Can terrorism ever be morally justified?

When good is to be achieved, the end result is justifiable because the end always justify the means. Therefore, I wonder if ISIS militants hold the view that jihad is a legitimate method as the struggle against the West to re-install their worldwide caliphate state, and so, justifiable?

jajajiju, Selangor

The issue of jihadist terrorism might be seen as an exaggerated Western propaganda topic for some individuals. However, the news of 12 men being arrested due to having a link with the ISIS militant group, in April this year, can be proved as an alarming matter for the Malaysian government. Commonly we heard that the terrorists were fighting against the infidel, in the name of jihad in Islam. In reality, they were actually fighting for the wrong jihad that most of the Imams and Islamic institutions have condemned for their use of excessive acts in some parts of the world.

Nevertheless, talking about terrorism, I remember there was one time in my ethics class, we discussed the moral legitimacy of terrorist acts. I learned that there have been a few interesting arguments if we juxtapose the morality of terrorism into a discussion.

Often, terrorism is regarded as brutal violence against civilians due to its method of suicide bombing, Improvised Explosive Device (IED), beheading and abusing their target savagely. Hitherto, the Iraq Body Count  has calculated  approximately 140,000 civilian deaths in Iraq that was also due to terrorist violence.

As a result, it contributes to claims that terrorism is not morally justified because innocent victims are treated as objects. Terrorists fail to recognise that humans also have values, which, according to Immanuel Kant, humans should be treated as an end in themselves not as a means to something else. A human has value and dignity which should be granted respect between human beings.

Accordingly, the Kantian idea of ‘an end of itself’ in regard to a human as rational and intrinsically valuable has sparked some effort by specific NGOs, institutions and communities to denounce the act of terrorist violence attacks.

For instance, a British Muslim community, Al-Hira Educational and Cultural Centre has launched a local campaign in the UK to speak out against ISIS and reject any terrorism ideology with the slogan #notinmyname  on October last year.

This campaign also extended to a special agency located in a few countries that was specifically established to combat terrorism such as the National Counterterrorism Centre in America, Thunder Squad Police Agency in Taiwan, and local and federal actors.

However, I found it very fascinating when in a class one of my friends raised an argument to justify terrorism. His argument made everyone ponder upon what if terrorism is morally justified if it is politically effective to the revolutionary struggle. He goes on with his claim that historically, terrorism was used as a tactic, started in the early 19th century. It is only now that the meaning of terrorism has shifted into more religious and ideological violence. This is evident in the Battle of Algiers in 1966, where the aspect of torture in military operations managed to lead to a strategic defeat in combating terrorists attacks. Even though there was much controversy, as there were many cases of civilian casualties and deaths caused by plant bombing, it must be noted that the destruction was an operational success for the French Army after three years.

Analysing his point of view, I believe it is not impossible to condone terrorism as a morally justified action. However, some questions were sticking around in mind. If in war terrorism would be absolute and inevitable, regardless of what kind of military methods the actors employed. When good is to be achieved, the end result is justifiable because the end always justify the means. Therefore, I wonder if ISIS militants hold the view that jihad is a legitimate method as the struggle against the West to re-install their worldwide caliphate state, and if so, justifiable?

If “ends always justified the means” can it convince enough to accept terrorism as morally right because it achieves the end goal of political struggle? However, is the overall cost of terrorism in causing daily numbers of civilian deaths and casualties justifiable? Does a human have value as a rational existence, and thus is terrorism never morally justified?