Over the past year since I have been at Vox, I have had some fantastic dialogue with people of the Islamic faith and whenever I have been unsure about something, or I have had a query I have contacted some of the Muslims who post to Vox.  In each interaction I have come away feeling that I have learnt so much and I feel less threatened by the religion of Islam. 

 

That is not to say I am not concerned about the levels of violence we are seeing throughout the world, as I am and I am not alone in my concern, as many Muslims share my concerns.

The thought of any type of extremism taking over the world is not something I feel comfortable with and Islam is not alone as far as extremism is concerned. Religion is just one institution prone to extremism.   The thought of any religion or extreme political ideology being forced upon anyone is not something I agree with.   I also know that many of the actions of some western governments have actually helped the spread of Islamic extremism.

 

As someone who is not a Muslim, it is difficult not to fall into the trap of putting all Muslims into one basket, when we continually hear and see reports of Islamic clerics calling for violence against the likes of me.  However, I know there are good and bad people in all religions, so I know better than to make sweeping generalisations based on the actions of some. 

 

Anyway enough I my rambles, the people we need to hear from are the everyday Muslims in our communities.

 

 

 

2007 in response to the War on Terror and also in regards to speaking out.

 

Female Muslim UK:

 

Hi Chezza, just read your post and comments and thought i would contribute to your discussion. I am a Muslim living in the UK and like the majority of people watched the war on terror unfold right before my eyes via the world media; first it was Afghanistan then Iraq. Not a day goes by without Iraqi suicide bombings taking place and civilians and soldiers being killed. Approx 2 Million people marched the streets and i remember helping with the "Not in my name" banners for the demonstrations but it didnt do much good and the war is still going ahead despite the protests. Muslims unfortunately mistrust the government due to this and in the UK you are quite likely to be arrested under the Terrorism Act if you speak out, so the majority of Muslims would rather keep quiet than protest in fear of being labelled a terrorist which is a shame.

 

There is a constant barrage of Islamophobic articles which appear daily in the media which of course makes the problem of any dialogue worse. The government have Muslims spying on each other at mosques, Islamic gatherings etc and the moderate Muslim doesn’t have a platform in the media, only the extremists command centre stage!

 

What is the average Muslim supposed to do? I recently started to write to a female Muslim in prison accused of aiding terrorism but in the end i got so paranoid that the police would start investigating me i stopped communication.

 

The word Islam as u may know comes from the root word salam meaning peace. This is starting to become a cliche in itself, we are telling non-Muslims are religion means peace and all u see in the media is Muslims associated with killing people in terrorist acts! Islam does not condone killing another human being and is against all forms of killing (including abortion) and like another Muslim mentioned Jihad can only take place if certain conditions are met, even at war Muslims are not allowed to harm women and children, the elderly and surrounding wildlife (animals and even chop down trees), In islam you are allowed to defend yourself and your property.

 

I don t think as Muslims we can blame the West entirely for the problems Muslims face today, i personally think its down to their lack of understanding of Islam. We have Muslims who practice their religion once a week (during Jumuah) once a year (during Ramadan) or maybe once in their lifetime. They don’t fully understand what Islam is, they were born into a Muslim family but have mixed the teachings of Islam with their culture resulting in a distorted idea on what Islam is, leading to confusion. Parents are bringing their children up in different cultures and the children are getting confused and these people have nowhere to go, some of them abandon their religion, others turn to these extremist groups who take them in and teach them their own twisted view of Islam.

 

I would say never criticise the religion of Islam based on the actions of those who practise it, the teachings and religion itself is perfect but those (including myself) are prone to making mistakes and becoming forgetful and do not practise the religion properly leading to many of the problems we face today. Everything is down to knowledge, which the Qur'an encourages us to seek knowledge so did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

 

As for the Power of Nightmares i managed to watch that on tv when it came on and i agree with you that it is a good programme. Also i do recommend you speak to muslims from all back grounds rather than relying on google for your islamic info as for every good muslim site there are at least 10,000 rubbish dodgy ones, the ones that come up first on your google search are not necessarily the good ones, ask Muslims what they recommend :)

 

 

 

Male Muslim – Asia

 

Islam basically preaches moderation in all aspects of daily life, which is why most of us are socialists. As for war, we are not to wage it fool hardily, for a Jihad, a war where all Muslims must stand united can only be called when we are being treated in inhumane conditions for no reason.

