"Almost all terrorists are Muslims."

[Galant]

The problem is that within Islam, the vast majority of Immans and other respected individuals of the faith have offered a unified front and condemmed the actions of the terrorists.

They have? As far as I could tell it's the vast minority that have said anything. That's why this guy wrote the article in the first place.

Given that Islam lacks a unified structure, and has no head, unlike the Catholic faith, this makes it difficult for these poorly educated individuals to stand up to their more learned 'leaders' by cititing the 'official' stance against terrorism. So since those who can have already said what they think, that the attacks undermine the religion and actually act against everything the Koran sets out, the remainder of the responsibility lies with the individual countries to educate the afforemention individuals to a point where they can make an informed decision.

I hardly believe that the reason people are blowing up innocent civilians are only doing so because they lack education or don't know better. Of course they know better. What's more, if this guy who wrote the article is a muslim, living in a muslim country, I imagine he knows well how Islam works, and what can and needs to be done. Can we not listen to hwat he has to say.

So Galant, while it's easy to point a finger, or cast the first stone, its considerably more difficult to come to terms with the fact that the whole world has a responsibility to change the way people think...and act. Perhaps you'd like to direct your accusations to the schooling system of the Egyptian Lower Nile region, or that of the East Javan districts?


And sorry to fall back on the whole 'blame the US' thing, but given the majority of these countries from which the muslim extremists are cultivated can blame some of their current poverty, strife, civil unrest, political upheaval on the direct actions of the US before/during/after the Cold War. Without such an enemy for the extremists to use as stimulus, these atrocities would be less likely. I'm sure to some extent they'd still happen, hateful people always find a way to hate, but perhaps they'd be lessened.

Once again with the disclaimers. Teaching people to see themselves as victims, and that it is someone else's fault, doesn't do anything for them except worsen their dependency on others to help them. I've not been saying this article or idea is the be all and end all of the situation, I've been saying that it is a vital part of the process and one that it would be nice to see some unabashed support for.

[black_knight]

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists. But it is equally certain - and exceptionally painful - that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

TOTAL BS.
Perhaps you should take a proper look at the violent acts occurring in the world, instead of watching some American news station. Your views are very constricted, and very ignorant.

The only reason a lot of people believe what you have just said is because quite a few news stations are biased. The only terrorist attacks that we are told about are Muslim related.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan were Muslims

And this proves your point how? What about the Russians, who have killed over 125,000 Chechyans, with about 40,000 of them being children? Are these actions of terror?

What about suicide bombings in Ireland?

What about the American assault on Iraq?

You are aware that there are more evil regimes than Saddam and the Talaban, aren't you? Check out Humans Rights Watch. You'd be surprised at how many countries who are oppressed by tyrants, whom America hasn't seen fit to 'liberate'. I guess that's because they don't have three trillion dollars worth of oil underneath them.

[RVF500]

Suicide bombings in Ireland? When did they happen?

Also, I don't know if you are aware but the quoted text in your post was from a press release by a prominant Muslim man Who has, by living in an Islamic country, stuck his neck out to stand up and be counted.

[nichomach]

I fully support the chap for standing up, but as I note above, there are plenty of suicide attacks that are not carried out by Muslims. It's certainly possible that a narrow and twisted reading of Islam that is not shared by the great majority of Muslims has been used as a justification for suicide attacks; the post above by the insaan is reflective of the view of that great majority. Consider this; Christian Fundamentalists in the States have firebombed clinics that among other services provide abortions; does that mean that all Christians, regardless of their views on abortion, support murder by firebomb in support of that view? No. The "Christian Identity" movement, closely associated with groups like Aryan Nations, considers non-whites to be subhuman "mud-people". Does this mean that all Christians think like that? No it does not. Certain fundamentalist Christians believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death in the streets. Does that mean that all do? No. If you have a prejudice or predilection, it's very easy to cherry-pick a few phrases from the religious work of your choice to support that.

What we can say is that those suicide attacks that are being most prominently covered in the press are mostly being carried out by people who claim to be Muslim. That doesn't mean that Islam made them do it; it does mean that a very twisted and extremely selective reading of Islam is claimed by them to be a justification.

[RVF500]

It seems (if some newspaper reports are to be believed) that the same narrow and twisted reading supports the rape of school girls too. With such acts being carried out against hostages it makes one wonder if they ever intended to release thier hostages or were really planning a mini armageddem to 'celebrate' september 11.

[Zathras]

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists. But it is equally certain - and exceptionally painful - that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Err, no it isn't equally certain. Take the list of terrorist groups compiled by the Federation of American Scientists, hardly a group one can consider extremely liberal or left-wing: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/
Of this list I'd say certainly less than two-thirds are Muslim in origin or operate in mainly Muslim states. Of these two-thirds, the vast majority are what could be considered liberation groups with some national separatist cause as their overriding aim. A minority of the groups have the establishment of Islamic states or the preaching of Islamic supremacy at heart.

