Almost every legal system recognizes self-defense as a legitimate legal defense. If somebody is coming at you with an ax, and you have a reasonable concern for your life, and you have no means of escape, then you have the right to protect yourself, even if it means shooting the guy in the head. In short, the right to defend oneself is the right to take the life of another.

 

But is it possible that the right to defend oneself is being stretched so thin, that it crosses over into the realm of terrorism? And if that is the case, how do we know where the right to self-defense ends, and terror begins?

 

An example may help. As World War II was drawing to a close, the U.S. fought hard to defeat Japan. There were estimates at the time that victory in Japan, using conventional warfare, would cost millions of lives. President Truman made the painful and momentous decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And indeed, that decision prompted a quick surrender on the part of Japan. But could it be argued that the decision to drop the bomb was an act of terror, and not simply self-defense?

 

What is "terrorism?" The best definition that I've come across is: The intentional use of violence or fear against civilians for the purpose of promoting a political agenda. So there are two criteria for terrorism: the targeting of civilians, and a purpose to promote a political agenda. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilians were clearly targeted. But was the purpose strictly political, or did it contain enough of an element of the right to defend oneself, such that it could be seen as an act of self-defense? Clearly Japan was out to kill as many Americans as she could. And clearly, dropping the bomb saved lives by bringing the war to a quick close. But did the bomb cross the line into the realm of terror?

 

For the claim of self-defense to be legitimate, there needs to be a close and immediate connection between the defensive action taken, and the threat that is perceived by the person defending himself. If that connection is too loose, or tenuous, or indirect, then what is claimed in the name of self-defense, may quickly devolve into the realm of terror. And the distinction between self-defense and terror is an important one because political and military actions are being planned and taken, as we speak, based on this distinction.

 

If Israel and the U.S. decide to take preemptory action against Iran's nuclear facilities, is this self-defense or terror? Clearly, innocent civilians will be put at risk. But is the threat posed by a nuclear Iran strong enough to justify an act of "self-defense?" What do you think?

 

Barack Obama has expressed his view that if we get actionable intelligence as to Bin Laden's whereabouts, that he would take preemptive military action, even if the target was is Pakistan. Would this be self-defense or terror? Suppose that innocent civilians would be put at risk? Would this change the nature of the military action? What is America's aim here; to defend herself, or to send a message to her enemies? Does motivation change the nature of the action taken?

 

A few years ago, scores of innocent children were killed in a face-off in Beslan. A group of militants from Chechnya took over the school, and put the lives of hundred of children at risk. Could anything that was happening in Chechnya have justified this action, so as to make it an act of self-defense? Or are some actions beyond the pale of any sort of moral justification? Would Jews on their way to the death camps have been morally entitled to kill innocent children? Or are such actions beyond the pale of human decency, under any circumstances?

 

My sense is that each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. It is often the case that the line between self-defense and terror is a thin and fuzzy line at best. It is convenient to ascribe to various groups the labels which make it easier for us to evaluate their behavior. We take a certain comfort, for example, in calling this or that group a "terrorist organization." Such a designation makes it easier for to decide what to do. But the moral subtleties which underlie any given situation often undercut the notion that human behavior can be made to fit into nice and neat labels. We often have no choice but to evaluate each and every case on its own merits, even if it means questioning our preconceived notions.

I attended a debate recently. The issue: Is Islam a Religion of Peace, and is Shariah, or Islamic law, consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Arguing in the affirmative was Suhail, whom I would consider a moderate Muslim. Arguing in the negative was Frank, an American who considers Islam to be a threat to Western civilization. The following is an abridged version of the actual debate. See what you think.

 

Suhail: The U.S. Constitution protects us all from discrimination on the basis of religious belief. All faiths are American faiths, and are protected. There are no religious tests here, and American Muslims have integrated themselves into American life. They serve their country, even in the military. Muslims respect Jews and Christians as "people of the book," and all three religions worship the same God of Abraham. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and play by the rules. Racists want hate, not the truth. They say that Islam is violent, but similar racist remarks were said about Catholics and Jews. Anti-Muslim is Anti-Semitism on training wheels. Many Muslims condemned 9/11. Racist rhetoric leads to violence, and we must not succumb to prejudice.