From what I've seen so far, the reason why we are being labelled terrorists and have people become hostile towards us is simple. There are people who use our religion as an excuse to justify their hate and prejudice.

 

 

The following responses from Muslims are in response to the following comment (2007):

 

This sounds very reasonable, yet, I have not heard from the Islamic people in protest to this war or denouncing the killing of civilian population. Point me to where they have spoken out in the name of humanity, as I would like to see it. President Reagan said, "Trust, but Verify."

 

I wrote:

 

Here link are some Muslims condemning 9/11, terrorism and war and therefore the killing of civilians

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Acts

Muslims against Terrorism

 

 

 

Male Muslim – US:

 

I would just like to say that it's not my duty as a Muslim to condemn the actions of extremists who claim to be Muslim. I condemn their actions not because I feel compelled to do so; I condemn them out of my own free will. I didn't hear a Christian condemnation or apology for the Virginia Tech shootings in which the murderer was citing verses from the Bible. The point is that we are responsible for ourselves. We all should try to promote peace & understanding, not because of our respective faiths, but because we are human beings.

My official condemnation: "I condemn the acts done in the name of Islam by impostors who have attempted to warp the faith. I condemn them for the fact that they have no concept of the real Islam and that they get rich of foreign governments from outside of the Middle East supplying them with a paycheck and weapons, making it appear that they represent the faith. I condemn them for serving the interests of these foreign governments to divide Muslims to make them more easily conquerable." Thanks : )

 

 

Female Muslim - UK:

 

Thanks for adding my comments onto your responses, when i heard of this latest attempted terrorist attack it made me feel frustrated, sad and angry. We are trying to build bridges of peace love and understanding, and these select few in the name of Islam are trying to kill innocent civilians. The definitions on jihad were spot on, there is nowhere in the Qur'an that mentions "holy" and "war" in the same sentence and the greater jihad is the striving against ones self and one's desires (jihad an nafs).

 

 

 

Hi CHezza

Hope you are safe and well, i just read your comment thanks. Muslims are criticised whatever they do, with the new terrorists threats in the UK, some Muslims have taken full page ads in newspapers condemning the acts and some people have said that not enough is done in the Muslim community to denounce the terrorists so either way we are officially doomed!! One think i would like to say is that not enough thanks and appreciation is shown to non-Muslims like yourself who generally don’t believe the hype and actually take time out to work with Muslims to strive for peace. Since the war in Iraq i have made quite a few friends and associates from groups like "stop the war", who frequently bring up the issue of Islamophobia, the war in Iraq, palestine and campaign for the freeing of prisoners unlawfully detained in places like guantanamo bay.

 

 

 

Female Muslim – US

 

Actually, these accusations drive me insane. The truth is, Muslims condemn violence, all kinds, all the time, but like the title of your post says, our voices go unheard. All one has to do to find us speaking out is google phrases like "muslims for peace," "muslims against terror," "muslims march for peace," etc. The thing about these accusations is that they put us on the defense. Instead of working together, we end up having to prove, over and over again, that the Ummah is speaking out against violence, war, terror, and injustice. The fact is that if one doesn't see Muslims speaking out against violence and actively pursuing peace, it's because one isn't looking. The popular media won't present it because it's "boring" and doesn't match the stereotypes they already portray.

Those who want to know about about what news stories in the Middle East look like might be interested in watching Mosaic. I think Link TV is only available on satellite TV programming, but there is also a podcast of the show.

Finally, one last comment about accusations like this-- every time somebody says Muslims aren't speaking out against violence, all Muslims are lumped together, and Muslims find themselves in a strange place, in which they have to defend Islam, their beliefs, themselves, while still condemning the acts which others commit in the name of Islam. The fact is that, when a white man rapes a woman of color, no one asks white men to prove they are not all vicious, sex-crazed control freaks. And when a Christian man blows up a government building, no one asks all Christians to apologize and speak out against violence. When Christian Serbs carried out genocide against Muslim Bosniak males, nobody asked the entire Christian world to speak out against the violence. No white person will ever be in a position in which he or she will have to defend all white people. No Christian will ever have to defend all Christians. That's because these questions "why don't you speak up against violence/genocide/terror etc." are really just games. They serve no real purpose, because it is very easy to find Muslims all over the world speaking out against violence. Some people who ask these questions don't realize they are playing, perpetuating this game. They haven't thought enough about it to google the phrases I listed. But some people use it as a divisive tool to prove how "backwards" Islam is. To be honest, I'm tired of it, and I don't want to waste my time playing these games.

