As I was finalizing this article, I happened to read a news report on a horrific incident as a man ploughed his car into a crowd that was parading alongside the Premier League-winning Liverpool Football Club team. The crash caused several injuries including children and women. Considering the gravity of this incident, Muslim public figures in the UK would've braced themselves for a series of apologies to the general public vowing their commitment towards denouncing such acts and standing for peace and liberal values. But within a few hours after the incident, the UK police declared that they'd taken a white British man into custody charging rash driving, murder attempt and drug usage.

This surprisingly instant action reminded me of a stand-up comedy that I happened to watch while doom scrolling through Facebook where the comedian humorously challenged the existing notions and norms as in fixing an act of violence as terrorism if the culprit were to be a Muslim and if the culprit happened to be a non-Muslim, the act of violence will be described as a lone incident as a mentally disturbed man opened fire at a school, for instance. All of us, including Muslims, tend to assume as soon as we hear any incident of terror that the perpetrator would be someone menacingly looking, wearing a round cap or turban, having a long beard with his moustache cut short. This prevalent assumption instigates a uniquely Muslim imperative of being apologetic and defensive of their true religious values in the wake of any terrorist incident irrespective of the locality of the perpetrator through denunciation and dissociating the perpetrator from their stream of Islam and declaring him as a bad Muslim while designating themselves as good Muslims. This Muslim imperative of being in defensive and apologetic position is resulted by a popular yet false narrative about terrorism that every terrorist is a Muslim. This misconception has been shaped by the public sphere in the West through multiple elements and players.

This article tries to look into how the idea of terrorism is examined and analyzed, in stark contrast to popular manifestations, in the works of Talal Asad and Noam Chomsky, perhaps two most notable thinkers of our time. Even though both these works were authored fairly long ago, their relevance couldn't be diminished or faded as their arguments have been proven accurate in copious instances after their publication. The attempt made here, is to rethink the fictious narratives and fabricated falsehoods we are told on liberal democracies' violence and to gather moral courage to act on what we uncover.

Talal Asad's 'On Suicide Bombing'

Talal Asad's "On Suicide Bombing" is a rigorous and nuanced critique of liberal modernity through the parameter of political violence. Placed within post 9/11 discourses, the seminal work poses questions over moral distinctions and conceptual frameworks that shape the liberal-secular understandings of terrorism, war, violence martyrdom etc. Asad's attempt is not to bring moral justifications for terrorist narratives, rather he tries to unveil the incongruences and complicities within modern liberal states that boast moral superiority over religious societies while exerting overwhelming amount of institutionalized violence over the subjects of morally downgraded and despotic regimes.

In the beginning itself, Asad openly challenges the contemporary moral and legal dichotomy between terrorism and legitimate warfare (or rather state sponsored acts of terror). In stark contrast to what Samuel Huntington famously argued in his Clash of Civilizations thesis, stating that such a theory can only validate a self-contained and a historical cultural identities and it would only negate the mutually constitutive complex histories of Islamic and Western worlds. He then goes to further examine the necessity of having a theoretical understanding and policy responses since terrorism has become a central epistemological object in modern liberal states. Asad states that this duality makes terrorism not just a multi-faceted phenomenon but rather a tool for reconfiguring social and political spaces. He then explains the ability of terrorism to instigate fear, vulnerability and moral urgency in liberal subjectivities. Based on a close analysis of Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, Asad critiques the idea that terrorism is an unparalleled act of evil as it leads to massive innocent civilian toll and it inflicts fear in their life. He then contrasts terrorism with modern state warfare tactics, particularly aerial bombardment which is often justified through the legal frameworks of international humanitarian law. He also draws attention to such instances where liberal democracies engaged in terrorist violences such as the lynching in the United States, while maintaining their claim for moral and legal legitimacy. He argues that liberal democracies' detachedness from violent acts is a fictitious narrative, as they render cruelty and violence humane, especially when it's launched on uncivilized through their bureaucratic and ideological apparatuses.

