ISLAMIC CONFERENCES AND MUSLIM TERROR

Muslims are Civilization Builders

by Mohamed Elmasry

(Saturday July 09 2005)

"Muslims need to develop a strategy of positive communication which presents clear facts to Western civil society. Consistent truth and openness are the best and only effective antidotes to the current vicious campaign of Western disinformation about Islam and Muslims."

Abstract

Only the Islamic civilization was characterized primarily by a foundational Idea, epitomized by a specific set of principles and a broad worldview containing them.

Critique: The foundational Idea behind Islam is convert or lose something (intolerance).

By contrast, there has been no "Christian civilization" per se, although Christianity was a significant influence on the ancient Roman Empire, post-Roman Europe, and still (though more limited) on today's dominant Western Civilization.

Critique: Christianity is an individualistic personal relationship with God in love.

Every civilization tries to build an empire that reflects its primary values. Thus we have the Chinese Civilization and its Chinese Empire, the Roman Civilization and its Roman Empire, and so on.

Later history has seen the rise of Western Civilization and the British Empire; and now we are witnessing the construction of the American Empire.

The Islamic Empire took less than 100 years to build -- the shortest such emergence in recorded history. It took the ancient Romans about a millennium to accomplish the same feat. But a preferable name for the Islamic Empire would be the Islamic Commonwealth, which describes more accurately how Islamic Civilization developed and grew.

Critique: The Islamic Civilization grew at the edge of a sword with no mercy.

Today there are many temptations leading Muslims to believe that they are living in a postcolonization era. Consequently, they come to consider Western culture as their standard or societal mentor, losing their Islamic identity in the process.

However Muslims today are living amid a new era of recolonization chiefly led by U.S. policies toward the Muslim world. This has resulted in a widespread malaise of defeatism, political fatalism, and the tragic loss of cultural identity.

If Muslims become aware of this reality, they can turn the tide of defeat and become successful civilization-builders, just like their ancestors.

Critique: Muslims want to once again draw the sword and become successful.

(1). What is Civilization?

A distinctive period of human development is often referred to as a "civilization," along with an appropriate referential adjective placing it within the historical or geographical continuum of time and culture.

Hence we speak of Ancient Civilizations, Western Civilization; or in reference to peoples, the Egyptian, Chinese, Roman, or Greek civilizations.

Civilization defined: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development.

Only the Islamic civilization, however, was characterized primarily by a foundational Idea, epitomized by a specific set of principles and a broad worldview containing them.

Critique: Islamic civilization is non-existent as destruction does not bring development.

By contrast, there has been no "Christian civilization" per se, although Christianity was a significant influence on the ancient Roman Empire, post-Roman Europe, and still (though more limited) on today's dominant Western Civilization.

Critique: Christianity is an individualistic personal relationship with God in love.

There is no "Jewish Civilization" either, although the relatively new term, "Judaeo-Christian values" has emerged to indicate that today's Western Civilization owes elements of its character to religious and cultural roots found in both faiths.

Critique: Judaeo-Christian values allows for cultural and technological development.

In fact, the term should be expanded to "Judaeo-Christian-Islamic values" to reflect more accurately the influence of all three monotheistic religions on today's Western Civilization, since we owe so much to the influence of Muslim Spain.

Critique: Spain became a world power after the Muslims were thrown out.

(2). Civilizations and Empires

Every civilization tries to build an empire that reflects its primary values. Thus we have the Chinese Civilization and its Chinese Empire, the Roman Civilization and its Roman Empire, and so on.

Later history has seen the rise of Western Civilization and the British Empire; and now we are witnessing the construction of the American Empire.

It is not widely known that the Islamic Empire took less than 100 years to build -- the shortest such emergence in recorded history. It took the ancient Romans about a millennium to accomplish the same feat. But a preferable name for the Islamic Empire would be the Islamic Commonwealth, which describes more accurately how Islamic Civilization developed and grew.

Empires typically spread by establishing colonies and dominating indigenous peoples so as to exploit their resources for the benefit of the empire's central power base.

Critique: Civilizations continue for long periods of time based on development.

In Africa and Europe, for example, the Romans established colonies whose goods and labour primarily served Rome. During our post-modern era, the American Empire is being built up to serve the rich and powerful in the U.S. 

Critique: American values have liberated billions who were enslaved by Communism.

The Romans perfected their celebrated road-building techniques, for example, not only to facilitate regular trade and communication, but also to keep colonies on a tight land-leash and to deploy troops rapidly to quash any regional rebellion.

Roman engineers also designed impressive amphitheatres for live public shows where the chief entertainment attraction was often the spectacle of prisoners fighting to the death, with privileged Roman champions, other prisoners, or wild animals.

Critique: Engineering development in Islamic countries is poor at best.

Special gladiatorial games ("gladi" refers to the sword) were popular family amusements that drew men, women and children alike to watch skilled fighters being slain by more skillful opponents. Tigers, lions, bears and other beasts were set loose in these arenas, to fight one another or to devour slaves, adding more novelty to these bloody public pastimes.

Roman law demanded that every loyal subject should worship the god Jupiter and the god-emperor, Caesar. When Christianity began to spread in Rome and throughout the Empire, Christians were among those who refused to worship the Roman way and were often punished with death.

Critique: Christianity values human life and through conversion blood sports stopped.

By contrast, the Islamic Commonwealth was established from the beginning on twin foundations of equality and justice. Local resources were mainly used by locals for their own benefit. Moreover, marrying from within the local or indigenous population was considered a practical way for differing peoples to become fully and peacefully integrated. Consequently, there was relatively little discrimination between "us" and "them," or between "locals" and "foreigners."

Critique: Decentralization has never helped a civilization endure for a long time.

The principle underlying the benign interrelationship of formerly separate peoples comes from Quranic injunctions pertaining to human rights and universal justice, which were practiced from the earliest years of the Islamic Commonwealth. For example, most local social customs, called "al-orf," were accepted, as were the practices of other religions.

Within the Islamic Commonwealth, freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and the freedom of each community to administer its own religiously based family laws were all practiced in fact (on the ground) and not just in theory.

Critique: In practice every Islamic country discriminates against non-Muslims.

Thus, Islam was not forced on local indigenous populations. In fact, it took Egypt all of 400 years to change from a Muslim minority country to one with a Muslim majority.

Early Muslims understood the Quranic teaching that the Creator will not favour people, any people (including Muslims) unless and until they change themselves; so they worked very hard to improve the environment around them. In today's political and social terminology, these early Muslims were not only the most caring citizens, but were also the most socially and politically proactive.

Critique: Early Muslims robbed caravans, conquered cities, and destroyed civilizations.

Local people were given equal preference for leadership roles and equal citizenship in the Islamic Commonwealth. No wonder Muslims were not regarded as hostile occupiers! Resistance against them, including armed rebellion, was virtually non-existent.

Critique: Islam gives local warlords the right to take away individual freedoms.

To recreate such a scenario today, the occupying Americans in Iraq would have to give all Iraqis automatic American citizenship, accept them in American schools and universities, treat them like any Americans in courts of law, allow inter-marriage, and pull out their 140,000 soldiers.

Critique: Muslims prefer Saddam Hussein over western democracy or freedom.

(3). Western Civilization and World Peace

Western Civilization has almost always used extreme forms of violence and oppression to expand its world dominion, to quash any perceived or real challenges to its power, as well as to settle scores among Western nation states competing for a larger share of the world's finite natural resources.

Critique: Non-Christians like Hitler will always try to dominate through war.

As a result, never in human history have so many people been killed by a single "civilization" -- never.

Critique: All technological development in the modern era has been done by non-Muslims.

The West perfected its military machine not only to kill, to destroy and to spread misery during our present era, but also -- thanks to nuclear weapons -- to threaten many future generations. For the first time in human history, untold millions of the totally innocent and unborn will have to pay the price of their forebears' war-mongering.