One has to remember that terrorism is prevalent in poorer and more authoritarian nations, which also happen to be the nations where Islam is predominant. Other nations in Africa which are extremely poor yet aren't Muslim have equal terrorism problems and have been plagued with years and years of civil war. You can't draw a direct correlation with being a muslim and terror as there are so many other affecting factors.

Our view of terror and terrorism is determined by the emphasis we place on certain events. The West has more direct links with Muslim terrorism through September 11th, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Western oil interests in the Middle East. However consider the numbers killed in all of these conflicts put together and they pale into insignificance, less than a hundredth of the number compared with the numbers killed in events that certainly fall into the definition of terrorism that have escalated into civil war in countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, DRC and many central African states over the past decade or so. The governments and the media don't really care about these as they're not really affecting us or our business interests. The Western world may be more at threat from Muslim-based terror groups than any other form of terror due to the factors I mentioned above but that statement is far removed from saying all or even a vast majority of terrorists across the world are Muslims.

[nichomach]

Well said, Zathras!

[RVF500]

In terms of numbers, are we talking organisations or numbers as a whole regardless of organisation? How would that affect the balance? Now, I don't know the answer to this so treat it as an open question.

Also, are all the groups listed still active? RAF hasn't done anything since 1991 for example. Shining path are basically drug runners now. More money in it. PIRA continue their drugs, protection, prostitution activities but at least don't throw bombs into pubs and railway stations any more. Well, not lately anyway.

Interesting to note that Baader-Meinhof, who were never Islamic, received aid from middle eastern terror groups. Which highlights the network that exists amongst these people.

I also noted this quote at the beginning of the website that you linked to:

This directory of para-states is not a list of terrorist organizations, and is not constructed to supplement or complement the list of terrorist organizations of the US Department of State. The guide intentionally casts a wide net, and includes both the nasty and nice.

[black_knight]

Well said, zathras and nichomacho! Sometimes I can be a bit volatile, yet not without cause. The amount of flak that Muslims cop is overwhelming. Note that I'm not Muslim, but have many friends who have suffered abuse due to generalizations and misconceptions.

[Zathras]

This directory of para-states is not a list of terrorist organizations, and is not constructed to supplement or complement the list of terrorist organizations of the US Department of State. The guide intentionally casts a wide net, and includes both the nasty and nice.

Again we get round to how does one define terrorism, and how one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The list gives all paramilitary groups that some people somewhere would consider terrorists. The list presented by the US government in particular is not the place to start as the US themselves have been found to have funded groups that pretty much the entire world considered terrorists (Contras anyone?) and virtually set up Bin Laden's operation when it was convenient for them to have the Muj fighting the Soviets. As for active groups, there is huge flux in terrorist activities over the years with groups appearing and disappearing. Compare who'd heard of Al-Qaida before Sept 11th and who'd heard of the IRA. Who cared about Shia paramilitary groups in Iraq and people like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan when we had the PLA, IRA and other Northern Irish groups actively targeting our country? The terrorist groups have existed in one form or another for many years, but we only really take notice of them when they affect us, our interests or an event we're interested in.

[RVF500]

the US themselves have been found to have funded groups that pretty much the entire world considered terrorists (Contras anyone?)

How about PIRA anyone?

And yes, the question was 'how do we define terrorists?' I've personally lost colleagues to the IRA and it's sympathisers. A nail bomb was discovered outside my childrens school at Aldershot, timed to go off at 9:00 am. Lot's of military targets around then. You could say that these things affected me personally. My own outlook is a total loathing of any one (or group) who fall under a terrorist banner. Regardless of race or creed. Not just because of those losses but because these individuals feel they have the right to end your life, my life or anyone's life, regardless of who they are, in pretty horrific ways.....to make a political statement? To gain publicity for their cause? Even a common murderer has higher priciples than that. Or will at least admit to having a base desire to kill.

Let's not hide behind a banner here. Just come out with it. They want to kill people because they want to impose their will on them. They want power. Because they have a perceived grudge? Or is that just another excuse to play God?

The fact is that powerful governments through history have used insurgent groups when it suited their purpose. Frequently this has come back to haunt them. I wonder how the German people in 1945 (and for some 40+ years after) felt about the wisdom of assisting one Vladimir Illi'ch Lenin to undermine the Russian Government in 1917? It's common knowledge that Bin Laden was CIA backed during the Soviet-Afghan war. Until he too decided to bite the hand that had fed him.

Perhaps if the Muslim states that are harbouring these particular criminals were to do something about it. Pakistan has made some inroads and Saudi Arabia (though only because the royal family are feeling threatened) to some extent. But by and large we see scenes of jubilation in these countries when an atrocity is carried out. Apart from this particular quote that started this thread we hear the odd muted mutterings from some Islamic circles denouncing violence.

