Islamic Terrorism

[Nonson]

What is Pan Islamism terrorism?

The Madrasah milieu nurses decadent values. In present times politics, economics, ethics, philosophy, education and culture have been liberated from the clutches of religion. The Maulavis want to reverse the process. They do not understand the truth that moral values cannot be preached and do not come from heavens. These must be cultivated. These change with change in the mode of existence of man▓s social life and the structure of social relations in a society. Feudal and tribal values cannot operate in a capitalistic society. Hence, they cannot be imposed upon capitalistic man. In a world where the market economy is dominating every aspects of our lives, religion has lost its pre-eminence. Now market is deciding what is good and what is bad for us, what we should do and what we should not.

says M.A.Hussain



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Terrorism cannot be equated with Islam. Quaran is historical and history is nothing but a point of view and defining Islam is matter of interpretation. There can be more than one interpretation of Quaran. It depends upon how Muslims interpret Quaran.

Terrorism is a recent phenomenon, hence alien to Islam which got birth in tribal milieu of Arab. Islam knows tribal raids and feudal or tribal barbarism and taking of conquered into custody as slaves and women as sex slaves (as social insects like ants do) but not terrorism. Islamic scholars say terrorism is un-Islamic and they also say that Islam does not teach violence and intolerance.

Pan-Islamic terrorism is terrorism in which Muslims of various nationalities are involved and are running their violent movements in the name of Islam, of course with different objectives. Pan-Islamic terrorism is a reaction against capitalist onslaughts on feudal and tribal way of life and political marginalisation of socially decadent and politically defunct social classes and traditional power elite, in Muslim societies the world over and political hegymony of industraily developed countries over developing countries including Muslim countries and their economies.

Madrasahs are bastions of Pan Islamic terrorism. On the one hand, Madrasahs have divided Muslim community on sectarian line but on the other hand, these are helping in transforming fractured Ummah into a transitional political community. The Madrasahs are torch-bearers of Pan Islamism, cutting across all barriers of ethnic, racial, lingual and political divisions among Muslims. But as the Madrasah teaches a very narrow world outlook and seeks to overthrow all non Islamic states world over and Islamists have associated themselves with violence and terrorism through out the world including Muslim countries, Madrasah mind-set has become a threat to international understanding and world peace. In view of foreign mercenaries in Kashmir being Madrasah students, it is threat to pluralistic fabric of Indian society too.

As Madrasah mentality, views a non Islamic state and Muslim states like Turkey, Egypt and Algeria (not to talk of India) ruled by liberal Muslims as ruled by Satan, Ulamas and Mullahas consider themselves as a party of Allah in such a society, as if in opposition to Satanic secular rule. Hence the name Hezbullah. Therefore where the state is not Islamic one, Mullahs and Ulamas consider active practical disobedience and overthrowing such a state as their religious duty. Thus Madrasahs pose several problems and are a potential threat to a pluralistic society and have no place in Indian society.

It is not that every Mullah and Ulama turns against the state. Some even favour non Islamic state and seemingly work in its favour amongst Muslims by preaching status quo and territorial nationalism and allying themselves with one or the other faction of the ruling class to wield political power. It is not out of conviction but out of compulsion that they are doing so, because Ulamas cannot remain ⌠out of power■ without perks and berths even for a day. These status quoits' are equally dangerous as fundamentalist Mullahs. In Kashmir we have seen that Mullahs (including Jamaat-e-Islamia Mullahs supported insurgents as soon as insurgents gained the upper hand. It shows how Mullahs adapt to changing circumstances to safeguard their interests. they were against late Maqbool, Bhat who was executed , did not call him a martyre and would not celebrate his death anniversary.

Pan Islamic terrorism is anti-American, obstructionist, reactionary, anti progress and against capitalist development, totalitarian, and recently India was included in this hit list. (Islamists do not understand how vast majority of Muslims in rest of India is living in peace and their power elite share power with their Hindu counterparts and why "Hindu" state will unleash genocide of handful Muslims in Kashmir, further there was no such allegation of genocide in 40 years of "Hindu rule" in Kashmir but the same "Hindu state" worked for the development of Kashmir, of course in the interest of Muslim Kashmiri political class and bureaucracy in whose control the state government has been all along.).

