How would you define terrorism, Zahid?

A few days ago, I read about our beloved Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi claimed that Zakir Naik, the fugitive Indian preacher, had never promoted terrorism – and I almost fell off my chair.

“How could a leader of a nation comprising of people of different race and religion claim that an individual, who sows seeds of hatred among different faiths, is not performing an act of terrorism?” I thought.

No other religion should be allowed to propagate in an Islamic country.

People who change their religion should face the death penalty.

Every Muslim should be a terrorist if they are terrorising the enemy of Islam.

The above three are among many statements made by Zakir Naik in his previous sermons. Do they not promote terrorism?

Or do we only perceive those who attach explosives onto themselves, spray bullets into open space or drive trucks into crowds as acts of terrorism?

In the past, terrorism has always been linked to the action of deliberately hurting or killing innocent people – but the thing is, terrorism doesn’t take one to kill another.

Terrorism doesn’t necessarily involve weapons to carry out bloody acts, for terrorism can also involve the use of the media and internet to spread fear among the public.

Terrorism is a strategy used by creating terror or fear against a targeted group or an individual to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim – that is how the United Nations described terrorism since 1994.

The French word "terreur" was actually invented during the French revolution in the year 1794. It was derived from a Latin word "terrere" which means "to frighten".

Similarly, the English word "terror" carries the meaning "fear", "panic", "alarm" and "fright".

As such, the universally accepted definition for terrorism in this modern age is a "performance" to show power, devised to affect large audiences and shake the foundation of a country or a society by instilling fear.

But then again, what is called terrorism depends on one's point of view - the decision to label a person or a group as a terrorist is almost unavoidably subjective depending on whether one agrees or opposes the person or the group concerned.

After all, a man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

I guess when one supports a terrorist, sponsoring him, granting him with permanent residency and providing him with protection, they rarely acknowledge the other as a terrorist.

This makes me wonder, how would Zahid define terrorism?

Does he think that intellectual sounding religious speeches that speak badly of other religion have no terrorism undertone?

Does he think that one only promotes terrorism if one hands out guns and instructions to go out and do what is necessary for a certain religion?

On the other hand, if Zahid does not perceive Zakir Naik as a terrorist, does he then perceive Zakir as a religious fighter or a jihadist?

No wonder our government continue to protect this stateless fugitive.

---

FA ABDUL is a passionate storyteller, a growing media trainer, an aspiring playwright, a regular director, a struggling producer, a self-acclaimed photographer, an expert Facebooker, a lazy blogger, a part-time queen and a full-time vainpot.- Mkini