Terrorism Has 'Everything To Do With Islam,' Author Charges

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer November 13, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush wasted no time, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in exonerating Islam and reminding Americans that the violence had been committed by freedom haters. Islam, the religion the terrorists claimed to represent while carrying out their attacks, actually stood for peace, the president insisted.

Fourteen months after the attacks, the 19 hijacker/terrorists are still considered heroes by certain elements of the Islamic community around the world.

A would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and an alleged would-be dirty bomber, Jose Padilla, have seen their attack plans foiled in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. But the accused Beltway Sniper, John Muhammad, and his alleged teenaged accomplice John Malvo, are believed responsible for a multi-state shooting spree that culminated in the killings of ten people in the Washington, D.C., region, before they were captured.

Reid, Padilla, Muhammad and Malvo all had one thing in common - a devotion to Islam.

Robert Spencer, author of Islam Unveiled and an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, believes Islam's theological foundation is creating many of today's terrorists and would-be terrorists.

Spencer's book takes a critical look at the religion of Islam, its holy book, The Koran, its prophet Muhammad and concludes that the religion is producing violent behavior in a significant numbers of its adherents.

"The religious motivation [for terrorism] is paramount for millions of these people and if we don't recognize that, we are going to be ill equipped in the face of what we are up against," Spencer told CNSNews.com.

Spencer believes the U.S. is not prepared to fight a war on terrorism because the nation fails to understand the true nature of Islam.

"[Our leaders] are intent on insisting that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, when it has everything to do with Islam," Spencer said.

"When you are in a conflict and you don't know the true nature of your opponent, you are at a tremendous disadvantage," he added.

According to Spencer the "mainstream interpretation" of the religion of Islam is responsible for violent behavior because the text of the Koran has many passages inciting followers to violence.

"When the Koran says, 'Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them,' the extremists can point to that and many other verses of that kind and say: 'Look, this is what the religion teaches,'" Spencer said.

Moderate Muslims are "in the unfortunate position of saying: 'No that is not actually what it means,'" and can be "easily portrayed by extremists as being the disloyal party, the ones that don't take the Koran seriously," he added.

Moderates have a difficult time explaining away verses that incite violence because Islam teaches that the Koran was dictated word for word by Allah (God), according to Spencer.

"Muslims teach the Koran is the literal words of God in a stronger sense than Christianity believes the Bible is the word of God ... the Koran is more than inspired, it is dictated, it is actually God speaking. There is no human element," Spencer said.

"The moderates who might be fighting against Islam's dark side, have the disadvantage of having to go against the plain words of the text of the Koran," he said.

"There is no theological or geographical or denominational or any other kind of firewall between extremist Islam and moderate Islam," he added.

'Religion of Peace'

Islamic scholars and Muslim advocates dispute Spencer's research and the premise of his book.

Michael Young, editor of Islam For Today, rejects the notion that the religion of Islam is to blame for terrorist activities.

"Islam promotes itself first and foremost as a religion of peace ... Islam spread throughout Southeast Asia and Africa entirely by peaceful means," Young told CNSNews.com.

Young believes many people mistakenly believe Islam is a violent religion because of the "local culture" of some Muslim nations.

"Very often when Islam is in society for so long, people fail to distinguish between what is Islam and what is their own local culture," Young explained.

Young did concede however, "There are vocal people within in Muslim community who do harbor Taliban sympathies."

'Defamatory attacks on Islam'

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was more blunt in defending Islam from charges that it encourages terrorism.

"When people of other faiths commit crimes or violent acts, people don't generalize to the whole faith, but when a Muslim commits a violent act, somehow it is an indictment to their entire faith," Hooper told CNSNews.com.

"Muslims occasionally do bad things, so do Jews, so do Christians, so do Hindus, so do Martians," he added.

Hooper believes that since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, there has been "a new cottage industry of defamatory attacks on Islam."

"If you want to make a buck now, attack Islam," Hooper said. "When it is done to Christianity or Judaism, people in authority object. When it is done to Islam, it gets a pass," he added.

