;)
Just another faceless attack. When will we start listening?
Posted by Claire Connelly in Politics, Religion
What was the point of these attacks? Was it to do with America’s influence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iran – or is their desire to spread and build fanatical Islamic regimes across the world?
Was there even supposed to be a specific message?
The worst part, is that it does not seem as though anyone is listening.
Apathy first, fear second.
When the press does finally stumble across the magnitude and significance of the ongoing events – the public will be whipped into a frenzy of prejudice and racism, enough to justify yet another unsuccessful, cynically-motivated war against a group of people we have never met.
Which is ok because no one will be traveling, so there will be no concept of personal responsibility, never seeing the consequences of our actions, and the role we play in the world we have created.
No one will be responsible, it will be just another far off war, in a far-off place where far-off people die silently at the hands of terrorists and soldiers. The choices our government made for us.
I feel completely unsafe.
I’m sure that amongst “every-day people”, mutual respect, understanding, and a willingness to disagree is a start – transforming social consciences. We should start listening and respecting each other, but like most people, I’m not sure what these attacks were designed achieve.
Does “listen and respect” mean America and company should get out of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on? Or does it mean that I will never be able to travel through the beautiful Indian landscape, or anywhere else in the world, without fear of persecution?
This feels awfully personal. I do not know where the end is. There are countless of innocent people who have and will continue to succumb to the will of terrorism, and all it is designed to achieve.
Does this mean that the millions of Indian Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims will be forced to live under a despotic medieval theocracy? If so, can they leave? Where will they go? And how long will they have until another country is attacked?
Is this the beginning of a spreading influence?
If this is the case – when, and more importantly – how is this going to end? It’s becoming frighteningly clear that we are not equipped to deal with an attack and coordinated response of this kind.
All I know is that people I have never met will die, and most people will say “oh that’s terrible”, and then change the channel. Can a solution be sustained on hope alone?
This is all terribly unsettling and I do not know what the answer is.
;)
;)
;)
You see I stumbled accross this story on abc.net.au/news after lunch today. As is normal with stories of this magnitude the ABC had decided to “take over” the above the fold section of their news site with coverage including TV, radio and regular online news articles.
However news.com.au had nothing of note on the story (as I’m sure other online news stories didn’t) because, quite frankly, it didn’t involve celebrities or stories that begin with “scientists have discovered”.
I think it’s unfair to denounce the Australian press but very fair to denounce the Australian TABLOID press. I don’t go to murdoch, fairfax or other commercial news sites (including Yahoo and MSN) expecting anything more that trash and I get my actual news from the ABC (and occasionally the BBC). If you’re gonna attack the press, leave the ABC out of it. The attack all you want!
Although now that an Australian is among the dead? Expect this to be everywhere, tabloid and credible news source alike…
This has nothing to do with our government. It’s not America, Britain or Israel etc. Why is it, not a single Christian Palestinian has ever blown himself up? Have they not been subject to exactly the same conditions? Why do they not try to murder Jews, only the Muslims do? Ditto brutally occupied Tibetans who have never fired rockets into mainland China. Terror against Israelis happens for exactly the same reason Islamist terrorists are currently shooting up non-Muslims in Mumbai and dozens of other locations. Bali anyone? The root cause of terror is Islamist incitement and nothing else. It is well past time to stop making excuses for it.
That’s stupid for lots of reasons. Firstly, more suicide bombings have been done by the Tamil Tigers than anyone else. Is that because of Islamist incitement?
There are more things that are stupid about this. How is it “making excuses” for terrorism when you disagree about what motivates the murder of civilians? Why is it more anti-terrorism to say it’s because of religion, rather than because of a mixture of causes, including oppression? Of course, it’s a little ridiculous to pretend terrorism is solely the preserve of Muslims. Put aside all the civilians white people – even Jews – kill all the time. Before Israel was created, two of Israel’s future prime ministers were wanted terrorists by the British (for terrorist atrocities like throwing bombs into marketplaces). Is that because of Islamist incitement?
And why is it that the apartheid wall (”security fence”) divides Israel proper from the occupied territories? (though of course, cutting deeply into the West Bank and effectively annexing settlement clusters) If all Palestinian Muslims are terrorists in training, because of their religion – why are the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza considered a threat, to be imprisoned – but the over a million Palestinians within the Green line are not?
Oh, and whilst we’re at it – why do you think US forces are being bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because of their religion? Also – do you realise that Han Chinese were attacked by rioting Tibetans not so long ago? Is that because of Islamist incitement? Or do people suffering oppression often respond in ugly ways of their own? Remember, Kristallnacht was preceded by a Jewish dude killing a German diplomat. A sane person would be far more appalled by the pogrom that followed, but understanding and being outraged by Jewish suffering does not mean one supports killing a civilian in those circumstances, anymore than supposing that the girl whose family was killed in Beit Hanoun (to pick one example at random) would be justified in retaliating by blowing up Jewish children.
Luke,
before you start making massive generalisations about an entire religious group, you should look at incidences of Buddhist extremists, Jewish fundamentalists, and THE CRUSADES – for incidences of Christian terrorism. Not to mention pipe bombs in planned parenthood abortion clinics in the US.
