The role of Terrorism in Islam

[Carpathian Wolf]

First and foremost I want people to divorce the notion of terrorism, the tactic of subterfuge used to cause terror upon an enemy, from the modern day political equivalent. I think terrorism is a very capable and effective battle tactic which for example my own countrymen used in order to resist Islam. Everyone knows the story of Vlad Dracula and how he impaled Turkish soldiers in order to demoralize Mehmet II and his superior army after weeks and weeks of harassment and scorch earth tactics. To me terrorism isn't automatically and necessarily a stain on someone. One man's terrorist is another man's hero. How many Americans today would consider the founding fathers as terrorism conspirators. Or how about the many militia rifle units through America who wore no uniforms? How many French would consider the resistance against the Axis occupation as terrorists? How many Russians would consider the partizans as terrorists or how many Japanese and Germans would consider their own partizan forces as terrorists?

But what I want to discuss here is the roll of terrorism in Islam. People may come to me and say "No no you're anti Muslim. The Quran doesn't say anything about terrorism." And yet we have many Muslims who interpret it quite differently. Now you may say "What about the IRA? They are Catholic terrorists then?" The difference however is that they don't find their ideology in their religion. Religion may play an extensive part in their reasoning, their life styles, their allegiances but there is nothing to be taken from the bible in the way that you can from the Quran. Another large difference between the two is also that the IRA is a fairly isolated issue. No one uses their interpretation of Catholicism or any Christian branch to go blow up buildings, embassies, suicide bombings and what not. Sure you can point out a bunch of red necks as the KKK who can espouse some extreme views but I doubt they've read any books let alone the bible.

What is clear to me is that terrorism shaped very much Islam from an early stage, from the caravan raids, to the later campaigns of the likes of Khalid. Perhaps it's also part of being the "new small power on the block." Taking it from a completely objective point of view i'd have to say very much so that when you are small you may not be strong but you are mobile. Using terrorism is a way to gain yourself some resources, build up momentum and become one of the big powers.

[motiv-8]

Terrorism has no inherent role in Islam. Terrorism in and from the Islamic world is a phenomenon scarcely three decades old and has been influenced by political developments of the modern/post-modern world as much as any religious creed.

[Babur]

Terrorism has no inherent role in Islam. Terrorism in and from the Islamic world is a phenomenon scarcely three decades old and has been influenced by political developments of the modern/post-modern world as much as any religious creed.

some groups emerged out of de-colonialisation

[Carpathian Wolf]

Terrorism has no inherent role in Islam. Terrorism in and from the Islamic world is a phenomenon scarcely three decades old and has been influenced by political developments of the modern/post-modern world as much as any religious creed.

Well how do you define terrorism?

[motiv-8]

That's the big question, isn't it? There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. The UN can't even agree to and provide for one. What I do know is that applying such a term to a period that existed well over a thousand years before the term "terrorism" itself yet came into being isn't exactly accurate.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Then with that settled I suppose we can then switch the focus onto offensive Jihad which the gentleman in the video discusses.

[Arto]

The problem is that you've managed to use a word against a group that's ''too big'' to be properly described by the word ''terrorism''. You've also given your arguments that can be easily changed into counter-arguments. Islam is too divided to form such an organization and like Shaggy said; the most dangerous branches emerged out of the de-colonization.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The problem is that you've managed to use a word against a group that's ''too big'' to be properly described by the word ''terrorism''. You've also given your arguments that can be easily changed into counter-arguments. Islam is too divided to form such an organization and like Shaggy said; the most dangerous branches emerged out of the de-colonization.

I would venture to say that the Israeli Moussad were the ones to first introduce modern terrorism but that's another topic.

[Banana Jelly]

Terrorism hasn't shaped anything.

The "terrorism" you say that happened along time ago with burning and looting caravan's are different from terrorism now. Many nations/empires used these tactics to deter the other countries/nations and weakening the other trade wise.

You mean Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? As I said, these day's the terrorists abuse the word Jihad and go on personal Jihads abusing the Quran killing innocent's. The Quran never supported or harbored murder.

To compare Jihads from back in the middle ages from modern day is foolish. Now politics run through everything. Terrorism is the cause of politics. Not the Quran.

In your definition, I can say crusades were terrorists?

What you say is just too broad.

[Dr. Croccer]

Terrorism has only been a part of Islamism, which is a fairly young politico-religious ideology, only about 30 years. Terrorism, in the sense of the modern concept and practice, didn't exist before the 20th century.

[Banana Jelly]

Terrorism has only been a part of Islamism, which is a fairly young politico-religious ideology, only about 30 years. Terrorism, in the sense of the modern concept and practice, didn't exist before the 20th century.

Where did you get this "modern concept and practice"?

Islam never practices terrorism. Its the people who follow Islam, who abuses what Islam says to there likings. Plus thats quite a few. Terrorism is not politico-religious ideology. Its a political-idology.