Young believes Islam's tarnished image among some Westerners is the result of some Muslim followers misinterpreting passages of the Koran, something that could happen in any religion, he said.

"If you are intent on committing a violent act, you can always find some religious text that smashes the heads of babies against rocks. If you choose to interpret in a certain way, you will find what you are looking for," Young said.

But Spencer, agreeing that many religions of the world have inspired violence among its adherents, believes Islam is by far the most culpable.

"There is no doubt that Christians and Jews and everybody else bearing every other name of every other religion have done terrible things, but that doesn't mean that every religious text is equal in capacity to inspire that kind of thing," Spencer said.

According to Spencer, the Koran takes the "Seventh Century warrior," Muhammad, and "canonize[s] him as the supreme example of human behavior."

"So that instead of being a Seventh Century warfare pattern that we ought not to follow, [Muhammad] becomes the model for how we should always behave. So this is the defect, this is the difficulty," Spencer said.

'Political Correctness'

Larry Johnson, a former CIA and State Department officer and counter terrorism expert, believes media and government officials are not dealing forthright with the threat of Islamic terrorists, because there is a "bit of political correctness still running afoot."

"We like to portray as a nation, Islam as a religion of peace, and it really isn't," Johnson said.

"As it is widely practiced, [Islam] doesn't encourage peace and it encourages violence, Part of that is that it has not had its own version of The Reformation. It is stuck in Middle Ages as Christianity or Judaism once was," he added.

"[Moderates] do not represent the majority thought in the Muslim world. They are very much on the defensive," Johnson said.

Johnson believes the radical Islam movement is the greatest national security threat facing the U.S.

"There is no other significant threat confronting us ... it gives people a reason to do what they do and to take risks and make sacrifices," Johnson said.

Johnson thinks a modern "crusade" may be necessary to battle Islam.

"I think George Bush was right when he called for a crusade, but it's not a crusade of Christians against Islam, as was a hallmark of the first Crusades. This is a crusade of [modern societies] versus a medieval thought process," Johnson said.

'50,000 Muslim Men'

In order to fight what he sees as a growing Islamic threat, Spencer proposes that the U.S. impose strict immigration limits on Muslims entering the U.S.

"Why were 50,000 Muslim men admitted to the country from Muslim countries since September 11?" he asked. When are we going to start being sane about immigration law?"

Spencer would also like to see mosques monitored by law enforcement for anti-American sentiment and any inciting of violence, ideas Hooper finds offensive.

"I live here too. I don't want to be attacked, but battling terrorists and defaming Islam are two different things," Hooper countered.

Spencer is not optimistic the U.S. will take the security threat of Islam seriously.

"Everyone is so afraid of being called a racist that they are afraid to take measures that are necessary to defend oneself," Spencer said.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002

Answers

Don't you think just maybe that most any religion can be accused of the above?? Just look at how some have used Christianity over the years to promote agendas that don't look a bit like they were Christ focused.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002

I only have to look at British history and see the burnings at the stake, beheadings and tortures in the name of Protestants and Catholics. The Tower of London and Madame Tussaud's have some very revealing exhibits. England's only Civil War was about religion--see Cromwell who really exacerbated the Irish problem after he defeated the far less dour Cavaliers (Royalists). But to get into such a discussion here is not encouraged because of the problems on the old TB2K board. At the moment, it seems to be extremist Muslims who are causing problems so that's the focus.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002

First, did Islamists invent dictation or was it Al Gore?

Second, while there have been Christians and Jews and assorted others doing bad things, none of them have developed followings based on any religion that teaches killing anyone that doesn't believe. Recently, I mean. Not historically.

Further, I think that in order to win any war against Islamist Muslim radicals people are going to have to sit up and think hard about whether they want to believe in a supreme being [a.k.a. star trek alien that returns to collect after 1000 years of peace, TNG version] that will take care of them or whether they should take matters into their own hands.

If you're unfamiliar with the star trek reference, I will elaborate.