 

 

 

Some responses to the following questions that I asked:

There is always talk whenever there is a suicide bombing of Shahid and the promise of paradise. Also people throw around some statements of receiving X number of virgins in paradise when they become a martyr for Islam.

Is there somewhere in the Qur'an that the mention of virgins is promised to these martyrs? Also is the concept of Shahid used by extremists to encourage people to become martyrs? Is Shahid a real Islamic concept as written in the Qur'an and is it a case of people using it in situations where it should not be used i.e. just as Jihad is used when it should not be used?

I am concerned as I have seen YouTube footage encouraging young children to practice Shahid. Please note I know that most Muslims do not condone this behaviour but I am wondering why the extremists are able to convince these people to become suicide bombers, so that is why I was wondering is there something in the Qur'an that is being used to indoctrinate these children and adults?

 

 

 

Female Muslim – US

 

I'll try to answer them to the best of my knowledge as briefly as possible; since I'm sure others will have something to say as well. Plus, I'm at work ;)

In my very humble opinion, the idea of receiving 72 virgins is a myth. For one, the number 72 is not stated in the Qur'an. The Qur'an does promise those who enter paradise "splendid companions well-matched" (78:33, Muhammad Asad translation), and "companions pure, most beautiful of eye" (52:20), "mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being will have touched ere then" (55:56) and finally: "And We shall pair them with companions pure, most beautiful of eye." (44:54). However, there is no number here. In fact everything is pluralized, so there is really little information regarding how many companions one person will receive. There is also evidence that the spouses of those who enter paradise will be renewed (56:34-36). My point here is that, in reality, we have very little idea of what is in store for those who enter paradise from the Qur'an, which is of course our first resource for all matters regarding faith. Also, there are some interpretations of these verses which regard the promise of "Houris" as promises of rare fruits and, specially, white raisins. I don't know much about these interpretations, but I can see how such would apply to people who lived in the desert.

Now, the number 72 comes from a Hadith, and while I believe the Hadith are critical to our knowledge of Islam and how to practice it properly, I am also very critical and skeptical of Hadith in general. There are tens of thousands of Hadith, most of which were not collected until 200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. There is a strict Islamic science which was used to evaluate the chain of transmission to ascertain whether or not a Hadith was authentic, and as it is, the Hadith which promises 72 virgins is not considered authentic.

So, in summary, I believe the promise of of 72 virgins is crap.

My response to your question -- why do fanatics get away with this stuff? The fact is, most Muslim have never read the Qur'an in its entirety, just like most Christians have never read the Bible. The Qur'an is taught in schools, and people are told what is said, and in general, they believe it. There is also an issue of translation, for those who do read the Qur'an. There are several translations of the Qur'an which insert parentheses into the text which are actually interpretations and seriously mislead readers. The other issue we have to deal with is basically a large group of disenfranchised people, who feel very wounded by colonialism. So, when you combine these factors, you get an explosive reaction, excuse the pun, which the radicals use to try to accomplish their political goals. These political goals are mostly a result of colonialism and imperialism

Anyway, I'm no Islamic scholar, and only God knows best, but I hope I answered your questions.

 

 

 

Male Muslim – US

Peace be Unto all of you,

I would like to try to shed some light on your questions if I may. The word “Shahid” in Arabic literally means “to witness or testify.” There are various meanings depending on the context in which it is used. One of the meanings of Shahid is martyr. To bare some comparison, Martin Luther King Jr. is probably the best example of a Shahid in the U.S. In this context, it means someone who has stood for a righteous cause and was killed for his faith. Not to oversimplify the issue, but this is basically the meaning of martyrdom, which by the way is not an Islamic innovation. In fact, this was prevalent throughout the history of prophets and their followers.

To my understanding, the ‘virgins’ accusation comes from the arabic word “Hour al Ayn” or pure companions which is found in the Qur’an. Some people with ill intent towards Islam translate this as virgins, which is incorrect. Our friend was correct that this number 72 is based on hadith and is not found in Qur’an. However, no Muslim scholar will claim that all hadith are valid. In fact, they have developed a system called “Eilm al Rijaal” or the study of the narrators of hadith to classify hadith as accepted, strong, weak, etc.

