Three reasons to not call terrorism 'Islamic'

please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/islam-a-quick-introduction/

David, Good article. You may wish to reconsider though the "There is no doubt" in your first sentence:

"There is no doubt that the vast majority of people who have sought to inflict mass destruction on the United States and its citizens in the past two decades have claimed to be motivated by their understanding of Islam."

This is only partly true. In fact, the underlying claims always have been real or perceived injustices, which when not resolved by international dispute resolution processes (like Israel's flouting of UN resolutions, covered by U.S. vetos, etc.), has led to retributive criminal violence.

All resort to violence--whether by Muslim militants or the U.S. military--is justified by religion: if bin Ladin invoked Islam, Bush invoked Christianity just as often. (Rumsfeld even served up his weekly briefs with a choice anti-Muslim Bible quotation.)

The single greatest injustice was the award of British Palestine to victims of European Christians' crimes against European Jews; but for domestic political reasons, Americans can't talk about Israel. The award was justified by a "Fundamentalist" claim, and implemented by terrorists--not Jewish terrorists, just terrorists. Remove Israel from the equation and Muslim militancy all but dies. Islam, after all, has been around for 1400 years, how come there was no Islamic terrorism, until Palestinians were subjected to irremediable injustices?

Other injustices include the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, where a national liberation struggle albeit in the name of Islam is taking place. U.S. covert war and de facto occupation of Pakistan is headed the same way; as are U.S. military plans for Yemen, Somalia, etc.

The post makes a very good point about looking for underlying causes but skirts naming these causes: Israel, and the occupation of other Muslim lands.

Mr. Gushee is a professor of Christian ethics. What qualifications does he have to say anything about Islamic ethics? Here are eleven reasons to call terrorism Islamic:

--The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
-- Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
-- Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
-- We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:151)
-- I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
-- Muhammad said: "I have been made victorious through terror."
-- Muhammad said: "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, …"
-- Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, "None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, " None has the right to be worshiped but Allah , his life and property will be saved by me."
-- Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

Mr. Gushee is a professor of Christian ethics. What qualifications does he have to say anything about Islamic ethics? Here are eleven reasons to call terrorism Islamic:

--The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
-- Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
-- Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
-- We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:151)
-- I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
-- Muhammad said: "I have been made victorious through terror."
-- Muhammad said: "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, …"
-- Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, "None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, " None has the right to be worshiped but Allah , his life and property will be saved by me."
-- Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

"If the term inflames relations with the Muslims of the world, and creates the context for awkward "civilizational" tensions that bring back painful historical associations, it might simply be unwise to use it. "

Once you unwind all the double-talk in this sentence, it is simple cowardice. If you allow your enemy (and these people, whatever you call them, are inarguably our enemies) this kind of control over you, you have already lost.

If you won't even name your enemy because that might "inflame" him, how do you expect to win the battle? Answer: You don't. You are already preparing to submit.

Count me out of your surrender, Mr. Gushee.

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

The true enemy of civilization is religious fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Christian or something else. Most terrorists claim divine backing for their violence and bigotry.

"A characteristic of religious fundamentalism is to perceive the world as an arena of continuous battle and to nourish it with anger and the desire for revenge." - Ilter Turkemen

The dirty truth is that the vast majority of the radical Islamists that are killing American soldiers and civilians have been taught in those same madrassas that are funded by Saudi Arabia, and that those madrassas are still teaching a new generation of terrorists to "Kill for Allah". No sect of Christianity that I know of requires a person to kill anyone who is not a Christian, the same with Buddhism and/or any religion that I know of. ONLY Islam teaches jihad, ONLY Islam teaches people that they should kill any 'infidels'. Not only kill infidels, but become religous martyrs if killed in the process. That's NOT the basis of a sustainable religion in the modren world. Rushdie is right. Radical modern Islam HAS TO recognize that other people have a right to exist, regardless of their religous beliefs or lack thereof. The existence of the rest of the world depends on this fact. Soon, a madman in Iran will have a nuclear bomb, and I have no doubt that he would use it to destroy Israel. This world has become a much smaller place due to ICBM's and nuclear weapons.