Critique: Keeping nuclear weapons out of Muslim hands must be a priority for civilization.

We have seen how Western Civilization planted European colonies in Africa, Asia and in the Americas to serve the rich and powerful elites of London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, et al. Now we are witnessing the frantic and aggressive building of American colonies in the heart of the Muslim world.

Critique: Western Civilization brought peace and education to restless areas of the world.

(4). Muslims and Today’s Western Civilization

Today there are many temptations leading Muslims to believe that they are living in a postcolonization era. Consequently, they come to consider Western culture as their standard or societal mentor, losing their Islamic identity in the process.

Critique: To become civilized a person must lose their Islamic identity.

This is profoundly more dangerous when such loss of identity becomes systematically apparent in whole new generations of Muslims -- especially among the youth of upper middle-class and well-to-do families.

Critique: It is profoundly more dangerous when a person maintains their Islamic identity.

These young people are exposed to formal university education which insinuates Western values into every facet of life, so it no wonder that they are slowly absorbing Western tastes and fashions, simply because these are the styles and tastes that dominate communication and consumption.

Critique: A recent U.N. study concluded that the Muslim world is grossly under-educated.

In the Muslim world today, for example, there are schools and universities run by American, Canadian, British, German and French interests which pay little attention to local language, culture, or even local issues.

Critique: Education will ignore local superstitions and Islamic beliefs.

The Western emphasis on racing to the bottom of the ethical denominator -- via cut-throat competition, and simultaneous maximizing of profits -- has led to a corresponding decline in Muslims' traditional regard for the needs of the extended family, caring for the other, etc.

Critique: Muslim dictatorships have wasted their natural resources through wars.

Muslim marriage now is based principally on mutual attraction, wealth or social status. And some serious cracks are beginning to show in family life, as dysfunction and divorce rates increase. As well, traditional Muslim attitudes toward caring for the frail and elderly are no longer widely accepted.

Critique: Women are being liberated from Muslim men domination and abuse.

Many Muslims today are only too happy to buy into the entire Western cultural package -- not just Western technology, but also the excessive individualism, the extravagant consumerism, the obsession with material wealth, etc. Today, they are all too ready to embrace the narrow Western view of human values, which are based mainly on power and wealth.

Other Muslims reject outright anything that Western Civilization offers, while yet others would like to be able to pick and choose intelligently from among the “goods” sold in their Western environment.

I believe that this third group is on the right track, because anything of real value that the West can offer Muslims today is, in reality, Muslim values repackaged and exported. Thus, Muslims must look beyond the layers of Western packaging and evaluate the real goods in relation to their lives.

Critique: Devout Muslims will generally remain backward while living in the west.

Pragmaticism, activism, rationalism and humanism were all practiced by the early Muslims under different names and must be practiced by today’s Muslims, not because they are Western values but because they are Islamic values.

Critique: Devout Muslims will never be rational human beings.

Muslims must Islamize and moderate the Western values of greater material well-being, democracy, nationalism, commitment to progress, personal accountability and choice, individualism and the right to a private life.

And they must learn also the strategy of communicating to the West what it needs so desperately -- spirituality, universal human equality, etc.

Critique: Western civilization does not need backward Islamic ideas.

(5). China and Japan and Today’s Western Civilization

For more than a century China has been redefining its relationship with the West. But while doing so, the strength of the Chinese family, the main character of the Chinese Civilization, was hardly affected. This is because the pace and methodology of modernization were adjusted to suit local needs and to retain the Chinese people's identity while the nation as a whole grappled with future change.

Critique: China has finally embraced capitalism and Chinese peasants are becoming civilized.

Japan embarked upon such change much sooner than China and has been more obviously transformed as a result. Translations of Western classics such as John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help were already Japanese bestsellers during the 1870s. Yet Japan also managed to hold onto much of its core identity and its social changes have been consciously regulated.

The speed with which nineteenth-century Japan moved toward modernization helped to lessen the impact of Western colonial bullying, under which China suffered. This was not only because Japan acquired the military and technical power to stand up to the West, but also because modernization robbed Western powers of their moral grounds for interference.

Critique: Japan rejected western civilization values and terrorized the far east.

The British, and later the Americans, found it difficult to deny that in Japan modernization went hand in hand with liberalization. Well before the Capitulations with Turkey, or the treaties imposed on China, their Japanese equivalents had disappeared.

Japan came to espouse key mottos such as "Eastern morality, Western technology’," and "Japanese spirit, Western expertise." As historians can now testify, both China and Japan were able to defend in some measure against the threat of the West by adopting some aspects of Westernization.

Critique: Japan was forced to accept western civilization by the end of World War II

(6). Muslims -- From Colonization to Recolonization:

The breakdown of civilizations, including that of the Islamic Civilization or its Commonwealth, always happens from within. The most that an alien enemy can achieve is to give a dying civilization its coup de grâce.

Critique: The breakdown of civilizations can be attributed to violence and destruction.

An alien or occupying army's encroachment takes the form of violent attack only toward the waning of an era of complete domination, at a time when the life of the attacked people could well be finished, but could be also positively stimulated.

Critique: Western civilization has correctly identified Islam as the new evil in the world.

The Greeks were stimulated by the Persian attack at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. Europe was stimulated by the Norse and Magyar attacks of the ninth century AD, resulting in the founding of England and France as kingdoms and the reconstruction of the Holy Roman Empire by the Saxons.

Critique: Western civilization have prospered when Christians are numerous.

In these cases, the assaulted nation did not lose its identity but instead benefited from a corrective foreign stimulus, supporting the thesis that external pressures are not always destructive to a given culture.

Muslims today are living amid a new era of recolonization chiefly led by U.S. policies toward the Muslim world. This has resulted in a widespread malaise of defeatism, political fatalism, and the tragic loss of cultural identity.

Critique: Western civilization is focused on eliminating Muslim dictatorships.

But that does not have to be the final verdict on today's Muslims. They could in fact become a new force in Western civilization-building, living like equal partners, not as slaves.

Such revitalization, however, can happen only if they first become fully aware that they are living in a recolonization period -- the recolonization of their lands, their resources, their culture, their religion and their identity.

Critique: Muslims must realize that Islam confines and enslaves people.

If they become aware of this reality, they can turn the tide of defeat and become successful civilization-builders, just like their ancestors.

Western bashing of Islam must be totally rejected because it is fuelled not by incontrovertible truths but by religious and political agendas. Today you do not hear much criticism in the West about India's deplorable and still-entrenched caste system, or about female infanticide in China. Chinese official policy restricts families to only one child, preferably male, and plentiful evidence has emerged attesting that female babies are often murdered at birth.

Critique: Accurately reporting the facts should never be stopped due to Muslim protests.

During the past half-century or so, we have heard often that the world is getting smaller and smaller, because people, objects, and information have come to move about more often and more quickly than ever before. Travel and transmission over long distances is increasingly easier and faster. And the electronic information revolution has caused a sudden and unprecedented rise in the volume and speed of data diffusion -- mostly one way, from West to East.

Critique: Western civilization has modernized the world through technology.

Most of the world's Muslims are faced with the immediate challenge of mastering the technology of mass communication -- printing, radio and television, film, video, and especially the internet. There is the potential, being realized even as we speak, for the creation of giant technology-based enterprises throughout the Muslim world, but the key to their success lies first in nourishing local content, local issues and local culture.

Critique: Devout Muslims refuse to modernize as they cling to Islamic ignorance.

On the ground, local culture means replacing the ubiquitous Western designer jeans, T-shirts, athletic shoes, music videos, games, and television programming with substantial local equivalents. At another level, local music, fine arts, and theatre must be promoted and research in science, technology and medicine encouraged.

Critique: Even in tropical areas Muslims will wear robes designed for the desert.

And having any day of rest other than Friday in any Muslim country is another challenge to our identity, a manifestation of entire nations just dying to fit into the Western mould. It is a gross case of self-loss that must be turned around.