 

Frank: I look at this from a national security perspective. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Shariah law finds its roots in the Quran. There is a principle in the Quran called "abrogation" (Sura 2:106) by which earlier Quranic passages, which are more tolerant of other religions, are superseded by later passages. Therefore, the Medina passages, which are extreme and intolerant, are seen by the Islamic authorities as replacing previous passages. "Fight and slay the unbelievers where you find them." "Fight them, even the people of the book." "Take not the Jews or Christians for your friends..." The early, peaceful passages are superseded by these Medina passages, and are a part of the directive to assure the triumph of Islam. This is according to the 4 Sunni schools, and the Shia schools as well. It is God's will for Islam to rule the world and Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. If you disagree, you are an apostate. Ultimately, Jihad will call for violence, but until that is possible, a "soft Jihad" is recommended, by which Muslim are to work from within to destroy Western civilization, so that Allah's religion is made supreme. Therefore, some Muslims are a 5^th column which promotes the destruction of the Constitution in the form of Shariah law.

 

Suhail: "Abrogation" is generally not accepted, except by terrorists and racists. All religions contain perverse passages in Holy Scripture, exhorting people to violence. The Medina period was a time of war, which explains the Prophet's rhetoric. History proves that Islam was tolerant of other religions. Mainstream Muslims believe in peace. Shariah is interpretive law, and is not dogmatic. The word "Jihad" conflates Islam with politics, which is what Bin Laden wants. People who support terrorism do so for political reasons. People who oppose terrorism do so for religious reasons. We should not give our religion to the terrorists. We cannot allow the terrorists to set the agenda with regard to religious belief.

 

Frank: As part of its "soft Jihad" agenda, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks the following:

1. To dominate Muslims, to radicalize them, and to recruit them to Jihad.

2. To intimidate opponents.

3. To create parallel societies, with their own sets of laws, preferential arrangements, dress codes, etc., by which Shariah is used to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

 

Sahriah is a very strict regiment in 75% of U.S. mosques. The "stealth" or "soft" Jihad will eventually lead to violent Jihad.

 

Suhail: Terrorists are trying to co-opt Islam. I don't want to give them my religion. Mainstream Muslims are not extreme, and wearing a headscarf is no "soft Jihad." People should be able to practice their faith without being suspect.

 

Frank: Other religions, like Judaism and Christianity, acknowledge the national authority of the state. Shariah does not. All the recognized authoritative Islamic sources endorse using Shariah to displace secular law. Islam seeks to curb free speech in order to stop criticism.

 

Suhail: Islam is an interpretive law. You interpret it for the land you live in.

 

Frank: Shariah is not a matter on interpretation. Non-Muslims will have 3 choices: 1. Accept Islam, 2. Accept dhimmitude status, or 3. Die. It's not just Al Qaeda's whack interpretation. No. Al Qaeda reflects authoritative Islam.

 

Suhail: Is there a clash of civilizations? No. It's a clash between those who believe in civilization, and those, like the terrorists, who don't. Three Muslim countries elected women as heads of state. Most Muslims are comfortable with modernity. The terrorists are not manifesting Islam, and should not be allowed to set the agenda. When Jews were persecuted by the Christians, where did they go? To Muslim states. Many scholars interpret Shariah as consistent with the Constitution and with modernity.

 

Frank: Many moderate Muslims reject Shariah, but Wahabbis are winning in many areas. They will extinguish the moderate practice of Islam. Islam is waging Jihad against the civilized world. It's not just the extremists. The mainstream accepts this authoritative version of the faith. Just look at the authoritative texts. Our country is on the line.

 

Suhail: You see before you two worldviews, extreme and moderate. It's up to you to decide. Bin Laden, and other racists like him, foster hate. Terrorism is political, not religious. Faith brings strength to America, and all faiths should be allowed to participate in American democracy.

 

Frank: We are confronting a dangerous ideology bent on our destruction. A 5^th column is working to do us in and we should fight back. This ideology wants to impose Shariah on the whole world. It's not just Bin Laden who says this. The authoritative interpretations of Islam concur. Our only hope is to mobilize the support of Muslim moderates against the supporters of Shariah.

 

Who do you think is right? Or could they both be right and wrong at the same time?

Most of us know, deep in our gut, that terrorism-the use of force against innocent civilians for the sake of political advantage-is wrong.  But proving that is often more difficult than it first seems. The following hypothetical conversation is a case in point.

