Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Is Islam a primary driver or cause of terrorism?
Islam, like all world religions, neither supports nor requires illegitimate violence. The Quran does not advocate or condone terrorism. To enhance their credibility and justify their atrocities, terrorists connect their acts of violence with Islam by totally ignoring the extensive limits that the Quran and the Islamic tradition places on the use of violence and its rejection of terrorism. As with other faiths, a radical fringe distorts and misinterprets mainstream and normative Islamic doctrines and laws. They pay no attention to Islamic law which draws on the Quran to set out clear guidelines for the conduct of war and provides no support for hijacking and hostage taking.
Throughout the Quran Muslims are urged to be merciful and just. However, Islam does give guidelines to Muslims for defending their families and themselves as well as their religion and community from aggression. The earliest Quranic verses dealing with the right to engage in a ''defensive'' struggle, were revealed shortly after Muhammad and his followers escaped persecution in Mecca by emigrating to Medina. At a time when they were forced to fight for their lives, Muhammad was told: ''Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged--surely God is able to help them--who were expelled from their homes wrongfully for saying, 'Our Lord is God' '' (22:39-40).
Given the social and political environment in which Muslim the Quran, like the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament, contains verses about struggles and wars. The Islamic community developed in Arabia, in the city of Mecca, where Muhammad lived and received God's revelation. The city was assailed by cycles of tribal warfare and more broadly surrounded by constant conflicts between the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) and the Sasanian (Persian) empires. Nevertheless, the Quranic verses stress repeatedly that peace must be the norm. As in the following verse, the Quran frequently and strongly balances permission to fight an enemy by mandating the need to make peace: "If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God" (8:61).
Concern about Islam and violence has often come from what some refer to as the "sword verse," although the word "sword" does not exist in the Quran. This oft-cited verse is seen as encouraging Muslims to kill unbelievers: "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (9:5). Critics use the verse to demonstrate that Islam is naturally violent and religious extremists twist its meaning to develop a theology of hate and intolerance and to justify unconditional warfare against unbelievers. In fact, however, the full meaning and intent of this passage is distorted when it is applied to all non-Muslims or unbelievers because the verse is specifically referring to Meccan "idolaters" who are accused of breaking a treaty and continuously warring against the Muslims. In addition, critics do not mention that this "sword verse" is directly qualified by the following: ''But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat [the charitable tax on non-Muslims], then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind'' (9:5).
Islam's relationship to violence and terrorism, as well as the primary causes of global terrorism, are often concealed and confused by the religious language and symbolism that extremists use. Too often, policymakers and experts choose simple answers such as religion to explain violence and terror. In most cases, complex political and economic grievances are primary catalysts for conflicts and religion becomes a means to legitimate the cause and mobilize popular support. As we can see in the global strategy of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or witness in Palestine, post Saddam Iraq, or Kashmir, the goals of terrorists are often primarily nationalist, to end the occupation of lands,to force "foreign" military forces from what they see as their homeland.
Religion does provide a powerful source of meaning and motivation. Religiously legitimated violence adds divine, authority that increases a terrorist leader's authority as well as moral justification, obligation, certitude, and heavenly reward, all of which enhance recruitment and a willingness to fight and die in a "sacred struggle." More secular movements have also used and hijacked religion to heighten their appeal. Religious symbolism's power was illustrated when Yasser Arafat, leader of a secular nationalist movement in Palestine (PLO and then PNA), used the terms "jihad" and "shahid" (martyr) to describe his situation when he was under siege in Ramallah. The Palestinian militia (not just the Islamist Hamas) chose to call itself, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, using the symbolism of the al-Aqsa Mosque (the holy site for Islam and Judaism in Jerusalem) and drawing on the symbols of jihad and martyrdom. While religious and non-religious organizations and movements (whether al-Qaeda or the Marxist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka) share a common strategy, those that are Muslim often identify their goal as Islamic, to create an Islamic government, a caliphate or simply a more Islamically-oriented state and society to strengthen their cause.
Religious leaders and intellectuals can play an important role in the ideological war on terror. Although they do not advocate violence and terror, Wahhabi Islam and militant Christian Right groups which both promote exclusivist, non-pluralistic theologies of hate that condemn other faiths, can be used by militants of many faiths. Hate speech is a powerful justification for blowing up the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, as well as government buildings or abortion clinics, for assassinating "the enemies of God". Christians and Muslims share a critical common goal, that of addressing exclusivist theologies which are anti-pluralistic and weak on tolerance for they contribute to beliefs, attitudes and values that feed religious extremism and terrorism affecting all of us.
By
John Esposito
|
August 27, 2010; 8:55 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Why don't women have more rights in Muslim countries? |
Next: Graham raises questions about conversion with assertion that Obama is a Muslim
Posted by: emaspeace | September 1, 2010 1:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"As we can see in the global strategy of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or witness in Palestine, post Saddam Iraq, or Kashmir, the goals of terrorists are often primarily nationalist, to end the occupation of lands,to force "foreign" military forces from what they see as their homeland".
In Kashmir the terrorists whom the professor calls "nationalists" drove away millions of Kashmiri Hindus and are now driving away the Kashmiri Sikhs. History tells us that Kashmir was a Hindu/Sikh majority kingdom before the residents were converted to Sufi Islam. The main Agenda of the terrorists every where is creation of a land in which only Muslims can live and Taliban Islam will flourish. If the USA gives in to the designs of Islamists, in the next century USA will be divided on religious basis as had happened in India. Let us remember the Quran calls for the unbelievers to be the subjects of believers.
