Deconstructing the media's terror pin-up boys

If you thought Usama bin Ladin (or should that be Usama bin Reagan?) was the media pinup boy of international terrorism, think again.

Recently, the real pinup boy of international terrorism arrived in Australia. Dr Rohan Gunaratna is perhaps the most frequently quoted “expert” on fighting terrorism to appear in newspapers and on TV.

Dr Gunaratna made some newsworthy claims at a recent conference on terrorism held at Sydney’s Macquarie University. Dr Gunaratna claimed that there were literally hundreds of Muslim Australians ready to stage a terrorist attack of similar magnitude to Madrid in the next 2 years of so.

It was truly terrifying stuff. But then, Dr Gunaratna has made a living out of terrifying statements. His 2002 book Inside al-Qaeda – Global Network of Terror became a best seller. Its release coincided with elite Australian SAS troops moving into Afghanistan on the eve of the full-scale invasion.

But just how expert is this terror expert in his field? How does one become an expert on terror? And why does Dr Gunaratna have such an aversion to the maintenance of civil liberties in the international struggle against politically and religiously motivated violence?

Much emphasis of terror experts has been on the phenomenon of politicised Islam, referred to by Daniel Pipes (another terror expert of questionable credentials) as Islamism.

Pipes makes much of his knowledge of Arabic and his PhD from Harvard University. But which Arabic? Classical (what scholars of English might call Shakespearean) Arabic of the classical sources of Islamic theology? Or the various modern dialects spoken in countries from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east?

And what is Pipes really an expert in? His PhD thesis was on medieval European history. Pipes may know plenty about why feudalism may have ended or how the Ottomans may have conquered Belgrade. But of what relevance is this to understanding international terrorism and its Islamist variety?

Dr Gunaratna is unable to claim even a working knowledge of the Arabic language. But the fact is that so much Islamist literature is not even written in Arabic. The Islamist works that inspired the Iranian revolution were largely written in Farsi (Persian), a language spoken in Iran and large parts of Afghanistan.

Iranian Islamist literature is largely focussed on Shia theology. Saudi and other Arab Islamists associated with al-Qaeda regard Shiism as heresy. These Islamists tend to follow various forms of Wahhabi theology, the official theology sponsored by the Saudi government.

Further, many Islamists from the Arab world were inspired by writers beyond the borders of Arab League states. One such writer was Syed Qutb, an Egyptian writer who was sentenced to death during the 1960’s by then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Qutb frequently acknowledges and cites the works of Pakistani Islamist Syed Maududi, most of whose work was written in Urdu.

In other words, to understand the ideology of political Islam, one needs to have a mastery of at least Arabic (classical and modern), Farsi and Urdu. Most quoted experts do not have this knowledge.

Neither do I. But then, I am honest enough not to address the media as some kind of terrorism expert. Nor do I claim expertise on the subject of political Islam beyond what I have read of English translations of Islamist works.

On at least one occasion, Gunaratna has claimed that al-Qaeda and the Lebanese Shia Muslim group Hezbollah have formed an alliance to support terror in Iraq. Most Lebanese would scoff at such a claim. They know that forces inspired by al Qaeda would never work with a group representing a religious community vying with them for control over Iraq’s future governance.

So how seriously do intelligence people take these terror experts? Melbourne Age journalist Gary Hughes reported on the work of Dr Gunaratna in a piece published on July 20 2003. Hughes reported that most ASIO analysts dismiss many of Gunaratna’s fanciful claims, especially his claim that JI operative Hambali regularly visits Australia.

Veteran Australian journalist Brian Toohey, who rights regularly on intelligence and terrorism issues for the Australian Financial Review, has described Dr Gunaratna’s claims as “plain silly”.

One such fanciful claim was Gunaratna’s suggestion in the November 2001 edition of Review (published by the pro-Likud Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council) that terrorist groups may seek to influence Australian politicians by rallying "10,000 or 20,000 votes" in their electorates.

So how does Gunaratna dance between alleged al-Qaeda informants, marginal seats campaigning and compromising civil rights? One must remember that from 1984 to 1994, Gunaratna worked as an adviser to the Sri Lankan Government during the height of its war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE). The Sri Lankan government like many third world governments, had little hesitance in compromising civil rights of its Tamil citizens - at least what little rights they may have had.

During that period, Dr Gunaratna made the laughable suggestion that Australians of Tamil background were shipping weapons and even helicopters and light aircraft to the Tigers.

Gunaratna’s recent claims of some 300 locally-born Muslim extremists ready to wage a terrorist war on their country have been used to support the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill currently before the Parliament. Given the fanciful nature of his previous claims and the scepticism of intelligence experts toward his work, supporters of the Bill would be well-advised not to use his claims unless these supporters wish to compromise the integrity of their cause.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney-based lawyer and occasional lecturer in the School of Politics at Macquarie University.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005