 

Soldier: I can't believe you guys; strapping on suicide bombs and blowing up innocent civilians. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

 

Terrorist: I can't believe you guys; strapping on your seatbelts and firing missiles at this or that target, when you know full well that innocent people will be killed. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

 

Soldier: There's a big difference here. We do not intend to kill innocent civilians. You do. The innocent people we kill are collateral damage.

 

Terrorist: "Collateral damage?" Isn't that a fancy cover-up for doing exactly what we do? We intend to kill innocent civilians. You don't intend it, but know full well that innocent civilians will die in your operation. So what's the big difference here? Pretending you don't intend something that you know will happen anyway?

 

Soldier: Look, we're wearing uniforms. We're properly equipped. We comply with military conventions. And we do what it takes to defend our country.

 

Terrorist: Well, we don't wear uniforms, because we'd rather not get shot before carrying out our missions. We are not properly equipped because we don't have the means. We defy military conventions because we don't have much of a military. And we fight, using what we have, on behalf of a cause we deeply believe in. We make do with what we have. Once again, all I see is moral equivalency between you and us.

 

Soldier: You're so full of it. All you can do is to hide in the shadows, like a rat, spreading fear wherever you go, and using violence to force people to your way of thinking.

 

Terrorist: And when you fire your missiles, and your bombs, and your guns, aren't you also placing fear in the hearts of  people, and forcing them to swallow your policies against their will? What's the big difference here?

 

Soldier: Yes, but you're so loony, you believe that killing innocent people will make you a martyr, and will get you into heaven, surrounded by 72 virgins no less. How stupid is that?

 

Terrorist: And when you kill and die, your people will celebrate you as a military hero, even if innocent civilians died in the process. How stupid is that?

 

Soldier: I fight for my country because I believe in what she stands for.

 

Terrorist: Do you believe that your country makes mistakes, mistakes which cost innocent lives?

 

Soldier: Well, everyone makes mistakes.

 

Terrorist: So you will fight and kill for your country even if you know she makes mistakes?

 

Soldier: I will defend my country no matter what.

 

Terrorist: So I fight for the cause I believe in, no matter what, even if I'm not always right in what I believe, and even if I have to do some unsightly things, like killing civilians.

 

Soldier: But your cause sucks. At least I'm fighting for something noble, like freedom and democracy, and on behalf of a nation that upholds the rule of law.

 

Terrorist: I don't see any freedom and democracy in the places you occupy. And where is the rule of law when you so easily suspend the rule of law, when you have to fight people like me.

 

Soldier: At least I know what I'm fighting for. What the hell are you fighting for?

 

Terrorist: I fight for God's law, and His law is the real "rule of law." His authority exceeds the authority of your secular nation. And I place my life in His hands, and in His service.

 

Soldier: So you don't see much difference in the tactics we use?

 

Terrorist: Not really. We basically go around doing the same things. We just justify ourselves in different ways.

 

Soldier: And as to motivation; I'm fighting for my country, and you're fighting for God.

 

Terrorist: Well, I don't have a country as yet, since you stole it, so I fight for God instead.

 

Soldier: So there's no big difference between terrorism and military action? Is that it?

 

Terrorist: No difference that amount to any real moral significance.

 

Soldier: Well then, I guess we'll have to let the people decide.

 

Terrorist: The people? What do you mean?

 

Soldier: We have our agenda, and you have yours. It will be up to the people on the street to decide what they prefer?

 

Terrorist: We are at one with the people. We represent the people. There is not even one ray of sunshine between us and the people.

 

Soldier: That's funny. But when some of your people dare to voice their disagreement with you, you usually end up killing them as well.

 

Terrorist: People who turn against us, are with the enemy, and deserve to be treated like the enemy.

 

Soldier: Well then, maybe there is a difference between us after all. Citizens, who disagree with what we do, or with the government we defend, have a right to disagree, and have a right to vote the government out, and there's nothing much we can do about it. So maybe it will be up to the people to decide. If they don't like our government's policies, they will vote it out of office. But if they don't like you, they may very well find another way to put you out of commission.

 

Terrorist: We are ready to die for our cause. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by you, or by anyone else, for that matter, even the people on the street.

 

Soldier: Well maybe there's nothing much we can do about you, though we'll keep on trying. But I can assure you, my friend: if you or I begin to walk out of step with the will of the people, they will make their will known to us, and there will be nothing that either one of us could do to stop that. The will of the people will not be deterred. It will be up to them to decide our fate. It will be up to them, once and for all, to decide what they want for themselves, for their children, and for the countless generations of children yet to come.