Not an act of terror?

Professor Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
My View - The Sun Daily
July 9, 2015

THUS far the media have been preoccupied with "radical" Islam, an oxymoronic label for a faith with "peace" as its root word.

This is made easier when the alleged groups that commit the violence claim to be acting in the name of the religion that advocates just the contrary.

Thanks to former US president George "War" Bush with his "war-on-terror" and his "us-versus-them" divisive strategy, this line of thinking has caused even more violence. "Them" (terror groups) are pushing the boundaries of violence turning his hurriedly declared "mission accomplished" with respect to the invasion of Iraq into a bad joke!

With nine people killed in the shooting at the African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina, last month, it has become even clearer that radicalism is not the monopoly of any one religion. It rears its head among the followers of other religions too.

The Charleston tragedy for example was framed by the Western media as a "hate-crime" and an incident incited by "racism". It was not reported as an act of terror.

But when the assailant is a young Muslim – not a young white Christian – even if he or she is home grown and white, the incident becomes an act of terror. The international community will be alerted to the "murderous" incident which will be described as a "massacre", and the "hate-crime" as "terrorism". Leaders of other countries will then fly in to lock arms and show solidarity urging all manner of measures to condemn the heinous crime.

We saw this in Paris in relation to the Charlie Hebdo attack earlier this year. Yet, after three weeks, there seems to be no rush to do the same for the Charleston shooting. Why?

Is it because the victims in the Charleston case are different from those in Paris? Other than being blacks, they were involved in a Bible-study session in a historic church that most western leaders can identify with; whereas the victims in Paris were whites, busy producing provocative cartoons in a French publication.

Those killed in the premises of the satirical French paper knew that the cartoons were inflammatory, whereas the Charleston shooting was unprovoked.

Somehow elements in the Paris tragedy were spun as a case for freedom of expression at all cost but for Charleston, dimly so, if at all, when it comes to freedom of expression through worship.

What is more the Charleston shooting was arguably premeditated. A manifesto of some 2,500 words was posted on the accused's website. It was "laced with racist lingo" and in "first-person style" with the title "Last Rhodesian" – a reference to apartheid in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) – all suggesting that the author was bent on violence against blacks.

He was reported to have said: "I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, to go into the ghetto and fight," the purported manifesto stated.

Should he have been a Muslim, the manifesto would have been embellished as another convenient piece of evidence for trial in the global media, and indicted and convicted all in one go.

The reality is that there are enough people who gleefully exploit every tragedy for their own ends, especially for politico-religious grandstanding. And they are not confined to any one religion.

Just last year in the Central African Republic, its Muslim citizens were targeted for "extermination" by Christian groups, but few got wind of this. Notwithstanding the beheading carried out by the Christian militants, an act always condemned as "barbaric" when carried out in the Middle East, but not so in this case.

Indeed, when US President Barack Obama referred to such acts of violence he was cut down for insulting the religion. Others simply poured scorn on him through mainstream broadcast networks. In the print media, the news was buried in obscure sections.

Similarly, in the case of the Rohingyas, the existence of militant Buddhist monks is now widely acknowledged. They are not only found in Myanmar, but also in Sri Lanka and other places where they are influential. It too is oxymoronic.

Even Asean's only Nobel Prize winner from Myanmar had little to say about it.

While globally, the trend is towards militancy, irrespective of religion, it only matters when certain vested interests are in jeopardy. The label "terrorism" is selectively kicked in. Otherwise, it is "reserved" for the Muslims, just as how the communists used to be isolated, targeted and annihilated.

The other cases of militancy involving the different religions, like the Charleston massacre are hidden behind the media spotlight which is trained for some reason on so-called "radical" Islam.