However, the system of Shahadeh and Jihad are valid concepts in Islam based on the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad (sas), but not in the way they are all to often portrayed. The bigger “jihad” or struggle according to the Prophet is the struggle against the evil tendencies of the self. The other Jihad or physical struggle is only valid in cases of defense. An unbiased historical analysis of all of the wars of Islam during the life of the Prophet will show that they were all defensive wars. Yes, I will admit that Muslims abused this concept after the departure of the Prophet (sas).

It is clear to all people, not only Muslims, that if someone is oppressed unjustly, he has the right to resist that oppression and take up arms in defense of his family, his land, or his life. I also believe that yes, extremists do foment the wave of Jihad among their people and terrorize others. We should ask ourselves: why are they so successful? For example, many Palestinians teach their kids that the Israelis/Zionism (not the religion of Judaism) is oppressive and it is their duty to fight them. The kids grow up and they see first hand the iron fist of occupation and aggression by the Israelis and they tell themselves, “Yes. My parents were right. “ So the demographics, economics, and social make-up of certain countries make some young Muslims easy recruits.

Also, I should say one more thing. Most of the terrorists acts done around the world are from a small group of marginalized Muslims called Salafis (i.e. Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Zwahiri, etc). They have a warped version of the faith and have killed countless Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. Fate brought this group unfortunately to vast amounts of wealth and today we have outsiders who purposely promote them to distort the image of Islam and to create sectarian division among Muslms. In my view, they represent Islam just as much as David Quresh and Charles Manson represent Christianity.

I would also advise you to ask a local Muslim scholar these questions, and not to take my word for it. Thanks for reading. May peace be upon you.

 

I also asked for an opinion on a comment that I had directed at me elsewhere on Vox.  In reality it doesn’t really matter who made this comment, as it is not an isolated comment and unfortunately it is a very common perception held by many Westerners

 

"...... the Bible tells us to preach the truth in love. Unlike Islam, wherein the actual writings of Muhammad are violent. His "surahs" (scriptures) in the Qu'ran encourage "jihad" (holy war) against others who believe differently. The religious writings of Mohammad teach his followers that men should beat others into submission of their will: unbelievers, women, children, and if that is ineffective, then kill them. The MSM wants Americans to believe that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, but their actions and their own religious writings preach differently. Don't believe me? See here: Fitna I'm no mind reader, so you tell me what is in the hearts of these men? Actions always speak louder than words."

 

From: Muslims Against Sharia:

 

Factually, the comment (as is Fitna) is correct. There are some teachings in the Koran that incite violence against non-Muslims. This is exactly what we are trying to remove: http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php. What the commenter (just as Fitna) fails to realize (or mention) is that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims that are suffering from radical Islamic teachings. In act, there are more Muslims murdered by Islamists than everybody else combined. The Muslims would be primary beneficiaries if radical Islam ceased to exist. As for "true Muslim", unfortunately it seems that majority of today's Muslims espouse radical Islamic ideology rather than believe in peaceful Islam. We think that we (moderates) are true Muslims. They (radicals) think that they are. Only time will tell who is right.

 

 

Male Muslim US:

May Peace be Upon You,

The film "Fitna" is a gross misrepresentation of Islamic teachings. It was incited as a direct attack on Islam in my view. Those defending it claim that Islam should be subject to criticism like anything else. We as Muslims agree with this, however, we are against abuse. If people have questions or even disagree with Islamic teachings, they can open a dialogue with Muslim leaders instead of taking Qur'anic verses out of context to promote hatred. That's what it's all about... promoting hatred.

Also, the claim that Prophet Muhammad (sas) promoted violence shows the poor level of education of the person that sent you that. Such a claim would be like accusing Jesus of rebellion, inciting social chaos, promoting hatred, being against democracy, promoting racism (being sent only to the house of the lost sheep of Israel), etc. If the maker of this film really wanted to open a dialogue and voice his/her concerns about Islam, the movie would be entitled, "Controversial teachings of Islam explained by Muslim clerics." Instead, it's entitled "Fitna" which means separation or strife. Also, the Bible is filled with passages promoting violence, sexual deviation, unjust punishments, and even execution as a punishment for blasphemy. However, conveniently, those things are never talked about.