What we don't see are senior figures, Ayatollahs and Senior Immams getting up and denouncing these people for the sick murderous vermin that they are. We don't see Islamic leaders uniting their people against what is (refering to what Muslims say) and affront to the Koran. We see a 'firebrand' cleric leading a militia army. Skulking in a holy shrine and the predictable legacy of murder after he finally weasles out with a deal to protect his hide. We see other so called holy men standing on the street preaching hatred. One even got an invite from the Mayor of London to speak publicly.

Black knight, you mentioned your friends who have been abused. Well their leaders need to do something to protect their people. Because human nature being what it is, the abusers probably believe they are right due to the lack of strong pesponse from the Islamic community. It has to be louder than the gutter press in this country to be heard too.

[nichomach]

What we don't see are senior figures, Ayatollahs and Senior Immams getting up and denouncing these people for the sick murderous vermin that they are. We don't see Islamic leaders uniting their people against what is (refering to what Muslims say) and affront to the Koran. We see a 'firebrand' cleric leading a militia army. Skulking in a holy shrine and the predictable legacy of murder after he finally weasles out with a deal to protect his hide. We see other so called holy men standing on the street preaching hatred. One even got an invite from the Mayor of London to speak publicly.

MCB condemns slaughter of innocents in North Ossetia
The Muslim Council of Britain offers its condolences to the Russian people for the tragic and horrific events in North Ossetia, and in particular to the families of the afflicted. "There can never be any justification for the indiscriminate and wanton killing of innocent civilians. Far from serving any national cause these grotesque acts can only result in political disaster for its perpetrators," said Dr Abdul Bari, Deputy Secretary-General of the MCB.

The Muslim Council of Britain condemns utterly today's news of the brutal murder of twelve Nepalese workers in Iraq and calls upon the captors of the two French journalists in Iraq, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, to release them immediately and ensure their safe return to their families.

"We categorically reject and deplore the practice of kidnapping and murdering innocent civilians and regard these acts as repugnant and wholly contrary to basic Islamic principles. We offer our deepest condolences to the families of the Nepalese victims. Furthermore, the two French journalists are professional workers dedicated to conveying the truth about what is happening in Iraq to the world. They have undertaken this responsibility after several other journalists have been killed while others have been restricted from covering events in the war-torn country by the US-led occupation authorities," said Dr Daud Abdullah, Assistant Secretary-General of the MCB.

The MCB appeals to the kidnappers to release the journalists, to demonstrate the values of justice and compassion inherent in Islam, if the kidnappers claim to be Muslim. The MCB notes that several prominent Islamic authorities around the world have also made similar calls.

Dr Abdullah added: "While we do not support the policy of the French government on prohibiting the wearing of the hijab in schools, we assert that the way of kidnapping and murder of innocents is totally unacceptable and indeed harmful to the interests of Muslims everywhere."

Islam Forbids Kidnapping, Killing Civilians: Qaradawi
"Prominent Muslim scholar Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has vehemently opposed kidnapping and killing innocent civilians, urging the release of four Italian and French individuals recently abducted in Iraq .

Qaradawi – known for moderate views and is a familiar face in many world Islamic events – stressed that civilians hailing even from the United States should not be combated in the war-scarred country.

"Islam deals strictly with such a matter of bloodshed. It forbids the killing of innocent people who have nothing to do with wars," he told a press conference in the Qatari capital, Doha , on Thursday, September 9....Qaradawi also condemned the kidnapping of school children in Beslan, southern Russia, where over 300 people, mostly including children, were killed and at least 700 others injured in the three-day hostage siege....However, Qaradawi said he is of the view that fighting against the US occupation forces in Iraq as a legitimate sort of resistance. "Fighting the American invaders in Iraq is an obligation. I oppose any nation that invades other countries irrespective of its religion. I say fighting the American invaders is a must endorsed by heavenly religions and international agreements."

"If there are US civilians in Iraq , they are treated in accordance with the Islamic tenets which stipulate the killing of civilians is forbidden, but those who fight the Iraqis must be killed as they are invaders."

Qaradawi was keen to draw a distinction between facing the US forces of Iraq and killing American civilians, who have nothing to do with the invasion and occupation of the oil-rich country.

"Islam forbids the killing of civilians, children, women and elderly, this is the law of war in Islam," he maintained.

Now, you may disgree with his views on whether the US forces in Iraq are invaders (actually, I do also), but Qaradawi draws precisely the distinction between military and civilian targets that seems to be at least one bone of contention on these forums, and explicitly states that Islam forbids the targetting of the latter. I'd note that he is also the cleric that was invited to London by the mayor. I'd hesitate before I went so far as to call him moderate, too.