[Sher Khan]

Arab Nationalists and later Islamists commit terrorism because it was effective, it was usually unpreventable, undetectable, and it was fantastical in the power of its destruction and its message. To the point that Islam is involved is simply that the enemy is 'the enemy' and must be fought in defense of the Arab peoples/Islam. Attacks on military targets, as most of CW's examples about famous past insurgents are, are certainly lauded and praised. Attacks on civilians, whether by hijackers or suicide bombers, are condemned by the Muslim world and the Muslim ulema.

These groups use terror because, as opposed to fighting a conventional war against superior forces, it works and gets massive media attention. No one outside of Ceylon and India really noticed or paid much attention to the Tamil rebels until they started a spectacular campaign of suicide attacks, after all.


Jihadists and takfirists are a new development, a further radicalization of Islamists that have become jaded with attempting to reform the Arab/Muslim world politically and latched onto a violent world-view of us-vs-them in which whoever is not with them is subject to be killed. Islamists, at least, claim Muslim innocents as bystanders who unknowingly did their part in the fight, but Jihadists actively target other Muslims as legitimate enemies.

It's a criminal conspiracy that can't accurately be called terrorism anymore, as there is no political goal demanded by these people as there are with radical Islamists.

[Carpathian Wolf]

My question is why don't we ever see anything like the above video from any other major religion? Why is Islam unique in that aspect?

[Sher Khan]

No other civilization group has been under so many decades of absolute totalitarianism fueled by a constant perceived threat from 'enemy forces' that have constant resonance among the average person and a propaganda campaign that, for over fifty years, has merged nationalism with religion.

With no outlet to express themselves, and with despots crushing any perceived threats to their power in the form of political parties or social movements, the people turn to natural leaders who, because of their cultural grassroots power, are able to somewhat weather the government's suppression: the religious ulema.

I say somewhat, because these clerics who refuse to cowtow the official propaganda or rhetoric of Middle Eastern despots are suppressed still. Those that are thrown in jail for decades and suffer torture, or know such people and such injustices, become radicalized and violent revolutionaries.

Being clerics, their reactionary world-view takes the form of religious conviction.

[Carpathian Wolf]

No other civilization group has been under so many decades of absolute totalitarianism fueled by a constant perceived threat from 'enemy forces' that have constant resonance among the average person and a propaganda campaign that, for over fifty years, has merged nationalism with religion.

With no outlet to express themselves, and with despots crushing any perceived threats to their power in the form of political parties or social movements, the people turn to natural leaders who, because of their cultural grassroots power, are able to somewhat weather the government's suppression: the religious ulema.

I say somewhat, because these clerics who refuse to cowtow the official propaganda or rhetoric of Middle Eastern despots are suppressed still. Those that are thrown in jail for decades and suffer torture, or know such people and such injustices, become radicalized and violent revolutionaries.

Being clerics, their reactionary world-view takes the form of religious conviction.

I don't know if you can say that no other civilization group has been under so many decades of "absolute totalitarianism fueled by a constant perceived threat from 'enemy forces' that have constant resonance among the average person and a propaganda campaign that, for over fifty years,"

What about the communist rule over the majority of Orthodox countries?

[Sher Khan]

I don't know if you can say that no other civilization group has been under so many decades of "absolute totalitarianism fueled by a constant perceived threat from 'enemy forces' that have constant resonance among the average person and a propaganda campaign that, for over fifty years,"

What about the communist rule over the majority of Orthodox countries?

While Communist rule in Eastern Europe has its similarities (Arab regimes are, in fact, spiritual successors to such governing style), there are certain key differences.

- I am not aware of an educational campaign that promoted a marriage of nationalism and religion in these countries on the same scale as happens throughout the Middle East, from Morocco to Pakistan even, without any breaks or different models.

- The lack of a perceived threat that focuses as heavily on the Arab populace (or at least their government masters) as Israel/the West (Syria in fact being still at war technically with Israel and constantly using this excuse to suppress its citizens as a wartime necessity).

- The inglorious downfall of pan Arabism that, unlike other nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, did not meet its gradual end at the hands of a series of catastrophic and humiliating defeats against said perceived threat, Israel, that still haunts the rhetoric of Arab nationalists and Islamists to this day.

- In various ways, Eastern European and Balkan government has laxed with the collapse of the Soviet Union, where some nations have overthrown communist regimes or others have relaxed their oppression due to outside, European pressure and the loss of support from Moscow. This has not happened, ever, in any Middle Eastern country. Even the ones promising reform, change has not been forthcoming and dictatorial regimes are as strong as ever. Worse still, the only regime change that did occur has been a foreign invasion of Iraq by the United States, which before had never lost its image as an unreliable proponent of democratization by Arab liberals and never lost its image as the cause of all their troubles by Arab conservatives.

The 'perfect society' rhetoric in Communist states has been greatly humbled by their weakening and/or collapse, but Saudi Arabia's 'perfect society' rhetoric that also demonizes outsiders (not just Westerners, but other Muslims) is still going strong.

