Petition against 'Islamic' terrorism

[monkeytrousers]

Just want to sound this idea out with you good people

Everytime someone in the media mentions the words 'Islam' and 'terrorism' in the same sentence it does nothing but reinforce the idea that the two are inextricably linked. The caveats added after the fact don't do much to redress this imbalance, IMO.

I've never organised a petition before but I think if enough of you were to support it I would like to ask the BBC to do something pro-active in this area. If the BBC can be convinced (a long shot I know but I think it's worth a try) then other media would undoubtedly follow. (they are pack animals )

At the very least we can register our opinion that this will help to unite all creeds in the face of international terrorism and not follow the terriorsts own script when it comes to the corruption of Islam.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.

[Aragon]

Why don't they say "religious fanatics" or "religious fundamentalists" instead of "Islamic", "Palistinian", "Israeli", "far right christian". I think we'd all know what they meant.

[monkeytrousers]

That's right Aragon.

Contests over language happen every day between government and media all over the world. It's incredibly important in a media age as it gives the victor control over how a debate is framed - they create the terms of reference and an attempt to go off script can easily be dismissed and called irrelevant.

For all the apparent antagonism between govenment and media here, they seem to have struck up a compromise which, perhaps not intentionally, happens to put Muslims (and other life choices not endorsing capitalism) at a disadvantage that is impossible to recover from. They are besieged from both sides of the argument.

[ChaCha]

Well said.
MT - I'll be away for a few days but wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your support. As a white, British Muslim with a very mixed background and even more mixed family I find it hard to express my views. My family are Christian, athiest, Muslim, Catholic, agnostic - you name it, we all have different views BUT we are tolerant of each other (well some of them) but can ony be expected..right i'm ranting now, best get the car ready! x

[monkeytrousers]

And as someone pointed out to me yesterday the Egyptian govenment was very eager to stress that the attack yesterday was about 'international' terrorism and not Egyptian extremism.

[peacedove]

saadia, assalamu aleikum

you said: "This radical and extreme interpretation of Islam was encouraged and funded by the US to fight against Russian forces in Afghanistan. It has obviously got out of hand and the Iranians rightly described it as the "illegitimate child of US foreign policy". I would not be surprised if in some way this terrorism served the US's interests."

From what I know, while the US did help in the Jihad in Afghanistan, it was not funded by the US. It was funded and manned by the Ummah, & it was not "radical or extremist Islam" there. All Muslims participated in the Jihad, excluding those who were sympathetic to the Communist bloc.

Blowing up innocents was not taught by anyone. If you have access to the book on Jihad by Dr Abdullah Azzam, you will see that the rules for Jihad were very clearly laid out, and those were in accordance with the Sunnah of the prophet (saw), and there were clear injunctions against harming the innocent.

Why has this turned into today's terrorism, is something for which I do not have a coherent explanation. I do have glimpses of evidence and insights, but still too small to hazard a guess. And it does include manipulation by intelligence agencies.

The Iranian position is not tenable. It is due to their rivarly with the Saudis.

[peacedove]

bloss, peace

you said: "There are certainly passages in the Q'ran which support what they do. The question is how to strike the balance between those which demand the killing of infidels and the ones that preach peace and tolerance. It seems to me that grown people are allowed to form their own views on these things."

Passages in the Quran or the Bible taken out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions. The historical context in which the said passages were revealed, the Sunnah of the prophet (saw), the ijma`a (agreement) of the scholars of interpretation are what the Ummah goes by.

Terrorism is terrorism, state-sponsored, politically motivated, or religious. And if we go by your definition, the present terrorism that points to Muslims as perpetrators also has political roots, in that the Muslims masses have continued to experience neo-colonialism and suppression of their rights by regimes that have been supported by European (and daughter) powers.

[Blu]

What are the passages which support the killing of infidels?

The translation of a passage I read seemed clear that killling was not allowed, except of those who have killed someone else.

I am wholly in support of giving coverage to the views of 'moderate muslims' who are united against terror, and showing solidarity with peope who have arguably got more to lose than non-muslims: not only are they at equal risk of being blown up in the attacks, they are also enduring reactions which range from suspicion to outright backlash hate crime.

But I think it is a bit misleading to eradicate a connection between those who (rightly or wrongly) are acting out of a motivation based in their allegiance to Islam.

It is a serious failure of our society and the tolerance we are so proud of if we can't distinguish between those who commit atrocities and those who do not, within a common religious, national or racial group.

[PeachyClair]

MT- you're quite right about the media thing, I worked for several charities and now volunteer as a Guider. Each supplied me immediately with massive packs including logo's obsessive notes on what you can and can't do re. branding etc-
simple language is so important.

There's nothing wrong with a sentence that says 'Extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam', it's just when they say Muslim terrosrists every time.

[monkeytrousers]

I agree Blu, it is a serious failure, but we need to do more than simply admit it - what can we do to challenge it?

If we agree that racist discrimnation occurs then it follows that the white majority has more influence in this debate than the oppressed minority at it's centre. It's an awful admission, but if we have power then lets try to use it for something. I'm up for any other ideas but I'm still convinced that lobbying the BBC to (if not changing the term) publicly make some gesture towards solidarity is the best way forward.

And not a one off gesture that will fade out of the public consciousness with the next deplorable tragedy, but a sustained and consistant one. A match will do it in the short term but no longer.