Critique: Western employers must realize that devout Muslims will disappear on Fridays.

Fortunately, Muslims are not alone in feeling an urgent imperative to hold the influence of Western culture at bay. Hindus, Chinese, Japanese, and many other distinct peoples from the so-called "developing world" are experiencing growing mental and moral reservations about accepting Western culture.

Critique: Sadly, devout Muslims remain enslaved by Islamic religious ignorance.

(7). A Ten-Step Working Plan For Muslims:

Is there still anything like some preserved seeds of true Muslim civilization, now that the Muslim world has been fragmented into more than 50 countries? Or are even the seeds extinct? Or perhaps, Islamic civilization produced "terminator" seeds, good only for several generations and no more.

Has Islamic civilization been totally absorbed and eradicated by Westernization? Is it clinging to life but terminally ill?

Critique: Islam has destroyed numerous people through the teachings of MO-HAM-MAD.

And the questions do not stop here... What if the seeds of its civilization are contained within Islam itself; can they be revitalized and renourished? Can a new generation be "grown from seed" so to speak, and resist the impact of Western civilization long enough to survive independently?

Critique: The new generation of devout Muslims are suicide bombers and jihadists.

I believe I can answer these last two questions in the affirmative and hereby offer my people a working plan, based on the assertion that Islam is still unmistakably visible in the daily life of Muslims.

From one end of the Muslim world to the other, there are similar beliefs, rituals, morals, family values, etc. There is still more in common among Muslims from Africa, Asia, even Europe and the Americas. From having visited more than 35 Muslim countries, I can personally testify to this fact.

Critique: Muslim terrorists will always be at a Mosque on Fridays.

The Plan

[1]. From colonization, to destabilization, to recolonization:

It is urgent that Muslims be educated to the reality of living in an era of U.S.-led recolonization, and that they must act accordingly. A key reality is that the heart of the Muslim world was never given a chance to develop after the initial colonization era ended. Instead, the Muslim world moved from colonization to destabilization and now, since 9/11, it lives under the shadow of recolonization era. It is an ugly fact; but it is the reality we must deal with.

Critique: It is imperative that Muslims be taught Christian love instead of Muslim hate.

[2]. Dealing with a bully:

U.S. policies toward the Muslim world are of the bullying type, characterized by the ignorant use of violence. Ignorance, combined with arrogance, leads to the abuse of power at the highest levels. The best strategy to deal with bullying of this magnitude is a simple and direct one -- use the two letter word, “NO.” The more collectively it is said, the more effective it can be.

Critique: Some Muslim countries will be civilized like Japan was in 1945.

[3]. Muslims, unite!

If unity was always an Islamic duty, it is now our very means of survival. At the nation state level, both opposition and governments must work together even in local disagreements, to resolve their diffences without American or European interference.

Critique: Devout Muslims are the enemy as Communism was during the 20^th Century.

[4]. Work toward a Muslim Common Market:

A good economy must satisfy local needs first, thus regional economies must be given a higher priority among Muslim countries. Nations should begin now, working together to draw up the blueprint for a Muslim common market that could be phased in and functionally implemented by the year 2020.

Critique: Devout Muslims are against free trade and western civilization ideals.

[5]. Tribalism is obsolete:

The pan-Islamic movement must stop the divisive practice of tribalism, sooner rather than later, if any meaningful unity of purpose and culture are to be achieved.

Critique: Islam is the perfect tribal form of religion and government due to local emphasis.

[6]. Muslim countries must reform:

Corruption and incompetence are not the legacy of Islam; Muslim countries the world over have the ability to reform their political, economic, social and education systems according to their own local and regional agendas. Making excuses does not make progress.

Critique: Islam favors the local warlords that excel in corruption and incompetence.

[7]. Learning positive communication strategies:

Demonization of the “other” seems to go hand-in-hand with ignorance of the “other” -- in fact, they are directly proportional in civil society. Exclusion, enmity and demonization of those who differ from the numerically dominant or most powerful culture are all fed by ignorance and fear.

Muslims need to develop a strategy of positive communication which presents clear facts to Western civil society. Consistent truth and openness are the best and only effective antidotes to the current vicious campaign of Western disinformation about Islam and Muslims.

Critique: Western Civilization does not need Islam’s local tribal ideals.

[8]. U.S. "democracy" propaganda must be exposed and challenged:

When Christian missionaries introduced Christianity to Canada’s First nations, they claimed to be selfless benefactors who offered salvation, a better lifestyle and superior culture. We now know better; they were destroyers of a culture they seldom took the trouble to understand.

Muslims must never forget this lesson and continue to be vigilant and suspicious about lofty claims for the superiority of American-style democracy; it has often proven to be a dangerous oxymoron.

Critique: Christian missionaries helped eliminate tribal cannibalism and wars.

[9]. Discourage Muslims who become U.S. propagandists:

Muslims who uncritically promote U.S. recolonization policies must be challenged and their backers exposed.

Critique: Devout Muslims will murder Muslims who have embraced the western ideals.

[10]. Follow up:

A follow-up team must be established for any Muslim conference, like this one, to produce a progress report on the status of recommendations presented and approved.

Critique: Devout Muslims must be watched closely for terrorist activities and eliminated.

* Paper delivered at the Islamic Conference, Cairo, Egypt, April 2005

North African Muslims helping Iraqi insurgents
As Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco have clamped down on cells, terrorists join larger network, U.S. official says.

By TODD PITMAN
The Associated Press

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

DAKAR, SENEGAL – Up to 20 percent of suicide car bombers in Iraq are from Algeria – a sign of growing cooperation between Islamic extremists in northern Africa and like- minded Iraqis, a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday.

The officer said terror cells in the Middle East and northern Africa were increasingly joining forces as they face crackdowns in their own countries, leading to a greater flow of money and Islamic extremists to Iraq.

Forensic investigations have shown that 20 percent of suicide car bombers in Iraq are Algerian and about 5 percent come from Morocco and Tunisia, according to the officer with responsibilities in Europe and Africa. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity, preferring for reasons of protocol to let U.S. commanders speak on the record.

The majority of foreign bombers in Iraq are believed to come from Persian Gulf countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen, U.S. officials say.

The officer said the numbers had increased, but gave no specific figures. He said growing efforts by Algerian, Moroccan and Libyan security services to fight terror cells have led extremists to join international operations. But he warned that they would later return home.

The United States has reacted by funneling more money and troops into north and northwest Africa to train and equip armies to combat the growing threat from terror and insurgent groups such as Algeria's Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which is believed to have links with the al-Qaida network.

The Algerian group was accused of involvement in the 2003 kidnapping of 32 European tourists in the Sahara and of a raid into Mauritania this month that left 24 people dead.

The officer said North African Islamic militant groups have provided about $200,000 to the Iraqi insurgency, funneling most of it through Europe to Syria and into Iraq.

Underground European networks were providing more cash, while African networks were providing manpower - mostly unskilled militants used to drive and then detonate car bombs that have killed thousands.

Once in the country, extremists join up with the al-Qaida-linked network of Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Islamic militants are traveling through Turkey, into Iran and crossing into Iraq - many times through unpoliced areas.

Muslim scholars 'forbid' labeling apostasy

By Sana Abdallah
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Published July 6, 2005

Over 170 Muslim scholars, thinkers and historians agreed Wednesday to forbid "takfeer," or accusing other Muslims of apostasy, and decided to work out a criteria for issuing fatwas -- religious edicts -- in an attempt to unify the eight schools of Islamic thought and put an end to violence done in the name of the religion.
    
    The decision came in an unprecedented fatwa issued by leading clerics from the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence following three days of deliberations in the Jordanian capital, Amman, where scholars from over 40 countries gathered in the first International Islamic Conference.
    
