Courtroom Terror

Apologists often try to explain away Islamic terrorism as a byproduct of something else. The usual argument is that, because Muslims are politically, socially, or militarily weak—the archetypal example often given is Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians—they have no choice but to resort to terror to strike at their stronger adversaries. In other words, they resort to terrorism simply to even the odds—hence the argument that terrorism is the “weapon of the weak.”

Though this narrative is widely accepted, it is demonstrably false. Consider the following account that took place a couple of weeks ago in Muslim-majority Egypt:

More details include eyewitnesses reporting that the Muslim lawyers were “armed with clubs.” Several, including reporters, were injured in the ensuing melee, and human rights groups were “forced out of the courtroom by the Muslims.”

Was the condemned Christian’s attorney right to categorize this incident as “terrorism”? According to Dictionary.com, the primary definition of terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” In other words, terrorism is not just limited to 9/11-type strikes, but involves intimidating, bullying, threatening, etc.—precisely what happened at this courthouse trial.

Some more key points to keep in mind:

• Those making the death threats, physically assaulting others with clubs, and otherwise engaging in terrorist behavior were “more than 300 Muslim lawyers"; not jihadis or fugitives hiding out in caves, but lawyers.
• The entire issue revolves around something that, by Western standards of freedom, would be a non-issue to start with: insulting a “holy” figure, Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. In a Western court of law, the Christian “blasphemer” would not even be tried, but rather the terrorist “lawyers.”
• The attacks on fellow Muslim lawyers who merely sought to represent the condemned Christian is in keeping with Islam’s doctrines of loyalty and disloyalty, which command Muslims always to side with fellow Muslims, while having enmity for non-Muslim infidels—certainly those perceived to have insulted their prophet.

The ultimate lesson emerging from this shameful fiasco is one of sheer predictability. Anyone familiar with the doings of the Islamic world—its history, its doctrines—cannot be surprised at any of the above: rage and violence in response to a non-Muslim insulting the prophet; rage and violence toward Muslim members of a legal system for trying to represent an “infidel"—these are quite standard, with ample precedent, regardless of whether the enraged Muslims are suit-and-tie wearing lawyers, or kalashnikov-toting jihadis.

Contrary to popular belief, then, and as this episode clearly shows, Islamic terrorism is not a byproduct of “weakness,” but rather the typical approach to those who transgress the bounds of Sharia. Whether one man “blaspheming” Muhammad in a Muslim-majority nation (as in this example) or whether an entire nation existing on land perceived to be Islam’s (as in the case of Israel)—terror is never far behind for those transgressing the bounds of Sharia.