The problem with Islamists is that they want to have the cake and eat it. They want to have capitalism with feudal or tribal values. They do not tolerate the hegemony and domination of developed countries through their "Western clones" over their culturally, socially, industrially and politically backward countries. Although they symbolically accept the supremacy of Kafirs when these poor fellows while crying Allah Akbar, raise Kalashinkov made by a Kafir .

Muslim fundamentalists do not understand that there can be no political alliance at local regional, national and international level between capitalist and feudal classes without one being dominated by the other. Having firm belief of superiority of Islam over all other belief systems and having been promised of Imamat (political leadership) of the world. Their consciousness is trapped one century back and fail to comprehend contemporary reality.
They forget that they are living under capitalist New World Order and it is a system in which economics tends to dominate every institution of society including religion. No middle path can be carved out between feudal and capitalism. The market mechanism acquire pivotal position in deciding what to do, how to live, what to value and what not? Under these circumstances the role of religious men gets marginalized. Pan Islamism terrorism is reaction against this.

It is not that Pan-Islamists do not have socail base. They have every chance of wining electoral battle in Muslim countries. Then why are they resorting to terrorism to capture political power there. It is the refusal of world capitalist class whether in Algeria or in Turkey or in Iran to share power with them. It also implies that capitalists are organized at all level local, regional, national and international against pre capitalist classes. And also the capitalist democracy means freedom of capitalist class to form coalitions to rule people, not peoples or pre capitalist formations to organize themselves as rulers.

The Madrasah milieu nurses decadent values. In present times politics, economics, ethics, philosophy, education and culture have been liberated from the clutches of religion. The Maulavis want to reverse the process. They do not understand the truth that moral values cannot be preached and do not come from heavens. These must be cultivated. These change with change in the mode of existence of man▓s social life and the structure of social relations in a society. Feudal and tribal values cannot operate in a capitalistic society. Hence, they cannot be imposed upon capitalistic man. In a world where the market economy is dominating every aspects of our lives, religion has lost its pre-eminence. Now market is deciding what is good and what is bad for us, what we should do and what we should not.


With the result Madarasah mind-set sees itself at war with all and with everything from the Barbie doll to the Dish antenna, and from the condom to the TV ad on a napkin or condom. They have enemies within their own familiar their own daughters; their own sisters and wives as they are being suppressed.. They are a frustrated lot. Even All Mighty late Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan faced resistance against the adoption of Islamic dress code from meek women news readers of Pakistan television. They need to understand that women▓s empowerment, autonomy and personal liberty of an individual, democratization and secularization of education, globalization of communication and domination of economics over all aspects of our lives cannot be reversed through violent agitation.

Secular society means a pluralistic and a non-hegmonistic society. Secularism implies a firm belief in man as a rational being capable of discovering what is good and what is evil, and his capacity to manage collective affairs of his life without any divine intervention. In a secular society religion does not play any significant role in socio-political life of its members and no political coalition is formed during any political process in the name of religion. We in India as a pluralistic society should tolerate all minorities and everything they do, we should not tolerate ⌠intolerance■ and its propagation by anyone. We should not tolerate anything which threatens the pluralistic fabric of Indian society. ... Cont.. (M.A.Hussain)
(www.savekashmirmovement.com)

Nonson
03.03.01

[kazanova3]

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME in barking?????take the answer.and respect the others ...


Terrorism


It is clearly stated in the Holy Quran that unjust killings amount to disbelief. Allah, the One God, according to the Quran, condemns such killers to Hell Fire. These evil acts are categorically forbidden in Islam. The Holy Quran emphatically states that if any one slew a person unjustly, it would be as if he slew the whole people (Chapter 5, verse 35). Killing of any one not fighting with you is forbidden.
After giving the story of the two sons of Adam in which one killed the other, the Holy Quran says:

005.035 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Therefore, those who hijack planes, bomb embassies, hold hostages, kill innocent civilians, vandalize Mosques, churches or synogogues or commit other such crimes are committing grave crimes.