    Dubbed "True Islam and its role in modern society," the conference was a Jordanian attempt to repair the image of Islam amid growing violence being carried out in the name of the religion and the U.S.-led counterattack in its war against terror -- where Islam and terrorism have almost become synonymous.
    
    While the final communiqué of the conference made no clear reference to violence, it tried to limit the religious approach used by militants to justify their violence through regulating the interpretation of Islam and issuing religious edicts.
    
    The final statement said the "schools of jurisprudence within Islam means adhering to a fundamental methodology in the issuance of fatwas: No one may issue a fatwa without the requisite personal qualifications which each school of jurisprudence defines."
    
    It added that "no one may issue a fatwa without adhering to the methodology of the schools of jurisprudence and no one may claim to do absolute Ijtihad (interpretation) and create a new school of jurisprudence or to issue unacceptable fatwas that take Muslims out of the principles and certainties of Sharia (Islamic law)."
    
    Mainstream clerics have complained about what they call "religious chaos" that has been growing since the late 1980s, in which Salafi militants -- those who have resorted to armed jihad -- have used interpretations and fatwas of clerics aggravated by the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine, the U.S. policies in the region, and more recently, the war on terror and the American occupation of Iraq.
    
    The Islamic conference's final statement made no political references and did not condemn terrorism against civilians, possibly to avoid opening a Pandora's Box and to give credibility to these scholars who are seeking to win over the confidence of those who have resorted to violence and extremism.
    
    Participants at the conference said had the issue of condemning violence by Islamic militants been brought up, then condemning the violence of the U.S. forces in Iraq and the violence of the Israeli forces in Palestine could not be ignored.
    
    However, the statement clearly referred to the "takfeer" approach adopted by militants and their religious guides.
    
    It said that anyone belonging to one of the eight schools of thought in the Sunni and Shiite sects, as well as those who practice "true Sufism" (banned in most Muslim countries) is considered a Muslim and cannot be declared an apostate and therefore "his or her blood, honor and property are sacrosanct."
    
    And what appears to be an attempt to avert the wrath of the Salafi militants and to try to attract them to the teachings of "true Islam," the scholars said it was also "not possible to declare whosoever subscribes to true Salafi thought an apostate."
    
    However, many factors are directly linked with the rise of Islamic militancy, primarily regional political conditions, the lack of freedom and democracy in their respective countries and poverty.
    
    Joseph Lumbard, an American Muslim and special advisor to Jordan's King Abdullah on interfaith affairs, insists that addressing the religious factors is the most important way to uproot violence by simply referring to only one thing: Islam.
    
    "It is clearly unacceptable in Islam's dictates of law to kill non-combatants," he said, adding that the fatwa issued by the scholars in Amman might "put doubt in the minds" of militants that listen to the edicts issued by those going against the dictates of Islamic law.
    
    He told journalists the conference and the final fatwa (statement) was "just a first step...the religious component needs to be addressed on a religious basis, and this is what this conference is doing."
    
    But Lumbard acknowledged that more work and effort needed to be made on all fronts -- political, social and economic -- and to combine all these efforts to address the totality of the problem of violence.
    
    So how much influence will these scholars have on the angry religious zealots who are wreaking havoc, especially that their militancy is being fueled by the U.S.-led war on terror that President Bush launched as a "crusade" in the aftermath of 9/11?
    
    Farouk Jarrar of Aal al-Bayt Foundation, an Islamic think tank that organized the conference, believes they have a lot of influence on the ground.
    
    He said that "some of these people in there have their television shows and their websites, they are highly influential. If they say that killing civilians is against Islam and must stop, it will stop," or at least decline.
    
    But it might not be so simple, considering all the elements involving Islamic militancy.
    
    Lumbard, however, believes that if results of this conference puts one doubt in one militant's mind that he is doing something wrong and it stops one car bombing, "then we have succeeded."

'Barbaric' terror explosions strike London, kill dozens

By Jane Mingay

Associated Press

July 7, 2005

LONDON — Four blasts rocked the London subway and tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, sending bloodied victims fleeing after what a shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called "barbaric" terrorist attacks. At least 40 people were killed and more than 350 wounded.

Two U.S. law enforcement officials said at least 40 people were killed. In London, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Piddick said at least 33 people killed in the subway system alone. He confirmed there were other deaths on the bus but gave no figures.

London hospital officials contacted by The Associated Press reported more than 350 wounded.

Blair said the "terrorist attacks" were clearly designed to coincide with the opening of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. They also came a day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics.

The explosions hit three subway stations and a double-decker bus in rapid succession between 8:30 and 9:30 a.m. Implementing an emergency plan, authorities immediately shut down the subway and bus lines that log 8.4 million passenger trips every weekday. It brought the city's transportation system to a standstill and left many central London streets deserted. (Map: Locations of blasts)

"It was chaos," said Gary Lewis, 32, who was evacuated from a subway train at King's Cross station. "The one haunting image was someone whose face was totally black and pouring with blood."

   Recent mass terror attacks

—March 11, 2004: Simultaneous explosions rock three train stations in Madrid, killing 191 people and wounding more than 1,500 in Spain's worst terrorist attack. Islamic militants claimed responsibility.

—Nov. 15, 2003, and Nov. 20, 2003: Suicide bombings at two synagogues, the British Consulate and London-based HSBC Bank in Istanbul, Turkey, kill 62, including four attackers allegedly belonging to a local al-Qaeda cell.

—Oct. 12, 2002: Bombs kill 202 people in nightclubs on the Indonesian island of Bali. Authorities blame Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian terror group linked to al-Qaeda.

—Sept. 11, 2001: al-Qaeda hijackers slam jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and a fourth hijacked jet crashes in a Pennsylvania field, killing nearly 3,000 people.

—Aug. 7, 1998: Nearly simultaneous al-Qaeda car bombings hit the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 231 people.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" has posted a claim of responsibility for the series of blasts in London, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The statement was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, according to Der Spiegel magazine in Berlin, which republished the text on its own Web site.

The group threatened similar attacks against Italy, Denmark and other "crusader" states with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism," Blair said at the summit, with leaders including President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac standing at his side. "We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values, nor will we allow it to stop our work at this summit." He returned to London after making the statement.

Bush condemned the attacks. "We will not yield to terrorists. We will find them and bring them to justice," he said. He warned Americans on Thursday to be "extra vigilant" as they head to work. (Video: Bush's remarks | Audio)

The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday said it did not plan to raise the U.S. terrorism alert. "We do not have any intelligence indicating this type of attack is planned in the United States," said department spokeswoman Valerie Smith. But the department asked authorities in major cities for heightened vigilance of transportation systems.

Bloodied and bandaged witnesses reported panicked crowds fleeing the blast sites. A witness at the bus explosion said the entire top deck of the bus was destroyed.

Belinda Seabrook said she was on the bus that exploded. "I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air," she told Press Association, the British news agency.

"I saw lots of people coming out covered in blood and soot. Black smoke was coming from the station. I saw several people laid out on sheets," office worker Kibir Chibber, 24, said at the Aldgate subway station.

"People were covered in black soot and smoke. People were running everywhere and screaming," said Gary Lewis, 32, who was evacuated from a subway train at the King's Cross station. "The one haunting image was someone whose face was totally black and pouring with blood."

Jay Kumar, a business owner near the site of the bus blast, said he ran out of his shop when he heard a loud explosion. He said the top deck of the bus had collapsed, sending people tumbling to the floor.

Police said incidents were reported at the Aldgate station near the Liverpool Street railway terminal, Edgware Road and King's Cross in north London, Old Street in the financial district and Russell Square, near the British Museum.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone said terrorists could not break the city's spirit."Nothing you do, no matter how many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another," Livingstone told reporters in Singapore.

London's cell phone network was working after the explosions but was overloaded and spotty, limiting communication.

Much of Europe also went on alert. Italy's airports raised alert levels to a maximum. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia, the Netherlands, France and Spain also were among those announcing beefed-up security at shopping centers, airports, railways and subways.

