Juliana South

REL 247

Contextualize, and discuss the following passage from M. Juergensmeyer, ​Terror in the Mind of
God:​

“Was the bombing [in Oklahoma City] an act of terrorism?” I asked him. Abouhalima
thought for a moment and then explained that the whole concept was “messed up.” The
term seemed to be used only for incidents of violence that people didn’t like, or rather,
Abouhalima explained, for incidents that the media had labeled terrorist.

“What about the United States government?” Abouhalima asked me. “How do they
justify their acts of bombing, of killing innocent people, directly or indirectly, openly or
secretly? They’re killing people everywhere in the world; before, today, tomorrow. How
do you define that?” Then he described what he regarded as the United States’ terrorist
attitude toward the world. According to Abouhalima, the United States tries to “terrorize
nations,” to “obliterate their power,” and to tell them that they “are nothing,” and that
they “have to follow us.” Abouhalima implied that many forms of international political
or economic control could be kinds of terrorism.

This passage presents Mahmud Abouhalima’s response to several generalized questions

about terrorism itself. The core of Abouhalima’s thoughts is his questioning of the real definition

of terrorism. He feels that he and people like Timothy McVeigh are called terrorists because of

how they are classified by the media or government. However, the American government has

ruined many more lives and killed many more people than any single terrorist. With these facts

then how could the government itself not be a terrorist organization? This question hits on many

of the points which Juergensmeyer emphasizes throughout ​Terror in the Mind of God.

The main point of contention is the definition of terrorism itself. Jeurgensmeyer describes

acts of terror as purposed towards making people feel unsafe in their everyday lives (149). By

targeting places of work, transportation, and other public spaces terrorists instill terror and
insecurity into normally safe places. Abouhalima’s conception of America as a country with a

terrorist attitude technically fits this definition. By making other countries afraid of crossing the

US they are instilling terror in daily life, especially since the initiation of the War on Terror. The

differentiation between terrorist actions and government sanctioned actions is who is directing

the actions. There is therefore a tension and ambiguity in how we define terror itself, which is

what prompts Abouhalima to say that the concept is “messed up”. The question of religion’s role

in terrorism, which Jeurgensmeyer is trying to answer, can also be seen to apply to the US.

American nationalism has many of the trappings of religion and has been used as justification for

violence as religion has. Because of both the US government’s actions and justifications it could

effectively be argued as a terrorist organisation.

This distinction between government sanctioned action and terrorism, however, is not the

subject of Jeurgensmeyer’s argument. Abouhalima’s deflection to the American government

invokes his earlier comments about the Oklahoma city bombing that the perpetrators “wanted to

reach the government with the message that we are not tolerating the way that you are dealing

with our citizens (81)”. In essence, Abouhalima saw the Oklahoma City bombing as retaliation

against a government which had trespassed first. This act of retaliation is something

Jeurgensmeyer observes constantly throughout ​Terror. ​Often in his interviews the interviewee

will state that they were merely retaliating for earlier violence or protecting themselves from

violence. This comes from these people’s belief that they are the victims in this situation and are

getting restitution. They are cosmically disadvantaged.

One of Jeurgensmeyer’s most important conclusions is that many terrorists rely on a

cosmic war world view. They are locked in an epic struggle that will last long past their lifetime

2
(182). This is how such drastic, and sometimes suicidal, actions can be justified. This worldview

is also why terrorists can very rarely be negotiated into peace because if the effects of their

actions can only be seen on a cosmic scale then there is no need for noticable results.

Abouhalima actually summarizes all of these points himself:

The only thing that humans can do in response to great injustice is to send a message.

Stressing the point that all human efforts are futile and that those who bomb buildings

should not expect any immediate, tangible change in the government’s policies as a

result, Abouhalima said that real change—effective change—“is not in our hands,” only

“in God’s hands.” (82)

Abouhalima also mentions sending a message as an accomplishment in itself. This goal

of sending a message is another of Jeurgensmeyer’s analyses into terrorism. Jeurgensmeyer takes

note of the tendency for terrorist violence to be “performative violence” (149). The point of

terrorism is to create a psychological impact on the citizen so the violence involved should be

theatrical. A shooting or stabbing is not as psychologically impactful as an explosion or in recent

years a van going off the road. Because the act of terrorism is very unlikely to change policy in

favor of the terrorist the message the act sends is more important. The goal is perhaps to be

remembered in the future rather than impactful in the present.

Herein lies the difference between government sanctioned violence and terrorism.

Governments do not need to send a psychologically damaging message in order to get what they

want because they have political power. Jeurgensmeyer notes that terrorists often come from

3
disenfranchised or war damaged places (230). People impacted by war can commit terrorist

actions as retaliation for the war, white Christians in America can commit terrorist actions due to

their feelings of disenfranchisement in modern society, and someone from a place with a

glorified past can commit terrorist actions out of frustration with the present and a wish to invoke

the past. Though a government also comes with a storied past and nationalism it does not usually

come from a place of disenfranchisement and powerlessness.

Abouhalima’s statements invoke the crucial question of what can be classified as

terrorism but also reveals quite a bit about his own beliefs and justifications. His statements fit

much of Jeurgensmeyer’s analysis of terrorists. The need to retaliate, the conception of a cosmic

war, and a feeling of material powerlessness are all present. Interviewing people who have

committed terrorist acts allows Jeurgensmeyer to better understand why they felt they had to

commit violence. Among the most important of reasons is the relationship between violent actors

and power structures, which Abouhalima specifically takes issue with. The quotation from

Abouhalima allows one to interrogate the real difference between governmental and terrorist

violence and sparks a difficult conversation about the role of governments in exacerbating and

causing violence.

4
 Bibliography

Juergensmeyer, Mark. ​Terror in the Mind of God: the Global Rise of Religious Violence.​

University of California Press, 2017.