International Relations theories and Islamic Terrorism
C. Nelson
Explain why Realism, Liberalism and World System Theory (IR THEORIES), fail to explain Islamic terrorism and why Idealism is a good approach to explain it. 2 pages ( I need references )
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:5oKac.25733$u_2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> Explain why Realism, Liberalism and World System Theory (IR THEORIES),
fail to explain Islamic terrorism and why Idealism is a good approach to
explain it. 2 pages ( I need references )
>
Sounds more like (I need homework)
1. There is no such thing as "Islamic Terrorism. Terrorism is not Islamic.
(Though I admit the term **might** make sense to those Iraqis suffering
under Western Democracy Dictatorship.)
2. While the terrorist acts the west calls "Islamic terrorism" **may** have
been committed by Muslims, they are secular political/military responses to
secular political/military decisions by the west.
G. Waleed Kavalec
Count 1
> 1. There is no such thing as "Islamic Terrorism.
Yes there is. It is terrorism justified using Islamic injunctions. Here is
an example:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
"All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear
declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have
throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an
individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was
revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-
Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his
books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending
sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred
than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
...and...
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and
military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any
country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa
Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to
move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any
Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the
pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until
there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith
in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not
fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and
oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this
town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will
help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes
to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder
their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim
ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S.
troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those
who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His
Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that
God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall
all be gathered."
Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that
when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to
the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little
is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go
forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your
place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all
things
....
And this is but one example - albeit a rather prominent one. Notice the
Islamic injunctions? Notice the quotes from the Quran? Notice how he uses
them to frame his call to war in such a way muslims - and only muslims -
will find validity in them?
Hence the term 'Islamic Terrorism'.
> Terrorism is not Islamic.
Anything can be Islamic - its a total way of life afterall. Look into the
edicts and arguments coming from Al-Azhar, Quttb, and Azzam over the last
several decades. Not only is it Islamic Terrorism, its not even a new
phenomenon.
> (Though I admit the term **might** make sense to those Iraqis suffering
> under Western Democracy Dictatorship.)
What is 'Western Democracy Dictatorship'? I've taken a lot of Poli Sci and
never heard the term before.
The term makes sense for all those people not hindered by religion and can
see the facts as they are presented.
> 2. While the terrorist acts the west calls "Islamic terrorism" **may**
have
> been committed by Muslims, they are secular political/military responses
to
> secular political/military decisions by the west.
Nope - there is nothing 'secular' about the terrorism being committed
against the west by muslims. All of it is dependent on very religous
arguments. Why do you think a Saudi living in Afghanistan wants to kill
American's to avenge Palestinians? Do you think he would feel that way if
Palestinians were christians? (more than the few who are now)
Altway
"Count 1" <omni...@yahoob.com> wrote in message
news:c54a8a$2oc9ap$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > 1. There is no such thing as "Islamic Terrorism.
> Yes there is. It is terrorism justified using Islamic injunctions. Here
is an example:
> "All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear
> declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims.
Comment:-
Self-defence and retaliation are not terrorism.
But aggresors could call these terrorism.
And they may create propoganda to brainwash their people to think so.
And some actions that are not so might be mistaken for self-defence and
terrorism.
Do American think that the US government is a Terrorst organisation?
Does the US have weapons of mass destruction? Are there US bases all over
the world threatening all countries? Are they not there to promote US
Political and Economic interests to the detriment of those of the other
countries. Have US Political and Economic policy not impoverished many
peoples world wide, spreading ignorance and disease and killed and maimed
millions? Have they not supported, financed and set up dictators tyrants and
terrorist organisations world wide and provoked the arising of others in
retaliation. Have they not destabilised and overthrown many governments and
sabotaged almost all world conferences that tried to improve world
conditions in respect of polution, climate, poverty, health and human
rights? Do Americans really think that these are acts of civilisation,
democracy and freedom and that they are champions of them. An increasing
number of people believe the reverse is the case. No the US government is
the greatest terrorist organisation and there is no war against terrorism,
but only between terrorists. The world conditions are likely to get worse
and will not improve unless the US government is destroyed or its policies
are radically reformed.
We see that those who run the US government still insist on making
propoganda speeches even when giving evidence before committees that are
looking for truth. They are still talking about terrorists that hate
freedom, democracy and attack civilisation in order to brain wash the
American Public. But if they believe their own propoganda can they really
solve problems when they are unable to see the truth.
Hamid S. Aziz
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:c54a8a$2oc9ap$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Yes there is. It is terrorism justified using Islamic injunctions.
Those who want to invent their own languages, Count, can call
apple pie "fruit genocide" if they want, but in order to be able
to communicate with others we need agreed-upon terms.
You have chosen to define the word "Islamic" your way.
We Muslims don't accept your definition, we don't recognize
any authority by you or in you to tell us what is or is not
Islam or "Islamic".
And that applies not just to you but to your western financed
agent provocateur groups such as those you quote.
G. Waleed Kavalec
------------------------
http://www.kavalec.com/path_to_islam.htm
Count 1
> > > 1. There is no such thing as "Islamic Terrorism.
> > Yes there is.
> Those who want to invent their own languages, Count, can call
> apple pie "fruit genocide" if they want, but in order to be able
> to communicate with others we need agreed-upon terms.
I agree. Islamic terrorism is an agreed upon term Greg. It appears only a
few people on Usenet seem to think otherwise.
> You have chosen to define the word "Islamic" your way.
Nope. Islamic means of or pertaining to Islam. Islamic terrorism is a term
used to describe terrorism conducted by people justifying their acts on
Islamic injunctions.