The following is a brief but good collection to study Islam's position on terrorism.

Human Rights in Islam by the well-known Muslim scholar, Syed Maududi.
An American Muslim scholar, Abu Aminah Bilal Phillips expresses his views on terrorism in an interview.
In his view, for example, the sort of terrorism recently practiced against civilian tourists and Copts in Egypt by terrorists and many of the actions of the Iraqi "tyrant" Saddam Hussein are abhorrent to Islam.
He said violence between military forces is one thing but there is nothing in Muslim teachings that warrants violence that targets civilians. Muslims in western countries can be criticized for not speaking out more clearly on this, he said.

"Silence is consent", he said, using a phrase he may have picked up during his pre-Muslim days as a political activist.

From an excerpt at http://www.islam.org on terrorism:

There is no meeting point between Islam and terrorism as practiced by terrorist groups in different parts of the world. Terrorism involves the indiscriminate use of force to achieve certain objectives. In Islam, the use of force is allowed only in special situations, particularly when the Muslim community is threatened by hostile forces. Then again, the use of force in a campaign of jihad is determined by the leader of the Muslim community in a very orderly way. The enemy will be well identified, and the use of force is only a last resort. However, what is happening in some parts of the Muslim world today involving same groups which are often described as "fundamentalists", is not always accurately reported or portrayed. Now let us be clear about principles. Islam does not allow the use of force against peaceful civilians. Moreover, using military tactics against an established government and causing in the process the loss of life among civilians is a very serious matter. There will be some people who will try to justify it on the basis of Islamic principles. What we have learned from trusted authorities on Islam is that such use of force is not acceptable at all. We must remember that God did not allow the Prophet and his companions to use force against the non-believers in Makkah, despite the fact that the believers were subjected to a campaign of persecution that caused the death of several people and subjected many to enormous torture. Moreover, God stopped the Muslims from fighting the non-believers in Makkah at the time of Hudaibiyah stating in the Qur'an that had a fight taken place, the Muslims would have been victorious and the non-believers would have run away. Yet He ordered the Prophet to accept the peace agreement which seemed to be unjust to Muslims. The Prophet declared to his companions that he would accept any conditions which would prevent bloodshed. Therefore, resorting to terrorist campaign in order to change a government is not acceptable although the government may be a bad one and follows un-Islamic policies. However, we must also recognize that there is a sustained effort to associate Islam and the advocacy of implementing Islam with terrorism. This is part of the worldwide campaign to prevent Islamic revival. Therefore, we must not believe any report about Muslims resorting to terrorism tactics, unless we are absolutely certain of what has taken place and why it took place in the way it happened. There is much at fault with news reporters and media coverage of such events.

The world appears to be filled with injustices committed by individuals, all sorts of groups, and so many governments of countries like the USA, Russia, India, Israel, Iraq and Algeria. Indiscriminate killings and tortures in Chechnya, Kosova, Bosnia, Kashmir, Israel and Iraq are just a few examples. Muslims should strive to rid the world from the injustices by practicing Islam, living an exemplary life of obedience to Allah T'ala and working in unity with other Muslims to bring about a total change in the world. Only Islam can bring justice and peace to the world.

The http://www.twf.org is a site where a list of articles and quotations can be found on injustices committed by various countries, especally against Muslims. Check out the page http://www.twf.org/cgi-bin/search.sw...rism&results=0





BEST REGARDS...........KAZ-----4M

[Nonson]

September 7, 1998
Is There an ⌠Islamic Terrorism■?
Reuven Paz
ICT Academic Director
Specialist in Islamic Radical Movements

The Rationale - from political rivalry to religious conflict
The recent ⌠war■ between the USA and the Islamist [1] followers of Osama ibn Laden, has brought to light a problem that has been facing the Western world for several years, but which it preferred, for various reasons, to ignore. To begin with the terrorist activity of Islamic radical groups in a number of places around the world--and not only in the Middle East--has, since the early 1980s, been aimed primarily at the United States. In addition, the decline of the Soviet Union (1990-1991) seems to have forced the Western world to seek out a new enemy. These two trends converged during the 1990s with the growth of an aura of global conflict between socio-political cultures: Islam and the Muslim world versus America as the leading element of Western culture.

