MuslimConscript
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 0
Last year I attended a conference in the
US about security and intelligence in the
so-called war on terror and was
astonished to hear one of the more
belligerent participants, who as far as I
could tell had nothing but contempt for
religion, strongly argue that as a purely
practical expedient, politicians and the
media must stop referring to "Muslim
terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that
the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam,
and to suggest otherwise was not merely
inaccurate but dangerously
counterproductive.
Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any
conflict. We cannot hope to convert
Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology;
our priority must be to stem the flow of
young people into organisations such as
al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by
routinely coupling their religion with immoral
violence. Incorrect statements about Islam
have convinced too many in the Muslim
world that the west is an implacable
enemy. Yet, as we found at the
conference, it is not easy to find an
alternative for referring to this terrorism;
however, the attempt can be a salutary
exercise that reveals the complexity of
what we are up against.
We need a phrase that is more exact
than "Islamic terror". These acts may be
committed by people who call themselves
Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic
principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive
warfare, permits war only in self-
defence and insists that the true Islamic
values are peace, reconciliation and
forgiveness. It also states firmly that
there must be no coercion in religious
matters, and for centuries Islam had a
much better record of religious tolerance
than Christianity.
Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of
aggressive texts, but like all the great
religions, its main thrust is towards
kindliness and compassion. Islamic law
outlaws war against any country in which
Muslims are allowed to practice their
religion freely, and forbids the use of fire,
the destruction of buildings and the killing
of innocent civilians in a military campaign.
So although Muslims, like Christians or
Jews, have all too often failed to live up
to their ideals, it is not because of the
religion per se.
We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings
"Catholic" terrorism because we knew
enough to realise that this was not
essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like
the Irish republican movement, many
fundamentalist movements worldwide are
simply new forms of nationalism in a highly
unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously
the case with Zionist fundamentalism in
Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian
right in the US.
In the Muslim world, too, where the
European nationalist ideology has always
seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms
are often more about a search for social
identity and national self-definition than
religion. They represent a widespread
desire to return to the roots of the
culture, before it was invaded and
weakened by the colonial powers.
Because it is increasingly recognised that
the terrorists in no way represent
mainstream Islam, some prefer to call
them jihadists, but this is not very
satisfactory. Extremists and
unscrupulous politicians have purloined the
word for their own purposes, but the
real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but
"struggle" or "effort." Muslims are
commanded to make a massive attempt
on all fronts - social, economic,
intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put
the will of God into practice.
Sometimes a military effort may be a
regrettable necessity in order to defend
decent values, but an oft-quoted
tradition has the Prophet Muhammad
saying after a military victory: "We are
coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the
battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad"
- the far more important, difficult and
momentous struggle to reform our own
society and our own hearts.
Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value
that, for most Muslims, has no
connection with violence. Last year, at the
University of Kentucky, I met a delightful
young man called Jihad; his parents had
given him that name in the hope that he
would become not a holy warrior, but a
truly spiritual man who would make the
world a better place. The term ******
terrorism is likely to be offensive,
therefore, and will win no hearts or minds.
At our conference in Washington, many
people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism".
They pointed out that most of the
hijackers on September 11 came from
Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant
form of Islam known as Wahhabism was
the state religion. They argued that this
description would be popular with those
many Muslims who tended to be hostile to
the Saudis. I was not happy, however,
because even though the narrow,
sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism
makes it a fruitful ground for extremism,
the vast majority of Wahhabis do not
commit acts of terror.
Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism
but by the writings of the Egyptian
ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed
by President Nasser in 1966. Almost
every fundamentalist movement in Sunni
Islam has been strongly influenced by
Qutb, so there is a good case for calling
the violence that some of his followers
commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged
his followers to withdraw from the moral
and spiritual barbarism of modern society
and fight it to the death.
Western people should learn more about
such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware
of the many dramatically different shades
of opinion in the Muslim world. There are
too many lazy, unexamined assumptions
about Islam, which tends to be regarded
as an amorphous, monolithic entity.
Remarks such as "They hate our
freedom" may give some a righteous
glow, but they are not useful, because
they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous
analysis of who exactly "they" are.
The story of Qutb is also instructive as a
reminder that militant religiosity is often
the product of social, economic and
political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for
15 years in one of Nasser's vile
concentration camps, where he and
thousands of other members of the
Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to
physical and mental torture. He entered
the camp as a moderate, but the prison
made him a fundamentalist. Modern
secularism, as he had experienced it under
Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal
assault on faith.
Precise intelligence is essential in any
conflict. It is important to know who our
enemies are, but equally crucial to know
who they are not. It is even more vital to
avoid turning potential friends into foes.
By making the disciplined effort to name
our enemies correctly, we will learn more
about them, and come one step nearer,
perhaps, to solving the seemingly
intractable and increasingly perilous
problems of our divided world.
Karen Armstrong: The Label of Catholic Terror Was Never Used About The IRA
=============================
Hidden Agenda?