> We Muslims don't accept your definition,
Its not my definition.
we don't recognize
> any authority by you or in you to tell us what is or is not
> Islam or "Islamic".
Your loss. ;-)
> And that applies not just to you but to your western financed
> agent provocateur groups such as those you quote.
OBL is not 'western financed' Greg. OBL got his money as part of an
inheritance from his wealthy father and became a very prominent businessman
with it - largely in the business of warfare and construction.
I'm not really sure what your issue here is Greg. Why can't you accept the
term 'Islamic Terrorism'? It doesn't mean Islam necessarily leads to
terrorism or that even the interpretations the muslim terrorists use are
valid. You don't do yourself any favours by putting forward the notion that
one of the most prevalent geopolitical forces in the world today simply
'doesn't exist'.
Zuiko Azumazi
"Altway" <hsa...@ftiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4077b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Count 1" <omni...@yahoob.com> wrote in message
> news:c54a8a$2oc9ap$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "there is no war against terrorism, but only between terrorists."
<snip>
Questions:-
If "terrorism" is defined as "the systematic use of violence as a means to
intimidate or coerce societies or governments" then the foregoing
proposition is self-evident, is it not? Therefore, is the "systematic use of
violence" justified or legitimate? Don't all sovereign governments, Islamic
or otherwise, have a monopoly on the 'legitimate' use of violence to coerce
their citizens or declare war on an enemy? Surely, the critical issue is can
individuals, or militant groups (movements), within any society, Muslim or
otherwise, vitiate these sole 'legitimacy rights'?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Count 1
Motivations don't make terrorism. Actions do. 9/11 was neither self
defense nor retaliatory.
> Do American think that the US government is a Terrorst organisation?
Since it isn't, why would they?
The world conditions are likely to get worse
> and will not improve unless the US government is destroyed or its policies
> are radically reformed.
Not based on that error filled rant of psuedo information. Innuendoes - no
matter how largely grouped - don't make good arguments.
Radical reformation of US policies might see no more support for muslims in
Egypt, Jordan, or other nations. It might also mean Afghanistan would be
allowed to slip back into barbarism at the hands of the Taliban (whose
existence categorically proves Islamic terrorism to be a fact).
(to get back on point) Islamic terrorism is simply terrorism predicated,
justified, and motivated by Islamic injunctions. Its a real and viable geo
political force, and saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous.
You seem to think terrorism can be justified. However you have this opinion
based on very little real knowledge of 'US bases', 'sabotaging' world
conferences, and 'overthrowing leaders'. In fact it looks like you're
merely blindly repeating what other people have told you rather than
research their information to see if it is accurate.
Its not. But maybe I'm just being overly 'brainwashed'? ;-)
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407b3bd4$0$16965$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > "there is no war against terrorism, but only between terrorists."
> Questions:-
> If "terrorism" is defined as "the systematic use of violence as a means to
intimidate or coerce societies or governments" then the foregoing
proposition is self-evident, is it not? Therefore, is the "systematic use
of violence" justified or legitimate? Don't all sovereign governments,
Islamic
or otherwise, have a monopoly on the 'legitimate' use of violence to coerce
their citizens or declare war on an enemy? Surely, the critical issue is
can individuals, or militant groups (movements), within any society, Muslim
or
otherwise, vitiate these sole 'legitimacy rights'?
Comment:-
Nonsense.
Islam does not differentiate between personal and communal.
There is always a human person who makes the decision and
human individuals who carry out actions.
This is an objective fact
(So do not speak about different value systems being equally valid.)
Crimes are crimes.
Islam allows retaliation, self-defence and opposition to oppressors
not aggression.
The idea that nations or corporations can act as responsible bodies
are excuses made by Western criminals to cover up their crimes.
This includes Bush and Blair and their supporters.
It would also include any other person who behaves that way
even if he professed to be Muslim.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Count 1" <omni...@yaboob.com> wrote in message
news:c5h600$1j4m0$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Self-defence and retaliation are not terrorism.
> Motivations don't make terrorism. Actions do. 9/11 was neither self
defense nor retaliatory.
Comment:-
You are mistaken.
Compare the action of a surgeon and an assasin both using knieves.
Terrorism has the purpose of creating terror and intimidating
people.
The reason why criminals are hunted, tried and punished
is not to create terror in them though these actions certainly
produce this result.
No, I do not approve of people rationalising and deceiving themselves with
words as you would have us do.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
> Nope. Islamic means of or pertaining to Islam. Islamic terrorism is a
term
used to describe terrorism conducted by people justifying their acts on
Islamic injunctions.
Comment:-
Islam is a teaching. The Quran where this teaching is found,
does not advocate terrorism.
On the contrary it teaches opposing tyranny and oppression.
But terrorism is certainly practiced by the American in Iraq and
elsewhere throughout the world.
Those who oppose this US terrorism are not terrorists, except by
the definition of the terrorists who project their own guilt.
Their whole media are broadcasting this propoganda to brain wash
their own people.
Is it not remarkeable that when they speak of Western campaigns
to kill then it is US, Italian, British etc troops
But when they speak of the opposition they do not speak
of Iraqis but of Islamic Sunni or Islamic Shias.
Is there any justice or logic in comparing likes with unlikes?
(nationality with religion)
It is like measuring one thing with inches and another with centimeters
or even in litres.
But the propogandists are not ashamed of their stupidities.
Can people with such stupidity solve world problems?