It really bothers me when people put terrorism down to an issue of religion. This simply isn’t true.
The root cause of terrorism is political.
When Osama Bin Laden was interviewed by Robert Fisk, Bin Laden cited three reasons for his anger with the US:
- US support for Israel.
- The US support for the Saudi monarchy
- US troops in Saudi Arabia.
These were all political reasons. Of course he uses religious rhetoric, because a lot of weak willed uneducated extremists have been buttered up by Medieval rulers like the Taliban who Imran Khan called an “embarrassment to all educated Muslims,” “They were semi literate people who didn’t know a world existed outside Kabul or Afghanistan.”
Religious rhetoric is just a way to incite people to join your cause, exactly the same way American politicians used religious rhetoric to justify a cynically motivated war – in the name of God and country.
Anonymous,
at the time, I was watching ABC television and SBS all night, in the hope of finding some coverage about the incident. The first time they mentioned anything about it was close to midnight, and only for about five minutes.
I’m glad to know they had some written coverage on their website, but truly I don’t think their coverage was at all acceptable for a so-called “independent news source.” I’m sure we can put it down to the fact that more editors are regenerating stories that are coming out of the AAP and Reuters, because they’ve done away with more than half of the journos and researchers at the ABC.
Buddhist Extremists:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/buddhist.extremists.attack.christian.run.childrens.home.in.sri.lanka/7261.htm
http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557
Christian terrorism:
- Albigensian Crusade initiated by the Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,897752-1,00.html
- The Lord’s Resistance Army, Uganda:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2007/oct/20/about.uganda
- Army of God, US:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E2DB1E3BF935A35751C1A96E958260
Jewish Terrorism
-Meir Kahane:
http://www.kahane.org/meir/interview.htm
- Jewish Defense League:
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0799/9907081.html
“In a 1986 study of domestic terrorism, the Department of Energy concluded: “For more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States”
- Kach and Kahane Chai:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/THE%20KACH%20MOVEMENT%20-%20BACKGROUND%20-%2003-Mar-94
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9402E7DD1339F93AA25751C1A9669C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fK%2fKahane%2c%20Meir
- Gush Emunim Underground:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DD113EF934A15751C1A966958260
Ann Coulter:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.
Newspaper Column, September 2001.
Gary North:
So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
“The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right” in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.
So you see – Islamic fundamentalists are not the only religious groups inciting violence, hatred, bigotry and death to achieve certain ends… some just appear more socially acceptable than others.
“There are more things that are stupid about this. How is it “making excuses” for terrorism when you disagree about what motivates the murder of civilians? Why is it more anti-terrorism to say it’s because of religion, rather than because of a mixture of causes, including oppression?”
It is not a question of being more or less “anti-terrorism” (whatever that means) – simply being practical.
It is undeniable, that the basis of nearly every terrorist attack at present, is Islamic.
Many, particularly those of the political Left are quick to point to what they consider the “root causes”, which usually and variously include “occupation”, “oppression” (Michael), “poverty”, “lack of education” or the all-time favourite – Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
But let’s dissect those.
“Occupation” – Why is it, that the Tibetans, who suffer the most brutal of occupations, have never fired rockets into mainland China, nor encouraged their children to kill Chinese, wherever they find them? On that note, why does so much of the left have so much to say about what they perceive as Israeli “occupation” (even where the territory is entirely administered by the Palestinian Authority) yet they will say nothing at all about, say, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon?
“Oppression” – yep, all those oppressed Aboriginals, Native Americans, Christians in Mexico, Turkish Armenians, or homosexuals worldwide are constantly blowing themselves and their oppressors up. Right? Aren’t they? Oh.
“Poverty” – the pilots of the planes which crashed into the World Trade Centre were wealthy, educated Saudis. Osama bin Laden is worth billions. Yasser Arafat (and his wife) many billions in plundered funds. On the other hand, impoverished Ethiopians or Sub-Sahara Africans have never taken to blowing up Americans. Why might that be?
“Lack of education” – see also, Saudi hijackers or post-graduate Muslim students at Israeli universities, who decided to blow themselves up in a university which sought to educate them and offer them opportunities they might never get in an Arab country.
And lastly, the all-time greatest excuse for terrorism – . the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Are you aware that there are lots of Christian Palestinians? Yet they don’t go around trying to murder Jews or Israelis. Ever. Indeed, they are brutally oppressed by the Muslim Palestinians (look up Bethlehem) and still carry themselves in a moral way, without suicide bombings, beheadings or teaching their children to hate. To blame Israel, therefore, is to completely whitewash the obvious affect of Islamic indoctrination, which teaches young Palestinians to die for Allah. I don’t see too many Christian kiddies signing up to that, and the reason is obvious, yet you choose to ignore it.
Of course, it’s a little ridiculous to pretend terrorism is solely the preserve of Muslims.
Not at all. It’s simply a statistical fact.
Yes, you could point at environmentalists who have blown up logging companies, or Christians who have blown up abortion clinics. Yet, those examples are statistically insignificant. Put another way, it’s like suggesting that there are a few women who bash their husbands, therefore campaigns opposing violence against women are “a little ridiculous”.
