The Egyptian government last week declared the Muslim Brotherhood a “terrorist organisation”. A government decree banned all activities of the organisation, including demonstrations, and warned that Muslim Brotherhood members who violated the ban would be subject to the “anti-terrorism” laws that were appended to the Egyptian penal code in 1992. Any Muslim Brotherhood member who remains a member of this organisation will be deemed to “share in its terrorism” and will be subject to the anti-terrorism provisions. To enforce the prohibition, police forces will enter university campuses to prevent Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations. The decree further states that “the Freedom and Justice Party is no more than the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood organisation” and that “the judicial ruling [to ban its activities] stipulates that everything that belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood organisation is banned and that this ruling must be stringently applied.” Terrorism, as a criminal phenomenon, is a form of behaviour that deviates from the prevalent rules of social behaviour in a society. Crime is not merely an activity prohibited by law; it is a form of behaviour practiced by persons within the context of a particular environment and amidst a particular society and is, therefore, inherently deviant. In like manner, terrorism, which is a criminal phenomenon characterised by certain properties that set it apart from other criminal phenomena, is not a random act but rather the product of the interaction of numerous factors that shape its driving forces, makeup and manifestations. The definition of terrorism under the anti-terrorist act is as follows: Article 86 of Law 97/1992 defines terrorism as the use of force, violence, threat or intimidation to carry out a criminal project that aims to disrupt the public order or jeopardises the safety and security of society, whether the means toward this end entails causing bodily harm, sowing mass terror, or otherwise endangering people's lives, freedoms and security; or harm to the environment, transportation and communications systems, public or private property and assets; or the seizure and occupation of public or private property and assets; or the prevention or obstruction of the operations of public authorities, houses of worship or institutes of learning; or the obstruction of the application and enforcement of the constitution, laws and regulations. Terrorism is any act that seeks to intimidate individuals, groups or the state in order to attain ends that are not sanctioned by domestic or international law. While the foregoing definition is not as comprehensive as it could be, given its focus on form rather than type, it can nevertheless serve as the basis for a broader definition of terrorism regardless of its form or type. In this regard, it is useful to first consider the types of terrorism: - Individual terrorism: Acts carried out by an individual to attain ends that conflict with the law or prevailing social mores. Such acts can be motivated by religious or sectarian beliefs, inclusive of fatwas or religious decrees issued by an emir or sheikh and they can assume various forms such as intellectual and psychological intimidation, incitement of hatred, slander and defamation, physical violence, accusations of heresy and apostasy levelled against individuals or groups, fatwas sanctioning the killing of a target individual, group or sect, and murder inclusive of so-called “honour crimes”. - Non-organised collective terrorism: Acts carried out by loosely organised gangs to attain illegitimate ends, whether for the purposes of vandalism, looting and armed larceny or for religious or sectarian reasons, or what is referred to as “jihad”. Examples of the latter are to be found in some of the Islamist groups that have proliferated in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq and that already have lengthy records of violence that include sabotage, coercion, threats, physical violence and murder. - Organised collective terrorism: Acts carried out by an organised group that is openly or secretly funded, supported or controlled by institutionalised bodies, organisations or states, towards the realisation of political, ideological, religious or sectarian ends. Examples here are the terrorist acts being carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood group and other militant jihadist groups across the Arab region. The most salient forms of terrorism practiced by such groups are intellectual terrorism, psychological coercion, physical violence, forced expulsion of persons, sabotage, bombings, assassinations, and ethnic or sectarian mass murder. - International terrorism: Acts carried out by one state or more, using diplomatic or military means to attain political objectives, to secure acquisitions or to occupy sources of wealth in other countries. In addition to the fact that international terrorism involves a certain overlap between law and politics and assumes numerous modalities that are not relevant to our discussion here, it manifests itself in many forms, among which are diplomatic coercion, economic blockade, use of military force, destruction of infrastructure facilities, the systematic murder of civilians. It follows from an observation of domestic and international developments that the dominate powers in the world are not keen to promote a clear and specific definition of terrorism as this would clash with their economic and political outlooks and interests and compel them to exercise more double standards than they already do. Indeed, these powers may have deliberately avoided a stricter definition of terrorism as a looser one better served their purposes, as was the case following the 11 September attacks against the US when a vague concept of terrorism enabled the Bush administration to level the finger of accusation against Islam and Muslims in general. Untold harm was inflicted against Islam and all who believe in and practice this faith as the consequence of a campaign that distorted the true essence of Islam which enshrines the principles of peace, tolerance, coexistence and brotherly love and that therefore caused millions of Muslims to be regarded with suspicion. In spite of the plethora of legal and academic studies on the subject of terrorism and its various aspects, one can not help but note the lack of sufficient impartial attention to the question of terrorism from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence. In fact, Islam criminalises terrorism and terrorists. The Quran does this in no uncertain terms in the verse on haraba, a term defined as “sowing corruption and chaos on earth”, while Islamic Sharia rejects all ideas and practices that foster and disseminate baghdaa (hatred) among mankind. It is also interesting to note that early Islamic jurisprudence was not only the first systematic juridical attempt to broach an issue that would become one of the modern world's foremost problems, but also that it handled the terms and concepts in a manner that lent to a clear distinction between legitimate resistance to oppression and terrorism. Terrorism in its many forms, means and objectives, is clearly a complex phenomenon as it is the product of a multiplicity of diverse political, economic, social and psychological causes. Therefore, serious study of the phenomenon is an inherently arduous task as it involves probing the whole intricate gamut of problems that individuals, societies and the international community face. Some take this difficulty as grounds for focussing first and foremost on immediate and practical measures to combat terrorism without attempting to identify its many and complex causes. Others counter that the identification and elimination of the root causes of terrorism should precede measures to prevent it. It is my opinion, especially in light of the recent proliferation of this phenomenon, that a diagnosis of the causes of terrorism is essential in order to devise effective measures to uproot it in the long run. This, however, does not necessarily imply that measures to prevent terrorism should be put on hold as there is no reason why the attempt to combat a particular instance or outbreak in terrorism can not proceed in tandem with efforts to identify and uproot its deeper causes. Indeed, it is also my opinion that the insistence on prioritising one approach over the other leads to a partitioning of the question of terrorism that will be of little use to solving it. On the whole, however, I hold that an analysis of the causes of terrorism helps to clarify the concept of terrorism, and to encourage greater interest in combating it. The writer is a legal expert and political analyst.
