The scene of millions of people holding their breath in front of their television screens at 8:45 AM Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was no less dramatic than the live coverage they were glued to of the attacks involving four hijacked commercial planes targeting several sensitive American sites.
The massive explosion caused by the first plane’s impact with the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York quickly dispelled any illusions that the collision of the second plane with the South Tower was accidental. Within less than two hours, both towers, each with 110 floors, collapsed.
The third plane was destined for the western side of the Pentagon in Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after its passengers fought with the hijackers.
From the aftermath of this sudden attack, which claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people, the term “counter-terrorism” re-emerged in the Western media landscape.
Despite the existence of terrorist organizations and operations unrelated to Islam around the world, both in the East and the West, the media’s focus on terrorism as being Islamic was not just a superficial phenomenon. It became a political trend that led to a series of international consequences—similar to a cascading domino effect—resulting in regulatory, economic, and military measures.
Qatar’s Efforts in Counter-Terrorism
The stance of the Qatari leadership has always been clear and firm regarding the fight against terrorism. Terrorist crimes typically target innocent people randomly, who happen to be at the scene of the crime, and are based on ideologies and toxic ideas driven by hatred and malice.
Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, dedicated an important part of his speech at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York to his country’s firm stance on combating terrorism. He stated that “there is a consensus that terrorism has become one of the most prominent challenges facing the world due to the real threat it poses to international peace and security.”
He also emphasized Qatar’s “steadfast position in rejecting all forms and manifestations of terrorism, anywhere in the world, regardless of the reasons or justifications.”
He then addressed that counter-terrorism is a priority in Qatar’s policy at the national, regional, and international levels. This has necessitated the development of legislative and institutional systems in the country, with a commitment to fulfilling international obligations related to combating terrorism and its financing.
He proposed practical conditions for achieving the objectives of the war on terrorism, which include: international cooperation in combating extremism and the violence it produces, along with the necessity of standardizing criteria so that the definition of terrorism is not selective based on the perpetrator’s religious or ethnic identity.
He also warned against neglecting the roots and causes of terrorism and called for efforts to find just resolutions to ongoing issues that fuel feelings of anger and frustration. He emphasized the necessity of not politicizing the term “terrorism” to suppress political opponents, which he noted is occurring in some countries.
He then outlined Qatar’s preventive philosophy against terrorism, highlighting its funding for proactive initiatives to prevent it. This includes the commitment to “educate ten million children and provide economic empowerment to half a million young people” in the region. This is achieved through “collaborating with the United Nations to implement projects that enhance job opportunities for youth by building capacities and launching programs to prevent violent extremism.”
Years before this speech, Qatar was not isolated from the global turmoil following the events of September 11, 2001. The country early on enacted Law No. 28 of 2002 Combating Money Laundering, which defined the crime of money laundering in the first clause of Article 2. It considered money obtained from “crimes that the law deems as terrorist offenses” as money laundering, provided the intent was to conceal the true source of the money and present it as legally obtained.
In the same year, 2004, which saw the issuance of Qatar’s permanent constitution consisting of 150 articles to regulate domestic affairs, Law No. 3 of 2004 Combating Terrorism was also enacted concerning the fight against terrorism. This law, comprising 23 articles, was designed to address and counter any terrorist tendencies or threats that could endanger the nation or the world at large.
For example, Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the Qatari Constitution emphasize fundamental concepts, including the necessity for the state to maintain its independence, sovereignty, integrity, unity, security, and stability. They also highlight the importance of respecting international treaties and commitments, strengthening international peace and security, resolving international disputes through peaceful means, supporting the right of peoples to self-determination, refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and cooperating with peace-loving nations.
The concept of terrorist crimes is defined in the first clause of Article 1 of Law No. (3) of 2004 concerning the fight against terrorism as follows: “In applying the provisions of this Law, the felonies provided for in the Penal Code or any other law shall be considered terrorist crimes, if committed for a terrorist purpose.”
Law No. (3) of 2004 concerning the fight against terrorism specifies a range of severe penalties for terrorist crimes. Among these penalties are the death penalty or life imprisonment, depending on the nature of the crime.
Qatar did not stop at these laws in its fight against terrorism but followed them with additional legislation. In 2010, it issued Law No. (4) of 2010 concerning anti-money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Less than four years later, in 2014, Amiri Decree No. (43) was issued to establish the Regulatory Authority for Charitable Activities. In 2018, Qatar ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted by the United Nations. This was followed a year later by the issuance of Law No. [20] of 2019 on Combatting Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing.
All these legislations reflect Qatar’s strong commitment to combating terrorism globally, despite being a country that holds a leading position in the Peace Index for the Middle East, according to the Global Peace Index issued by the Institute for Economics Peace Measuring peace in a complex world in Australia.
The passage of time has proven that accusations by some regional and international systems against Qatar of supporting terrorism were baseless. Qatar’s support for humanitarian efforts in partnership with international institutions, such as the United Nations, is a clear testament to its commitment to positive global contributions.
Qatar’s diplomatic efforts to mediate between conflicting international parties, such as Russia and Ukraine, the Taliban and the United States, or Israel and Palestinian resistance, do not imply that it sides with any particular party. Rather, these efforts highlight its commitment to global peace and stability.
Just as Qatari legal frameworks have clearly defined the concept of terrorism, the country hopes that the international community will follow suit in defining and combating terrorism from its roots, without bias toward one side over another.