Hamid S. Aziz
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:c5f3tq$vk1s$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm not really sure what your issue here is Greg. Why can't you accept
the
> term 'Islamic Terrorism'?
I'll accept the term as soon as your western media consistently refer to the
KKK and other similar simian groups as the Christian Terrorists they are.
Don't expect that too soon, do you?
Well, until then, take your 'Islamic Terrorism' nonsense over to
alt.religion.islam. We don't need you here.
Kavalec
G. Waleed Kavalec
[..]
> > Do American think that the US government is a Terrorst organisation?
>
> Since it isn't, why would they?
Because you're wrong and it is?
Any organization that knowingly kills civilians to atain political ends is a
terrorist organization.
The Mad Cowboy and his attacks on Muslim countries has crossed this line.
(PS: born in Cleveland, Ohio)
--
Peace and Blessings
Zuiko Azumazi
>
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407b3bd4$0$16965$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Comment:-
> Nonsense.
> Islam does not differentiate between personal and communal.
Questions:-
In your opinion is there an Islamic society [Muslims collectively and their
civilisation] or not? If not, what term would you use to describe Muslims
collectively? Or are you inferring that the term 'Islamic' does not exist?
Surely, it's a "nonsense" to confuse the two distinct meanings. For
instance, what term would describe the 'State', created at the advent of
Islam, other than the common 'Islamic' term? Is there another?
You still haven't answered the "legitimate" use of violence question,
unambiguously.
> There is always a human person who makes the decision and
> human individuals who carry out actions.
> This is an objective fact
Comment:-
That is self-evident, Muslim or otherwise.
> (So do not speak about different value systems being equally valid.)
Questions:-
Who is? That is your inference isn't it? Sovereign "States" are "States",
they are abstract entities, are they not? What "value" systems people or
communities adopt within any particular "State" is up to them, isn't it? Or
are you inferring that the 'no compulsion' injunction is now invalid?
> Crimes are crimes.
Questions:-
"Crimes are crimes" only under the 'legitimate' laws of the of the
respective "State" in which a person resides, are they not? For instance,
breaking Islamic injunctions is not a 'criminal' offence in some "States",
but it is (generally) in Islamic ones, even then there are significant
variations, wouldn't you agree? Only "crimes" against humanity would appear
to be universally applicable, although, some would debate even this!
> Islam allows retaliation, self-defence and opposition to oppressors
> not aggression.
Questions:-
Didn't the Islamic State, at its inception, indulge in conquest, expansion
and colonisation or is this a historical myth? If not, wouldn't you consider
this as "aggression"? If not, what would you call it? How can 'warfare' [an
active struggle between competing entities] be considered non-aggression is
a completely 'nonsensical', isn't it?
Saqib Virk
>
> Islamic terrorism is an agreed upon term Greg.
SV
A term invented by and agreed upon by those biased against Muslims and
Islam. A tiny minority of Muslims have made it possible for the biased to
get away with using the term.
> OBL is not 'western financed' Greg.
SV
Probably he was to some degree but certainly not anymore. They did help him
along and provided a great deal of "terror" training for him and his
compatriots while they were fighting against the Russians.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Altway
> > Nonsense.
Islam does not differentiate between personal and communal.
> Questions:-
In your opinion is there an Islamic society [Muslims collectively and their
civilisation] or not? If not, what term would you use to describe Muslims
collectively? Or are you inferring that the term 'Islamic' does not exist?
Comment:-
I am sorry to see that as noted before you are getting lost in words
again.
I am speaking about ethics not about words.
I am sure others can understand this quite well.
To repeat
Even when a community undetakes an action:-
There is always a human person who makes the decision and
human individuals who carry out actions.
This is an objective fact.
They are responsible.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
> > Nonsense.
Islam does not differentiate between personal and communal.
> Questions:-
In your opinion is there an Islamic society [Muslims collectively and their
civilisation] or not? If not, what term would you use to describe Muslims
collectively? Or are you inferring that the term 'Islamic' does not exist?
Comment:-
I am sorry to see that as noted before you are getting lost in words
again.
I am speaking about ethics not about words.
I am sure others can understand this quite well.
To repeat
Even when a community undetakes an action:-
There is always a human person who makes the decision and
human individuals who carry out actions.
This is an objective fact.
They are responsible.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Count 1
> the term 'Islamic Terrorism'?
> I'll accept the term as soon as your western media consistently refer to
the
> KKK and other similar simian groups as the Christian Terrorists they are.
Why? What difference would it make?
> Don't expect that too soon, do you?
No, and for many reasons; not the least of which I don't see terrorism being
justified on Christian arguments.
> Well, until then, take your 'Islamic Terrorism' nonsense over to
> alt.religion.islam. We don't need you here.
Its not nonsense Greg, its a geo political reality and as long as you
continue to deny its existence I will remind you it is a real fact.
Personally I don't care one way or the other, as an agnostic I'm unimpressed
with arguments useing the quran and hadith to justify *anything*. But many
muslims - not just a few and in some cases even the terrorists themselves -
agree with the term. Their terrorism is being conducted because they see it
as justified according to their religion.
Certainly there are other reasons, Islam isn't the only thing needed to turn
one into a soldier for allah. But it is a factor, and stating it isn't
doesn't do anyone any good.
Count 1
> Any organization that knowingly kills civilians to atain political ends is
a
> terrorist organization.
Nope. To state such means any government who has ever engaged in a war for
any reason is a terrorist organization. Terrorism is a much newer term
used to describe a certain kind of violence, typically political in nature,
criminal in structure, and unpredictable in application.
> The Mad Cowboy and his attacks on Muslim countries has crossed this line.