In the second chapter, titled as Suicide Terrorism, Asad deconstructs and challenges the attempts to confine terrorism to definitive religious motives or psychological pathology arguing that these confinements reflect the insecurities and anxieties of liberal observers rather than the lived experiences of the terrorists including suicide bombers. Quoting from Robert Pape's empirical analysis, Asad says that suicide bombings are rather strategically motivated that being intrinsically religious. He substantiates this argument based on the case of Tamil Tigers; a secular group, which is the predominant user of suicide tactics in recent times. Asad thus concludes that religion, in most of such cases, is instrumental rather than foundational. The chapter then explores modern liberal state's ability to undertake violent acts while claiming its moral legitimacy, unlike suicide bombers and so-called terrorists whose actions are regarded as emotionally and morally disruptive while state violence operates through institutional frameworks that blend compassion with cruelty. Asad calls this phenomenon as 'compassionate violence' noting how modern states justify aerial bombardments using drones, tortures and occupation using the smoke screen of humanitarianism and self-defense. Asad then challenges the liberal assumption that politics is a non-violent domain. Based on the works of Arendt and Euben, Asad explains how foundational violence; such as settler colonialism and revolution, acts as an integral part of political formations of modern liberal states. Thus, Asad argues that terrorism, including suicide bombings, should be seen as a reflective phenomenon of liberalism's own contradictions and paradoxes.

In third chapter, titled as Horror at Suicide Terrorism, he describes the potential horror that suicide attacks can inflict particularly on Western liberal world. Asad argues that the horror stems not from the scale and gravity of the violence but from the symbolic disruption it creates. Suicide violence could be equated to state inflicted instrumental violence blurring the boundary between the killer and the killed. Citing psychoanalyst Jacqueline Rose, Asad emphasizes the close proximity of the suicide bomber to their victims as a source of deep discomfort. Unlike state's violence, which is distanced, bound through the complexities of technocrats, and anonymized, the suicide bomber carries an unnerving immediacy and sacrifice that rejects liberal moral and legal normativity. Asad visualizes a provocative parallel between suicide bombings and Christian theology, particularly the instance of Crucifixion as he characterizes the Jesus Christ's act of crucifixion as the most famous instance of redemptive suicide, which is sacralised through centuries long theological validation. This analogy, though provocative, unveils the selective moralism of liberal modernity, where certain forms of self-sacrifice, of soldiers and martyrs, are seen worthy of celebration while sacrifice of others, of suicide bombers, are vilified. The chapter also poses critique over secular liberal narratives of altruism, such as organ donation and humanitarian intervention, which are often complexed by elements of commodification and violence. Asad then concludes the chapter by arguing that horror instilled by suicide terrorism isn't simply moral outrage but a serious anxiety over the fragility of liberal norms and values. In the epilogue, Asad correlates his scathing critique of liberal violence and asserts that all forms of terrorism including suicide bombings are not alien to modernity but are intrinsic to it. Quoting Max Weber on how liberal freedom were materialized by heinous imperial conquests and colonial settlements, he examines the historical role of colonial violence in the formation of Western liberal democracies. Asad also criticizes the liberal concept of self-defense, which brings unprecedently heinous war crimes and global surveillance in the name of preserving rights and freedom under the canopy of legality and legitimacy. The entire discourse of humanitarian values, as conceived by modern secular liberal democracies, overshadows the institutionalized structural violence these states exert over morally devalued subjects that, in accordance to them, ought to be neutralized. Asad concludes that modern liberal societies must take their share in global violence. The horror inflicted by suicide bombing is an extension of unresolved contradictions within liberal political ontology; the desire to be both humane and hegemonic, compassionate and coercive. Asad tried to unleash some unsettling questions over the moral certainties of modern liberal democracies. Expanding on the paradoxes and contradictions within liberal modernity, On Suicide Bombing tries to question modernity's perceptions of death and violence.