Did someone mention ribbons before? That might be an answer as long as their meaning was reiterated.

Thanks for you comments Peacedove. Have you any ideas about what would be appropriate?

[monkeytrousers]

Thanks Peach.

[monkeytrousers]

A march, I mean

[Papillon]

I marched against the war in Iraq, marching might bring emotions of solidatory but on election day the majority of a population repeatedly vote for either of the two prevailing majority parties. And what have both these parties being doing miltary wise...

The occupying forces in Iraq have managed to set up a national assembly, government and presidency; yet they are making little headway against armed resistance fighters

Why is that? Well here is a good reason -

Both the UK and the US have been bombing the no-fly zone since the Gulf war. It was a war and has effected the people of Iraq for 10 years. Small wonder some of them have become resistance fighters against terrorism waged upon their people and their country.

Did anybody really expect them to roll on their backs like a good doggy and wag its tail? No, just think in the last few days the emotions some of you have felt at the bombings. The thoughts, the prejudice, the fear. Lets try that in our own backyard for the next 10 years and then we might have some appreciation of how it might feel to live in a neighbourhood where half the houses are in rubble. Large populations of our men dead. Would all of us just feel outrage or would some of us fight back?

Here are some links that might be of interest. MT I am not good at reading whole books on this type of thing! Have not read Orientalism.

A short guide to the Shias

globalisation

[monkeytrousers]

Here's your link from another thread Peacedove.

[Papillon]

Think about how the political structure should represent the public? There is no diversification in a one rule party system.

Why does there have to be one person, one party at top?

gotta dash for now.

[Tinker]

Inside the mind of a potential suicide bomber From today's Observer. Interesting.

[peacedove]

thanks MT

I think "Extremists acting in the name of Islam" is accurate, but too long. Just calling them terrorists would do for me. Why link it to religion at all? And why International either?

[monkeytrousers]

Right, think I got the wrong end of the stick about internationalism.

This has become a very complex esoteric debate now, nothing like the simple symbolic gesture I naively began with..

[bloss]

Message withdrawn

[Janh]

Tinker, that was really instructive, thanks.

I love the title of the guy's book - "Life is more Beautiful than Paradise"

[bloss]

Message withdrawn

[Janh]

"At one stage I thought I would love to be chosen. I spent a great deal of time thinking: "What if they ask me?" The idea of suicide bombing wasn't obvious but the idea of martyrdom was prominent. I would have liked to do something I thought mattered - sacrificing yourself to establish heaven on Earth. For me the real question was: 'Am I able to sacrifice more or not?' It wasn't: 'Am I going to do a wrong thing or right thing?' I knew I was right. For me at the time, the Koran said so. When Islamist people become suicide bombers they believe that God is ordering them to do it. They are not lying to themselves. They are not bad people. Your life is completely being lived for its sake until a point when you can't really differentiate between yourself and your ideology. If they destroy this ideology, they destroy you."

From Tinker's link

[bloss]

Message withdrawn

[bloss]

Message withdrawn

[SenoraPostrophe]

monkeytrousers, I think you have a good point.

Someone stated out that we don't call the IRA Catholic terrorists because their interpretation of catholicism is not what motivates them. But neither is a belief in islam purely and simply what motivates Al Quaeda et al. Their motives are revenge, and the cleansing of Islamic states.

More to the point, even if we accept that the IRA/catholicism analogy is not a good one, we don't call the IRA "Irish nationalist terrorists" either, do we? And we certainly don't call ordinary Irish people "moderate nationalists" when we mean "non-terrorist nationalists", like muslims are often called "moderate muslims". It does seem unfair.

Bloss - there doesn't have to be a "denial" of the role of Islam in reports of these crimes, but something more specific would be better - "Islamic extremist terrorists" for example.

And finally Moondog - I am not a muslim either but I do believe in fighting prejudice and any kind of incitement to predjudice, even the subtle kind. It is not an "other people's battle" - it affects us all.

[peacedove]

bloss

9:5 Surah Anfaal. I saw a clear explanation somewhere, but I did not bookmark it. It made sense. It does not say "kill all infidels". It referred to a specific period of time when the Meccans and the Bedouin non-believers had broken the truce, once too amy times, I think.

If it had said kill all infidels all the time, when the Caliph Umar (ra) took Jerusalem, he would not have let the Christians and the Jews stay with their properties intact.

And there isn't a monster in the middle of the room. I wish I had the energy and the resources to write a book on the groups that have been sponsored by the CIA and the KGB and the Mossad and their client agencies. These include religious groups, too.

Suicide bombings among Sunnis was unknown until the Palestinian intifada, and then it came to Egypt and Afghanistan, and from there to Pakistan. The details of the splinter groups that initially took up this ideology are still not available to me. It would take a lot of research for me, and again I wouldn't be surprised if agencies are involved, although it does not absolve Muslims since their leaders should ahve gone out of their way to clarify the issues.

Suicide attacks among the Shia were also limited to the Assassins, followers of the "Man on the Mountain" (Ismailis, Qaramatah or related groups) who were paid by the Crusader leaders to decimate the Sunni leadership.

And I am sorry, Islam doesn't have to answer for anything. We Muslims have to, for many of us have gone astray, as the prophet told us we will copy the other nations.