What line? And since there are only two muslim countries bush has attacked
are you suggesting the bombing and regime removal of the taliban were
unwarranted?
I'm with you on Iraq - that was a mistake and he will pay dearly for it in
November. Since he has crossed 'this line' is it justifiable for a
mujahadeen to commit terrorism on US soil?
Or would this 'transgress limits'?
Count 1
> does not advocate terrorism.
The Quran can be used to advocate *anything* - including terrorism. It is a
book of metaphor and allusion, and as such it can be interpreted in any
number of different ways.
> On the contrary it teaches opposing tyranny and oppression.
Does it also teach identifying tyranny and oppression? Seems like that
would be a good first step.
> But terrorism is certainly practiced by the American in Iraq and
> elsewhere throughout the world.
Nope. Terrorism is not war. Terrorism has the quality of being
unpredictable.
> Those who oppose this US terrorism are not terrorists, except by
> the definition of the terrorists who project their own guilt.
> Their whole media are broadcasting this propoganda to brain wash
> their own people.
When are you going to elevate your arguments above this tired 'the whole
world is being brainwashed by the media' routine? Those who oppose US
'terrorism' are not terrorists until they conduct terrorism.
And if they conduct said terrorism because they believe they are 'fighting
for allah' then they are Islamic terrorists.
thebit
Perhaps you can tell us who "agreed" the use of this term?
Thanks.
Abdus Salaam
Count 1
> Islam. A tiny minority of Muslims have made it possible for the biased to
> get away with using the term.
Biases have nothing to do with it. Its a simple statement of fact.
Any ethical code attempts to control impulsive behaviour, and as such sets
out the right conditions for the taking of life. This is no different in
Islam - where radical and militant clerics have set the conditions for
killing civilians based on Islamic injunctions.
And its not a secret. Its a well researched geopolitical phenomenom.
> Probably he was to some degree but certainly not anymore.
He never was - however his movement was helped. OBL has stated
categorically the US never helped him and he's never worked for them.
Calling them 'western financed agent provocateurs' perpetuates the myth that
muslims can only accomplish something if foriegners and non muslims help.
Saqib Virk
> > Self-defence and retaliation are not terrorism.
>
> Motivations don't make terrorism. Actions do. 9/11 was neither self
> defense nor retaliatory.
SV
George Bush would probably call it a pre-emptive strike. Bush's counterpart
on the other side, Osama, would probably call it retaliation for American
aggression in Muslim lands. Both men are fools.
> > Do American think that the US government is a Terrorst organisation?
>
> Since it isn't, why would they?
SV
Two groups may be free to declare one another terrorists even though they
both employ similar tactics.
> Radical reformation of US policies might see no more support for
> muslims in Egypt, Jordan, or other nations. It might also mean
> Afghanistan would be allowed to slip back into barbarism at the
> hands of the Taliban (whose existence categorically proves Islamic
> terrorism to be a fact).
SV
It was American policies, in large part, that helped create the Taliban. The
Americans were quite busy in helping produce a twisted version of Islam to
teach the young of Afghanistan so they would fight the Russians. It is
exactly that twisted version of Islam that led to the WTC bombings. In all
likelihood the WTC bombers trained at American built or supported bases in
Afghanistan and they learned a version of Islam created and/or pushed by the
American government.
> You seem to think terrorism can be justified. However you have
> this opinion based on very little real knowledge of 'US bases',
> 'sabotaging' world conferences, and 'overthrowing leaders'. In
> fact it looks like you're merely blindly repeating what other
> people have told you rather than research their information to
> see if it is accurate.
>
> Its not. But maybe I'm just being overly 'brainwashed'? ;-)
SV
Yes, that appears to be the case. As we can see the world over, many people
are easily brainwashed by their media and/or leaders. Those, like yourself,
who already hold hatred in their hearts towards a particular group of people
are especially susceptible to brainwashing.
--
Saqib Virk
Denis Giron
> > I'm not really sure what your issue here is Greg. Why can't you accept
> > the term 'Islamic Terrorism'?
>
> I'll accept the term as soon as your western media consistently refer to the
> KKK and other similar simian groups as the Christian Terrorists they are.
>
> Don't expect that too soon, do you?
The KKK is an interesting analogy, though I wonder if the KKK is as
close to mainstream Christianity as terrorist groups like al-Qaida or
Sipah-e-Sahaba are to mainstream Islam. Nonetheless, I think your
objection is very appropriate in response to Count, who has in the
past tried to even cite the actions of John Allen Muhammad and Lee
Malvo (the two snipers) as examples of Islamic terror (they were five
percenters!). KKKers have far more in common with Christianity than
Five Percenters do with Islam. However, it seems calling the KKK a
Christian organization is analogous to calling the NOI an Islamic
organization (and before I am accused of contradicting myself, let me
note that I do recognize clear doctrinal differences between Five
Percenters and the NOI - while there is considerable overlap between
the two, I consider the former to be even less Islamic in doctrine
than the latter, as strange as that may sound to Muslims).
I think that "Islamic terrorist" is a very sensible term if it refers
to Orthodox Muslims who commit acts of terror with a distinctly
Islamic slant being at least part of their motivation. A similar
locution and definition could be constructed to recognize Christian
and Jewish terrorists. Does the media recognize authentic Christian or
Jewish terrorists? It does not seem to do so, though they do exist (an
easy example of a Jewish terrorist group could be Kach or Kahane Chai,
both of which are recognized as terrorist organizations by the State
Department - and a clear example of a Christian terrorist organization
would be the National Liberation Front of Tripura in India's
North-East).
