Terrorism: Nothing to do with Muslim fanatacism?

[ska invita]

I made this point in the past and was shouted down - I take some small comfort in that the Stop THe War coalition stand by the same position.

Here is their statement

We reject the view that terrorism is rooted in Muslim fanaticism. It is no more real than saying that George Bush is following a "Chrisitian fundamentalist" foreign policy.

Blair's talk of an "evil ideology" will create a backlash against Muslims. Attacks on Muslims have already increased by 600%. It must be said loud and clear: neither Muslims nor Islam are the problem. Terrorism is rooted in real problems here on Earth."

Arguably Bush is following a "Chrisitian fundamentalist" foreign policy. However this would be overstating the case in much the same way as blaming Islam.

Religion is at most a source of strength and inspiration to follow through on your beliefs but it is not religion that is causing extremism, it is politics.

Here's a test:
-remove religion from the equation (imagine it didnt exist) you would still have radicalised extemists motivated politically to act, as terrorists and in other ways.

-remove the political situation from the equation (imagine hundreds of years of colonial aggression/history didnt exist) you would not have radicalised extemists motivated to act.

The fact that mullahs may inspire actions is because politics is discussed in the mosque.

Religion may add heat to the flames, but it doesn't start the fire - I am of the opinion that "Islam" and "Muslim" are words that should be rarely if ever heard in relation to the actions of "extremist militants" (a more accurate term).

 

[oi2002]

Well Pape has written a book, Dying to Win, on Suicide Bombers:

About the only point Pape agrees with is that the bombers want to drive the U.S. out of the region. But he argues that American policies to combat the terrorists are wrong-headed. "The presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies likely to worsen America's situation and to harm many Muslims needlessly," he writes. Here's a summary of his analysis, which is based on the 315 suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2003:

Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist Hindu group opposed to religion, committed the largest number of suicide attacks, 76. The Kurdish PKK, which used the tactic 14 times, is headed by a secular Marxist-Leninist, Abdulah Ocalan. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Marxist-Leninist group, and the al-Aqsa Brigade, which has ties to the socialist Fatah movement, account for a third of the attacks against Israel. Communist and socialist groups account for 75% of the attacks in Lebanon. Islamic fundamentalists, he concludes, were associated with about only half of the attacks from 1980 to 2003. And such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Iran and Sudan aren't producing any suicide bombers.
...
Pape argues that the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they're nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs.
...
He's the first to collect these data, so it's no surprise that Washington was operating on the blithe assumption that the suicide terrorists were all poor, young Islamic radicals. In fact, 42% have post-secondary educations, and they're part of concerted campaigns with coherent goals.

 

[ska invita]

Pape argues that the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they're nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs.

People often make the point that Muslims belive in heaven, and are more readily willing to die for their cause as a result - I'm in no position to judge how true this really is and how much of a factor it is. I agree with Cherie Blair when she said that Palestinians blowthemselves up out of a despiration brough about from years of failure from the political process. Certaily Plaestinians git Pape's argument.

However I wonder how relevant this is in Iraq at this time: the victimes of the bomb blast are Iraqi's - a situation which has been read as bombing along sectarian/religious grounds, rather than as the ousting of occupying forces.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Only a few posters on U75 will try to say that terrorism is a purely (or even mostly) a muslim thing and they are beyond convincing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Only a few posters on U75 will try to say that terrorism is a purely (or even mostly) a muslim thing and they are beyond convincing.

yeh: but in recent years, previous unheard of heights have been scaled by mussulman terrorists, placing them above pretty much every other terrorist in terms of their bodycount on sept 11. they've gone straight in at number one in the terror charts.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

yeh: but in recent years, previous unheard of heights have been scaled by mussulman terrorists, placing them above pretty much every other terrorist in terms of their bodycount on sept 11. they've gone straight in at number one in the terror charts.

Muslims are inherrently more competent than christians?

 

[oi2002]

There is of course a connection now. The exteme end of the Islamic religous-right is somewhat enamoured with terrorism but it's a perversion of rather than a innate quality of the religion.