These perceptions harmonized with the views of radical Islam developed since WWII, in the wake of the creation of the so-called Third World and growing independence of underdeveloped countries. The permanent conflict in the Middle East and its prominent role in the Cold War gave Islamic radicals an excellent opportunity to further expand this theme of an eternal global rivalry between the main cultures of the world. Since 1948 they have seen in the Jews--as partners and allies of the new ⌠crusaders■ in the West--a new villain in the global conspiracy against Islam as a culture and religion, and against the Muslim nation in general.

The Need for an Enemy
The problem of the Western world--even more relevant today--is how to refrain from a rivalry that wears the guise of a war of religions between Islam and Western culture. The modern culture of the West--combining as it does elements of democracy, human rights, civil infrastructure, liberalism etc., with the social and human values of Christianity--seems to view the phrase ⌠Islamic Terrorism■ as politically incorrect.

Western man would prefer to believe that there is no problem between him and the general Muslim population or most of it, but only between him and certain marginal groups, which have no real support, sympathy or allies in their homelands.

On the other hand, Muslim perceptions increasingly see the West as an enemy, not necessarily for religious reasons but for socio-economic ones. The problems stems from a variety of causes: the growing hatred of the wealthy Western countries; the growing alienation of different factions of societies from one another; together with the burst of nationalistic disputes and open conflicts after the fall of the Soviet Union. All this has resulted in a sense of global cultural conflict between the USA--the sole leader of the West--and the rest of the so-called Third World, of which the Muslims are the greater part. This sense of conflict brought with it a growing ⌠solidarity of the poor,■ cemented by religious ties. And this in turn gave rise to the feeling that an American or Western attack on any Muslim country or internal group constitutes an attack on the whole of the Muslim world. This solidarity is based also on the Islamist view that the unification of the Muslim world is their primary mission in the world. It is this cohesion that causes governments under threat of internal terrorism on a religious basis to join the general choir of condemnations of the West under the flag of artificial solidarity promoted by terrorists or radical and fundamentalist groups.

The West too is in need of an enemy. The absence of the USSR as a rival for the West seems to contribute also to this problem. Again--though not necessarily on a religious basis--Western society needs ⌠someone to hate■--someone who will embody in vivid colors the eternal rivalry between God and the Devil, good and evil. Terrorism in general, and that of Islamic radical groups in particular, is perfect for the role, seeming as it does to threaten the most important elements of life in the modern Western world--peace and security.

In short, both sides have developed a sense of conflict between sworn enemies, with each more demonic in the eyes of the other. The veneer of religion causes them both to stick more firmly to their positions, in mirroring the eternal war between good and evil, light and darkness, which is deeply rooted in their religions.

What then is the root of the problem?

The real problem lies in the ambivalence--perhaps even hypocrisy--of the West, which is frightened by the very thought of being perceived as party to a religious war--a notion so old fashioned, un-liberal, politically incorrect and possibly frightening. Its leaders tend to bury their heads in the sand, ignoring very important processes taking place in the Muslim world in recent years.

The fear of using the phrase ⌠Islamic Terrorism■ seems to represent one of the weaker elements of Western counter-terrorism.

The Islamic perceptions of the global war
One of the Islamic radical movements▓ greatest successes in the past three decades is their ability to present themselves to a large Muslim public all over the Arab and Muslim world as the bearers of true Islam, emphasizing those socio-political elements that attract the majority of the population. They appeal to the lower classes of society, who are seeking messianic solutions to their hopeless situation, by emphasizing the more political elements of Islam and the human values such as social justice. In addition, they have something to offer the intellectuals of the middle class, who seek democracy, human rights and civil infrastructure but are disappointed with the ⌠imported■ ideologies and forms of government--including socialism, liberal nationalism, fascism and communism and military dictatorships--as applied in the Arab world.