In Washington, police with machine guns and bomb-sniffing dogs patroled the subway.

Pope Benedict XVI deplored the "terrorist attacks," calling them "barbaric acts against humanity," and said he was praying for the families of the victims.

European stocks dropped sharply after the blasts, with exchanges in London, Paris and Germany all down about 2%. Insurance and travel-related stocks were hit hard, and the British pound also fell. Gold, traditionally seen as a safe haven, rose. The explosions also unnerved traders on Wall Street, sending stocks down sharply in morning trading.

The U.N. Security Council was to meet later Thursday to address the London attacks and was expected to pass a resolution condemning the blasts, an official said.
 

Muslim leaders denounce some violence

But they aren't clear on the West

July 13, 2005

By JEFFREY WEISS

The Dallas Morning News

Days before the London bombings, many of the Muslim world's top religious leaders declared that much of the violence committed in Islam's name is not spiritually legitimate.

More than 150 Muslim imams and scholars met in Jordan, called by King Abdullah II. The unprecedented statement they released could drain some of the faith-based power behind wars between Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere, some experts say. The impact on attacks like the ones against non-Muslim nations – the U.S., Spain and England, among others – are less obvious. It does not disavow all acts of violence.

The uniqueness of the Jordan announcement lies in the broad base of its support.

Imagine the pope, Billy Graham, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robertson and 150 other assorted Christian preachers and educators getting together – and then hammering out a communiqué.

The Jordan statement, issued on July 6 with little notice outside the Muslim world, said Muslim religious rulings, called fatwas, have no religious validity unless issued by people who have the appropriate, defined training or authority. And it says that all major branches of Islam – including Sunni, Shiite (also known as Shia) and Sufi – are essentially valid. (Sunni and Shiite Muslims are often violently at odds in the Middle East, and their agreement on the Jordan statement is one of the things that makes it remarkable.)

Terrorist justifications

By implication, both assertions reject the religious justifications often offered by Islamic terrorists, who proclaim fatwas to condemn other Muslims as heretics, or "apostates." Islamic law says that Muslims, as a general rule, should not attack other Muslims. But terrorists say that it's a religious duty to attack apostates.

And to the extent that faith is used to recruit fighters, inspire attacks and raise money, the document strikes directly at that support.

Osama bin Laden declared a fatwa to justify the attacks on Americans, though he doesn't have the religious credentials called for in the Jordan statement. Various groups in Iraq have issued their own fatwas to justify killing Iraqis who cooperate with the American-backed government – fatwas that under the Jordan agreement are clearly invalid. Fear of such declarations from local self-styled imams – and the violence that could follow – stifles some moderate Muslims in many countries, experts say.

Nobody believes that Mr. bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or other Islamist terrorists will read the statement, slap their foreheads and exclaim, "How could I have been so wrong?" And nobody is suggesting that any effect of the document will be quickly apparent.

But some experts say that the statement and the attention it is getting in the Muslim world may deter less hard-line Muslims who are considering joining terrorists – or who stand in quiet sympathy when terrorists strike.

"It is not fully appreciated how vulnerable movements such as al-Qaeda are to criticisms concerning their doctrinal propriety," said Stephen Ulph, the London-based editor of the online journal Terrorism Focus and analyst of Islamic affairs for Jane's Information Group.

Muslim world buzzing

All but ignored so far by Western media, the conference has been discussed on several Arab and Muslim Web sites. Reports about it have appeared on the Kuwait and Jordanian official news services, and several Middle East TV and radio networks, including al-Jazeera.

"It happens one step at a time," said Joseph Lombard, an American-born adviser to King Abdullah, who helped organize the conference. "With this, there will be one person somewhere who will get a doubt in his mind and won't do something he otherwise would have done. Then there will be five people and 100 people and so on."

Supporters of the Jordan conference and statement include:

•Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq. Shiite Muslims form the majority in that country and control the U.S.-supported government.

•Grand Imam Sheik Al Azhar Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi and Grand Mufti Ali Jumaa, both highly respected Sunni leaders in Egypt.

•Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian-born cleric who has issued a fatwa declaring the legitimacy of Hamas attacks on Israel.

•The Islamic Fiqh Academy of Saudi Arabia, that nation's highest religious body; and the Grand Council for Religious Affairs of Turkey, that nation's top religious body.

Two Americans participated: Brooklyn-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Ingrid Mattson, an Islamic studies professor at Hartford Seminary.

Attacks on Muslims

The conference statement most clearly applies to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. During 14 centuries of Muslim history, dozens of wars and battles have been religiously justified by one side declaring the other excommunicated, or takfir.

But the Jordan document says that those who follow any of eight long-standing schools of Islamic jurisprudence cannot be declared outside the faith.

The communiqué's application to violence committed against non-Muslims is less clear.

The document says that only fatwas that are consistent with the traditions in the eight defined schools are valid. That means only fatwas that are consistent with traditional interpretations of the Quran are acceptable. Critics of Mr. bin Laden and other Muslims who use Quranic "proof texts" to justify attacks on Christians and Jews say that many of those texts are being used in ways that violate the traditional understanding of those passages.

But the communiqué did not outlaw all violence by Muslims, even by implication. Some leaders whose authority is recognized by the Jordan document, such as Sheik Al Qaradawi, have offered religious support for attacks on Israel, which they regard as self-defense.

Not mentioned

The document is notable in what it does not say. It doesn't mention Mr. bin Laden or any "fake" fatwa by name. The words "violence" or "terrorism" don't even appear.

The omissions reflect the difficulty of reaching consensus across such a broad spectrum, said Peter Khalil, a consultant for the Eurasia Group who spent nine months in Iraq as the director of national security policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran the country until the new U.S.-backed government took over.

"If they did come out and speak against violence and terrorism more directly, there would have been pressure to talk about violence by Americans against Iraqis and Israelis against Palestinians," he said. "No agreement would have been possible."

Some factors limit the impact of the statement.

•Sunni Islam has no official leader – nothing like a "pope" – so even rulings by the most respected Sunni scholars are not necessarily considered binding. Shiite Islam and some branches of Sufism do have a designated religious hierarchy of authority, but no single leader.

•Even some less radical Muslims dismiss many Arab political leaders, such as King Abdullah II, and official government clerics, including some of the key conference participants, as American puppets or apostates.

"Most religious leaders see monarchy as an illegitimate institution," said Ali Akbar Mahdi, a sociology professor at Ohio Wesleyan University.

•In Iraq, faith doesn't really fuel a lot of the war, Mr. Khalil said. Former Baathists, ex-Army officers and other supporters of Saddam Hussein are driven by politics first and faith second, if at all.

"For the majority of insurgents, religion is not an issue," Mr. Khalil said.

But the ruling could reduce the enthusiasm of some of the fervent young men who travel to Iraq from Syria and Egypt, bent on becoming religious martyrs, he said.

Seeking distance

Even outside of the Jordan conference, some Muslim leaders seem to be working harder to use the tools of their faith to distance themselves from violence committed in the name of their faith.

In the days after the London bombings, British newspapers reported that some of the top Muslim clerics in that country were preparing their own fatwa. It would declare any Muslims found responsible for the bombings as takfir, or excommunicated.

"It is about time we put clear distance between ourselves and so-called Muslim leaders like Osama bin Laden," Murad Qureshi, the only Muslim member of the Greater London Assembly, told the Guardian. "We're not talking about Muslims here. We're talking about a bunch of nutters."

A GLOSSARY OF MUSLIM TERMS

Sunni: About 85 percent of the world's billion or so Muslims belong to this group. The name means "those who follow the Sunnah," the way of life prescribed by Muhammad. Each mosque and religious leader is independent, though different traditional schools of religious law carry particular authority.

