| Return to
opening page |
. |
|
Fundamentalism is not necessarily terrorismOn
Ruud Peters, Dutch expert on Islam:
Fundamentalism does not necessarily lead to terrorism, that's the sober
assessment from Professor Ruud Peters, who acted as an expert in the
trial of the members of the 'Hofstad' group. This assertion reflects
Professor Peters' more general viewpoint, which he has consistently
adhered to in his academic work in the past decades.Ruud Peters, a Professor at the University of Amsterdam, is an internationally recognised expert in the field of Islamic law and the doctrine of jihad. In 1995, he was asked to appear as an expert witness in the trial of the blind Sheikh Umar Abd al-Rahman, the alleged brain behind the effort to blow up the World Trade Centre in New York in 1993. Terror suspects Although his appearance in court was eventually cancelled, Professor Peters went on to be frequently consulted on legal matters relating to Islamic terrorism. In 2003, he was an expert witness in the case against 12 terror suspects in Rotterdam. His statement, that fundamentalism does not necessarily lead to terrorism, contributed to the eventual release of the suspects, much to the frustration of the public prosecutor in that case who, at an earlier stage, was forced to withdraw his allegation that Professor Peters maintained relations with radical Islamic groups. Van Gogh This controversy did not prevent Ruud Peters being asked again to act as an expert in the 2005 trial of Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, and subsequently in the trial of other members of the Hofstad group of which Bouyeri was the leader. In his apartment in the middle of Amsterdam's Red Light district, Professor Peters wrestled for months with the ideological material that was found on the computers used by Bouyeri and the other Hofstad group members. In the Hofstad trial, Professor Peters' analysis proved to be helpful for both the Public Prosecutor and the defence. His finding that the confiscated computers of the 14 suspects contained almost identical documents helped the public prosecutor prove that they cooperated and therefore could be regarded as a terrorist organisation. However, to the advantage of the defence, Professor Peters repeated his statement that radical ideas do not necessarily lead to violent acts. This contributed to the decision by the judge to convict only the active members of the group. Ideology Professor Peters' statement that a fundamentalist ideology does not necessarily lead to terrorist acts refers to a fundamental academic debate among experts in the field of Islamic studies: This debate centres on the question of whether the behaviour of Muslims is to be explained on the basis of the texts which they believe in or on that of the historical socio-economic conditions in which they live. In his field of study, Professor Peters is regarded as an icon for the latter approach. Seen from this viewpoint, there is no such thing as an 'essential Islam' which can be held responsible for every Muslim act. One glance at the religious and political practice in the various Arab countries proves that a religion such as Islam can be interpreted in countless ways. The behaviour of Muslims can be determined by texts but by the social realities that make particular groups of Muslims at particular times in history choose a particular interpretation of those texts. In the 1970s, Professor Peters acquired some fame in academic circles with his thesis on jihad, in which he forwarded the innovative view that there was not just one monolithic doctrine of jihad, but that Muslims had, throughout history, interpreted the concept of jihad in various ways, depending on the situation in which they found themselves. Monotheism In his analysis for the Amsterdam court, Professor Peters demonstrated that the same applies to the Islamic doctrine of monotheism - tawhid - that plays a central role in the writings of the Hofstad group members. According to radical Muslims, tawhid requires that the behaviour of human beings corresponds completely with the Divine Law - as they interpret it; anyone who deviates from this law is therefore an unbeliever and may, in principle, be killed. This interpretation of tawhid, however, only plays a marginal role in Islamic history and the fact that a number of contemporary Islamic youths happen to embrace this eccentric interpretation cannot be explained from looking at any Islamic text. But if texts do not provide an explanation, which factors can explain the radicalisation of Muslim youths? Professor Peters mentions the identity crisis of Muslim migrant youths as an important cause, but also the 'attack' on their religion by Dutch politicians and opinion makers since the appearance of the late Pim Fortuyn. Sharp polemics Just after the murder of Theo van Gogh, Ruud Peters warned that the sharp polemics against Islam by Dutch journalists and politicians did not contribute to integration but, on the contrary, led to the withdrawal of Muslims from Dutch society. Professor Peters recognises Islamic terrorism as a serious threat, but the way in which Dutch politicians and journalists deal with this threat is in his view counterproductive. The increasing Islamisation and in some cases radicalisation need to be seen in part as a reaction to the sharp tone in the public debate about Islam. Professor Peters has an unlikely ally in this conclusion. In March 2004, seven months before the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch domestic intelligence service, the AIVD, published a memo, which stated that the polemics against Islam of some Dutch opinion makers were one of the factors contributing to radicalisation among Muslims. Michel Hoebink 24-03-2006
See also: Dutch Experience of Islamic Extremism Special forces of the Netherlands On Islamic Intolerance The terrorist lodestar Islamic Understanding of Christianity by Soloman Nigosian |
||
| meditations |
top |
|