Also, this movie in my opinion was created, funded, and promoted by certain groups & state-sponsors to anger Muslims worldwide and to get them to commit violent acts as an excuse for some countries to take up military arms against majority Muslim countries. I believe the Prophet Muhammad cartoons were created for the same purpose.

One more thing if I may... these supposed Muslim clerics who call for violence, how many are they in number? Where did you hear about them? Do you know their credentials? The problem with the media is that they pluck out a few wacko Imams and show them promoting violent rhetoric and action. What about the other 99% of Muslim clerics who call for dialogue? You never hear about them because that does not fit with the Islamophobic media propaganda. That's like me starting a news network featuring the rhetoric of David Quresh, Jerry Falwell, etc. and showing no moderate Christian leaders.

My point is this: If we have absolute freedom of speech and nothing is too sacred, then I'm sure no one will have a problem if the Iranian government were to make a movie with evidence showing that the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated and that 9/11 was an inside job. Nothing is too holy when it comes to freedom of speech according to the producer of this film. What a double-standard! Unbelievable. The truth is that freedom of speech is monopolized and only granted to those select nations who support a particular agenda. That is since Islam cannot be academically defeated; they must resort to distortions, taking things out of context, and plain promotion of hatred.

 

 

Male non-Muslim AU:

 

I have always held the view that the violence we are seeing in the Muslim world is a manifestation of the bitter struggle for ideological supremacy between the moderate and radical schools of Islam. Caught in the middle of the proverbial crossfire is wide swathe of the non-Muslim world. Some people can see this, others can't, and yet there are some who see it as their misguided right to step in and try to force a certain peace come hell or high water. It is the latter group that continues to muddy the waters and creates more confusion than anything.

 

 

 

Male Muslim US reply:

 

Good points and well-said.

The current socio-political climate in the Middle East fosters radical ideologies such as Wahhabism which dominates the Saudi government. Maybe the Bush administration should speak out or boycott the Saudi government instead of holding hands with their leaders and turning a blind eye to the terrorist bombings they are committing in Iraq everyday. Amazing... 10 years ago, there were no organized Muslim militias or terror groups in Iraq, now thanks to the invasion, they have multiplied. If I didn't know better, I would swear this war was simply made to promote violence and get the Muslims to kill each other so others don't have to do it.

 

 

Female Muslim UK:

Peace to you Chezza.

I have refrained from watching the film Fitna as there is enough Islamaphobic programmes on the television where I live. China has taken the heat off us for a while but I am sure we will be number one headlines again soon.

Islam is about peace. When people start labelling themselves as this or that kind of Muslim that is when division begins, about ten years ago the terms "jihadist, moderate/radical muslim extremist etc" did not exist, they have been created by the media.

The Qur'an can never be changed or reformed, if you choose to call yourself a Muslim and believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) you cannot call for the text of it to be changed, or want verses of it removed.  Those that do wish to change it for whatever reason should know that Allah has promised to preserve the Qur'an so good luck in trying, your wasting your time!

The Qur'an does have text that refer to violence but it does not promote hatred or tolerance. Those that comment on the verses have neither read or understood the original Arabic, nor have they bothered to research the verses in detail to attempt to understand why the verses were revealed and to which situation or incident these verses refer to.

Islam like any other religion is open to mis-interpretation based on the person's intellect, their personal circumstances, their peers etc. When someone is new to Islam or may have been Muslim all their life but re-connected to their faith, they are vulnerable to these extremist and radical groups who will recruit these individuals and prey on their vulnerability. They will use this lack of knowledge to convince them that their version and only their version of Islam is the correct one and everyone elses is false or wrong. It's a shame that many Muslims are falling into this trap, May Allah guide them to the straight path.  Ameen.

It is however difficult to keep a billion Muslims in line, you are gonna get a small percentage who have through lack of knowledge, misunderstood the teachings of Islam and use the favours God has given them to create havoc on earth. I don’t believe that it is such a wide spread epidemic that we should fear that Islamic extremists will take over the world. That's just the media doing a very good job of portraying ALL MUSLIMS as potential suicide bombers. This type of media scare mongering can be seen in the number of new laws created by Tony Blair with the aim of "combatting terrorism", these so called laws that say that a person can be arrested detained and questioned without charge if suspected of terrorist acts for 28 days. Not to mention the human right injustices going on all over the globe in the name of fighting terrorism.