Shiite: About 10 percent of Muslims, but a majority of Iraqis and Iranians, belong to this group. Several religious leaders, or ayatollahs, are considered authorities – though there is no single "pope." Shiites (also known as Shia) originally differed with Sunnis on the question of who should have led Islam after the death of Muhammad in 632. The name means "followers of Ali," indicating support for the belief that Muhammad designated Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, as his rightful successor.

Sufi: About 5 percent of Muslims belong to this group – though some Sufis also consider themselves Sunni or Shiite. This is the Muslim mystical tradition, comparable in some ways to Kabbalah or Gnosticism. Some conservatives among the Sunni majority assert that some Sufi practices – such as veneration of saints and maintaining shrines – are not true Islam.

Quran: The book that Muslims believe was dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.

Hadith: One of the collected sayings of Muhammad and some of his closest followers, considered sacred text.

Fatwa: A ruling based on Islamic law. These are the practical applications of the Quran and hadiths. In places ruled by Islamic law, these are as binding as secular law in the U.S.

Takfir: Excommunicated. A Muslim who has been excommunicated loses spiritual and social protection offered by membership in the ummah, or community. Over the centuries, Muslims have used a declaration of takfir to justify attacking other Muslims. In Iraq, insurgent clerics have declared Muslims who cooperate with the U.S.-backed government to be takfir.

Muslim nations throttle U.N. terror resolution
Criticism of suicide bombers censored by global body's Islamic member states

Posted: July 28, 2005
WorldNetDaily.com

U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting

Islamic United Nations representatives blocked an attempt to have the world body condemn killing in the name of religion.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union said it submitted the request to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva in response to moves by Islamic clerics to legitimize the current wave of terror attacks.

IHEU representative David Littman tried to deliver a prepared text in the names of three international NGOs – the Association for World Education, the Association of World Citizens and the IHEU – but was blocked by the "heavy-handed intervention" of Islamic representatives of the panel.

Littman said that after repeated interruptions, he was unable to complete his speech.

The Muslims members said they saw the text as an attack on Islam.

The IHEU argued Littman's speech was a report on recent critical comment on Islamist extremism by a number of notable Muslim writers.

The intent was for the U.N. Human Rights Commission "to condemn calls to kill, to terrorize or to use violence in the name of God or any religion."

The text referred to recent decisions by high-ranking Muslim clerics to confirm that those who carry out suicide bombings remain Muslims and cannot be treated as apostates.

A Saudi cleric, for example, issued a fatwa saying that innocent Britons were a legitimate target for terrorist action. Also, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University, who has visited Britain, said terror attacks are permissible.

Roy Brown, president of IHEU, said the censorship is "part and parcel of the refusal by the Islamic representatives at the U.N. to condemn the suicide bombers, or to accept any criticism of those who kill innocent people in the name of God."

Question: The subject of ijtihad (independent reasoning) has been debated in the Muslim world for a long time. Some thought that the door of ijtihad was closed, and of course this caused a stagnation of reasoning. What might be the criteria to use the methodology of ijtihad?

The word “Ijtihad,” independent reasoning, literally means “to use all your power and effort in order to bring some hard and difficult works into existence.” In Islamic terminology, the word means “to use all your power to deduct some hypothetical judicial decisions from the clear sources (adilla-i tafsiliyyah) of Islamic law.” The one who makes this effort is called a “Mujtahid”. The issue in which these efforts are made is called "Mujtahadun fih”.

In principle, there are two conditions for “Ijtihad”. First, one must know the sources of Islamic law related to legal judgments (ahkam). Second, the “Ijtihad” should be done by those who are able to penetrate into the spirit of the sources through their intelligence and the logic of religious law. Any “Ijtihad” that comes from an eligible person and is done within an appropriate case is valid.

Moreover, “Ijdihad” is not limited to analogy (qiyas). It can be done through analogy as well as through the indications, clues, and the hints of the legal texts. It is also possible to deduce legal judgments from the linguistic aspects of the Qur’an and the “Sunnah,” including Arabic rhetoric dealing with metaphorical language and literary figures.

Islam, being the last and universal religion, is the epitome of solutions to the problems of humans for all time and for all locations. These solutions are based on the limited texts of the Qur’an and the “Sunnah,” which address the unlimited problems of humans. This blessed activity started in the era of the Prophet and developed in the third and fourth centuries under the names of “ijtihad,” “ra’y” (subjective legal opinion), “istidlal” (inference), “qiyas” (analogy), and “is†inba”t (deduction). It has remained alive within the practice of the dynamic systems of Islam and has been highly fruitful.

This rich and original legal culture, unique to the Islamic world, has been fading for reasons such as exclusion of the active Islamic system of life from the public sphere, the absence of active minds similar to those of the early period of Islam, the lack of inspired spirits, and deficiency of superior intellects, knowledgeable of the Qur’an and the “Sunnah”. There are some who lack reasoning with insufficient intelligence, and are very behind in their knowledge of the Qur’an and “Sunnah,” and closed to inspiration.

Since these types of people have risen to power in religious circles, the fertile institution of “ijtihad” has been replaced by unquestioning adoption (taqlid), memorization, and copying.

One can see several reasons why the spirit of “ijtihad” was lost and the door was closed. The following are considered some of these reasons: political oppression, inner struggles, the misuse of the institution of “ijtihad,” an extreme trust in the present legal system, the denial of reform, the blindness caused by the dominant monotonous present system of the time. All of these are among the reasons for this loss. Furthermore, the believers who were eligible to perform “ijtihad” based on their intelligence and abilities were at times included mistakenly among the groups of heretics who misused “ijtihad”.

The door, in fact, has never been closed by anyone. However, some “ulama” had the inclination to close the door of “ijtihad” against those who would like to promote their own desires and interpretations as guidance. The door was closed automatically in the face of those who were not eligible to make “ijtihad”. As long as society does not have quality scholars who can perform “ijtihad,” it is not possible to ignore the argument of those who are against “ijtihad”.

Today, people commonly think of the worldly life. The ideas and hearts of today’s people are greatly disparate and the minds are estranged from immaterial things. Religion and religiosity are not the essential issues for people as was the case in the time of the early Muslims.

On the contrary, people are neutral to religiosity or religion; that is to say, being religious or not being religious is the same thing. Many are highly disinterested in matters of faith and many essentials of religion are ignored. The pillars of Islam and the principles of faith are viewed with doubt. Religion for many Muslims has collapsed. Many make no effort to live their lives within the framework of Islam. Under such circumstances, one can hardly see that this dynamic aspect of Islam,” ijtihad,” will be used properly.

Despite all of this mentioned above, there has been a great revival of religion and religiosity in the Islamic world today. I hope — God willing — this development will result in the rise of those who are eligible to open the door of “ijtihad” in the near future.

It is my conviction that when the proper season comes, such gushing spirit and ingenious intellect will create groups comprised of specialists in their fields with an utmost sense of responsibility to undertake “ijtihad”.

Note: Independent reasoning is not compatible with Islamic demand for obedience.

Dennis Prager poses, "Five questions non-Muslims would like answered" in an LAT op-ed this morning:

THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims.

Here are five of them:

(1) Why are you so quiet? [...]

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian? [...]

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country? [...]

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam? [...]

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions? [...]

Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures. Western efforts to propagate each ideas produce instead a reaction against "human rights imperialism" and a reaffirmation of indigenous values, as can be seen in the support for religious fundamentalism by the younger generation in non-Western cultures. The very notion that there could be a "universal civilization" is a Western idea, directly at odds with the particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from another.

[...]

