July 5, 2007
Western media publish daily news and commentaries about the alleged terrorist events in the UK. These writings have all in common to designate innocent persons, who nobody has proven guilty, as terrorists. Some commentators go even further by speculating about the alleged psychology of medical doctors who apparently engage in terrorism, as if the guilt of the detainees (most of whom are medical doctors or medical students) had been proved. It appears that Western journalists have no qualms anymore in attributing evil to Muslims because lives and dignity of Muslims appear of no consequence to them. Such racist attitude is inacceptable.
Hardly any commentator has mentioned that the accused, or their lawyers, have not been heard. We only have heard one side of the story. What kind of journalism is this? Can anyone draw conclusions about their guilt, let alone speculate about their motives, before listening to their side of the story? Should they be cleared of any guilt, how will the media repair the tort?
The aim of terrorist acts (as
distinct from common crime) is to draw attention to a
political goal. It makes no sense for those who seek a
political or religious goal to place a bomb without address
and message. To arbitrary kill a few passerby is certainly
a criminal act, but it does not make political sense. To
create public panic for its own sake has no more purpose
than shouting "fire" in a full theater. The recent events
in the UK were not accompanied by a political or religious
announcement. From a Muslim or Arab perspective these acts
are meaningless and counter-productive. Those who gain by
such acts are those who wish to sow distrust towards Muslims
and Arabs and prepare the ground for further wars against
Muslim or Arab nations. It is among such constituencies
that the masterminds of all unclaimed and unsolved
"terrorist" acts committed in the West should be searched.
Letter to the Editors of the Independent, July 4,
07