You cannot point to any mainstream religious group, anywhere in the world, in the 21st century who are causing religious-based violence in so many countries around the world. Except one – Islam.
See: http://thereligionofpeace.com/
Even worse, If you watch Arab television, on http://memritv.org you will see the Muslims happily declaring such interests. Yet again, you choose to ignore it. When a person says they are going to kill you, why must you look elsewhere for the problem?
And why is it that the apartheid wall (”security fence”) divides Israel proper from the occupied territories?
Apartheid wall? Excuse me? Any other Palestinian propaganda you care to casually repeat? Your reference is an absolute insult to South Africans who genuinely suffered against Apartheid, and the number of Jews, many of whom are friends of my family’s, who struggled against it.
A simple challenge: If Israel commits “apartheid” as you claim, why are Palestinians allowed onto Israeli schoolbuses, where they can blow themselves up? On the other hand, Saudi Arabia doesn’t even permit Jews into the country. Is that apartheid? I don’t hear you criticising it…
See also: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/Pictures/hway-2-mecca-muslims-only.jpg and try and find a single Israeli equivalent. You won’t. All Israeli citizens are treated equally, regardless of their religion. The same simply cannot be said of any Arab state. Even Gaza, has a Jewish population of zero, unless you count Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped by Hamas. There’s a German word for that: Judenrein.
Oh, and whilst we’re at it – why do you think US forces are being bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
For the same reason non-Muslims were bombed in Mumbai, Beslan, London, Bali…… You still don’t get it, do you?
The difference, is in Iraq and Afghanistan, we took the fight to them, rather than the other way around. As a direct consequence, Jihadi activity in both those areas has dropped markedly. It may suit you to ignore it, but Jihadist activity in Iraq has all but vanished. That’s no coincidence.
Remember, Kristallnacht was preceded by a Jewish dude killing a German diplomat.
Wow. You’re passing off Nazi propaganda now as well! Nice work. Kristallnacht, was actually preceded by five or more years of Nazi persecution of Jews, including the Nuremburg laws.
Moreover, the incident to which you refer, was (even by your description of it) markedly different to, say a group of German Jews walking into a German school and indiscriminately shooting at German children. So any parallel you choose to draw, whilst not only disgraceful, would also be an inaccurate comparison.
A sane person would be far more appalled by the pogrom that followed, but understanding and being outraged by Jewish suffering does not mean one supports killing a civilian in those circumstances
Diplomats are not the same as civilians. it’s like suggesting the occupants of the King David Hotel, were all out holidaying on Spring Break, rather than the reality – it was the British Military Headquarters.
I can’t believe I’m seriously arguing with someone who would draw a parallel between the activities of the Nazis and the Jews.
Michael – a question for you. Since you are associated with Antony Loewenstein’s IAJV, do you agree with his stated desire for the abolition of Israel as a Jewish state? A simple yes or no would suffice. If the answer is no, how can you seriously have anything to do with him?
Luke,
I find it interesting that at the beginning of your argument you argue that it is a waste of time to define terrorism – oppression is oppression, either way people have suffered. But then you go on to say that other forms of religious terrorism are statistically insignificant.
I disagree, because I think all of these violent groups and violent acts have contributed to legitimising “terrorism” (if that’s what you decide to call it), throughout history as a means to an end.
Anyone who agrees that non-violent actions works – should look at your argument. You’re correct – see homosexuals, and Tibetan Buddhists (just two of many examples) have been unsuccessful in achieving equal status in society and throughout the world.
Yes, the Dalai Lama has advocated peaceful protest at all cost. Morally and Karmically of course this is a beautiful philosophy, but it also means the future of their religious and national sovereignty depends upon whether or not the world will find it to be an important enough cause to fight for. Thus, they continue to wait for the world to legitimise their suffrage, and grant them their own freedom. Unfortunately, I’m sad to say they will be waiting for a long time.
I don’t think anyone can disagree that without Malcom X, the dreams of Martin Luther King may not have been achieved so efficiently, or at all. The civil rights movement would not have been as successful if there weren’t tactics taken from both sides of the political spectrum: peaceful protest, and violence.
Another example is Nelson Mandela’s legitimising forceful violence to end Apartheid.
I am not a terrorist sympathizer, but we’re kidding ourselves if we deny that it hasn’t worked in the past.
Look at the Vietnam war if you’re still not convinced.
I didn’t intend for this to turn into a political cat fight. Getting caught up in all these arguments once again ignores everything that this blog was designed to consider. People whose lives have been changed forever, and the millions of voiceless people who on a daily basis have their lives held hostage by corrupt despotic rulers, or terrorists, by an apathetic public and narrow minded politicians.
Luke – like it or not something is going to have to change. Maybe, unfortunately, Israel may have to negotiate, as will all the other Arab countries too. But if it means an end to violence – shouldn’t we at least consider a compromise? I don’t know what the compromise would be, and I also don’t want to get in an argument over Israel because your beliefs are just as legitimate as mine, and it wasn’t the topic this blog was designed to discuss. I know what I’m saying is completely idealistic, but I refuse to give up hope that their can’t be a peaceful solution.