The word jihad means to strive, it is mentioned in the Qur'an in many different places, but the concept of jihad meaning Holy War has been created by the media as the word Holy and War do not appear in the Qur'an together as part of a sentence but the average person has come to believe that defintion through the media.

The problems that Muslim face are that they are not practising their religion, they do so without knowledge which is why the Muslim populations of the world are suffering at the hand's of their governments, other countries etc because of their lack of fear and trust in God. They are like lost sheep waiting to return to their shepherd who get eaten by wolves on the way back to the farm (sorry just needed to add a bit of humour in here)

I would suggest to anyone who feared Islam taking over their neighbourhood or county to go and talk to a Muslim person, it will help to dispel any myths and breakdown some barriers.

Why is Islam one of the fastest growing religions in the world despite such negative Islamaphobic reports, are we all being brainwashed like zombies to believe in this religion?

 

So there were a number of voices many never hear.  Thank you to my Muslim brothers and sisters of the world who were prepared to speak out.

I think the best piece of advice we can all learn from this is that open dialogue can break down barriers and build some bridges. 

Peace to you all.

 Muslims - A Walk in Your Shoes

From IslamicVideos.net

This video is a lovely story of two teenage girls breaking down the religious barriers between Islam and Christianity.  As one of the girls said at the end,

"If people got to know other people from different backgrounds and different religions the world would be a much better place."

Some interesting links which include links various Muslim individuals and organisations:

 

A Secular Muslim Manifesto

 

Zeyno Baran

 

British Muslims for Secular Democracy

 

Center for Islamic Pluralism

 

Muslim Canadian Congress

 

Tawfik Hamid

 

American Islamic Forum for Democracy

 

Islamic Supreme Council of America

 

Nibras Kazimi

 

Irshad Manji

 

Italian Muslim Assembly

 

Secular Islam Summit

 

Mohamed Sifaoui

 

Amir Taheri

 

 

Assalamu Alaikum - Peace be upon you.

In interests of peace I thought that I would share a link which I stumbled upon a few weeks ago.  It is a piece done by the Sydney Morning Herald in an attempt to more accurately portray the Muslim community in Australia.  It is a multi-media page with various articles written by Muslims, video interviews with Muslims, a slide presentation and a Q & A section.  I urge people to check the link out so you have a better idea of what the everyday Muslim community is really like and so that there is less Islamophobia in our communities, both here in Australia and in whatever country you belong.

My motive is not that you become a believer in the religion of Islam, as your beliefs are your own choice.  My motive is that you become more accepting of your fellow brothers and sisters here on Earth and realise that the majority of Muslims are not fundamentalists and do not support terrorism.  I am not a Muslim, I am just some one who wants peace and freedom on Earth.

 

 The Face of Islam

 

**Please note since the webpage “The Face of Islam” was produced, the Australian Mufti is no longer Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly.

Some extra information that you may find of interest.

Answers to some common questions

What is the relation of Islam to Judaism and Christianity?

Islam is the completion of both Judaism and Christianity. Muslims believe that God revealed the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus. However, over time these teachings have become lost or corrupted. God's purpose in revealing the Quran was to provide guidance in its complete and final form. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity both contain truth and are both based on revelation from God.

Does Islam teach that all non-Muslims will go to Hell?

No. Only people who received true and complete information about Islam and rejected it then died in that state will go to Hell. People who never heard about Islam or received only a distorted picture of it will be tested by God. Those who had faith in God and did right will go to Paradise and those who rejected faith in God and did wrong will go to Hell. The Quran says, "Surely those who have faith (in Islam) and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabaeans - whoever believes in God and the Last Day - their reward is with their Lord and they will neither fear nor grieve" (Quran 2:62 and 5:69)

Does Islam promote terrorism?

No! Islamic law forbids the killing of civilians and non-combatants, especially women and children. Muslims have spoken up frequently to condemn terrorism.

Jihad: Looking beyond the myths

 

What Jihad is:

• The Arabic word Jihad is often translated as holy war, but a more accurate translation is holy struggle. Islamic scholars say the term holy war was actually coined in Europe during the Crusades to mean a war against the Muslims.

• In a purely linguistic sense, the word Jihad means struggling or striving. There are two different, unrelated words which mean war.