Islam is not terrorism
Islamophobia, with its fear and prejudice against Islam, overlooks the true meaning of the term terrorism from a religious perspective. Terrorism, in the context of Islam, is fundamentally different from its contemporary definition. In Islam, terrorism is about gathering strength for deterrence, to prevent aggression before it occurs, and it never aims to harm innocent people.
Allah says in Surah Al-Anfal “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know but whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged. * And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”
Islam explicitly prohibits initiating aggression.
Allah says in Surah Al-Baqarah: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress the limits. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”
In Islam, the values of truth and justice are high ideals that require strength to protect them. Without such deterrent power, discussing these values would be merely philosophical luxury.
Therefore, Islam calls for kindness towards peaceful non-Muslims.
Allah says in Surah Al-Mumtahanah: “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous and just toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who are just. * Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion – [forbidden] to take as allies. And whoever takes them as allies, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.”
Definition of Terrorism by the International Community
The United Nations has spared no effort in defining terrorism in various documents, yet it has not succeeded, and may have definitively failed, in practically deterring it on the ground. The veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council has often thwarted many proposed resolutions condemning aggressors.
Many of the United Nations charters and resolutions, under this institutionalized dictatorship, have become mere words on paper that neither rescue the distressed nor mend the broken.
The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, signed in 1999, defines the crime of terrorism in Article 2 as: “An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex; or Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian,or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
By General Assembly resolution 77/243, February 12 has been designated as International Day for the Prevention of Violent Extremism as and when Conducive to Terrorism. This day aims to raise awareness about the threats associated with such extremism. The resolution also emphasizes that “terrorism and violent extremism, when leading to terrorism, cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization, or ethnic group.
Does a calendar marking the need to combat terrorism bring victims back to life, rebuild homes destroyed over innocent heads, or feed the displaced?
What is the value of concern and condemnation in the face of bloodshed in the streets?
Theoretical Definition of Terrorism vs. Practical Diagnostic Double Standards
Not long ago, I met one of the prominent Arab media and political figures whom I trust greatly. I meet with him occasionally, but the intervals between our meetings are long due to his constant travel. By the time our next meeting comes around, I have usually prepared a lot of questions.
My political friend noticed that I often ask about the precise concept of terrorism, especially in conjunction with the Al-Aqsa flood. The man, who is aware of my political inclinations, answered with complete ease and full honesty.
Behind my question lay a thousand suppressed sighs and a thousand unanswered questions. How could it be otherwise? My family in Palestine is suffering under the onslaught of aircraft and the hellish bombardment of the occupier’s artillery. My country is losing a martyr and a wounded person every minute, while the world continues to debate and discuss: Is what is happening in Palestine a genocide, or a legitimate war against an unarmed people waged by an illegitimate entity?
For me, as a Palestinian, nothing is more important than keeping Palestine present in our minds and on the international stage. Unfortunately, the international community has failed to apply a consistent definition of terrorism. A person can be labeled a terrorist by some, while being viewed as a resistance fighter against occupation by others.
What the United Nations does resembles what my grandfather used to do with us. He spent his entire life as a peacemaker, listening to everyone’s grievances, from my trivial school problems to my grandmother’s and her children’s crises, our neighbor’s issues, and even the complaints of passersby. Yet, he never took any deterrent measures to prevent or stop harm, even though he was the “local chief” — the elder who managed our neighborhood’s affairs. He is akin to the United Nations today.
I remember once tormenting one of my cousins, who was younger than me and physically weaker. I inflicted what could be described as “psychological terrorism” in the literal sense of the word by keeping his bicycle for an entire week without a hint of remorse or a pang of conscience. The poor child had no choice but to turn to my grandfather, who gave him a piece of candy and patted him on the shoulder, while I continued to play with my cousin’s bike without a care in the world. The child’s suffering continued, and my heavy-handed teasing persisted. No one pointed out that I was practicing “terrorism,” nor did my grandfather’s candy return my cousin’s bike!
My story, as the one at fault, intersects with our current reality. Palestinians have been waiting for nearly three-quarters of a century for the Security Council and the entire international community to “condemn the terrorism” they face or to return their land from the occupier, much like my cousin wished for his bicycle to be returned. Yet, Palestinians have received only words in various forms and some timid responses, while Israel, which has occupied their land for over 75 years, is classified as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East!
Returning to the beginning, U.S. President Joe Biden once commented on Russia targeting a hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, stating that “the whole world is united in supporting Ukraine and making Putin pay a heavy price.” However, he also affirmed that “Israel is not responsible” for targeting the Baptist hospital in Gaza!
This hole in values, political nonsense, and daily oppression we face have led us to question the precise definitions of terrorism according to these major countries. We search for the reason why a person is deemed a terrorist here and a hero there, only to discover that we are witnessing a manipulation of values and human principles, subordinated to personal interests rather than upholding values that transcend time and place and apply universally to all peoples and nations.
The international community’s definition of terrorism is insufficient, and sympathy for its victims is not a magical solution for ending it. Exploring the motives behind terrorism and addressing them is crucial for global discussions today. Additionally, finding effective solutions to prevent the use of the term “terrorism” with double standards is essential.
If this does not happen, millions of oppressed and wronged individuals will emerge, and they will turn into time bombs. The oppressed will wait for the right moment and a weapon in their hands, ready to ignite chaos for everyone. When they seek revenge and retribution, do not expect them to act with wisdom; rather, they will act driven by rage and blindness, determined to overcome their oppressors or perish without achieving their goal.