Michael – I doubt the result is going to be your utopian dream either.
All I know is we’re all going to have to stop turning up our noses at labels like “left” and “right”, they both make legitimate arguments and I doubt anyone appreciates being snubbed for their particular political leanings and “worldly” ideals.
Just one other thing,
Michael – Obviously I don’t think that a Christian “terrorist” that blows up a church or abortion clinic is in anyway representative of Christianity, anymore than a Muslim fundamentalist represents Islamism. Unfortunately though, I do think some of these people DO believe that their will is Gods will, as loony as we perceive that view to be.
I just want to clear up – I was not in anyway implying that Bin Laden’s goals are in anyway legitimate, but I would have thought you of all people could understand that the grievance itself, can be considered legitimate. Weren’t you the one saying that the US are just as responsible for the ‘terorrising’ of millions of innocent Muslims as Islamic fundamentalists and theocratic regimes?
Claire, I have a fairly lengthy response with respect to your reference to the Crusades. Too often I see how and why proponents of the idea that all religions are equal in their capacity to inspire violence frequently invoke this, as if it is equivalent to contemporary Islamic jihad violence.
However, reality could hardly be more different and unfortunately your limited historical knowledge on this subject is illustrated by trying to equate the reality of jihad in Islam with the Crusades (and please, you don’t need to put Caps Lock on when typing in The Crusades).
The Crusades were a late and small-scale response to Islamic jihad conquests that began 450 years before the First Crusade and overwhelmed what had been up to the time of these conquests over half of Christendom. Three of the five principal centres of early Christianity – Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem – were conquered and Islamised before the First Crusade, and a fourth (Constantinople) would fall in 1453, 150 years after the Islamic conquest of the last Crusader kingdom.
The initial pace of these jihad conquests was fast. In 635, the jihadists took Damascus; in 636, al-Basrah in Iraq; in 637, Antioch; and in 638, Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christianity and the jewel of the Christian East. The Muslims took Caesarea in 641 and Armenia in 643, and the conquest of Egypt took place in the same period. They also won decisive victories over the Byzantines at Sufetula in Tunisia in 647. By 709 they had complete control of North Africa; by 711 they had subdued Spain and were moving into France. Muslim forces first tried to take Constantinople in August 716, but it wouldn’t fallfor another 700 years. Meanwhile, Sicily fell in 827.
The Byzantines and other Christians fought back and regained some territory, but most of these conquests were never reversed. Then, early in the 11th century, conditions for Christians in the Holy Land rapidly deteriorated. In 1004, the Fatimid caliph Abu ‘Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim ordered churches destroyed and church property seized. Over the next 10 years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed. Untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which marked the traditional site of Christ’s burial in Jerusalem, be destroyed, along with several other churches (including the Church of the Resurrection). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that Christians accept Islam or leave his dominions.
This persecution was relaxed somewhat and in 1027 the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. But Christians in the Holy Land weren’t out of danger. In 1056, Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the new Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Then in 1071, the Seljuk Turks crushed the Byzantines in the Battle of Manzikert; they conquered Syria in 1076 and Jerusalem in 1077. It was against this backdrop that Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to the pope for help. Ultimately, the First Crusade, called by Pope Urban II in 1095, came in response to that call.
The warriors of the First Crusade and some of the later Crusades committed atrocities that cannot be excused, including the notorious sack of Jerusalem in 1099, during which they set alight a synagogue full of Jews. Their behaviour in this, as heinous as it was, wasn’t the singular atrocity that later historians and polemicists have made it out to be; in fact, it was common practice at the time for invaders to deal harshly with cities that resisted siege and leniently with those that surrendered without a fight. Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city. This is not to excuse the crusaders’ conduct by pointing to similar incidents and suggesting that “everybody does it”, as Islamic apologists frequently do today when confronted with the realities of modern jihad terrorism. One atrocity does not excuse another, but it does illustrate that the Crusaders’ behaviour in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period, as all state subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.
Historian Bernard Lewis finds contemporary Western embarrassment over the Crusades a bit excessive:
“We have seen in our own day the extraordinary spectacle of a pope apologizing to the Muslims for the Crusades. I would no wish to defend the behaviour of the Crusaders, which was in many respects atrocious. But let us have a sense of proportion. We are now expected to believe the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly. The first papal call for a crusades occurred in 846 C.E., when an Arab expedition from Sicily sailed up the Tiber and sacked St Peter’s in Rome. A synod in France issued an appeal to Christian sovereigns to rally against “the enemies of Christ”, and the pope, Leo IV, offered a heavenly reward to those who died fighting Muslims. A century and a half and many battles later, in 1096, the Crusaders actually arrived in the Middle East. The Crusades were a late, limited, and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad – an attempt to recover by holy war what had been lost by holy war. It failed, and it was not followed up.” (Bernard Lewis, 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., March 7, 2007).