Islam has traditionally had much stronger taboos against suicide than Christianity or Judaism. It also has explicit rules that protect non-combattants and even their crops during warfare. It took Ayman al-Zawahiri and some athletically dodgy theology to justify 9/11 based on Islamic scripture.

You could find a parallel Imperialists equally dubious use of the new testament to camoflage their essentially venal, mercantile mission in the world.

 

[audiotech]

yeh: but in recent years, previous unheard of heights have been scaled by mussulman terrorists, placing them above pretty much every other terrorist in terms of their bodycount on sept 11. they've gone straight in at number one in the terror charts.

I also thought that those who carried out the attack on 9/11 were also Saudi and Algerian nationals.

 

[kyser_soze]

Bush & Co and Bin Laden (or whoever) and co are EQUALLY as bad as each other. THe Al-Q movement is motivated by a desire for theocratic governments and power over a significan chunk of the Islamic world - ideally most of it, but esp the bit in the middle east.

So yes, in part it DOES have to do with Islamic fanaticism - certainly somebody prepared to blow themselves up while on a bus falls under the term 'fanatic' in my book, just as there are probably some eejits out there who would be prepared to be Xtian suicide bombers if someone could sort the theological issues out about suicide being a mortal sin etc.

BOTH sides are motivated by power, at present BOTH sides, or at least elements, see this as a continuation of the Crusades, and despite what some people might like to bury their jeads in the sands and not admit there are a great many Muslims who actually thnk that the whole philosophical basis of Western society is inherently evil and against God.

There are so many people here who have a go at peebs/mears and co about their blindness to the USUK actions etc but fewer who can accept that this is a two way conflict and far, far more complex than this idiotic simplification.

This is not about 'good guys' and 'bad guys' - both sides are responsible for cilvilian deaths in the thousands; both are being driven by fundamentalist believers, be that Xtian, Muslim or Neo-Con.

Terrorism of ANY kind is rooted in fanaticism. And the worst thing about this kind of press release is that the language and tone will create more resentment than it will solve.

 

[ska invita]

KS - fantacism yes, radicalism yes, no sanctity for the lives of innocents yes - but religious? Is the religious background of these people (Bush & Co or Bin Laden) relevant beyond an interesting psychological background, perhaps no more so than their relationship with their parents?

 

[Groucho]

yeh: but in recent years, previous unheard of heights have been scaled by mussulman terrorists, placing them above pretty much every other terrorist in terms of their bodycount on sept 11. they've gone straight in at number one in the terror charts.

So you don't count the Bush/Blair bombing and invasion of Iraq as terrorism? What is it about the armed forces of a nation state that gives their actions, in your eyes, more legitimacy than the actions of an 'unofficial' army? You do accept that many thousads of Iraqi civilians were kiled in the bombing of Iraq? What makes one act terrorism and the other 'legitimate'?

 

[kyser_soze]

KS - fantacism yes, radicalism yes, no sanctity for the lives of innocents yes - but religious? Is the religious background of these people (Bush & Co or Bin Laden) relevant beyond an interesting psychological background, perhaps no more so than their relationship with their parents?

Yes it is because despite the transparent cloaking of the power hunger in their belief systems at heart Bush, and I also believe BL, actually believe that what they are doing is right - and it takes true belief and faith to have that mindset.

I set this against someone like Cheney and Rummy who are both just real politick heads for whom power is it's own reward.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Take away the oil and the religious significance would evaporate.

 

[nick1181]

Here's a test:
-remove religion from the equation (imagine it didnt exist) you would still have radicalised extemists motivated politically to act, as terrorists and in other ways.

-remove the political situation from the equation (imagine hundreds of years of colonial aggression/history didnt exist) you would not have radicalised extemists motivated to act.

Yea well. Politics exists, religion exists. Put them together and you can generally add insanity to the equation.

 

[FruitandNut]

To say that the problems of Iraq are solely down to western intervention is to simplify matters somewhat.

The nature of Islam has very much influenced Muslim perception and reaction.