In conservative populations religion--particularly Islam--and men of religion, are highly regarded and have a good deal of respect and influence. One of the basic tenents of Islam is the division of the world into two defined parts in perpetual conflict--the world of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the world of heresy (Dar al-Harb). Thus, the perception of global conflict is deeply rooted in Muslim society. Furthermore, these perceptions were strengthened and enhanced before the Islamic radical revival by similar ideas developed under national, socialist or secular regimes, which had viewed the West as colonialist and imperialist. However, the basic hatred to the wealthy West under American hegemony has only taken a religious guise in the last three decades. The elementary perceptions of the Arab world fighting the Crusaders were an integral part of the ideology of Gamal `Abd al-Nasser and the leaders of the Syrian Ba`th party long before the present Islamic expansion in the Arab world.

The Islamists--whether ruled by the elementary doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood, or by the ideology developed by Sayyed Qutb, father of some of the modern Jihad groups--have always sought for global missions: the revival of the former Muslim empire, the unification of the Muslim world as one nation, and the reclamation of Islamic glory. All of these missions are based on a view unique to Islam, that religion is an integral part of politics and vise versa. There is a conflict of giants and Islam or the Muslim world is destined by Allah the almighty to win.

However, for the past few centuries of Muslim history, the West has had the upper hand over the Muslims and therefore some explanation for this is required. On the other hand the Islamist revival through the various movements, groups and ideological streams, had to plant in the general public the sense that the Islamic victory is close at hand. For this purpose two important perceptions were developed by the different movements, singularly homogeneous in viewpoint. One was the hidden power of Islam in contrast to the actual cowardliness and moral weakness of the West and its Jewish allies. The other was the global conspiracy against Islam as a religion and the Muslims as its adherents.

The combination of these two perceptions led most of the radical Islamic groups to the conclusion that they could win over the West in general or over what they see as its leading moral and cultural elements--the Americans and the Jews--by main force. As long as they were not governments or regimes, and perceived most of the Arab regimes as part of the global conspiracy, they looked for the soft belly of their enemy. Islamic Jihad thus departed from the ways of conventional warfare between regular armies recruited by a Khalifah, the politico-religious authority of the Muslim State--as dictated by orthodox Islamic principles, and deteriorated instead into a war of mere indiscriminate terrorism. And this terrorism is directed against an enemy whose corrupt morals transformed him from a dreadful colonialist into a ⌠paper tiger.■

In the eyes of the Islamist movements and ideologists, there is already a state of war between the Muslim world and the Crusaders▓ political culture. From their viewpoint, members of Islamist groups are not terrorists, but permanent soldiers in the service of Allah. As the enemy is everywhere, not only in its own countries but also deep inside the Arab and Muslim world in the form of corrupt governments and diseased cultures, the soldiers of Allah must wage a constant war on many fronts. And as the conspiracy is against Islam and the Muslims, their war is actually one of self-defense. Just as the infidels fight using contemptible and foul methods, the Islamic answer should use all possible means of defense--including indiscriminate terrorism.

The popular legitimacy of Islamic Terrorism
The various Islamist radical groups have emerged outside of the Islamic establishments in the Arab or Muslim world. The later, being appointed and controlled by secular regimes, are perceived as subordinate to their masters, ⌠the clerics of the regime■ (▒Ulama` al-Salatin). Their religious rulings (Fatawa) were often denied, especially those dealing with cultural and socio-political issues. Various Islamist groups have their own clerics and religious rulings. Some of these rulings are given by ideological or political leaders who lack any official religious education and who issue far-reaching commentary of Islamic principles. They have therefore, no problem in forcing their views on their adherents, who view their ideology and doctrines as an integral part of true religion.