Now, I don't mean that any person who is both a Muslim and a terrorist
is automatically a Muslim terrorist. There may be Muslims who commit
acts of terror but do so without any connection to [their
interpretation of] Islam (the 70s gave us a few examples with
Palestinian secular organizations made up of Christians, Muslims and
Marxists). So, on this model, Orlando Bosch ("El Bin Laden Cubano" as
my father's favorite periodical refers to him), who is both a
Christian and a terrorist, is not a Christian terrorist. If he
converted to Islam and continued to commit acts of terror, he would
not be a Muslim terrorist either. It is when the terror becomes
distinctly Islamic in nature or tone (as is the case with
Sipah-e-Sahaba, or the Ikhwaan) that it becomes open to the title of
"Islamic terror".
So, Greg, would you be willing to allow a person to use the term
"Islamic terrorist" if they use it in a somewhat consistent manner
(i.e. they also recognize the Jewish terrorists in the JTF and Kach as
"Jewish terrorists," and recognize the Christian terrorists in Tripura
as "Christian terrorists")?
-Denis Giron
Count 1
> Perhaps you can tell us who "agreed" the use of this term?
Many people. Far too many to list. Do an advanced Google search on the
exact phrase 'islamic terrorism and have fun reading through the 56K plus
hits you get.
You'll find the term is used widely used. One of my favourite articles
discussing it is found here:
http://www.angelfire.com/or3/tss2/islterror.html
Which makes one of the most wholistic attempts to describe the phenomenon
I've seen online.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:b1b492dd.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > Islamic terrorism is an agreed upon term Greg.
>
> Perhaps you can tell us who "agreed" the use of this term?
People incapable of understanding Islam.
Obviously.
--
Peace and Blessings
Count 1
> George Bush would probably call it a pre-emptive strike. Bush's
counterpart
> on the other side, Osama, would probably call it retaliation for American
> aggression in Muslim lands. Both men are fools.
I don't even know what to do with 'Bush's counterpart', its just too far
'out there' to be taken seriously. It did cause a good chuckle though. So I
guess a thanks are in order.
So you disagree with Altway that 9/11 was defensive and retaliatory?
> Yes, that appears to be the case. As we can see the world over, many
people
> are easily brainwashed by their media and/or leaders. Those, like
yourself,
> who already hold hatred in their hearts towards a particular group of
people
> are especially susceptible to brainwashing.
When are you gonna get off the cross Mr. Virk? I don't hold hate in my
heart for muslims - only for Islamism and Islamic Terrorism. Muslims are
people who need help to liberate themselves from their ideological prison,
but that's just my opinion and certainly not my purposes on this board.
If you need to rely on abstract, unsupportable, and highly spurious
allegations like 'brainwashed' then quite possibly you don't have a case in
the first place?
Maybe you should consider that sometime.
Count 1
> People incapable of understanding Islam.
Including Stephen Scwartz? He's a western convert like you. He writes
extensively on the phenomenon.
Are you saying he's incapable of understanding Islam?
I'm of the impression that people who think Islam cannot be used to justify
terrorisim are the ones incapable of understanding Islam.
Count 1
> objection is very appropriate in response to Count, who has in the
> past tried to even cite the actions of John Allen Muhammad and Lee
> Malvo (the two snipers) as examples of Islamic terror (they were five
> percenters!).
Everyone makes mistakes. However one must agree that on the surface they
certainly created that profile. Plus I'm still not fully convinced 5
percenters don't represent a form of Islamism. Certainly its a sect with
common roots and certainly those two terrorists fit the description of
Islamic Terrorist with the possible small exception calling their adherence
of Islam into doubt.
Altway
> The Quran can be used to advocate *anything* - including terrorism. It is
a book of metaphor and allusion, and as such it can be interpreted in any
number of different ways.
Comment:-
Statements based on ignorance and prejudice cannot be regarded
as intelligent or virtuous.
There is nothing ambiguous about the following:-
"Fight in the Cause of Allah with those who fight you, but transgress not
the limits (or begin not hostilities); verily, Allah loves not those who
transgress (or the aggressors)." 2:190
But as you have indicated, you use the word "terrorism" subjectively.
That is : any action that opposes your interets or prejudices no matter how
unethial is a terrorist. All fighters against a nations aggression are
"terrorists."
Some of us use words more intelligently.
But then we know about the negativistic mentality of "Count 1"
from all his postings -
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
> > Any organization that knowingly kills civilians to atain political ends
is a terrorist organization.
> Nope. To state such means any government who has ever engaged in a war
for any reason is a terrorist organization.
Comment:-
Yes it is a terrorist organisation if it terrorises innocent people who have
not attacked the country of which it is the government. They are criminal
organisations.
> Terrorism is a much newer term
used to describe a certain kind of violence, typically political in nature,
criminal in structure, and unpredictable in application.
Comment:-
Words are either invented and used objectively to refer to something real
or else they are used subjectively to justify prejudices, self-interest,
fantasy, to hide criminal intentions, create propoganda and brain wash
people
and so on..
Objectively, "terrorism" means the activities that create terror.
This activity is justified only if directed against criminal who also
indulge in terrorism in order to stop it.
The word is used subjectively only by criminals, the prejudiced
and the ignorant.
People who use wordsin this way to deceive themselves and others
cannot be expected to see real problems and cannot solve real problems.
They can only make things worse.