If Islam had similar origins and ethos to most other religions it would not be doing what it is doing at present. Shiite mosques have been bombed by Sunni insurgents; not because they were outsiders, but because they were a majority population and threatened Sunni minority dominance and privilege they had enjoyed under Saddam's dictatorship.

I have researched Islam and conclude that trad. Islam is not compatable with democratic principles and ethos. 'Progressive' Islam is a horse of a different colour and struggles to have it's voice heard in the Middle East and other parts of the 'Islamic World'.

 

[ska invita]

If Islam had similar origins and ethos to most other religions it would not be doing what it is doing at present. Shiite mosques have been bombed by Sunni insurgents; not because they were outsiders, but because they were a majority population and threatened Sunni minority dominance and privilege they had enjoyed under Saddam's dictatorship.

sounds like a poltical struggle to me...

I have researched Islam and conclude that trad. Islam is not compatable with democratic principles and ethos. 'Progressive' Islam is a horse of a different colour and struggles to have it's voice heard in the Middle East and other parts of the 'Islamic World'.

For sake of argument, lets say that trad. Islam isnt compatible with democracy - that does not logicaly mean that terrorism is....

The nature of Islam has very much influenced Muslim perception and reaction."

...of course - but terrorist campaigns have raged all over the world at different time - there is nothing unique about Islam to make it inevitably produce terrorists.

 

[888]

Here's a test:
-remove religion from the equation (imagine it didnt exist) you would still have radicalised extemists motivated politically to act, as terrorists and in other ways.

-remove the political situation from the equation (imagine hundreds of years of colonial aggression/history didnt exist) you would not have radicalised extemists motivated to act.

But religion is the product of millenia of oppression (colonial and not) - it isn't just a pure idea, untainted by its surroundings. Also, religion gives people more motivation for murder and suicide than they otherwise might have, by promision paradise at the end of it.

 

[FruitandNut]

But there is a difference between, 'Go forth and teach all nations' and fundy 'Jihad'. There is a definite difference in the instruction and ethos. Mohammed would NEVER come out with a parable like the 'Good Samaritan/Infidel' to him no infidel was good. He used 'Allah's name' to justify an extreme form of them and us. While Christianity and other religions have had political interference that has led to violence and bloodshed, trad Islam is just following the instructions of it's founder, namely to be charitable to Muslims and those who 'want' to convert and to be instruments of 'Allah's wrath' against those who are not.

If you look at Islam there is a uniqueness in its 'instruction' (the nearest other religion was the warrior ethos and emperor worship of Japanese Shinto Buddhism). The majority of other religions are based on 'prophets' and 'gurus' and the like who have taught tolerant 'enlightenment', not conversion and empire expansion at the point of the sword.

ps. You CANNOT remove Islam from politics, Islam is a holistic experience that encompasses politics, society and culture. It is FEUDAL, you have first to 'understand' the feudal mindset.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But there is a difference between, 'Go forth and teach all nations' and fundy 'Jihad'. There is a definite difference in the instruction and ethos. Mohammed would NEVER come out with a parable like the 'Good Samaritan/Infidel' to him no infidel was good. He used 'Allah's name' to justify an extreme form of them and us. While Christianity and other religions have had political interference that has led to violence and bloodshed, trad Islam is just following the instructions of it's founder, namely to be charitable to Muslims and those who 'want' to convert and to be instruments of 'Allah's wrath' against those who are not.

It can however be argued that Mohammed's Islam was influenced very strongly by the inhospitable environment in which it was born, and by the hospitality ethic of the tribal societies in which it took root.

If you look at Islam there is a uniqueness in its 'instruction' (the nearest other religion was the warrior ethos and emperor worship of Japanese Shinto Buddhism). The majority of other religions are based on 'prophets' and 'gurus' and the like who have taught tolerant 'enlightenment', not conversion and empire expansion at the point of the sword.

So you are, in effect, totally bypassing the effects and contributions of Sufism to Islam. Why?

ps. You CANNOT remove Islam from politics, Islam is a holistic experience that encompasses politics, society and culture. It is FEUDAL, you have first to 'understand' the feudal mindset.