Star Trek, The Next Generation, with Captain Picard, visited a planet where most all the inhabitants were sure that their 'god' had returned to collect on a deal for 1000 years of peace. The signs were all there, earthquakes, floods, etc. Turned out that a passing alien bitch with a bunch of slaves in her ship had stopped in unbeknownst to the planets' inhabitants and learned of their bizarre history and faith. About a thousand years ago the planet was heading down the road to oblivion until a 'god' said that it would cure all disease and hunger, etc. The people agreed and over a few years these things came to pass. Of course, it was because they all stopped arguing and warring with one another that things got better.

The passing alien took up that belief and, with her ship used to create the illusions necessary, made the people think that the end had come and that they were all to give up the ghost to her.

Picard, with the use of the enterprise, found her ship, and went to court against her to prove she was an imposter. He took over her ship with crew of the Enterprise, and made it seem that he was able to make earthquakes happen with a move of his hand, and to change his appearance with a blink of one eye. You get the picture now, right?

Picard won the court case, the alien bitch was reduce to sublight speed and left. The planet was once more left alone to fend for itself.

Funny thing is, Picard never should have announced the existence of the Federation because the planet was not warp capable, a pre-requisite to first contact. At least, I think they weren't. He got involved because they were almost ready for contact and something was screwing them up and heading them toward destruction.

This was a long time ago that I saw the show. I understand that The Nashville Network still airs this series, but I rarely remember to watch it, so don't know when it comes on.

Like the original series with Kirk and Spock, the show worked with ideas taken from current events for the most part. It was partly that source for material that made the show what it is today. It certainly wasn't the acting.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002


:>( sorry didn't know we were not suppose to discuss, missed that I guess. hugs...........never intended to cause a problem for anyone.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002

Silly! Not a problem, no apology necessary! Sometimes I forget who was here when. The old TB2K actually exploded at the seams when what I can only call religious fundamentalists started causing problems by relating absolutely every little thing to religion. Not that YOU are a fundamentalist of any kind, Diane! Although I've never really talked about it, I think most people on this board have guessed I'm an atheist. Not a fundamentalist atheist, though, just the live-and-let-live kind.

When we started this board it was to disseminate helpful information to help one another through crises, small and large. We're mostly au fait (now THAT's a trendy term!) with disaster preparedness and thus don't discuss it much (although if anyone has any questions on storing food and other essentials, feel very free to ask. We have a number of experts on the subject here!).

Anyway, when we split off we were accused of being anti-Christian, which is not true. Our point was there are scores of boards on which people can discuss the Rapture, Nostradamus, Revelations and what have you; we tend to be more focused on, um, more practical matters. I don't care if anyone is a Coptic Christian, Pagan, Latter Day Saint or Polytheist, whatever. I care more about who has a good source for powdered butter! LOL! Yes, there IS such a thing and we thought we might need it at one time.

Since we're threatened by extremist Muslims and not, for instance, wacko Druids, I like to post as much as I can about them. Somewhere in all this verbiage is some truth and some helpful information. 'Course, if anyone knows about a threat from coreopsis worshipers (old joke on BrookE), please let me know!

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002



:>) that is funny OG because I AM a fundimentalist, but a live and let live fundimentalist who is always distressed when I see what you describe taking place and try to avoid it to the best of my ability. I actually left one board because of the CHRISTIANS on that board who made it impossible to discuss what I went there to discuss. (thus my reference on this thread :>) )

Most of the time I am just as happy to lurk and say nothing because the truth of the matter is.......................THE WHOLE WORLD confuses me these days and I just become a wood sprite who MAKES herself keep up on the news so I don't get any great big surprises.

So, that said, I will most definately behave to the best of my ability. Thanks for providing the site.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002


Well, coming from an Irish Catholic mother and a Protestant father, I tend to have a slightly different sensitivity to religion. . . :-) My first husband was Catholic, which shocked most of the Catholic side of the family but the Protestant side didn't care. Yep, I certainly am familiar with religious bias.

I know I'm not the only one who appreciates your input--just your insight on Haiti is invaluable.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2002


Moderation questions? read the FAQ