US about security and intelligence in the
so-called war on terror and was
astonished to hear one of the more
belligerent participants, who as far as I
could tell had nothing but contempt for
religion, strongly argue that as a purely
practical expedient, politicians and the
media must stop referring to "Muslim
terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that
the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam,
and to suggest otherwise was not merely
inaccurate but dangerously
counterproductive.
Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any
conflict. We cannot hope to convert
Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology;
our priority must be to stem the flow of
young people into organisations such as
al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by
routinely coupling their religion with immoral
violence. Incorrect statements about Islam
have convinced too many in the Muslim
world that the west is an implacable
enemy. Yet, as we found at the
conference, it is not easy to find an
alternative for referring to this terrorism;
however, the attempt can be a salutary
exercise that reveals the complexity of
what we are up against.
We need a phrase that is more exact
than "Islamic terror". These acts may be
committed by people who call themselves
Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic
principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive
warfare, permits war only in self-
defence and insists that the true Islamic
values are peace, reconciliation and
forgiveness. It also states firmly that
there must be no coercion in religious
matters, and for centuries Islam had a
much better record of religious tolerance
than Christianity.
Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of
aggressive texts, but like all the great
religions, its main thrust is towards
kindliness and compassion. Islamic law
outlaws war against any country in which
Muslims are allowed to practice their
religion freely, and forbids the use of fire,
the destruction of buildings and the killing
of innocent civilians in a military campaign.
So although Muslims, like Christians or
Jews, have all too often failed to live up
to their ideals, it is not because of the
religion per se.
We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings
"Catholic" terrorism because we knew
enough to realise that this was not
essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like
the Irish republican movement, many
fundamentalist movements worldwide are
simply new forms of nationalism in a highly
unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously
the case with Zionist fundamentalism in
Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian
right in the US.
In the Muslim world, too, where the
European nationalist ideology has always
seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms
are often more about a search for social
identity and national self-definition than
religion. They represent a widespread
desire to return to the roots of the
culture, before it was invaded and
weakened by the colonial powers.
Because it is increasingly recognised that
the terrorists in no way represent
mainstream Islam, some prefer to call
them jihadists, but this is not very
satisfactory. Extremists and
unscrupulous politicians have purloined the
word for their own purposes, but the
real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but
"struggle" or "effort." Muslims are
commanded to make a massive attempt
on all fronts - social, economic,
intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put
the will of God into practice.
Sometimes a military effort may be a
regrettable necessity in order to defend
decent values, but an oft-quoted
tradition has the Prophet Muhammad
saying after a military victory: "We are
coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the
battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad"
- the far more important, difficult and
momentous struggle to reform our own
society and our own hearts.
Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value
that, for most Muslims, has no
connection with violence. Last year, at the
University of Kentucky, I met a delightful
young man called Jihad; his parents had
given him that name in the hope that he
would become not a holy warrior, but a
truly spiritual man who would make the
world a better place. The term ******
terrorism is likely to be offensive,
therefore, and will win no hearts or minds.
At our conference in Washington, many
people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism".
They pointed out that most of the
hijackers on September 11 came from
Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant
form of Islam known as Wahhabism was
the state religion. They argued that this
description would be popular with those
many Muslims who tended to be hostile to
the Saudis. I was not happy, however,
because even though the narrow,
sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism
makes it a fruitful ground for extremism,
the vast majority of Wahhabis do not
commit acts of terror.
Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism
but by the writings of the Egyptian
ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed
by President Nasser in 1966. Almost
every fundamentalist movement in Sunni
Islam has been strongly influenced by
Qutb, so there is a good case for calling
the violence that some of his followers
commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged
his followers to withdraw from the moral
and spiritual barbarism of modern society
and fight it to the death.
Western people should learn more about
such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware
of the many dramatically different shades
of opinion in the Muslim world. There are
too many lazy, unexamined assumptions
about Islam, which tends to be regarded
as an amorphous, monolithic entity.
Remarks such as "They hate our
freedom" may give some a righteous
glow, but they are not useful, because
they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous
analysis of who exactly "they" are.
The story of Qutb is also instructive as a
reminder that militant religiosity is often
the product of social, economic and
political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for
15 years in one of Nasser's vile
concentration camps, where he and
thousands of other members of the
Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to
physical and mental torture. He entered
the camp as a moderate, but the prison
made him a fundamentalist. Modern
secularism, as he had experienced it under
Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal
assault on faith.
Precise intelligence is essential in any
conflict. It is important to know who our
enemies are, but equally crucial to know
who they are not. It is even more vital to
avoid turning potential friends into foes.
By making the disciplined effort to name
our enemies correctly, we will learn more
about them, and come one step nearer,
perhaps, to solving the seemingly
intractable and increasingly perilous
problems of our divided world.
Karen Armstrong: The Label of Catholic Terror Was Never Used About The IRA
=============================
Hidden Agenda?
