Terror in the mind of God: a close reading

Terror in the Mind of God

Mahmud Abouhalima's Personal Struggle as Religious Struggle

Terror in the name of Islam has captured world attention in the last two decades. Numerous bombings, involving truckloads, car bombs, and human beings willing to take on suicide missions have been undertaken by Islamist militants and terrorists in various parts of the world. In light of these terror missions carried out by Muslim groups, many people raise serious and sometimes provocative questions about Islam's relationship with terror and violence. Does Islam condone terrorism? Does the Qur'an call for violence against non-Muslims? Does Islam hate America? These are some of the questions people have been asking, especially following the horrific terror attack on September 11, 2001.

One thing that is often neglected while raising these questions about Islam's stance on terror and violence is the lack of authentic Islamic discourse in the languages of those who have been implicated in Islamist terror. There are Islamist activists who justify their calls or approval of violence in the name of religion and use Islamic terminology to describe their beliefs and actions, but their arguments in this regard are weak. Many of these Islamist leaders also lack formal Islamic education and their use of Islamic terminology to justify their violent and extremist acts can hardly be viewed as authentic. One can observe this absence of authentic religious duty in Mark Juergensmeyer's discussion of Mahmud Abouhalima, one of the men convicted of the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993

Jurgensmeyer discusses Abouhalima in the chapter "Islam's 'Neglected Duty'" and his analysis of Abouhalima's thoughts is based on a series of interviews Jurgensmeyer conducted with him in late 1990s. The discussion of Abouhalima's ideological convictions is revealing as there is no real argument in his words that may be described as Islamic. It is clear that Abouhalima confused his personal struggles against worldliness with a religious duty incumbent upon all Muslims. Nowhere in his words, can one see references to Islamic core texts. In Jurgensmeyer's analysis Abouhalima emerges as a man more knowledgeable about U.S. foreign policy (even though his knowledge is very selective in this regard) than about Islamic duties. Abouhalima's grievances seem to have more in common with those of the twentieth-century anarchist terrorist groups than those of Muslims concerned about Islamic duties.

A close reading of Jurgensmeyer's analysis of Abouhalima's attitudes toward secularism, modern Muslim rulers, and the United States suggests that Abouhalima lacks authentic Islamic arguments to make his cases, but Jurgensmeyer does not make it clear. Jurgensmeyer rather focuses on Abouhalima's personality, character, and at times depicts him as fitting the stereotypical Hollywood Arab. He presents a fairly balanced account of his interview and analysis of Abouhalima but nevertheless does not avoid making unsubstantiated assumptions. Jurgensmeyer depicts Abouhalima as a scary figure: "a strong, tall man whose striking red hair and beard have led some to call him 'Mahmud the Red.'"

Jurgensmeyer repeats this characterization later: "striking -- tall, red-haired, his face freckled."

Jurgensmeyer then notes that Abouhalima was standing nearby and watching when the bomb exploded at the World Trade Center, "disappointed that the bombing caused such little damage."

But this seems to be an assumption rather than an established fact. Jurgensmeyer later points out that Abouhalima denies his involvement in the World Trade Center bombing. If so, how can one know that Abouhalima was "disappointed" to see little damage? One can also see assumptions in the words Jurgensmeyer uses. For example, Jurgensmeyer writes that Abouhalima "felt free to talk about the subject of terrorism in general and terrorist incidents of which he was not accused, including the Oklahoma City federal building bombing."

Instead of writing, he "was not involved," Jurgensmeyer says he "he was not accused," as if Abouhalima could be accused of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Instead of making assumptions about Abouhalima, Jurgensmeyer could have focused on the contradictions in the actions and views of the Islamist militant and his apparent lack of knowledge in Islamic law. Jurgensmeyer provides evidence for that by telling the story of Abouhalima's life but does not explain clearly. Jurgensmeyer, for instance, mentions that Abouhalima had his early religious influence by participating in a Muslim youth camp in a town near Alexandria, Egypt, but later in his life in Germany Abouhalima was engaged in a promiscuous life: a "life of corruption -- girls, drugs, you name it," in Abouhalima's own words.

Jurgensmeyer, however, does not raise questions about Abouhalima's religiosity, or its lack thereof.

Another example where Jurgensmeyer does not examine Abouhalima's position is when he quotes him as saying that "Islam is mercy."

If indeed Abouhalima believes in it, then why does he not call for mercy? Why does he approve terrorist attacks and violence? Jurgensmeyer falls short of examining these questions critically and in details. It should also be noted that the discussion of Abouhalima in a chapter titled "Islam's 'Neglected Duty'" is misleading. Nowhere does Abouhalima talk about the "neglected duty," which apparently refers to jihad, an Islamic concept that literally means "struggle" and may refer to either violent or peaceful struggle (depending on those who interpret it). Jurgensmeyer rather could have emphasized the apparent lack of authentic Islamic discourse in Abouhalima's language.