But, the main success or failure of these terrorist groups does not depend on their religious commentary or authority. It lies in their ability to gain legitimacy from the general public or from the greater part of it in each Muslim country, as well as in the Arab world in a whole. The need for public sympathy and support is a crucial element of every terrorist group without regard to its ideology or political affiliation. However, in a society where religion has so great an influence as in the Arab and Muslim world, the teachings of Islamist groups are perceived by certain parts of society as the true principles of religion. The socio-cultural elements of their teachings are often combined with the ⌠secular■ tradition of hostility toward the West under American hegemony and/or toward its protection of Israel and the Jews, who are according to the Quran: ⌠The worst enemies of the believers.■ [2]

This popular support for various Islamist terrorist groups in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world, increases the solidarity of a large public with the sense of conflict with the West and with the United States. This accord supplies popular legitimacy to indiscriminate terrorism in the cover of a religious duty of Jihad. This phenomenon from time to time affects not only the general public but certain governments as well. The American strikes in Afghanistan and the Sudan was not perceived by Arab governments, at least in their public reactions, as part of legitimate counter-terrorism, but as an unjustified aggression. Condemnations of the United States were heard in various degrees from the entire Arab world, including those normally regarded as moderate, such as Egypt and Jordan, not to mention the Gulf states. Certain forms of terrorism as ⌠the weapon of the poor■ are regarded by both peoples and governments as self defense, while the American attacks are considered ⌠war crimes.■

So long as Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism have popular support--whether in the form of ideology or in the form of movements and organizations--its influence over large parts of the Muslim world gives it the legitimacy to wage a war that is perceived as between the West and the Islamic world. Arab and Muslim governments will not attempt to delegitimize those movements until they begin to threaten the regimes themselves. In fact, governments often join, either publicly or privately, in promoting the notion of hostility to the West disseminated by the radical Islamic movements or groups--hostility that provides the soil in which the seeds of terrorism in the name of Islamic Jihad may grow.

In addition to the foregoing, the West in general and the United States in particular, should take into consideration that in various forms there already exist several Muslim regimes that promote Islamic radicalism and support Islamic terrorism: Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban rule, the Sudan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The last has shown in the last year increasing qualms about assisting the United States in fighting terrorism against American targets on Saudi territory, for example, in Dhahran and Riyadh. Some of these states were and are state-sponsors of terrorism.

The USA and its Western allies confront not only Osama ibn Laden and his partners from the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Gama`at al-Islamiyah. They must not regard their Islamist enemies as marginal groups in the Muslim world. They actually confront large portions of the Islamic world, whose backing for the ⌠marginal■ groups give them the public legitimacy to promote their terrorist activity.

In Conclusion
There is an Islamic terrorism based on socio-religious perceptions. It may not include the whole Arab and Muslim world, but it perceives the terrorism it wages against the West as an integral part of its religion. The West in general and the USA in particular cannot ignore it and should therefore unite their efforts in an attempt to find different means of countering this kind of Islamic terrorism.

The West should learn from one of the best students of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism, the Dutch scholar, Prof. Johannes Jansen:

⌠In a fiercely competitive society the dominant religion may preach that the greatest virtue is to love one▓s neighbor. The religion of a group which over the centuries has become marginalised may, on the other hand, preach that God has exclusively and explicitly chosen those who follow his commandments. This group may come to believe that it plays a central role in the history of God and his creation. In a society where the law is not much more than an interesting but highly theoretical matter, the major religion may proclaim that following God▓s laws is the only way to put things right. . . Islamic fundamentalism is both politics and religion. It has a dual nature. When it is analyzed as if it were a movement that has political nature only, mistakes are made because fundamentalism is fully religion at the same time.■ [3]
In the Islamic world one cannot differentiate between the political violence of Islamic groups and their popular support derived from religion. They, at any rate, do not recognize any disparity.
The important question remains as to how the West should defend itself against Islamic terrorism. To address the question would require another article. Suffice it to say that in order to deal with this problem, the West must first recognize that the present terrorism on the part of the Arab and Muslim world is Islamic in nature.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
The term ⌠Islamist■ is often used by Islamic radical groups and scholars of the Islamic revival, to emphasize the distinction between orthodox Islamic groups and movements that follow orthodox Islam, and radical or fundamental groups. It also serves the claim of many Muslims and Muslim organizations that the phenomenon of these radical or extremist groups does not represent true Islam but stems from a misinterpretation of the religion, and even heresy. They also claim that Islam cannot be used for terrorist activity because of its peaceful elements.
Quran, Surat al-Ma▓idah, verse 82.
Jansen, Johannes J.G., The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism (N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. ix-xi.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonson
03.03.01