Hamid S. Aziz
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:bac0a2be.04041...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> So, Greg, would you be willing to allow a person to use the term
> "Islamic terrorist" if they use it in a somewhat consistent manner
> (i.e. they also recognize the Jewish terrorists in the JTF and Kach as
> "Jewish terrorists," and recognize the Christian terrorists in Tripura
> as "Christian terrorists")?
Denis
If you need a current real-world example of Christian Terrorists,
right here in the US how about those who bomb abortion clinics
and/or murder the associated doctors?
The media NEVER refers to them by that title, and until that kind
of fair reporting is seen I will continue to take the term "Islamic
Terrorist" and throw it back in the faces of those who use it.
Peace
G.
Zuiko Azumazi
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407de3f9$0$442$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > Nonsense.
> Islam does not differentiate between personal and communal.
> > Questions:-
> In your opinion is there an Islamic society [Muslims collectively and
their
> civilisation] or not? If not, what term would you use to describe Muslims
> collectively? Or are you inferring that the term 'Islamic' does not
exist?
> Comment:-
> I am sorry to see that as noted before you are getting lost in words
> again.
Comment and Questions:-
Are you inferring that SRI subscribers should stop using "words"? Now that's
an original thought [changing the subject in the process]! Or, perhaps, the
implication is that we, Muslim or otherwise, should only use your "words",
ideas and concepts regarding Islam? You have often ardently advocated that
Islam values "mutual consultation", how can this be accomplished without
"words"?
Surely, the "medium is the message" in the newsgroup environment, I would
have thought that was self-evident to Muslims and others alike, am I wrong
again?
Your 'accusation' reminds me of this allegory; "The great [Islamic] scholars
were indeed far above the coterie of pedants; but the schoolmasters
[mullahs] who adopted their ideals were not. And what is a pedant? 'A man
who has got rid of his brains to make room for his learning'."
> I am speaking about ethics not about words.
Question:-
How do you express "ethical" problems", Islamic or otherwise, without
"words? Although, I'm not adverse to a serious debate about 'ethical
problems' and its concomitant theories, such as; meta-ethics, goodness,
conduct, et al, I don't think that this is the appropriate forum, or that
the 'moderators' would sanction such a wide-ranging 'philosophical'
discussion.
> I am sure others can understand this quite well.
Question:-
Putting 'condescension' aside you mean?
> To repeat
Comment:-
To "repeat" could be construed as 'pedantry'!
Count 1
> right here in the US how about those who bomb abortion clinics
> and/or murder the associated doctors?
Sure. If they are justifying their terrorism through christian teachings.
To do any less would be hypocritical.
But it wouldn't be done here and it wouldn't change the facts. Ironically,
recognizing Christian Terrorism makes denying Islamic Terrorism virtually
impossible.
So why the resistance?
> The media NEVER refers to them by that title, and until that kind
> of fair reporting is seen I will continue to take the term "Islamic
> Terrorist" and throw it back in the faces of those who use it.
What difference does 'fair reporting' make? Why do you need 'fair
reporting' to percieve the geopolitical reality of Islamic Terrorism?
I'm not sure you're convinced of you argument Greg.
Denis Giron
> If you need a current real-world example of Christian Terrorists,
> right here in the US how about those who bomb abortion clinics
> and/or murder the associated doctors?
I think that is a fine example, and is certainly one I overlooked.
Thanks for brining it up!
> The media NEVER refers to them by that title, and until that kind
> of fair reporting is seen I will continue to take the term "Islamic
> Terrorist" and throw it back in the faces of those who use it.
It would seem it would be better to throw it back in the faces of
those who employ the term inconsistently (i.e. they recognize members
of groups like al-Qaida or Sipah-e-Sahaba as "Islamic terrorists," but
don't recognize Christians who bomb abortion clinics as "Christian
terrorists").
Nonetheless, above you yourself basically conceded that such Christian
terrorists can accurately be called "Christian terrorists," which I
take to mean you consider the term sensible in some way. Now, I and
others realize that you do not mean to imply that Christianity is
therefore a "terrorist religion" or "religion of terror," and I
realize that you never extended this categorization to the general
Christian population. It was simply a recognition that Christian
terrorists do exist. I also realize that others may misuse the term.
Well, the same sort of approach can be applied to the notion of
Islamic terrorists. Admittedly, many misuse the term, and, unlike you,
extend the notion of terrorist to the religious community as a whole,
or to the religion itself. Indeed, some people misapply the term
"Islamic terrorist" as well as apply it inconsistently. Nonetheless,
the term itself is not devoid of value, nor is it nonsensical. As
Saqib Virk conceded elsewhere in this thread, there are,
unfortunately, Muslims (and Christians!) who are all too willing to
engage in activities that make the label of religious terrorist apply
to them.
Count 1
> as intelligent or virtuous.
We agree.
> There is nothing ambiguous about the following:-
> "Fight in the Cause of Allah with those who fight you, but transgress not
> the limits (or begin not hostilities); verily, Allah loves not those who
> transgress (or the aggressors)." 2:190
Until specific descriptions of what a 'fight' is and what a 'limit' is then
this passage is highly ambiguous.
> But as you have indicated, you use the word "terrorism" subjectively.
> That is : any action that opposes your interets or prejudices no matter
how
> unethial is a terrorist. All fighters against a nations aggression are
> "terrorists."
You'll have to reproduce the specific event were I have ever said something
like that. Terrorism is not subjective, however many people use different
interpretations of it. My interpretation (which I have stated several times
before) is it must include a level of unpredictability. Bush declaring war
on Iraq is not
'terrorism' (anymore than all wars can be called that) because it wasn't a
surprise.