As the ideological division of Europe has disappeared, the cultural division of Europe between Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodox Christianity and Islam, on the other, has reemerged. The most significant dividing line in Europe, as William Wallace has suggested, may well be the eastern boundary of Western Christianity in the year 1500. This line runs along what are now the boundaries between Finland and Russia and between the Baltic states and Russia, cuts through Belarus and Ukraine separating the more Catholic western Ukraine from Orthodox eastern Ukraine, swings westward separating Transylvania from the rest of Romania, and then goes through Yugoslavia almost exactly along the line now separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia. In the Balkans this line, of course, coincides with the historic boundary between the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires. The peoples to the north and west of this line are Protestant or Catholic; they shared the common experiences of European history -- feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution; they are generally economically better off than the peoples to the east; and they may now look forward to increasing involvement in a common European economy and to the consolidation of democratic political systems. The peoples to the east and south of this line are Orthodox or Muslim; they historically belonged to the Ottoman or Tsarist empires and were only lightly touched by the shaping events in the rest of Europe; they are generally less advanced economically; they seem much less likely to develop stable democratic political systems. The Velvet Curtain of culture has replaced the Iron Curtain of ideology as the most significant dividing line in Europe. As the events in Yugoslavia show, it is not only a line of difference; it is also at times a line of bloody conflict.

Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the eleventh to the thirteenth century the Crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule to the Holy Land. From the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their sway over the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at Ottoman power declined Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East.

This centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent. The Gulf War left some Arabs feeling proud that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel and stood up to the West. It also left many feeling humiliated and resentful of the West's military presence in the Persian Gulf, the West's overwhelming military dominance, and their apparent inability to shape their own destiny. Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels of economic and social development where autocratic forms of government become inappropriate and efforts to introduce democracy become stronger. Some openings in Arab political systems have already occurred. The principal beneficiaries of these openings have been Islamist movements. In the Arab world, in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces. This may be a passing phenomenon, but it surely complicates relations between Islamic countries and the West.

Those relations are also complicated by demography. The spectacular population growth in Arab countries, particularly in North Africa, has led to increased migration to Western Europe. The movement within Western Europe toward minimizing internal boundaries has sharpened political sensitivities with respect to this development. In Italy, France and Germany, racism is increasingly open, and political reactions and violence against Arab and Turkish migrants have become more intense and more widespread since 1990.

Islam on the Couch

12/10/2005  

KurdishMedia.com

By Dr Showan Khurshid 

Terrorism and Islam from the Perspective of an Evolutionary Political Theory

The definition of Terrorism

Based on ‘Knowledge processing, Creativity and Politics’ and ‘How to respond to Islamic Terrorism’, terrorism can be defined as one among other modes of responses, including wars, genocides and totalitarianism, which might be applied jointly or alternately in order to uphold ideological integrity and dominance and thus the political power of a particular ideological group. The importance of this definition is that it locates the root cause of terrorism in the drive to suppress ideational challenges. This definition differs markedly from the currently dominant definition, which highlights terrorism as involving unlawful use or threat of violence to intimidate or coerce into accepting some political change. [1]

The Shortcomings of the Common Definition

Adopting the latter definition will give the terrorists and their apologists equal footing to accuse governments like that of the UK or USA of terrorism. Indeed, anyone can note that the epithet ‘illegal’ is subjective. They can retort there is a war waged against Islam. Noting the imbalance of military might, they glorify suicide bombing as the deeds of the brave, disadvantaged yet motivated against the powerful and aggressive. Terrorist apologists can even dismiss the unfairness of the claim that terrorists do not discriminate between civilian and military targets by noting something to the effect: “what about the thousands of civilians, women, children and old men who are killed in war?”

The prevalent definition also fails to distinguish between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. It does not accord a special status to an armed group willing to submit to the rules of liberal democracy fighting an undemocratic and atrocious regime. It is because of such a definition that the superficial adage ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, sounds so apt.
Some Terroristic Entities According to EPT

The definition I suggest focuses on the use of violence to deter ideational challenges. In this light, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe, and others, insofar as they oppress intellectual dissent as a means to maintain their ideological dominance, will be seen as possessing, partially or completely, the inclination that sanctions or condones terroristic actions, along with other forms of oppressive actions. This definition will not implicate governments, organisations or individuals who are prepared to renounce violence and resolve differences peacefully – it needs be remembered that liberal democracy will be needed if simple dialogue could not bring about consensus, as argued in ‘Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics’.

The Scope of Islamic Terrorism

Regarding Islam, we should expect to find the greatest concentration of oppressive actions – whether they are manifested in the form of terrorism or other kinds of acts which share the same aim – to occur where authorities or organisations claim legitimacy on the basis of Islam. However, considering that terrorism, like other modes of ideological interactions is a means to an end, we might assume that cost-and-benefit analysis would precede commissioning and performing the acts of terrorism, unless, of course, we make an unwarranted assumption that these ideological leaderships are feeble-minded and cannot ponder upon the consequences of their actions. Accordingly, we will need to consider that the concentration of the ideological actions, including terrorism, should be within communities that are perceived as constituting viable bases for building political power.

In fact, the degree of oppression that takes place in Iran and Saudi Arabia is staggering. Oppression, particularly in Saudi Arabia, involves even more than stoning, beheading, and enforcing flagrant discrimination against women and Shiites, (here there is not even a need to mention the term “religious minorities”, as Muslims did not let any indigenous religious minority group survive in the country). As importantly, it is the systematic coercion of young people to prayer and religious schools, and the widespread practice of shepherding adults who happen to be on the streets into Mosques. These practices leave no opportunity for autonomy or free thinking. So the wonder is that some liberals exist at all, rather than the fact that they are weak and few. Perhaps, this leaves no surprises as to why the land of the Saudis is so prolific in producing and exporting terrorists. In effect, Saudi Arabia is an incubator of terrorism. If a greater proportion of the public is not involved in international terrorism, it is only because the utility calculation they perform does not encourage it. As for the government, it is more likely to be due to an awareness of its vulnerability. Throughout its history, and to this day, the Saudi dynasty faced discourses that have been disputing their legitimacy and even rejecting the assignation of the name ‘Saudi’ to the land. No doubt, the West has been an important source of stability for the regime, though more so in the past during the cold war than now, but the regime is still weak and cannot afford to challenge the West overtly. Though, through the campaign of building Madrases (Islamic religious schools), and Mosques, which entrench the fundamentalist teachings of Islam, the regime can rightfully claim that it has been fulfilling its religious duties the best it can.

However, about the interplay of the Saudi regime with the West: their attitude has a spill-over effect. An ideological leadership that is perceived as submissive or even cooperative with forces deemed as potential enemies of the ideology – in effect, all non-adherents of the ideology – would be vulnerable to accusation that it is weak or even unfaithful to the ideology. This is the reason why Bin Laden could acquire so great a following in Saudi Arabia. However, the point to be made here is that the ideological groundwork is not Bin Laden’s, it was already there ready to be used. [2]

The Intellectual Impasse

This brings us to another point. By failing to identify the root causes of terrorism, the traditional definition of terrorism obstructs liberal democracies from winning the moral argument. In the allegation and the counter-allegation, the most crucial and central element, that Islam prescribes oppressive methods to enforce itself, is lost. The Western governments themselves, before anyone else, are quick to grant that only some fringe Islamic organisations are terroristic, while the rest are made up of peace loving individuals whose culture is just as good as any other culture.

Many Western left or liberal leaning intellectuals volunteer themselves on behalf of Muslims to argue that the verses that advocate violence in Koran are just few and far between. In any case, they usually add, all religious creeds contain similar statements. Yet, not all religions are terroristic. Accordingly, they conclude, we cannot impute terrorism to Islam on basis of these verses. This is of course a generalised argument. The Hindu or the Sikhs have also proved to be capable of establishing violent terroristic movements when they rely on their religious teachings. So did the Christians, not only in the past but also in the form of modern day sects, such as David Koresh’s sect. Moreover, there is no example of a peaceful religious party or movement vying for power that is not terroristic unless it has committed itself to liberal democracy – or in the case of Turkey, cowed and circumscribed by an army that has a record of immense capacity for manipulation and brutality.