Herein lies the difference which helps explain why we saw what we saw in Mumbai this week with the Crusades. You must note that the imitation of Christ and the imitation of Muhammad are very different affairs. Large-scale Crusades haven’t recurred in the Christian world over the last 800 years because there’s no imperative in the teaching of Christ to justify warfare in the name of the religion. In contrast, while many millions of Muslims in many areas of the world have grown up for generations without hearing about the jihad imperative, the teachings of jihad have remained part of Islam, capable of being revived at any time by those with the means and determination to do so. If the Christian and post-Christian West has anything to apologise for in the Crusades, the Islamic world has a great deal more for which it should apologise in the jihad wars that began many centuries before the Crusades and still have not ended.
The fact is, there is simply no group anywhere in the world today that is committing violent acts and justifying them by quoting the Bible and invoking Christianity. But there are many, many groups committing violent acts and justifying them by quoting the Qu’ran and invoking Islam. This can’t be denied.
Hence, I have to agree Luke above and argue that the problem of Islamic terrorism has strictly religious roots, being based in the teachings of Islam (“Islam” means submission, that is, ”submission” to the will of Allah). Here’s some useful information about the Islamic doctrine and practice of jihad.
Within several centuries of Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., based upon the “proto-jihad” campaigns he waged in Arabia, Muslim jurists and theologians formulated the institution of permanent jihad war against non-Muslims for the submission of the known world to Islam.
The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al-Tabari’s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 C.E.), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar (the second ‘Rightly Guided Caliph’) reportedly said:
“Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.”
Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah”, embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses (for example, 9:5,6; 9:29; 4:76—79; 2: 214—15; 8:39—42), and long chapters in the Traditions (i.e., “hadith”, acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] and Muslim [d. 874]). The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear:
Ibn Abi Zayd al—Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist:
“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist:
”Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”
From (primarily) the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah of Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali of Marghinan, d. 1196):
“It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”
al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi’i jurist:
“…The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al—Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarised these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Sunni Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
By the time of the classical Muslim historian al-Tabari’s death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to the Indian subcontinent. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as on Christian eastern European lands. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired. These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slain or enslaved, the cities and villages which were pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc), as well as Hebrew sources, and even the scant Hindu and Buddhist writings which survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate this narrative, and complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non-Muslim victims of jihad wars.
From its earliest inception, through the present, jihad has been central to the thought and writings of prominent Muslim theologians and jurists. The precepts and regulations elucidated in the 7th through 9th centuries are immutable in the Muslim theological-juridical system, and they have remained essentially unchallenged by the majority of contemporary Muslims. The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur’anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves. Unlike the espousal of jihad in the Qur’an, the constituent texts of Christianity, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, do not contain a form fruste institutionalization of the Crusades. The Bible sanctions the Israelites conquest of Canaan, a limited domain, it does not sanction a permanent war to submit all the nations of humanity to a uniform code of religious law. Similarly, the tactics of warfare are described in the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, in very circumscribed and specific contexts. Moreover, while the Bible clearly condemns certain inhumane practices of paganism, it never invoked an eternal war against all of the world’s pagan peoples.
As mentioned, the Crusades as an historical phenomenon were a reaction to events resulting from over 450 years of previous jihad campaigns. At the close of the 11th century, particularly after the crushing Byzantine defeat by the Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071, Christendom, including Europe, was under existential threat by a confluence of Muslim advances. To the West, the Almoravid Berber Muslim tribes drove into Spain and pushed northward, pillaging and massacring the Christian populations they encountered. In the East, following their victory at Manzikert, the Seljuks put Armenia to fire and sword, and within a decade they had conquered three-fourths of Asia Minor. By 1090 C.E., Grousset has observed:
“…Turkish Islam having almost entirely driven the Byzantines out of Asia [Minor], was preparing to pass over into Europe. [i.e., from the East]”.
Finally, in the Holy Land (i.e., Palestine) itself, the Muslim yoke under the Seljuks had become particularly onerous for the indigenous Christian (and Jewish) population, as well as Christian pilgrims. Both the native and pilgrim populations were subjected to forced conversions, kidnappings, and murder in an atmosphere of overall insecurity for the life and property of non-Muslims. Michael the Syrian, the 12th century Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, reproducing earlier contemporary sources in his famous Chronicle, summarized the prevailing conditions for Christians in Palestine, as follows:
“As the Turks were ruling the lands of Syria and Palestine, they inflicted injuries on Christians who went to pray in Jerusalem, beat them, pillaged them, levied the poll tax at the gate of the town and also at Golgotha and the [Holy] Sepulchre; and in addition, every time they saw a caravan of Christians, particularly of those from Rome and the lands of Italy, they made every effort to cause their death in diverse ways. And when countless people had perished as a result, the kings and counts were seized with [religious] zeal and left Rome; troops from all these countries joined them, and they came by sea to Constantinople [First Crusade (1096—99)].”
The late Jacques Ellul’s penetrating analysis of the jihad argued convincingly that in fact:
“…the idea of a holy war is a direct product of the Muslim jihad. If the latter is a holy war, then obviously the fight against Muslims to defend or save Christianity has also to be a holy war. The idea of a holy war is not of Christian origin. Emperors never advanced the idea prior to the appearance of Islam.”