• In a religious sense, as described by the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, Jihad means striving for the benefit of the community or the restraint of personal sins. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslim, or believer. Scholars say it primarily refers to efforts to improve oneself.

• Jihad is a religious duty.

• If Jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents -- such as women, children, or invalids -- must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

• Military action is therefore only one means of Jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor Jihad to the major Jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.

• In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare Jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.

• The concept of Jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked Jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars says this misuse of Jihad contradicts Islam.

• Examples of sanctioned military Jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

What Jihad is not

• Jihad is not a violent concept.

• Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

• Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent Jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

• Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.

Adhan - Call to prayer

I heard a fantastic interview on Melbourne ABC radio last year.  The interview was with the author of “Dying to Win – The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”, written by political scientist Robert Pape.  Unfortunately the interview doesn’t appear to be available for download, but I have found another interview that is available for download.  See at the end of this entry for more information regarding links to information about this book.

I have to say that his findings have reinforced my belief that these suicide bombings are generally the result of an oppressed society that hasn’t got the means to remove an occupying force.  I know I may be opening myself up for ridicule for making this statement, but if you look at the facts then the evidence is there supporting my opinion. 

Please do not think that I support these acts of terrorism, but I fully understand the perpetrators thinking and the desperation behind these attacks 

If you are seriously interested in understanding the purpose behind suicide bombings, then I would definitely recommend you listen to the audio interview listed at the bottom of this entry and then if you would like to investigate further read Robert Pape’s book.

 

Below is a summary of Robert Pape’s book:

 
Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in –a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. though is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.

In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists.

More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.

For both policy makers and the general public, Dying to Win transcends speculation with systematic scholarship, making it one of the most important political studies of recent time.

 

Below is a transcript taken from an interview Robert Pape gave to the “The American Conservative”.

July 18th 2005 Issue
The American Conservative

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago , whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive world wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world’s largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration’s current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.

The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the US has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

TAC: If we were to back up a little bit before the invasion of to what happened before 9/11, what was the nature of the agitprop that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were putting out to attract people?

RP: Osama bin Laden’s speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.

In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States—that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals.

TAC: The fact that we had troops stationed on the Arabian Peninsula was not a very live issue in American debate at all. How many Saudis and other people in the Gulf were conscious of it?

RP: We would like to think that if we could keep a low profile with our troops that it would be okay to station them in foreign countries. The truth is, we did keep a fairly low profile. We did try to keep them away from Saudi society in general, but the key issue with American troops is their actual combat power. Tens of thousands of American combat troops, married with air power, is a tremendously powerful tool.

Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the area than ever before.

TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?

RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the US has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the US has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

TAC: So your assessment is that there are more suicide terrorists or potential suicide terrorists today than there were in March 2003?

RP: I have collected demographic data from around the world on the 462 suicide terrorists since 1980 who completed the mission, actually killed themselves. This information tells us that most are walk-in volunteers. Very few are criminals. Few are actually longtime members of a terrorist group. For most suicide terrorists, their first experience with violence is their very own suicide-terrorist attack.

There is no evidence there were any suicide-terrorist organizations lying in wait in Iraq before our invasion. What is happening is that the suicide terrorists have been produced by the invasion.

TAC: Do we know who is committing suicide terrorism in Iraq? Are they primarily Iraqis or walk-ins from other countries in the region?

RP: Our best information at the moment is that the Iraqi suicide terrorists are coming from two groups—Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis—the two populations most vulnerable to transformation by the presence of large American combat troops on the Arabian Peninsula. This is perfectly consistent with the strategic logic of suicide terrorism.

TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the US, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the US, and if so, why?

RP: al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the US in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the US in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition.

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Spain, or Poland. It concludes that they should hit just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. al-Qaeda is not weaker now. al-Qaeda is stronger.

TAC: What would constitute a victory in the War on Terror or at least an improvement in the American situation?

RP: For us, victory means not sacrificing any of our vital interests while also not having Americans vulnerable to suicide-terrorist attacks. In the case of the persian Gulf, that means we should pursue a strategy that secures our interest in oil but does not encourage the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, the US secured its interest in oil without stationing a single combat soldier on the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, we formed an alliance with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which we can now do again. We relied on numerous aircraft carriers off the coast of the Arabian Peninsula, and naval air power now is more effective not less. We also built numerous military bases so that we could move large numbers of ground forces to the region quickly if a crisis emerged.