Noam Chomsky's 'The Culture of Terrorism'

Chomsky's work, the culture of terrorism, which was written in 1988 during the wake of Iranian-Contra affair, a scandal that exposed the American double standard of selling arms to the Iranian regime and funding the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua. As a well-acclaimed critic of US foreign policy, Chomsky places the scandal in the broader historical and structural context of double layered aspects of US interventionism covered in democratic and liberal rhetoric. Drawing the historical context, Chomsky takes our attention to the post-Vietnam war US, where the policy makers faced intensive backlash from citizenry for continuing direct military interventions in conflict zones which eventually inculcated in US driven proxy wars, covert operations and economic warfare. Chomsky describes how this 'culture of terrorism' continued to persist not just through the US military might, but through efforts of intellectuals and policymakers. Chomsky considers the concept of Fifth Freedom as a hidden but an operative principle of US foreign policy. In contrast to Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; namely freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of want and freedom from fear, the Fifth Freedom refers to the unchallengeable freedom of the United States to dominate, exploit and exert violence to guard the vested elite interests both domestically and abroad. As Chomsky states, this particular freedom is exercised through the guise of installing democratic governments and preserving hierarchal global structures in which the U.S remains preeminent. According to Chomsky, state terrorism is not an incidental phenomenon but a methodical policy instrument. He argues that U.S sponsored violence in countries such as El Salvadore, Guatemala and Nicaragua complies the definitional criteria of terrorism; the use of violence or threats to instill fear and control populations. He also criticizes the systematic moral asymmetry in media coverage of state and non-state actors of terrorism, that renders US actions legitimate and others' as act of terrorism. His idea of culture of terrorism not only addresses the acts of terror but extends beyond as to cover the ideological and institutional systems that justify, normalize and celebrate such acts when undertaken by the US or its allies. Chomsky argues that the media, academia and political elites are also complicit in systematizing such acts and validating them. He also critiques the ways in which history is actively shaped and distorted to legalize and glorify the evil and terroristic ambitions of elite power holders. He employes the term "historical engineering" to explain the selective construction of historical narratives that relieve US of the responsibilities for its atrocious acts of violence and framing them as defenders of democracy instead of portraying them as aggressors.

He also elaborates the idea of "thought control" which is executed through media framing, educational curricula and discourses of elites. He then expands on his and Edward Herman's idea of "propaganda model" looking into how disproportionately media cover the elitist perspectives and erase the voices of dissent, which culminates in a political culture in which the masses are largely ignorant of true implications of US foreign policy and thus unable to challenge or pose questions over it. He elaborates how the mainstream media functions as a "manufacturing consent" mechanism, being selective in broadcasting as to reflect the interests of the political and corporate elite. Moreover, he looks into what triggers the US aggressions in the aforementioned regions and argues that the genuine threat posed by Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was not armed threats but rather it was ideological as they had implemented policies like land reforms, health care, literacy campaigns and other egalitarian policies creating a model that would've sparked equal minded movements throughout the region which would in virtue overturn the US domination across the region. It's evident that the US aggressions in such regions not only decimated armed rivals but also shook the ideological settings that diverged from neoliberal orthodoxy proposed by the US. Chomsky then offers a structural analysis of ideology based on the structuralist and Marxist traditions and explains how ideology is deeply rooted in institutions and discourse. Deviating from traditional Marxism, by not staying much on class analysis and economic determinism, he concentrates on the institutional incentives and systemic constraints that form elite behaviors and public consciousness and how intellectual subjectiveness is routed to the service of power holders. He thus critiques the idea of "free marketplace of ideas" given what passes for debates and discourses are often bound by impermissible premises.

Chomsky's reflections and findings are becoming increasingly relevant in the post 9/11, post Iraq war and digital media era. Its significance has become too evident to ignore in the post October 7 attacks and United States' complicity in the genocide of Gaza. The rhetoric of spreading democracy and now fighting antisemitism continues to be used to justify disproportionate bombardment, mass murders, execution of media personnels and medics, destruction of universities, schools and hospitals and genocidal acts. Despite having encountered backlash from masses and activists across the globe, the US alongside its allies has stood stern complicitly in Israel's unprecedented sorts of destruction and decimation, that too being so purposeless and too far from achieving its goals in the ongoing military intervention. The culture of terrorism should be and is regarded as a seminal text in critical political analysis as it synthesizes the frameworks of linguistics, political science, media studies and philosophy into a relevant indictment of US foreign policy and the ideological establishments that back it. Rather merely critiquing it, Chomsky calls for intellectual honesty, moral courage and relentless resistance against any sorts of domination.