Isn't "feudal" (meaning "land vassalage") somewhat of a "Western" descriptor (and inaccurate tto boot) that you are trying to overlay on Islam? Wouldn't it be nearer the mark to use a description that refers to the clan/sept/tribe social heirarchy and the web of obligations and duties this involves?

 

[kyser_soze]

Take away the oil and the religious significance would evaporate.

No it wouldn't - for Bush the war is as much against Islam and 'anyone who would threaten America' as it is about oil. For many of the militant groups it's about Israel and gaining their own power base.

While oil may well be the prime cause for the US State Department and the neo-cons to intervene it is not the sole reason for them being there - certainly for Bush this is as much about family and religion as it is oil.

 

[FruitandNut]

ViolentPanda - Yeh, and Jesus had a cushty time and lived in civilised tranquil times.

Are Mohammed's orders to kill and torture and enslave prisoners and marry and or go f**k kids also to be excused? (It is all in the Qur'anic texts). Seems like whatever he did was OK. No wonder his acolytes play up hell - or is it heaven - or are they one and the same? Seems like free licence.

 

[oi2002]

ViolentPanda - Yeh, and Jesus had a cushty time and lived in civilised tranquil times.

Are Mohammed's orders to kill and torture and enslave prisoners and marry and or go f**k kids also to be excused? (It is all in the Qur'anic texts). Seems like whatever he did was OK. No wonder his acolytes play up hell - or is it heaven - or are they one and the same? Seems like free licence.

Apparently the Saudi fondness for slavary and tendancy to stoat the baw is forgivable:

President Bush decided Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.

Link

The lazy Saudis are rather lax on the torture thing unfortunately; the Yanks render folks to the far more enthusiastic Cairo or Damascus for that sort of thing.

 

[kyser_soze]

ViolentPanda - Yeh, and Jesus had a cushty time and lived in civilised tranquil times.

Are Mohammed's orders to kill and torture and enslave prisoners and marry and or go f**k kids also to be excused? (It is all in the Qur'anic texts). Seems like whatever he did was OK. No wonder his acolytes play up hell - or is it heaven - or are they one and the same? Seems like free licence.

I've found the easiest way to interpret the religions of the Book are like this:

OT - Religion based on conflict, dispossession and survival
NT - Religion based on urbanised society and oppression
K - Relgion based on conflict, dispossession and survival

Or - Desert, City, Desert

And the morals and lessons taken from each are appropriate to those origins - the prescriptive style of both the OT and Koran (when and how many times to pray for example) as well as the severe punishments for comparativley minor infringements of law would work well in a society that lived in extremely fragile and unstable resource conditions. The NT, by contrast, was written by urban dwellers who lived in relative affluence and plenty (depsite being under occupation) and for whom the issues relevant to their lives would have been different than someone who was using religion to manage a society that was constantly under threat of extinction through environment/war etc.

 

[james_walsh]

When are you namby pamby wets going to except that islam is a religion for bastards. And if where going to get to the new jeurusleam were going to have to kick medieval shit like islam in to the long grass. And if people want to emigrate to civilisation( and relativly speaking this is it! ) they should leave such crap behind, and lets face it trotiskites if the working class ruled , islam would be as good as banned.

 

[rocketman]

There are a great many Muslims who actually thnk that the whole philosophical basis of Western society is inherently evil and against God.

There are a great many non-Muslim people in Western society who also feel that the philosophical basis as presently practised is inherently evil and against God.

We need dialogue, right now, before the world lurches into nuclear prolifiration and global war.

 

[james_walsh]

There are a great many non-Muslim people in Western society who also feel that the philosophical basis as presently practised is inherently evil and against God.

We need dialogue, right now, before the world lurches into nuclear prolifiration and global war.

yeah, and those religious tossers and hippies should be to told to piss off as well.

One of the reasons for the low turn out on anti war demos now, is because the lets be soft on islam brigade(GG/swp/stwc etc) have hijacked the thing to make the demos not just anti war but also pro islam(or atleast as much as can manage) and most don't want to be assosated with that position.