That strategy, called “offshore balancing,” worked splendidly against Saddam Hussein in 1990 and is again our best strategy to secure our interest in oil while preventing the rise of more suicide terrorists.

TAC: Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders also talked about the “Crusaders-Zionist alliance,” and I wonder if that, even if we weren’t in Iraq, would not foster suicide terrorism. Even if the policy had helped bring about a Palestinian state, I don’t think that would appease the more hardcore opponents of Israel.

RP: I not only study the patterns of where suicide terrorism has occurred but also where it hasn’t occurred. Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community. That is true not only in places such as Lebanon and in Iraq today but also in Sri Lanka, where it is the Sinhala Buddhists who are having a dispute with the Hindu Tamils.

When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways. Now, that still requires the occupier to be there. Absent the presence of foreign troops, Osama bin Laden could make his arguments but there wouldn’t be much reality behind them. The reason that it is so difficult for us to dispute those arguments is because we really do have tens of thousands of combat soldiers sitting on the Arabian Peninsula.

TAC: Has the next generation of anti-American suicide terrorists already been created? Is it too late to wind this down, even assuming your analysis is correct and we could de-occupy ?

RP: Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime.

In Lebabob, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the US withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn’t completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow to Tel Aviv.

This is also the pattern of the second Intifada with the Palestinians. As Israel is at least promising to withdraw from Palestinian-controlled territory (in addition to some other factors), there has been a decline of that ferocious suicide-terrorist campaign. This is just more evidence that withdrawal of military forces really does diminish the ability of the terrorist leaders to recruit more suicide terrorists.

That doesn’t mean that the existing suicide terrorists will not want to keep going. I am not saying that Osama bin Laden would turn over a new leaf and suddenly vote for George Bush. There will be a tiny number of people who are still committed to the cause, but the real issue is not whether Osama bin Laden exists. It is whether anybody listens to him. That is what needs to come to an end for Americans to be safe from suicide terrorism.

TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?

RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebabon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.

TAC: Has the IRA used suicide terrorism?

RP: The IRA did not. There were IRA members willing to commit suicide—the famous hunger strike was in 1981. What is missing in the IRA case is not the willingness to commit suicide, to kill themselves, but the lack of a suicide-terrorist attack where they try to kill others.

If you look at the pattern of violence in the IRA, almost all of the killing is front-loaded to the 1970s and then trails off rather dramatically as you get through the mid-1980s through the 1990s. There is a good reason for that, which is that the British government, starting in the mid-1980s, began to make numerous concessions to the IRA on the basis of its ordinary violence. In fact, there were secret negotiations in the 1980s, which then led to public negotiations, which then led to the Good Friday Accords. If you look at the pattern of the IRA, this is a case where they actually got virtually everything that they wanted through ordinary violence.

The purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die. It is the kill, to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society in order to compel that target society to put pressure on its government to change policy. If the government is already changing policy, then the whole point of suicide terrorism, at least the way it has been used for the last 25 years, doesn’t come up.

TAC: Are you aware of any different strategic decision made by al-Qaeda to change from attacking American troops or ships stationed at or near the Gulf to attacking American civilians in the US?

RP: I wish I could say yes because that would then make the people reading this a lot more comfortable.

The fact is not only in the case of al-Qaeda, but in suicide-terrorist campaigns in general, we don’t see much evidence that suicide-terrorist groups adhere to a norm of attacking military targets in some circumstances and civilians in others.

In fact, we often see that suicide-terrorist groups routinely attack both civilian and military targets, and often the military targets are off-duty policemen who are unsuspecting. They are not really prepared for battle.

The reasons for the target selection of suicide terrorists appear to be much more based on operational rather than normative criteria. They appear to be looking for the targets where they can maximize the number of casualties.

In the case of the West Bank, for instance, there is a pattern where Hamas and Islamic Jihad use ordinary guerrilla attacks, not suicide attacks, mainly to attack settlers. They use suicide attacks to penetrate into Israel proper. Over 75 percent of all the suicide attacks in the second Intifada were against Israel proper and only 25 percent on the West bank itself.

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Persian Gulf, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.  

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

 

More information can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism

 

An excellent audio interview can be downloaded from the American interview show “Scott Horton Show” the interview is dated July 16th 2005:

http://www.scotthortonshow.com/index.php?tag=robert-pape