"Christians and Muslims share a critical common goal, that of addressing exclusivist theologies which are anti-pluralistic and weak on tolerance for they contribute to beliefs, attitudes and values that feed religious extremism and terrorism affecting all of us".
While most of the Christian nations have already become secular nations, even the secular Muslim nations like Turkey and Indonesia are on the verge of becoming Muslim Nations as demanded in the Quran!The Professor himself has quoted (I hope not with approval!)what Quran demands
''But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat [the charitable tax on non-Muslims], then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind'' (9:5).
There is a definite need for bold reforms in Islam with space for criticism and deletion of directives in the Quran and Hadith which are not relevant anymore in a multicultural multi-religious society of the 21st century. Unfortunately since every word of the Quran is considered as God given and unalterable by even educated Muslims, the rest of the nonbelievers have to be extra careful when giving free space to Islam.
Posted by: snbala | August 30, 2010 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lets name countries ruled by Sharia and lets list the countries exporting terrorism. No matter how much the "moderate" muslim writer tries to whitewash this violent religious ideology, simple statistics and facts cannot be hidden. So instead of preaching Americans what islam says, perhaps the writer should open a madrassa in Saudi land or pakistan and preach there. I would not be surprised if the writer's head is handed to his family on a platter for writing such "moderate" nonsense about islam.
ANUPAMKS - when muslims invaded and plundered/raped India, they destroyed your temples and built their mosques in place. What they could not destroy they defaced? They seems to be one law for Muslims and another for everybody else only when it favors them. I am surprised you are proud of this ... are you kidding?
Posted by: save_usa | August 29, 2010 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's rather humorous to see Americans arguing about the Muslim religion.
After spending the last 100 years going around the world preaching to others about American style democracy like freedom of religion, Americans now realize....they don't agree with their own message.
Posted by: naksuthin | August 29, 2010 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Christianity is clearly a primary driver of bigotry!
Posted by: thomasmc1957 | August 29, 2010 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
if anyone wont's to know about Islam he shouldn't fellow the the Muslim(the follower of Islam),he should steady about Islam,he should steady the QUERN & the tradition of prophet Muhannam(pbuh).Islam is not only a religion it is total code of life.the sharia has built on QUERN & tradition or prophet(pbuh).without the knowledge of Islam nobody should throw his comment.
Posted by: achievetoiletries | August 28, 2010 6:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
EXAMPLES OF SHARIA LAW OF THE 7TH CENTURY ARABIA:
1) Marriage: marriage contract must be initiated by the woman along with any pre-nuptial agreement, (including denying him to right to have other wives) she wishes to add in. Islamic Shariat restricted the number of wives from an average of 200 to 4
2) right to divorce a man
3) Right of women to give testimony in the court of law.
4) right to earn a living.
5) woman's right to inherit. To this day, even in the most chauvinist feudal muslim culture, men cannot leave their lands exclusively to their sons, even though they often want to. The daughter can go to any court and demand her inheritance right. This is because of sharia.
What was Christian man's position in the 7th century or for that matter 17th century regarding women's inheritance right or divorce rights, or right to give testimony. In fact its fair to say shariat law are what have kept women from being further trampled on. If there was no shariat law, you think men in Afghanistan would be giving their daughter's their rightful share in inheritance?
Nowhere in all of Quran does it say anything about honor killings - a custom that was common in medieval Europe, including US till the 18th century.
Posted by: tes786 | August 28, 2010 12:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
THIS ARTICLE IS OFFENSIVE.
Posted by: fortitude | August 27, 2010 7:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sharia law is barbaric. If muslims come to the US they should honor our laws. Two beautiful sisters in Lewsisville, Texas were murdered by their own father because he did not like their friends shot to death in the back of a taxi. This is disgusting. No sharia law is barbaric. When in our country muslims should honor our laws. My grand children are not going to grow up in a country where some honor our laws and some do not. If you want sharia law, go home.
Posted by: greatgran1 | August 27, 2010 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You state "Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged--surely God is able to help them--who were expelled from their homes wrongfully for saying, 'Our Lord is God"
Here is the problem. "Any society that opposes Sharia rule is inherently wronging the Muslim masses because it is forcing a law on them that is anti or at least non-Islamic. This situation is no different from the one that Mohammad, peace be upon him, faced ages ago.
Any true Muslim will have to leave that country to live in a Sharia society. So, in a way, by declining to accept Sharia a country or society is threatening the very existence of true Islam in that society. Here comes the justification of "fight because they were wronged".
According to me, all countries should let all Muslims be ruled by Sharia. In many ways Sharia is more moral and more strict on illegal and immoral activities. By adopting Sharia, a society can only improve, not deteriorate. Let all non-Muslims of the land be ruled by non-sharia laws. It is being followed successfully in India and can be followed elsewhere too.
Posted by: AnupamKS | August 27, 2010 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
The similar "zakat" is also compulsory to muslim, who attain a level of income or harvesting a certain crops or animal husbandry in one year and pay yearly to baitalmal. Then, collected 'zakat' should be spend to help the poor, people in debt, scholarship, poor widow, oppressed people etc. (3 other groups of unfortunate people. So in Islam it is not only unbeliever, have to pay 'zakat'.