MUHAMMAD, ISLAM, AND TERRORISM

The actions of Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world are well known. Islamic terrorists have bombed and destroyed buildings, planes, and vehicles. Additionally, during the last 20 years, Muslim terrorists have targeted and murdered tens of thousands of males, females, adults, and children. All over the world, in Kenya, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt,Iran, France, South America and America, etc., Muslim terrorists have attacked and murdered those they felt were a threat to their aims. No one has been spared by these treacherous people.

Not surprisingly, examination of the websites that deal with terrorism show that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature.

Why are these groups Islamic? What does the religion of Islam have to do with terrorism? Is there a link between the two? How do these groups justify murdering civilians based upon Islamic values? Are terrorism and murder actually allowed under Islam?

This article examines the basis for Islamic terrorism found within Islam. Starting with Muhammad and reviewing his teachings and his actions, and then visiting what other Muslims have taught, the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism will be examined.

1) My comments or source references will be in [ ] type brackets. Other writers comments will be in the ( ) type brackets.

2) When I talk about terrorist actions, I am talking about motive and action. Crime exists in every society, and I am not including all crimes as examples of terrorism. I am focusing on the violent actions Muslims carry out in the name of Islam. For example, in Egypt some years ago, a Muslim man murdered an American women. He killed her then robbed her. His motive was greed, not the furtherance of Islam. I would not call that an Islamic terrorist action. On the other hand, Muslims who carry out bombings, like the ones in Kenya and Tanzania - in which hundreds of innocents died, do so because they feel they are attacking their enemies and have Allah's sanction to do so. That is a terrorist action.

Additionally, there are many kinds of terrorists who engage in violence. There are political terrorists operating in South America, there are terrorists who murder doctors who perform abortion. There are Communist terrorists, capitalist terrorists, right wing terrorists, left wing terrorists, etc. In America, there are gangs that operate like terrorists. However, in this writing, I am focusing on terrorism based upon what Muhammad taught and did. I am focusing on Muslims, who for the sake of Islam, commit violent acts of terrorism. But I want all readers to know that I note that there are many non-Muslim terrorists operating in the world. Some of these other terrorists are every bit as vicious as Muslim terrorists.

3) A "terrorist" is defined as "one who engages in acts of terrorism". "Terrorism" is defined as "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

When Muhammad started out preaching his religion of Islam he was not violent. He was persecuted for preaching his religious ideas - Islam - and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. Some of Muhammad's followers were tortured. Things were so bad for him and his few followers that he sent many of them to Abyssinia [Ethiopia] for refuge. Eventually, he and his followers moved north to a city called Yathrib [Medina], where some members of two Arab tribes wanted Muhammad to be their prophet.

Just prior to Muhammad's leaving for Medina, he received a "revelation" allowing him to fight the Meccans. He knew that in Medina, he had a group of armed men who would support him. Furthermore, in Medina, would be more distant from the Meccans and their attempts to oppress or kill him. The following is from "The Life of Muhammad", page 212, by A. Guillaume, which is a rendering of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", a biography of Muhammad written by an early Muslim scholar [1].

The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly......[a]

The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." The God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

END OF QUOTE [Note: two passages from the Quran are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and [b] Sura 2:193]

1) in Mecca, where Muhammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the Meccan's religions. But it was just prior to his leaving for Medina, where he had a limited amount of armed men to support him, that he received this "revelation" and began to use violence to further his desires. Islamic history shows that as Muslims grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare.

2) At the end of the quote, it says that Muslims are to fight those that do not worship Allah.

I also comment on Ibn Ishaq's work. When reading this passage from Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad is made to appear to be long suffering and primarily fighting in self defense, and that up until just before Muhammad's departure, the Meccan persecution was tolerable, but that it became so bad that Muhammad was finally given permission to fight back.

The problem with this is that Muhammad had been severely persecuted prior to this and that Muslims had been abused well before their departure.In other words, the quoted passage is apologetic work on Ibn Ishaq's part. Earlier, well before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were so bad for Muhammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek their help and protection[Guillaume, op cit, page 192]. The Taifians rejected and abused him. Things were so bad for Muhammad in Mecca, Muhammad had to beg three men for their protection [Guillaume, op cit,page 194].

In Mecca, Muhammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet and he was abused all the more. He never received any "revelations" to fight at that time.

Eventually, good fortune fell into Muhammad's lap and just as in Adolph Hitler's case, his persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs in Medina accepted him as their prophet.They hoped he could help them maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh [Guillaume, op cit, page 205]. Now Muhammad knew he had an able and armed following. It was only when he had a following that could defend themselves, and his people were migrating north to Medina, and that he knew he was going to leave town, that suddenly "Allah" gave Muhammad his "revelation" to fight.Muhammad's circumstances changed, and Muhammad's Allah changed with them.Muhammad went from being only a "warner" to being an aggressor.

Is there NO cure for the mindset that infests the Muslim world? Ann Coulter was taken to task (briefly) a few days ago when she proposed converting all the Muslim people to Christianity, which may have just been reactionary rage in her part (it was in her eulogy to Barbara Olson).