> But then we know about the negativistic mentality of "Count 1"
> from all his postings -
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
Count 1
> This activity is justified only if directed against criminal who also
> indulge in terrorism in order to stop it.
Ummm.....what?
Terrorism - as used in this context and generally accepted when discussing
current world events - does not mean 'activities that create terror'.
> People who use wordsin this way to deceive themselves and others
> cannot be expected to see real problems and cannot solve real problems.
> They can only make things worse.
Yes, I completely and utterly agree with you. There is not one inch of
daylight between our positions here. However I'm not convinced you are
quite 'there' yet. You just supplied a definition of terrorism which seems
to fit the description of 'wordspin'. A definition so oblique, vague, and
abstract it would be completely useless in helping us 'solve real problems'.
The way to combat Islamic Terrorism - IMHO - is by elevating the concepts of
Islamic human rights, Islamic democracy, Islamic justice, Islamic education,
and the Islamic economic system to the levels represented by the west.
If there are foriegn impediments to that process terrorism is not an
adequate response. Based on evil it is ultimately self defeating.
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Count...
> Everyone makes mistakes.
Indeed.
> However one must agree that on the surface they
> certainly created that profile.
On the surface, they certainly gave the impression of fitting that
profile to those who are deeply unfamiliar with the stark differences
between a Muslim and a Five Percenter (despite the fact that they may
have a few catch phrases or words in common, such as "Islam" or
"Allah"). That such a prima facie experience was a very real
possibility for those unaware of this dichotomy can be seen in the
fact that journalists like Michelle Malkin came to the same
conclusions (actually Malkin was one of the key players in pushing
this notion that John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo were "jihadists"
based on Malvo's sketches praising Saddam Hussayn or Qaddafee with the
words "jihad" or "allah" etched across them). Nonetheless, despite all
this, the fact remains that calling Five Percenters "Muslims" is even
more absurd than Kevalec's analogy of calling KKKers "Christians" (as
far removed from Christianity as the KKK may be, they still are more
Christian in nature/doctrine than Five Percenters are Islamic).
> Plus I'm still not fully convinced 5
> percenters don't represent a form of Islamism. Certainly its a sect with
> common roots and certainly those two terrorists fit the description of
> Islamic Terrorist with the possible small exception calling their adherence
> of Islam into doubt.
First of all, a person who is not convinced that Five Percenters are
drastically outside the scope of Islam would only hold to such a
position because they are totally unfamiliar with Five Percenters. The
philosopher Brett Neichin once joked that Five Percenters are, far
from being Monotheists of any sort, more akin to "militant Black
Nationalist Pantheists".
For them, "Islam" is simply the affirmation of the divinity of every
"God" (i.e. every African American male, or "original man") in that
I-S-L-A-M is really an acronym for "I Self Lord Am Master". It has
nothing to do with a fourteen hundred year old religion centered
around submission to God, much less the Arabic root aslama. Their
Islam, they will claim, is the Islam that has existed before all time,
the way of life and divine mathematics of the Nation of Gods and
Earths (i.e. African American males and females, or "original
people").
What about "Allah"? Is this the God that, according to Muslims, was
worshipped by Ibrahim? Five Percenters would say that ALLAH has
nothing to do with "the mystery god" (or "spook god") worshipped in
the "false Islam" propagaged by "the pale Arabs," but is rather
another affirmation of the divinity of each God, or a confirmation of
the Five Percenter proclamation (which Muslims would recognize as
clear shirk) that "the Black Man is Allah and Allah is every Black
Man." How is this confirmed? Well, because ALLAH has nothing to do
with some alif-lam-haa Semitic root for divinity/worship, but is an
acronym for "arm-leg-leg-arm-head" - i.e. a clear affirmation that
Allah is a man.
While they may be hard to find in your area, you could confirm all
this by discussing this with a Five Percenter. I know this simply
because there are a lot of them here in New York (the movement
originated in Manhattan, which they call "Mecca"), some of my friends
are Five Percenters. Admittedly their doctrine is wacky (and often
ill-defined). For an interesting bit on the Five Percenters, consider
the following "Middle East Report" article (though it focuses mainly
on their contribution to rape music):
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer224/224_aidi.html
[scroll down to the part covering the disagreement between Adisa
Banjoko and the 5%er "Ibn Dajjal"]
Furthermore, there are no common roots between the Five Percenter cult
and Islam. There was no time in history in which some Muslim or group
of Muslims deviated from main stream Islam and became Five Percenters.
The reality is that the Five Percenter cult was created in what was
essentially an Islamic vacuum. The Five Percenter group (henceforth
referred by the term they prefer: 5%NGE - "Five Percent Nation of Gods
and Earths") was an offshoot of the NOI, which was ultimately formed
by Fard Muhammad as some sort of con in the 30s. How much Fard
Muhammad was a Muslim is unknown, but he basically dropped a doctrine
on Elijah Poole (who later became Elijah Muhammad) about some religion
called "Islam," which taught the truth about the cosmos - that African
Americans were Gods and so-called "white people" were devils created
by an evil scientist named Yacoub. The 5%NGE took the teachings even
further, and the group was created wholly and solely by a NOI member
named "Pudding" or Charles 13X. He was a high school drop out who
never practiced Islam, and almost never even experienced Islam (the
5%NGE was formed before the days when Orthodox Muslims started
missionizing to NOI members, and there were mass conversions of NOI
members and Five Percenters to Sunni Islam).