I would buy this if it didn't contradict all I know about Islam. Terrorism is not necessarily Islamic, but the use of violence is. Al;-Qaeda and others aren't making any of this up as they go along. They use the Qur'an, the ahadith or Traditions, the biographies of Muhammad, and centuries of legal rulings on jihad. No other religion/ideology has the same level of prescribed violence, and Islamic history is a long narrative of conquests, jihad, and the often violent suppression of non-Muslims in conquered territories. Not only that, but Muhammad frequently used assassination to rid himself of anyone who opposed him. Terrorism does break with traditional Islamic law, in that it involves the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, but under the assumption that Islam is under attack from the West (or the Crusaders or the Jews) current violence is subsumed under the concept of defensive jihad. Of course the majority of Muslims do not engage in terrorism, but a very large number do applaud what groups like al-Qaeda or Hamas do. And those who do fight in Afghanistan or Gaza or Iraq do set out from a belief that they are putting Islamic teachings on violence into action. It is not just Wahhabism, as some commentators have said: in fact, the Saudis have tended to oppose terrorism, though they have sustained jihad elsewhere. There is much support for violent action from Deobandis in Pakistan (from whom the Taliban emerged: it was Deobandi madrasas that trained them, not, on the whole, Wahhabi), the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is part), the Shi'a in Iran, Lebanon (including Hizbollah) and elsewhere, Salafis, and numerous other groups worldwide. Gushee writes: "The second reason for refusing to use the phrase 'Islamic terrorists' is the decision not to dignify evil by linking it to one of the world's great religious traditions." This makes the false assumption that all religious traditions are somehow innocent of violence. Generally, that is true, but, as I have argued, Islam has no innocence in this regard. It is not just a religion, but an ideology that incorporates government, economics, law, and military conquest. It is precisely because political leaders in the West refuse to admit this that we are in the mess we are in. Unless we recognise that Islam is the source of most of the problems we face and that, as Salman Rushdie has argued, a reformation of Islam is long overdue, the problems – and the terrorism – will continue.

It is not Islam it is a very specific 18th century sect known as Wahhbism.

For instace:

Did you know Bin Laden is Wahhabi?

Did you know Al Qaeda is Wahhabi?

Did you know the Madrassas that taught the Taliban were Wahhabi?

Did you know that the Imams all the Al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11 were under before their attack were all Wahhabi?

I guess if you read articles in the Washington Post you know Maj. Nidal M. Hasan Imam was Anwar al-Aulaqi.

I guess if you read articles in the Washington Post you know Time Square bomber was in contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi.

Yet where is that very pertinent fact mentioned in any Washington Post article that Anwar al-Aulaqi is Wahhabi?

Try using goggle Anwar al-Aulaqi is clearly listed as being Wahhabi.

Do you remember the the US citizens who were captured in Pakistan a few months back?

Did you know that that they all came from Alexandria Va. which is known as the Wahhabi corridor?

Did you know that the Saudis fund: orphanages, Schools and Madrasahs thoughout the Middle East Afghanistan and Pakistan and Palestine with one requirement; that the ideas taught are Wahhabi?

Did you know Saudi Arabia uses Wahhabism to infiltrate other nations but could never start the sect in Iraq because Saddam Hussein kept the Wahhabi sect out of Iraq?

Why did Cheney support the Monarch of Saudi Arabia forcing the Wahhabi sect into Iraq after the invasion, dspite the anger and refusals of the Iraqi Government?

Why has Cheney prevented so many attempts to curb Wahhabism?

Did you know Wahhabi is NOT a even a valid religion, it is just the meanderings of an 18th century failed cleric.

And that it is actually anti Islamic in that they want to, and have actually made attempts to destroy the Muslim Prophet Mohammed's grave just the same as the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?

Did you know that Wahhabi Al Qaeda has killed tens of thousands of muslims and regularly blows up mosques including 3 in Pakistan in the last month alone, killing hundreds of devout muslims at prayer?

Wahhabism is to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity.

Educate your self as to who America's true enemy is:

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory111802.asp

Do you now understand that America's enemy is Wahhabism?

As Wahhabism is the underlying philosophy of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban how common do you think it should be in Washington Post articles?

Do a search in the Washington Post search for Wahhabi. Look how often the very word gets censored from Washington Post articles, that appear in the search but have mysteriously disapeared in some wierd form of post editing.

How much clout do you think it takes to censor wahhabism being mentioned in Washington Post articles like this one?

Odd that the author of this very article does not even mention them.