But think about this. If any religion preaches violence as an integral part of its belief system, that religion should be driven out of existence, and destroyed root, branch, stem, leaf and fruit, that it never again be raised in the consciousness of mankind. But of course, if the teachings of the Koran should then be reinterpreted to say, with finality and for all time, that that course of action and call to destroy all that do not believe do NOT reflect the intent of the words of the founders of the religion, then it is incumbent upon the current and future leaders of that belief system to carry out the reformation.

Re: #4

The root of the problem is in the semnatics. If terrorists are called "martyrs" or "freedom fighters" their deeds, too, assume different connotations. This is not exclusively an Islamic trait.

Christianity justified burning people in public because they were not really people, but "witches."

All religions offer some type of "salvation." Communism was a secular form of that. All religions (communism included) failed in that respect in their practical application, not theoretical principles.

The "lip service" you object to is based on the fact that America needs many Islamic countries and that offending them, or alienating them, would make life for American citizens a lot less comfortable. And many an Islamic ruler wouldn't be a ruler without America's support.

The extreme irony, perhaps even a curse, is that nothing is as distant from American values as some aspects of Islam, and nothing more offensive to Islamic cultres than the American way of life.

~~Christianity~~ justified burning people in public because they were not really people, but "witches."

No! The officials Christianity sanctioned such evil, regardless what Christianity stands for in your mind, and in theory. People have always sought to pursue their personal agendas using noble ideas. Nothing good comes out of becoming an apologist for a noble cause gone wrong.

Frank Candor, who wrote the "Root of the Problem" in the link you provided, quotes Koran's call to arms. But so does the Bible. One can find many references to killing one's enemies, etc.

The problem with religions is that is starts with a preconceived notion and never stops. Every human misdeed is flavored as "doing God's work."

If you carefully look at what Mr. Candor so candidly portrays as an evil sect (Islam), you can see that if you just change the semnatics the entire argument is lost. Thus, preaching Christianity is blasphemy (calling God a tripartite being instead of one), and blasphemy is punihsable. Killing one's enemies is not considered murder, especially when you reduce your enemy to something subhuman, or attach to him the "work of the devil."

The problem with all religions is that they claim absolute truth. Anything not part of that is, by definition, the absolute wrong. Thus you are either good or evil; either you work for God or for Satan. Whatever stands in your way must be the work od the devil. And what is a good Christian supposed to do with the devil and his cohorts? The answer is obvious.

So, the call for killing continues, and all in the name of the Lord. Crusades, jihads, saving "God's" people, you name it. It's all the same, self-righteous hypocricy.

"The Root of the Problem It is time for the world to wake up. We demand answers from the Islamic religious leaders. We are tired of the platitudes and disingenuous ‘lip-service’ that is in direct contrast to their actions. We are sick of the rhetoric of peace while they are running training camps of hatred and war. We are appalled by the false claims that the teachings of Islam do not condone the acts of the terrorists when the Qur’an reads like a terrorist manifesto. We are not fooled by the speeches of Yassir Arafat about how saddened he and his followers are while his followers are in the streets outside his headquarters in a carnival-like atmosphere celebrating the carnage of innocent people in America."

AMEN.

Click on the link in post #12 and correct you ignorance

I read your link in #12 before I sent you my last reply. What he says is true for the most part. But, he has this atheism thing wrong. There is no such thing as organized atheism. Communism went after religions because of their political connotations. Religions were (and I agree with that wholeheartedly) considered superstitious beliefs that often blocked progressive thinking (i.e. in medicine, science, etc.). All you have to do is look at the fact that the Catholic Church didn't rescend its flat earth "vision" until late, and kept Galilleo's excommunication valid until way into the 20th century. One look at the Taliban, Saudi Arabia or Iran and you get the idea what backwards means.

Burning 300,000 witches in mideval Europe may not add up to the numbers killed by various communists supergiants with over one billion people between them -- such as the USSR or PRC. He is forgetting that the population of Europe was miniscule compared to Euroasia's. Proportionally, witches represented a much larger kill ratio than raw numbers suggest.

I happened to agree very much with him that those who cannot practice Christian teachings should not be considered Christians -- but the question is where does one draw the line? No one can be a perfect Christian, nor do I believe that anyone is expected to be. Your friend in #12 would excommunicate everyone from Christianity who practice outside of its litteral teachings.

Since Christianity doesn't teach that killing is anything but a cardinal sin, anyone who killed (in wars, self-defense, etc.) must no longer be a Christian according to your source. Or,is there a rationalization that allows to circumvent Christian prohibition of killing and somehow "justify" it? If so, what's different between one religion that outrightly allows it and one that allows to circumvent it?

Inquision and other religious wars (including the conflict in Northern Ireland to this very day) were sanctioned by the official Christianity, as I said in my previous post. You may not like that, but then your posts do not represent offical Christianity any more than your posts represent official American policy. The head of the Church is the official Christianity for that Church, just as the president is the official spokesman for the country.

The fact that the Church, as the official representative of Christianity on earth, allowed and even contributed to witchraft burnings is a testament to the old addage that every professing believer is a practicing hypocrite, and that people have killed in the name of Jesus, Allah, atheism, God, you name it. The difference is that killing for Christ is a lot more hypocritical.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.