David M. Payne

Did it start on 9/11, or is it at least twenty years old? In Oct of 83, the twin bombings of the US and the French barracks in terrorist attacks in Beirut proved to the Islamic fundamentalists terrorists that we were vulnerable in some areas. There have been religious terrorist attacks from Islam for some time now. (And the other Abrahamic religions, as Tim McVeigh and right wing Christian religious cults, among others have so aptly demonstrated.) I think the west has been under attack for some time from Islam. The real problem the west faces is the threat of an enemy who is very content to take years, decades or centuries to realize their goals. Religion has always had a lot of patience in this regard, something secular political powers usually lack.

In the last thread the word Sharia was brought up and it's very germane to this discussion, assuming a discussion can be started without a flame war that is.

From MS Encarta; "According to Muslim belief, God sent Muhammad with the last and perfect legal code that balances the spiritual teachings with the law, and thus supplants the Jewish and Christian codes. According to the teachings of Islam, the Islamic code, called Sharia, is the final code, one that will continue to address the needs of humanity in its most developed stages, for all time."

Pretty clearly most Muslims believe in the Koran, (Qu'ran) and the Sharia is a major factor in this book. So I think it is hard to separate Islam and politics, as the Qu'ran makes them as one.

As for how I would define the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, a freedom fighter fights an enemy force in his own country, (such as the Vietnamese did against us when I was there.) not civilians in buildings thousands of miles away who are not engaged in war with them. Perhaps others would not agree with this definition, and they are free to make their case. But what happened on 9/11 was an act of terrorism, not some freedom fighters fighting the good fight.

David

DarkBronzePlant

I deplore the attacks of 9/11, so I am mostly just doing the devil's advocate thing here. But consider that they think they are fighting an enemy that is illegally on their soil, and that gives overwhelming support to people that are occupying their land and their allies'. How does the fact that while they attacked U.S. soil, they had the end of those factors in mind play into it? Also, are "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" mutually exclusive?

Ab_Normal

Hmm, I'm going to try this on my brother-in-law, who maintains that invading Iraq was necessary to show the Middle East that we're not to be messed around with. He blames Clinton... but his hero Reagan didn't do much of anything after Beruit, did he? I'll let you know how it goes.

John Hancock

David

I just started doing some construction work and am too beat to reply in any depth. I concur with your terror definitions. I believe that Islam has been at war with the West at least since the 11th century (1025 if my memory's any good). Pope Urban II launched the first crusade. Even without this aggression Islam was already (as were most and still are religions intolerant) the harsh terms of Sharia are anthropologically prompt as survival tactics to match a harsh environment.

Martin

David M. Payne

Ab, I have no sympathy for Ronnie Raygun and his failure in Beirut. You don't put men in harms way and not allow them to properly defend themselves. He would have his own special place in Hell if I were in charge. (And hell existed.)

David

David M. Payne

I agree with you here Martin, the conflict is ancient and Islam is intolerant, but it hasn't been a real hot conflict lately until the last few decades. I think as the Islamic fundamentalist movement got the resources, (money) to start doing what they have been doing, their influence over militant, impressionable, and impoverished young men grew. It all starts with the money, which allows these movements to set up the schools, the training camps etc. When you deal with religion you know it needs "the usual," money, power and influence to achieve its goals. Dry up the money and you can dry up a lot of the support for Islamic terrorism. I have an essay and story here and here, that deals with this topic you guys might find interesting.

I fear we are at the start of a hot terrorist war that might go on for decades, perhaps even centuries. With the weapons and mindset of the militants on all sides, who knows where it might end.



David

David M. Payne

Well DBP, that has been a debate that has never found a definition that makes everyone happy. We weren�t in Afghanistan or Iraq until after the attacks of 9/11, so I think the excuse of defending Islam by attacking innocent people thousands of miles away is false, and the attack was clearly terrorism. This behavior (Terrorism) isn't new to the Arabs, look up the definition of assassin and you will see its roots are Arabic. Here is a little bit of info I didn't know until I looked it up in Encarta to refresh my mind on the word. Perhaps it helps explain the socialist Baath party and why it is/was so powerful in Iraq and Syria.

"In the late 9th century an Ismaili state was organized on communistic principles in Iraq by Hamdan Qarmat; his followers became known as Qarmatians. His state soon disintegrated, but some of his followers combined with other Ismaili groups to form the Fatimid dynasty of North Africa in the 10th century (see Caliphate). The Fatimids conquered Egypt in 969 and developed a strong and culturally brilliant state that flourished until the 12th century. During the reign of the Fatimid dynasty the Ismailis gradually lost their original revolutionary fervor. A splinter group of Ismailis, known to Westerners as Assassins, established a stronghold in the mountains of northern Iran in the 12th century and carried out terrorist acts of assassination against important religious and political leaders of Sunni Islam."

Communism and religion, just a couple of the many facets of authoritarianism running amuck in the world, and more closely related to each other than I knew, until I read this little article.

David

"Authoritarianism, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!"

Ut

Err...have you read the Bible or the Talmud lately? It is pretty clear that they devote a lot of time to politics, to what laws a Christian or Jewish society must adopt. Does it mean we can't separate Christianity or Judaism from politics? Just as there are plenty of Christians and Jews who are not constantly in their holy books for their politics, there are plenty of Muslims who do not rely on the Koran for politics.

Islam is not some monolithical bloc just as Christianity is not some monolothical bloc. You'll find some Muslims who swear that Sharia is the ultimate law to be applied right now, some who think it was a good law at time the Koran was written but does not apply today and some others who just think this part is allegorical.

Just compare how much countries have a Muslim majority with how much countries apply the Sharia.

David M. Payne

Well Ut, perhaps you could start off by naming all the predominately Islamic nations that have democratic forms of governance that are free of heavy political influence by the Islamic powers that be in said nation. I can't think of any really, but it's late and I'm a bit tired. I'm no fan of any of the Abrahamic religions as my past work has made clear, so don't try and put me in the apologist camp for Christianity or Judaism and the influence they have in nations that are peopled predominantly with one of those religions. I'm certainly aware that there are many cults within these religions, thousands of them in fact, but Islam is more closely tied to the idea of the religious law being the real law of the land than the other two Abrahamic religious sects are. Perhaps you would disagree with that, be my guest.

Well, you brought up the point Ut, so why don't you tell us how many apply the Sharia? I can think of a few Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Who do you have on your list?

David

Ut

Not even, say, Canada or the USA have a democratic system free of heavy political influence from Christian fundamentalists, so that is not really a fair criterion.

Nobody is saying that Islamists don't exist or that they are not a threat to secular governments in Muslim countries. I'm just saying that Muslims are not a One-World-Order bunch.

I'm just pointing out that neither Christianity nor Judaism is incompatible with modernity and democracy, despite the fact that large parts of their holy books aren't compatible. Therefore, simply pointing out that the Sharia is antithetical to modern values and makes up a large part of the Koran does not establish that Islam is incompatible with modern values.

What about the 10 Commandments? One of the most famous aspect of both Christianity and Judaism are these pieces of religious law. Every holy book will claim that its religious law, being God's law, is the real law of the land. That's hardly a surprise. You'd have had a hard time in 1500's Europe to see Christianity being less tied to that idea than Islam.

The following definitely do not:

Azerbaidjan
Bangladesh
Guinea
Indonesia
Iraq (under Saddam)
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mali
Niger
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tajikstan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

About other Muslim countries, the situation is less clear. They apply a mix of Western civil law and Islamic law. However, we wouldn't say that the United States applies Biblical Law only because Texas has a law against sodomy.