 

[kyser_soze]

There are a great many non-Muslim people in Western society who also feel that the philosophical basis as presently practised is inherently evil and against God

Yeah - normally these people are associated with things like calling for censorship, 'pro-life' and lots of other lovely ideas associated with conservative religion.

I'm not talking about capitalism - I'm talking about things like equal rights, women being allowed to dress as they please, having a system based around a secular rule of law rather than a theological one. That's where the difference lies.

 

[oi2002]

I've found the easiest way to interpret the religions of the Book are like this:

OT - Religion based on conflict, dispossession and survival
NT - Religion based on urbanised society and oppression
K - Relgion based on conflict, dispossession and survival

Or - Desert, City, Desert

And the morals and lessons taken from each are appropriate to those origins - the prescriptive style of both the OT and Koran (when and how many times to pray for example) as well as the severe punishments for comparativley minor infringements of law would work well in a society that lived in extremely fragile and unstable resource conditions. The NT, by contrast, was written by urban dwellers who lived in relative affluence and plenty (depsite being under occupation) and for whom the issues relevant to their lives would have been different than someone who was using religion to manage a society that was constantly under threat of extinction through environment/war etc.

Well that's an interesting idea but I'll offer something in the contray. The early bits of the OT might be desert based but civilisation is fairly prominent the highly centralized temple based religion of the later Jewish period is surely a very urban one. It's essentially a text constructing racial unity.

The Koran is often perceived as a desert based work but this given the focus on Medina, Jerusalem and Mecca and the Prophets mercantile background I'd say that's a misconception. Both sought to replace Pagan belief systems of desert peoples. In the Prophets case he was also supplanting a variety of Christian sects whose beliefs he seems to have been heavily influenced by. Some commentators have seen essentially egalaterian Islam as a religion of a prosperous newly mercantile urban society return to the root values of austerity and social brotherhood that is essential to the survival of desert nomads.

The NT source texts were written by a persecuted marginal sect whose messiah was nailed up as a criinal and traitor to their people. Being a work of the powerless and marginalised is perhaps why it's less prescriptive. Paul the tax collecter is the most urbanized of the apostles and he also the most prescriptive.

 

[kyser_soze]

Interesting take on it - but at least you accept that the differing social and political eras these books were written in has an impact over their messages.

On the OT I'd say that it was a mixture of the two, but one that still very much cleaves toward 'desert discipline' more than compassion and understanding as a way of resolving conflict - this is shown in the OT as well I think - The Judgement of Soloman would not, I believe have been quite so just OR intelligent if he'd been in Moses' position!! Agree that it's a template for racial rather than social unity as well - which is maybe the main difference between it and the NT which IMO seeks to be a far wider reaching but less prescriptive than the OT or Koran.

Paul the tax collecter is the most urbanized of the apostles and he also the most prescriptive.

True, but he is also the one who, again IMO, saw the potential of Christianity by taking it and adding prescriptive elements and was more inculated to the idea of power.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ViolentPanda - Yeh, and Jesus had a cushty time and lived in civilised tranquil times.

Are Mohammed's orders to kill and torture and enslave prisoners and marry and or go f**k kids also to be excused? (It is all in the Qur'anic texts). Seems like whatever he did was OK. No wonder his acolytes play up hell - or is it heaven - or are they one and the same? Seems like free licence.

Wow, what a stunning piece of piece of analysis. That told me, didn't it?

1) Who mentioned Jesus, why bring him into it unless you don't have an argument and are trying a bit of flim-flam?

2) I know it is difficult, but how about finding the energy to address the socio-cultural context of the Q'ran? Making a facile comparison with the Nazerene's circumstances doesn't stand up. To give but two examples; no Roman occupation in Mohammed's day, and smaller geographic scale/different geological make-up and resource availability of the two areas.

3) Your "translations" of Q'ranic points are, to say the least, biased. An analysis of Biblical (OT & NT) proscriptions and prescriptions could be interpreted to give similarly seemingly despicable orders to the faithful.

Do me a favour and actually engage and address the issues rather than on your perceptions of them.