Ellul’s thesis is confirmed when one examines more closely the jihad conquests of the Iberian peninsula, Asia Minor, and Palestine, as well as the imposition of Muslim rule in these regions (particularly the Iberian peninsula and in Palestine), prior to the onset of the Crusades.
Finally, let’s say that, hypothetically, if Israel were to be destroyed and the US stopped dealing with Saudi Arabia tomorrow (I think they should anyway because it’s clear the Saudis provide much of the education and indoctrination of Muslims in madrassas worldwide), do you think this would satisfy the jihadists? No, it wouldn’t. Such thinking is detrimental and falls short of understanding what underlies the jihadists’ motivation. They’d be emboldened and would merely continue their jihad against other non-Muslims in the non-Muslim world as they have clearly done this week.
Sorry for the long post but I just wanted to clear this up. Hopefully this isn’t too much of an irritating truth for you to take in.
Luke,
I can’t believe how racist you are. Not only that, but you casually write the most outrageous things. You even say I “pass off Nazi propaganda”. Do you realise how offensive saying something like that is? What are you saying? That I’m pro-Nazi? But the offensive things you say about me aren’t as shocking as the anti-Muslim racism that you consider uncontroversial fact.
But I’ll respond once more, and once only. I think I can make plain why you are too dishonest to conduct a serious conversation with.
My first response was simple.
More suicide bombings have been conducted by the Tamil Tigers than by anyone else. I asked if that was because of Islamist incitement. How did you respond?
“It is undeniable, that the basis of nearly every terrorist attack at present, is Islamic.”
You then go on to say – again, regarding it as important to disregard what I wrote:
“It’s simply a statistical fact.” (that terrorism is restricted to Muslims)
It is, I think, a little sad that people who know the least about any topic feel the most certain about it, as they emphatically repeat things that are untrue and ridiculous.
Now, I don’t think there is any precision in the word “terrorism”, because you consider it the murder of white civilians by Muslims, and would not include in this category the regular murder of Muslims by white people. Now, with the possible exception of Iraq since 2003, as I’m not familiar with current statistics, the Tamil Tigers – who are secular – have conducted more suicide bombings than anyone else. This instantly shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you declare as fact something that is flatly untrue – but not only this, but you have done so *after* being given a chance to find out whether you were wrong. Hence, you are dishonest, and don’t actually care about the issues, let alone such trivialities as what the truth might be.
But I’ll have a bit more of a look at what you wrote. You list other causes of terrorism, without reference to the actual conversation you were in. Indeed, I’ve had the fun of hearing what you’ve said before by others, and imagine you actually have received some sort of official propaganda, which is amusing, in light of the racist things you later say.
Putting that aside, what you mention in disregard of what has been said is almost comical – that occupation and oppression are not to be found as contributing factors to terrorism… because Tibetans, Aboriginals, Native Americans and so on have not committed terrorism. Well, you ridicule that they don’t “blow themselves up.” In fact, what you say is so ridiculous that I wonder if you know anything about any of these issues at all. As is well known, Native Americans and Aborigines *did* kill civilians among the settler invaders. That you don’t know this is a little astonishing. Why do you make such confident pronunciations on historical matters you don’t know anything about? And on Tibet – well, this is ironic too. As is well known, there have been violent Tibetan resisters to the Chinese occupation, and if you read what I wrote (obviously you consider such things trivial before pretending to write a response), I noted that Tibetans attacked Han Chinese and also attacked Chinese stores. But this must have been due to subliminal Islamic incitement too.
I also posed a simple question – there are well over a billion Muslims in the world. If Islam is all it takes for terrorism to happen – why is it that there is so little Islamic terrorism? Indeed, if you’ve ever spoken to your counterparts, you can speak to Chinese people who think they’re as patriotic as you think you are, and who insist that the Dalai Lama is a terrorist mastermind.
I have a good Chinese friend who insists that the Chinese occupation is basically benign (and not an occupation anyway), and so completely different from genuine occupations, like that suffered by the Palestinians.
Your treatment of statistics is also a little odd. Statistically, the violence of Muslims against non-Muslims is undetectable beside our violence against them. You speak of watching Arabic TV, but you don’t. You don’t speak Arabic, and you obviously know nothing about MEMRI, which you consider an uncontroversial source. Apparently, a source on Arab media founded by a “retired” member of Israeli intelligence is reliable. But let’s return to another of your statistical facts. “Are you aware that there are lots of Christian Palestinians? Yet they don’t go around trying to murder Jews or Israelis. Ever.”
Well, I haven’t examined the religion of individual suicide bombers (etc), but this struck me as pretty unlikely. Palestinian Christians (and atheists) have long struggled against the occupation, for the right of return of refugees and so on. There are revolutionary left groups that I’m sure you would consider terrorist – DFLP, PFLP for example. Well, they were founded by Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash. Both are from Christian families, though I’d be pretty surprised if they weren’t both atheists. I imagine you’d consider them both terrorist masterminds, and I would imagine these groups would be dominated by atheists. So there we are with another of your solemn empirical claims.