[nichomach]

I'd also like to state that as I've said elsewhere I hold NO brief whatsoever for ANY of the alphabet soup of terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland. I'm sorry that you've lost colleagues to them, RVF, and I would not in any way say that ANY targetting of civilians by them was justified and in their case I'd go further, I'd say that the use of force in their case is completely unjustified, on both sides of the Republican/Loyalist divide. As for the nail bomb outside your childrens' school, I view that with utter, absolute disgust. I hope that the people responsible have been or will be caught and have been or will be punished to the full extent of the law.

[RVF500]

We don't see it though nicho. Not everyone is as well read as you are. In fact most aren't. My final point was that is has to be loud enough to be heard over the gutter press. And it's not. Yes it's reported in the news but it comes over as the same obligatory mumblings politicians make when something unsavoury has happened.

Besides, Qaradawi has left the door open in regards to the killing in Iraq. One could interpret that as 'anyone who may be involved with the US military' and that can be a wide net. Now if the Americans had intention to stay there as occupiers (for example the same way Germany occupied France etc.) then I would wholeheartedly agree that the Iraqis respond with military action of their own. However a large number of Iraqi civilians who are happy that the regime has gone and want to get on with their lives could well be motivated by such a powerful man to take up arms.

I say fighting the American invaders is a must endorsed by heavenly religions and international agreements."

Hardly conducive to a peaceful outcome. Just how influential are the MBC? Are they as influential as Qaradawi? How about the clerics on the ground where these people come from and draw most of their support? These are the people who can make a difference I think. These are the people that the local communities in the Islamic homelands will listen to. Only in the case of Al Sadr, he's more interested in building his own power base. Instead of helping to rebuild the infrastructure and letting the allies get the hell out. They prolong the pain. We've also seen clerics rabble rousing in the wake of the Abu Graib fiasco. These images are pounced upon by the press and will be used to influence people's thinking. It drowns out any rebukes the MBC are making. Perhaps if the heavyweights of the Muslim world were to demand the release of kidnap victims and to outlaw the terror groups in the eyes of the local populace. We might get somewhere. It is after all, their beliefs that are being abused and dragged through the mire.

[RVF500]

Nicho, the nail bomber won't ever be caught. He/she placed the device in the hedge and walked off. End of story. It was spotted by a squaddie who was out running and his lace came undone. He knelt down to re-tie his she and the device fell into his eye line. I was in Kenya at the time and received a letter from my wife telling me of it. I can give you some more lesser known incidents if you like.

Now here's a dichotomy. As I understand it the PIRA were a marxist organisation. Yet they also claim to be a Catholic organisation. Now my Marxism/Leninism theory isn't really up to scratch, but aren't the 2 ideals total opposites?

[nichomach]

Well, Qaradawi IS a heavyweight in the Muslim world, and as you say, he's left the door open on the killing in Iraq, but ONLY of military personnel. I don't agree with him, but he does specifically say:

If there are US civilians in Iraq , they are treated in accordance with the Islamic tenets which stipulate the killing of civilians is forbidden

I mean, I'm guessing, but I would think from your previous post that prior to reading that pronouncement you'd have supposed he was in favour of targetting civilians? If I'm wrong there, please correct me.

You've got a point about what gets reported, and what we see; but this is stuff which is reported across the whole Islamic world. It doesn't make good headlines for the gutter press that you mention though, and it's very difficult to see how even people who read a broad range of news sources would get to hear that. In fact I can't recall Qaradawi's response to Beslan being reported at all in the mainstream press. They were eager enough to label him as a terrorist supporter when Livingstone invited him, but as soon as it became clear that what he was saying was that targetting civilians was wrong, they lost interest. Hell, they didn't even report what he said at the conference that he was invited to. Problem is that everyone remembers the "terrorist cleric", no-one remembers what he actually said.

In that situation, even when a really prominent cleric like Qaradawi DOES oppose attacking civilians, it's not going to get heard, because it's not "news", but as soon as any cleric (like, say, Abu Hamza who doesn't have very broad support) spouts off justifying attacks on civilians, then that gets splashed wall-to-wall. I'd agree that what he said isn't conducive to a peaceful outcome, and I don't agree with him; but he's saying that attacking the military is lawful war, and attacking civilians isn't. Even if we believe that he isn't justified in using force in the first place (as I do), what he's saying is something that I think both of us would recognise as being broadly in accord with the laws and customs of war.

To a certain extent, it's a cleft stick; the Muslim clerics don't get reported when they oppose terrorism against civilians, and the press, as you say, pounce on images of extremists rabble rousing, and then when the next atrocity happens the cry goes up asking why prominent clerics didn't oppose terrorism against civilians. By the way, "The Muslim Council of Britain (www.mcb.org.uk) is the UK's representative Muslim umbrella body with over 400 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools."