|
Terrorism not about Religion, says Iranian Academic |
|
|
|
|
Written by Samira Ali Gutoc
|
|
Sunday, 10 August 2003 |
The phenomenon is transnational, but an Iranian academic cautions the distinction between legitimate defense such as those in Palestine and that of “aggressive” terrorism. Acknowledging that is no universal definition yet of terrorism, Iranian Foreign Affairs Advisor Dr. Hamid Reza Assefi’s paper, “Essential Contradiction between Religion and Terrorism” presented before the Dialogue Among Civilizations Conference held August 5 at the New World Hotel, Makati City, presented three arguments:
- “Terrorism and violence” and religion are rooted on different anthropological structures (in the philosophical and religious sense). If the truth of religion exists, then terrorism is eradicated.
- Political and economic factors, as well as racism rather than religious factors are behind violence in modern times.
- To reject terrorism, refer to religious teachings.
Religions of the People of the Book (Muslims, Christians and Jews) and other great religions, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, are “full of recommendations for adopting tolerance and moderation in treatment with others.”
Calling terrorists as violence-mongers, Assefi contrasts them to religious proponents as follows:
- The former are pessimistic about the essence of human being (man holds virtues and aims for supreme perfection, namely God) and regard improvement of mankind as mandatory; the latter is predicated on human unity and altruism, morality, generosity, freedom and choice.
- The former give less priority to wisdom, science and knowledge, are dogmatic; the latter are rational, aware and understand other religious paradigms.
Peace talks expert Prof. Miriam Ferrer, head of the Third World Studies Center of the University of the Philippines, critiques Assefi’s concept of terrorism – “resort to force by single person to impose a specific idea infringing upon another’s wealth - to be “too general a definition” which could be a definition for violence, since violence can refer to domestic violence, state arrests or torture.
Assefi cites that most present day conflicts and acts of violence are non-religious, though there are historical violence “dressed in religion,” citing the Hindu-Muslim clashes in India and the 9/11 event. In contrast, Ferrer says religion has links to recourse to terrorism. Using the context of the post-Cold War absence of ideological enemies (US and USSR), Ferrer cites that the use of terrorism as a “free choice, founded on dogma and that religion is the dogma,” referring to Islam being used by groups using terror tactics.
Assefi justifies the Qur’an’s opposition of terrorism in the following views:
- Everyone has his own manner and performance and only Almighty God knows whose manner and performance is closer to salvation.
- Among followers of different religions, any one who believes in God and do good deeds will be salvaged.
- O people, we created you from a man and woman, and formed you into nations and tribes so that you can better know each other
He then proposes that international peace and security be built upon the “collective wisdom of nations” not “unilateralism of big powers and countries,” citing the US occupation of Iraq. If governments adopt the clash of civilizations paradigm, there will be “hostile” attitudes, where one regards himself as right and the other wrong, “paving the way for most acts of violence and terrorist activities across the world,” he added.
The 1st RP-Iran Bilateral Conference drew academics and diplomats in tackling the contemporary issues of ethnicity, interfaith, peace, multiculturalism and terrorism.
End.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed