"An Act By Any Other Name" -- The Cynical Arab

Tweet http://cynicalarab.org/2011/07/25/an-act-by-any-other-name/

I sat in class this morning tapping my pen against a school desk, waiting impatiently for the morning fog to clear my head. The incessant tip-tapping continued all while students filed in sluggishly, sharing the same Monday blues – a plethora still attempting to rub the sleep out of their eyes.
Our professor made her way to the front of the class – fumbling through a stack of papers between her hands while I tapped.
Today we will discuss assumptions and conjecture as per Chapter 6 in our book. An example of an assumption is that, in light of recent events, the Norwegian mad-man was actually a terrorist. Many journalists, news-broadcasters and the like assumed the man was a terrorist when reality proved him to be a psychotic killer. A hypothesis was made based on shoddy information which lead to many assuming Anders Behring Beivik was a terrorist [...]
My pen had stopped tapping as I tried to hide my aversion. I turned around and noticed a few classmates were nodding in agreement while the rest were either still battling their drowsiness or looking on in shy bewilderment, attempting to shield their ignorance of current events.
What is a terrorist?, I charged. Are we basing a definition of the word on mainstream criteria which chooses to identify a “terrorist” as one belonging to a certain race or religion? I went on: The definition of terrorism is simply an act/set of actions meant to intimidate via the use of violence in order to accomplish a goal. How then can we hypothesize that Beivik was not a terrorist? His whiteness and his Christianity do not wipe away the fundamentalist history nor his perverse anti-multicultural militancy.
Only days after this tragic massacre of civilians in Norway we find the mainstream body of pseudo-experts and intellectuals questioning not Beivik’s actions or his villainous xenophobia but Islam and the role its vast body of followers play in today’s society. There has been a line drawn in the sand; Muslims on one side and the West on another. The term “terrorists” is attributed to the more brown and “Islamic” whilst accusations of mental instability are reserved for the lighter and much more Christian etc. The mainstream media has shamelessly designated the role of terrorists to Muslims, Arabs and the like.
Years ago I found myself falling prey to this boorish disposition, as I noticeably cringed one evening while reading the news – seeing the word “terrorist” make its usual debut, dreading the name I would find and the mention of his or her faith soon after. This lethal expectation implanted in day-to-day news became my own, all while not even noticing it. The question I pose now is: how many Muslims assumed the criminal behind the Labor Party Youth Camp shooting was a Muslim? I have read for pages and pages how many non-Muslims made this swift presumption but I must concede that due to the years of heightened Islamophobia Muslims are finding themselves isolated and continue to find it necessary to defend their faith and each other.
Terrorism, in accordance to US-based foreign policy, has a face and a religion and for many years Muslims have been forced into becoming the defense attorney’s of their faith and their religious community. Accusations of not being “American” enough in a post-9/11 world have sent many into a nationalistic tail-spin. They must hang an American flag on their door-step, sing-along to the national anthem, slap a patriotic sticker on their vehicle. They have to prove themselves worthy, to prove they are not “one of them”.
When Mosque’s are vandalized and burned the blame, some-how, is directed back at the Muslim community. Well why did they build a Mosque here? Why can’t they just pray at home? Do they have to have a Mosque here anyways?
The terms “terrorism” and “fundamentalism” are being used to scare entire communities into a corner all the while there are many profiting from this fear-mongering. From Pamela Geller to Robert Spencer. The “creeping Shari’a” crowd has been getting louder and ever more erratic. Even after the devastation in Norway Muslims are being dragged into the conversation, many having the audacity to accuse Muslims of being the reason behind his “madness” as Breivik was specifically hostile towards Islam.
Breivik’s recent statements to police and the court paint the picture of a man hostile toward multicultural societies and harboring strong xenophobic opinions, especially toward Norway’s more recent immigrants from Muslim countries.
It is important and arguably necessary to mark Breivik’s destruction and blatant disregard of innocent life as an act of terrorism. In the face of growing xenophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry this is a reminder that terrorism has no face, no color, and no religion by which one can simply apply a set of definite measurements. Breivik was a blonde, European Christian fundamentalist who did not commit an act of simple madness, no – it was a blatant act of terrorism.
Despite what many may pleasurably argue, terrorism is not one-size fits all.