[Icefrisco]

It is very hard to say that Islam, as a whole, encourages terrorism. Sunni Islamic "culture" does not favor most of the aspects of terrorism (bigotry, martyrdom, violence against civilians, ect.). However, Shia Islam, with its history of martyrs and enduring support for martyrdom, does have somewhat of a "terrorist" culture around it. Also, the Shia have frequently felt that desperate actions throughout their history is what has kept them alive in the face of conflict with the far more numerous Sunnis. In some way, this element of Shia culture can be viewed as causing violence. I wouldn't call Shia Islam a terrorist religion, but some aspects of its history and culture probably provide justification to terrorists for their actions. Yet, terrorists are naturally violent people; even if Islamic terrorists were not Muslims, many would still support violence.

[Carpathian Wolf]

But they're still pretty much identical. The difference is that much of that non sense is still going on in many middle eastern countries while it has subsided in eastern europe. But the end result is what I am interested in. Military failure against Israel is the reason? It just seems too simplistic and one dimensional. Perhaps Israel may be a reason, but you still need something to be the cause of that focus, the same reason while the man in he video can look at the Quran and history and justify his brand of Islam.

[Sher Khan]

But they're still pretty much identical. The difference is that much of that non sense is still going on in many middle eastern countries while it has subsided in eastern europe. But the end result is what I am interested in. Military failure against Israel is the reason? It just seems too simplistic and one dimensional. Perhaps Israel may be a reason, but you still need something to be the cause of that focus, the same reason while the man in he video can look at the Quran and history and justify his brand of Islam.

Military failure is of course just one reason out of many, but it does play a large role. Not on the part of Israel itself, though it doesn't do itself any favors with the Muslim world whenever it seems to land itself knee-deep in trouble. There's corruption (corruption out the ass, really), secret police, brutal imprisonment, suppression of political rights (some nations have no civic life at all, not even a right to assemble in private), skyrocketing unemployment thanks to poor mercantilism policies by over-protective governments, lack of accountability by both government officials and the heads of state, and the disparate levels of wealth between the haves and the have-nots.

For decades, Israel had been propagandized by the Arab despots as the quintessential bulwark of WESTERN-COLONIALISM-IMPERIALISM and threatening to overrun/undermine the Arab world just like the British and French, and later Americans and Russians are seen as having done. Much of their legitimacy was, in fact, their claim to be a necessity in keeping absolute power in order to defend against Israel. As these military juntas overthrew democratic governments, this was very important to keep their rule stable for as long as possible.

Defeat after defeat, however, had crippled pan-Arabism and Nasserism shamefully in the eyes of many Middle Easterners, who by this time readily bought into the anti-Israeli and anti-Western diatribe that continuously blamed outside forces. While some Arab nations caved in some and capitulated to peace talks (which angered their people who were willing to fight, causing some to be assassinated or attacked), others dug in and kept themselves in a continuous state of preparedness and military rule.

Over time, with the failures of these despots to live up to their grand promises, people began to turn to other sources of power or revolution. By the 1980s, this took the form of Islamism, and slowly the banner of revolution and the fight against all that ails the Arab world was taken up by fundamentalist Muslims and idealists seeking answers in Shariah. The shift from the PLO to Hamas, for example.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Oh please, were not obsessed with christianity like you are

Perfectly fine.

Military failure is of course just one reason out of many, but it does play a large role. Not on the part of Israel itself, though it doesn't do itself any favors with the Muslim world whenever it seems to land itself knee-deep in trouble. There's corruption (corruption out the ass, really), secret police, brutal imprisonment, suppression of political rights (some nations have no civic life at all, not even a right to assemble in private), skyrocketing unemployment thanks to poor mercantilism policies by over-protective governments, lack of accountability by both government officials and the heads of state, and the disparate levels of wealth between the haves and the have-nots.

For decades, Israel had been propagandized by the Arab despots as the quintessential bulwark of WESTERN-COLONIALISM-IMPERIALISM and threatening to overrun/undermine the Arab world just like the British and French, and later Americans and Russians are seen as having done. Much of their legitimacy was, in fact, their claim to be a necessity in keeping absolute power in order to defend against Israel. As these military juntas overthrew democratic governments, this was very important to keep their rule stable for as long as possible.

Defeat after defeat, however, had crippled pan-Arabism and Nasserism shamefully in the eyes of many Middle Easterners, who by this time readily bought into the anti-Israeli and anti-Western diatribe that continuously blamed outside forces. While some Arab nations caved in some and capitulated to peace talks (which angered their people who were willing to fight, causing some to be assassinated or attacked), others dug in and kept themselves in a continuous state of preparedness and military rule.

Over time, with the failures of these despots to live up to their grand promises, people began to turn to other sources of power or revolution. By the 1980s, this took the form of Islamism, and slowly the banner of revolution and the fight against all that ails the Arab world was taken up by fundamentalist Muslims and idealists seeking answers in Shariah. The shift from the PLO to Hamas, for example.

But everything you just listed I could say the same or find an equal equivalent for much of the former USSR satellites.