorist operations, but this radical part of Islam is not all of Islam, but then this issue arises that Al-Qaeda and ISIS also emerged from Islam. How do you think this lack of fear can be possible in the current conditions of the world? Jalali Tehrani: The difference with, for example, Burma or other places that Mr. Namvar-Haghighi mentions is that its claim does not remain within a framework and geographical limit but wants to take the entire earth according to the divine promise… Well, he answered you in this regard, and Mr. Namvar-Haghighi’s opinion is that many people may think that...