Finally, with regard to "calling their adherence of Islam into doubt,"
that is more than a "small exception". If they do not adhere to Islam
in any sense (and they certainly do not!), how can you sensibly call
them "Islamic terrorists" (assuming they are terrorists), or even
"Islamic" in any sense. If those who are not Islamic in the least can
be associated with Islam under your terminology, then your terminology
seems to loose all meaning. As I have told Kevalec, I think the term
"Islamic terrorist" (like "Christian terrorist" or "Jewish terrorist"
or "Hindu terrorist" or "Marxist terrorist") can be sensibly employed,
but I have to agree with his general complaint that many are misusing
this term (and one of the most disgusting instances being one where a
couple of mentally derranged Five Percenter criminals with a sniper
rifle are paraded around as another example of Islamic terror).
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:c5n91s$3nbsj$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Everyone makes mistakes. However one must agree that on the surface they
> certainly created that profile. Plus I'm still not fully convinced 5
> percenters don't represent a form of Islamism. Certainly its a sect with
> common roots and certainly those two terrorists fit the description of
> Islamic Terrorist with the possible small exception calling their
adherence
> of Islam into doubt.
There are no common roots.
Any serious study of NOI, to begin with, will uncover their origins as the
successful efforts of a con artist creating something he CALLED "Islam".
Later as more knowledgeable people got interested some verneer of
pseudo-Islam was painted over the whole thing. Of course, they plotted
their plots but Allah is the best plotter! W. Deen Mohammed broke the bulk
of NOI away and sent them in the direction of true Islam. NOI, a tool of
Iblis, had become a steppingstone to faith for millions. Alhamdilallah.
Your claim that there are "common roots" does nothing but give us a measure
of your own credibility. Not a very complimentary measurement, if that isn't
clear.
To go further and say the same of '5 percenters' is also Islam is yet just
another insult in our face. You are not convinced that a group that claims
"The Black Man is God" is not a form of Islam?
Well I AM convinced that no righteous Muslim should even respond to you in
this forum.
This is my last response to you, you are now in my blocklist along with Homo
E.
May Allah open you eyes before you die.
G. Waleed Kavalec
Altway
> > There is nothing ambiguous about the following:-
"Fight in the Cause of Allah with those who fight you, but transgress not
the limits (or begin not hostilities); verily, Allah loves not those who
transgress (or the aggressors)." 2:190
> Until specific descriptions of what a 'fight' is and what a 'limit' is
then
this passage is highly ambiguous.
Comment:-
I was not thinking about people who want to create
confusion by hair splitting, distortion and rationalisation.
This can be done and has been done about everything in all fields.
There are certainly several meanings to "fight" if you want
to distinguish between physical, verbal, military, political,
cultural, psychological and so on. But they all remain
within the notion of "fight".
The "limits" are those described in the Quran - retaliation, self-defence
opposing oppression.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Nasir Hannan
I have to disagree with you. The resistance to the Israeli state, the
resistance to Hindu occupation, the resistance to Russian intervention, the
resistance to American imperialsim are all halal assuming that the goal is
to remove the occupiers and establish the Law of Allah inshallah. The
Muslims that are fighting and becoming Shaheed are not doing this for
worldly gain. They are doing this for the pleasure of Allah. The acts are
naturally Islamic political and Military interventions in response to
secular acts by the Kuffar (disbelievers).
thebit
Which still doesn't tell us anything.
> Do an advanced Google search...
Many of these websites are also run by crack-pots and bigots. Or maybe
you're telling us something?
> One of my favourite articles...
What makes it "one of your favourite" articles, I wonder?
> Which makes one of the most wholistic attempts...
I've skimmed through the article. There are a few points I could bring
up, but what maks you think that reference to Weber's methods is
"wholistic"? What sort of "wholistic" approach doesn't even reference
a single "primary" text (Arabic, Persian, or even Urdu, i.e. "Muslim"
languages).
Some reading material I could recommend, which question the central
points of Weber's ideas (Europeans worshipped the "true" God, the
so-called "Protestant ethic", the rise of the merchant class, the
rationality of the West, etc.) are:
H. Gerber, _Islamic Law and Culture: 1600-1840_, 1999.
J. M. Blaut, _Eight Eurocentric Historians_, 2000.
A better article, discussing "terrorism", and also its supposed
relationship to "Islam", can be found at openDemocracy:
_Terrorism in historical perspective_ by Fred Haiilday
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-103-1865.jsp
Regards
Abdus Salaam
Zuiko Azumazi
"Nasir Hannan" <nasir....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:W2iic.245$G04...@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
<snip>
> The acts are naturally Islamic political and Military interventions in
response to
> secular acts by the Kuffar (disbelievers).
Comment and Questions:-
The original subject of this " International Relations theories and Islamic
Terrorism", isn't it? Do you think that "International Relations", Islamic
or otherwise has been, or is being, adequately covered in the responses, so
far?
For instance, is your foregoing presumption an " International Relations
Theory" or something else entirely?
As "thebit" suggests, perhaps you should investigate this "subject" more
thoroughly. I would, respectfully, suggest that you at least read some of
Fred Halliday's [Professor of International Relations at the London School
of Economics] other works, applicable to Islam and Muslims in general, such
as:
1) Arabia without Sultans.
2) Iran: Dictatorship and Development.
3) State and Ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan.
4) Revolution and Foreign Policy: The Case of South Yemen.
5) Arabs in Exile: Yemeni Migrants in Urban Britain.
All these erudite works give a 'balanced', 'objective' and 'intellectual'
overview of this specific "subject", that can never be attained in the
'emotional' newsgroup atmosphere.
At least give it a try.