Perhaps my favourite part of what you wrote was this:
“Apartheid wall? Excuse me? Any other Palestinian propaganda you care to casually repeat? Your reference is an absolute insult to South Africans who genuinely suffered against Apartheid, and the number of Jews, many of whom are friends of my family’s, who struggled against it.”
Firstly, note the racism with which you call a claim you disagree with “Palestinian propaganda”. I imagine you would respond slightly differently to someone who opposes (say) the anti-Semitism in Hamas’s founding charter as someone speaking “Jewish propaganda”. In fact, there are an awful lot of people – some of them not even Palestinian, because I assume, as you’re a racist bigot, that their nationality would disqualify them from earning a fair hearing – who compare Israel, and certainly the occupation regime, to Apartheid South Africa. So, let’s start within Israel. Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni have both used the “a” word. And so have several reporters – and the editorialists – in Haaretz. Okay, but they didn’t struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Well, Desmond Tutu did. But then, I guess by your criteria, he must not have “genuinely” struggled against Apartheid. Ronnie Kasrils also did, and he’s a Jewish veteran of the ANC, so that must be really confusing for you. But in fact, the comparison comes all the time, and Mandela himself has long been supportive of the Palestinian struggle. As just a recent sample of the kind of thing that you embarrass yourself by being completely unaware of:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html
But I think really, if you know who Desmond Tutu is, that ought to be enough. Put aside Israel’s disgraceful discrimination against Palestinians within Israel, which, whilst terrible, does not in my view constitute apartheid. The West Bank and Gaza are occupied and controlled by Israel, but the Palestinians have not been enfranchised in over 40 years. Having millions of un-citizens is really enough to make Israel an apartheid state. You say Palestinians are allowed on school buses (and within Israel, I imagine they might be able to do so). Okay, but how many Palestinians are allowed to buy state lands, constituting over 90% of the land within the Green Line? How many Palestinian settlers are there in the West Bank? Why is it that Palestinians in the West Bank are not even allowed to *drive* on roads for settlers?
You then solemnly inform me (after saying you haven’t heard me criticise Saudi Arabia. Presumably you’re implying I approve of it. And on what basis? That I haven’t mentioned it in a conversation in which it was irrelevant. Do my opinions even matter when you write things attacking me?) that
“All Israeli citizens are treated equally, regardless of their religion.” In fact, this is complete and utter bullshit. You plainly don’t know anything at all about the things you pronounce so confidently on.
So just as a sample of refutation – the other day, in the Israeli English language press, Ehud Olmert (perhaps you’ve heard of him) was reported giving a speech denouncing the discrimination against Arabs in Israel:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3622276,00.html
So then, to your greatest low – I said Kristallnacht was preceded by the murder of a diplomat. You find this stunning – perhaps you know as little about Nazi Germany as everything else, and consider it propaganda to report uncontroversial historical fact. I then went on to note that a sane person would be appalled at Kristallnacht – indeed, more appalled than at the preceding act of terrorism. The point was that people suffering oppression often respond in ugly ways. Indeed, I gave it as an example of this, before you wisely pointed out to me that Kristallnacht was preceded by Nazi oppression. Is it worth reading what I write? Or does it get in the way of being racist, and implying I’m somehow pro-Nazi and engaged in Nazi apologetics?
And though the comparison probably seems obscene to you – because you don’t care about Muslim suffering – not so many years ago, there was a pogrom in India, no less shocking than Kristallnacht, in which something like 2000 Muslims were killed, besides women being gang raped and other horrifying atrocities. But you’re blind to this. Muslims are only ever terrorists, and facts get in the way of passionate prejudices.
IAJV is not Antony Loewenstein’s. But yes, I should say, I have some things to do with him. I’ve spoken to him on a few occasions, and we get on okay. I don’t think Israel should be a Jewish state. I can go further – I don’t think any states should have national or religious biases. I can go even further – I don’t support the existence of any states.
Actually, one more thing. Why doesn’t the left say anything about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon? The mind boggles. Do you just recite things you were told in school? Have you ever thought of updating your propaganda training?
But I’ll take this challenge anyway. How about Robert Fisk?
Or As’ad AbuKhalil. AbuKhalil is a Lebanese born and raised leftist, who opposes the continued occupation of Lebanon by Israel, and also opposed Syria’s occupation (whilst it lasted). He opposes Saudi Arabian and US influence on the government, he is a secularist, criticises Hezbollah from the left, and is second to none in his contempt for the Syrian government. And probably every government in the region for that matter.
Actually, I can’t resist. “Jihadi activity in Iraq has all but vanished”. Reality really must be boring huh.
Claire,
I think you misunderstand me. The horrendous regimes throughout the middle east, and they crimes they routinely commit, are a legitimate grievance that people in the region have against the US which supports them (with the exceptions of Iran and Syria, which are not client states, which is why the US declares its concern over their human rights abuses). Bin Laden has shown no signs of caring about the suffering of Arabs, and has done nothing for the Palestinians (and the predictable consequence of his 9/11 atrocity was a more severe onslaught on the Muslim world). Bin Laden does appeal to these (real and legitimate) grievances, but I think cynically. Bin Laden speaks of something like his compassion for the Palestinians, and pretends Arabs have to choose between him and Bush. If that were the case, he probably would gain popular support. However, there is a gap between his popular appeals, and his actual program – like making Saudi Arabia an even worse theocracy. Also – something I wanted to add – Bin Laden’s terrorist career did not begin with US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf War. It began with the mujahideen, when the CIA supported him, and what Eqbal Ahmad called the bearded fanatics from another century (something like that), when Ahmad was reporting on these lovely allies throwing acid in the faces of women – something the Taliban continues to do today.
