Terrorism: from Samson to Atta.

• Author: Drury, Shadia
• Position: Part II: myths: framing the problem

THERE IS AN UNCANNY RESEMBLANCE between Samson's attack on the temple of the Philistines as described in the Bible (Judges 16: 26-31) and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York on 11 September 2001. On a busy holiday when about three thousand Philistines were celebrating in the Temple, Samson decided to use his super-human strength to push away the pillars that held up the temple so that the whole edifice came crumbling down, crushing him and hundreds of innocent people in the rubble.

On 11 September 2001, Atta hijacked a plane and crashed it into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Atta's crime was more technically sophisticated and executed on a larger scale than Samson's, but morally speaking the two crimes were identical. In both cases innocent victims were buried alive in the rubble--innocent people met a gruesome death that they could not have anticipated or deserved. It is difficult not to conclude that Samson was as much of a terrorist as Atta. Yet, we regard Atta as a criminal, and the incarnation of evil, but we go along with the Bible in portraying Samson as a hero. Is there any difference between them that would justify such radically different assessments?

No one has tackled the story of Samson more honestly or more boldly than Maurice Yacowar in his delightful novel, The Bold Testament. (1) The novelis a postmodern re-telling of the story of Samson, which is told from Delilah's point of view--which is to say, from the Philistine point of view. This has the effect of revealing some of the truth that is glossed over in the Bible. Delilah makes it clear that the Promised Land was heavily populated, and that the Philistines were eventually wiped out by the Hebrews. On the postmodern view, as represented by Michel Foucault and others, every group has its own truth and its own knowledge. The victors have their truth and the vanquished have theirs. It is also a fact that the victors generally write the histories. The Bible is therefore written from the Hebrew point of view--the point of view of the victors. The postmodern project consists in the liberation of the "subjugated knowledges," (2) which is to say, the vanquished perspectives. However, postmodernism is skeptical about truth. It denies that there is such a thing as truth independent of perspective. And that is precisely its problem. If there is no such thing as truth, if all of life and especially politics, is a war of mutually conflicting propagandas, then there is no sense telling the story from the point of view of the subjugated--the Philistine point of view. The new story simply replaces one set of lies with another.

But clearly, this is not the case. Telling the story from more than one perspective brings us closer to the truth, even if we cannot have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yacowar's retelling of the story accomplishes just that. It gets us closer to the truth, not just by inverting the Bible, but by allowing us to see in the canonical text what is never denied, but is quickly glossed over. The Biblical propaganda does not totally conceal the fact that the Promised Land was heavily populated, but it brushes it aside as if to say it was an insignificant fact. The Biblical propaganda makes Samson out to be the hero who was responsible for "liberating" his people from their oppressors. But the Bible does not deny that Samson was a brute whose super-human strength was criminally out of control For the sake of basic law and order, Samson had to be put behind bars to make the community--any community--safe. This is the side of the story that Delilah (i.e., Yacowar) brings out. It is not a matter of replacing one set of lies with another. The story that Delilah tells is totally recognizable. It is not an inversion of the tale as we know it. It brings us closer to the truth because it highlights aspects of the canonical interpretation that are glossed over, and therefore allows us to see the Bible, that sacred text, as a text like any other--a flawed and one-sided account of historical events told by the victors.

It may be argued that Samson was a hero because he did not act independently; he was merely an instrument of God's will. And God wished to punish the Philistines for their idolatry and their iniquity. Besides, Samson sacrificed his own life in order to carry out the justice of God. But if we accept this excuse for Samson, we must also accept it for Arm. It can equally well be argued that Atta was an instrument of God's will; and that God wanted to punish the Americans for their arrogance and iniquities. So Atta gave up his own life to carry out the will of God. But what is all this talk about God's will? Is that not a way of concealing our own iniquities by attributing them to God? The trouble is that this Biblical way of thinking and speaking remains prevalent, not only among the Islamic fundamentalists, but also among the Christian fundamentalists that dominate the Republican Party--and that includes President George W. Bush.

After 11 September, the leader of the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, and the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, declared that the terrorist attack was a deserved punishment from God for America's sins. In particular, they suggested that feminists, gays, and lesbians were the reason that God allowed this to happen. Many Americans were shocked and dismayed at the vulgarity of this public statement at a time of national grief. This candid expression of their true sentiments turned out to be a public relations nightmare. Besides, such candid comments are antithetical to the "stealth campaigning" to which Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Christian Coalition, is committed. This savvy tactic requires the concealment of the real goals and beliefs of Christian Coalition candidates running for office. A prudent candidate would run a campaign emphasizing balanced budgets, but once in office, focus on the criminalization of abortion, prayer in the schools, and dismantling Planned Parenthood at home and abroad. In light of the Christian Coalition's commitment to these Machiavellian tactics, the candid remarks by Falwell and Robertson were imprudent, at the very least. Falwell and Robertson had to apologize publicly to limit the damages. But in truth, Falwell and Robertson's interpretation of the events of 11 September are perfectly compatible with the Christian tradition of divine Providence, from Augustine to Luther. The Islamic tradition is no different; everything depends on the will of God; everywhere the hand of God is at work. So, if we accept the view that Samson was an instrument of God, then we must also accept the view that Atta was also an instrument of God.

We are living in an age that can rightly be described as a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Two dualistic philosophies confront one another. Each one claims to be privy to the one true revelation. Each one...