But yes, the US shares responsibility for the terrorising of Muslims and Arabs. Sticking just to US crimes against Iraqis, since the 60s, it has repeatedly supported the slaughter of Kurds, including after betraying them (under Kissinger) in the 1970s, and supporting the genocidal Anfal campaign against them in the 80s. It helped Saddam Hussein into power, it supported his development of chemical weapons, and also was complicit in his massacre of the Kurds and Shiites after the first Gulf War. It followed this with sanctions which killed half a million Iraqis. Why do they hate us indeed.
Take it outside you two.
Don’t make me turn into a IRC OP.
You both bring up interesting arguments, but we really are moving away from the original point of the post.
Lets keep it polite please.
Michael said: “You speak of watching Arabic TV, but you don’t. You don’t speak Arabic, and you obviously know nothing about MEMRI, which you consider an uncontroversial source. Apparently, a source on Arab media founded by a “retired” member of Israeli intelligence is reliable.”
Michael, MEMRI is an excellent resource and merely offers translations of Arabic news and television items. That’s all they do – translate. If you don’t trust the translations then you are always welcome to translate them yourself.
It definitely is a reliable source, especially because people who speak Arabic and aren’t Israeli or Jewish, have confirmed that the translations are correct. Muslims, whether they be moderates or former Muslims or even people who are fluent in Arabic, can easily confirm that the translations are correct. It’s really not that hard to verify such things. Your comment implies that because MEMRI was established by a retired member of Israeli intelligence, it’s therefore suspicious and really can’t be reliable for translations. Such a notion is incredibly stupid.
Thus, it’s left up to the viewer to read these translations and make up their own minds about what’s being pumped through much of the Arab media and into the minds of millions of Arabs. When you do see most of this, you can only conclude that it’s dreadful and it’s little wonder why Israel is so reviled by the Arab world.
Oh, I didn't see this. Hi anonymous, I'll respond.
No, I don't speak Arabic. I don't know you, but I think it is unlikely that you do either. You say Muslims, former Muslims, and "even people who are fluent in Arabic" (even? why even?) can confirm the translations are accurate. In fact, the accuracy of the translations is routinely criticised. See, for example, Asad AbuKhalil's blog
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/search?q=memri
He is "even" fluent in Arabic, and is an atheist, who routinely notes anti-Semitism in Arabic media which MEMRI doesn't condemn, because the speaker or writer in question is either pro-Israel or pro-US. Your conclusion is also stupid – if this is the only reason you can imagine that Israel is reviled in the western world, then you obviously have absolutely no familiarity with any of the facts on the ground.
But I'll return to what you said. Firstly, plenty of people have criticised MEMRI distortions – besides its selective approach to Arab media. For example, something that is easily verifiable is the English language interview of Norman Finkelstein, which he analysed on his website
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=605&pg=11
Also, Middle East expert and historian Juan Cole – at his blog and elsewhere – has written critically of MEMRI.
http://antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3898
And also the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
But yes, for someone who does not speak Arabic, I cannot verify for myself whether MEMRI's translations are accurate. I can consult experts on the region to find out their view, and they are critical of MEMRI.
Anyway, I did not imply that because MEMRI was established by a "retired" member of Israeli intelligence (etc). I implied that he was not retired. Of course, retired or otherwise, it plainly is *not* a reliable source, particularly if he is not retired. This puzzles you – perhaps there are a handful of people on the planet who actually consider governments reliable sources – and even, reliable sources on governments and societies they're hostile to. Of course, I imagine that if you wanted to find out about (say) the US or Israel, you would not consult the government websites of (say) Syria or Iran. Even spelling this out further seems silly. Very few people trust more than one or two governments (usually their own, but occasionally a foreign one, such as Cuba or the former Soviet Union or whatever). More particularly, intelligence services have as part of their duties the planting of propaganda stories in foreign (and sometimes even domestic) media. An obvious recent example is America planting favourable stories about its occupation of Iraq in Iraqi media. Or its support of pro-American media like al-Hurra. Somehow, these propaganda offensives have been unsuccessful. If you are the same writer as the earlier commentator, you must, along with such experts as Kenaan Makiya and Bernard Lewis, be puzzled why the invaders aren't being greeted with "sweets and flowers".
Anyway, the original point is that yes, a "news" service founded by a member of a government intelligence agency – any such organisation, anywhere – is instantly a very dubious source.
And Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is reviled in the Arab world because its behaviour is revolting. Also, because it's one of the few human rights abuses in the region that Arab media is allowed to cover, given the prevalence of hideous autocracies and kleptocracies, which are almost uniformly dependent on US support for their existence.
Michael