The problem is not just with the few Koranic verses, it is the worldview and tradition. In the heartland of Islam, most ordinary Muslim individuals or organisations denounce and declare any person who is refusing Islam’s or Mohammed’s claim of moral superiority as outlaws. In most Islamic countries such a person will not survive and the elimination of such people usually goes unnoticed. Nowadays, such individuals are outlawed and hunted even in the West. Acts of violence can be committed by individuals who may never have had slightest link with terrorist organisations.

Disappointingly, many of the critical voices in the West who escape murder hide away and keep silent. No more than speculation regarding the reasons for the critics’ silence can be offered. Do the Western governments advise such critics to keep silent, perhaps motivated by economic interests or intimidated by the Islamic masses? In any case, not to protect and support the critics, similar to what anti-communists critics were enjoying, is a very short-sighted and wasteful policy.

Currently, the terrorists, in general, do not give the slightest regard to what the non-Muslim world thinks of Islam. They are content, obviously, in the knowledge that the Muslim population is over one billion and there is no intellectual challenge to Islamic beliefs. Indeed, Islamic beliefs sound absolutely triumphant despite the flimsy bases it has. This condition needs be changed. It needs open and candid argumentation. Winning over a substantial proportion of Muslims is not unfeasible considering the shaky epistemology that Islam is based on and the many reprehensible aspects and episodes of the Islamic practices and history. Only a serious image-problem and the risk of loosing their social bases will force the Islamic priesthood and so-called moderate Muslims to try harder to curb the militants among them. No doubt, in the short term, some terrorists will make a greater effort to eliminate their critics, but they, I suspect, would lose their hold if greater numbers of people joined in the intellectual engagement.

What is suggested here will work because it reduces the need for using violence in response to terrorists, and also weakens the motivation for joining terrorist groups. In the long run, this would bring about real and permanent peace, at least, as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned. In the meantime, such a policy would also offer a way out for many Muslims who lack an intellectual lead, to escape the confines of a religion that does not preach peace, and which puts them at odds with the rest of the world, who are nonetheless unhappy over what they perceive as the use of violence by the West against Islamic countries.

Nowadays, most of the critics from the Islamic world and even a great number of Westerners are either intimidated into silence or in hiding and on the run. What is needed is support for such people to establish alternative communities so the apostates will join in.

What underpins the un-peaceful tradition of Islam are not merely a few scripture verses here and there. In ‘Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics’, I suggested that religions, as primeval ideologies, evolved because of the failure of humanity to evolve in liberal democracy – perhaps, for understandable reasons, considering human origin – and that ideologies carry out the role of preserving a unified set of moral rules that are necessary to maintain political power. However, unlike liberal democracy, they disallow ideational dissent and dialogue, and this approach impacts profoundly on the structure, culture and history of the ideological systems.

However, this is not how the ideologues and their followers perceive themselves. Early Muslims had the very comfortable thought that they were commanded by Allah to spread the word of Islam, which is the only true religion, all over the world. Those who resisted the call to join Islam and denied seeing the obvious truth that “Mohammed is the messenger of Allah” were condemned as the enemies of Allah and enemies of Muslims, for whom dreadful punishment was apportioned. [3] It is not certain what proportion of Muslims are still committed to this mission. However, it is more likely that the majority of Muslims realise that implementing the mission is hardly feasible considering the imbalance of power vis-ŕ-vis non-Islamic countries – although, as mentioned above, many an Islamic government, organisation or even an individual does not hesitate in meeting out severe punishment to challengers of the dogmas of Islam, when the actions are convenient.

However, it seems the limited capacity to have power only in certain countries and not being able to spread Islam worldwide is giving Muslims the feeling of helplessness and impotence, or a sense of dereliction of duty, which explains in great part the frustration that is characteristic of Muslims worldwide.

Obviously, in believing that there is an Allah who is the omnipotent creator of everything, and that He is the author of Islam, then Islam cannot be wrong. Thus the blame for whatever goes wrong in the lives of Muslims should be imputed to some other agent or circumstances. Israel comes in handy. According to most Muslims it should never have existed. The fact that it does, reflects a very terrible and profoundly insidious process. Otherwise how could such a small entity challenge the power of so many hundreds of millions of Muslims? Now if Israel’s own power cannot explain that, then the accomplices would be the USA and the UK, and all the “lands of corruption and decadence”, of the West which can be so easily manipulated by the Jews.

So from this point of view one should expect that had Israel and the USA never existed Muslims would have blamed some other source, and, being disadvantaged they may have resorted to terrorism nevertheless. This also implies that had they not been the weaker party they would have overrun the rest of the world – this is still the mission in the Koran. [4]

The other usual suspect is lack of piety on the part of individuals in general, and particularly the leaders. This mentality may explain why there is a tendency to support those leaders, who the non-Muslims would think of as more militant and uncompromising, but, of course, who would be perceived as pious and true to Islam. The ascendance of the Taliban, Bin laden and also Ahmedinejad can all be seen as cases in point.

The logic of Islamic thinking cannot be simpler: if Islam cannot, by definition, be fallible, since it is from Allah, and if even the pious leaders are not able to bring the changes needed in the Islamic world, then you should search for an external agent as a culprit.

No doubt, with such a worldview no one should have an illusion of having an easy coexistence with an Islamic community leading to a harmonious integration. Integration would be hard to come by unless the Islamic communities accept secularism and liberal democracy.

The Blind Spots

The dominant definition is ignorant of the role of many institutions. Worship places, religious literature and paid or unpaid preachers are all important elements in the mobilisation. But they seem to fall in the blind spot of the conventional definition. To curb terrorism needs, therefore, paying great attention to these institutions. It is true that these institutions have recently come into the focus of attention of many Western governments and media. But the curbing needs greater depth of intervention. The attention misses the most important target: namely, rejecting and refuting the claim of moral superiority which is at the core of Islam and indeed any other ideology. Lacking this focus explains why there is no effort to persuade away Muslims from Islam. The definition based on EPT would recommend setting up counteracting institutions that support alternative views. Setting up, what is hoped to be, European or Western oriented Mosques and religious schools, would appeal only to opportunity seekers and infiltrators with links to militants. EPT suggests that Mosques should be seen as sites of ideological mobilisation and should be treated the same way as had they been pro-Soviet communists’ and Fascist groups’. However, considering that a great many Muslims would not contemplate, at least in the current situation, any acts of terrorism, Mosques can be redefined to be just a place of rituals on condition that the preachers should submit to liberal democracy and give up their claim of superiority on the basis of Islam alone.

Here it might be said that worshiping is something that is categorically different to politicking. There are sermons and rituals that are unique to religions, e.g., prayers, fasting, pilgrimage etc. Elsewhere (in a book length manuscript), I suggested that the reasons and functions of rituals and sermons have to do, firstly, with providing vicarious activities as a compensation for the loss of real participation in political decision. No doubt, it would feel very satisfying to think that one is communicating with the “divine” and participating in a cosmic mission. Secondly, perhaps, it proved effective as a means for congregating the followers for information and instruction. Thirdly, this congregation also provides for another psychological function: namely, that is the sense of security in the company of others who share the same goals and thus care for each other. These activities and their role must have been compensating for the denial, characteristic of religions and other ideologies, of active participation in making moral decisions. [5]

Fourthly, probably anyone can tell that rituals are a good way of brain-washing and keeping the members of the community under close observation. As such, rituals must always have been a very useful tool in the hand of rulers.

The definition, based on EPT, also draws the attention to probably the gravest aspects of terrorism. Terrorism, in this perspective, is to suppress ideational challenges, and when this task is accomplished we should expect to see that the ideological group will be formidable and unstoppable. Yet, even serious Western intellectuals seem to be completely disengaged. This attitude of the Western intellectual can be attributed to the naďve presupposition that religions are not concerned with political power. Terrorism, within this “politically correct” view, becomes an aberration and attributable either to dismal economic conditions or some historical injustices. In the case of Islam, the background of terrorism is the events and history of Palestine, and the Western colonialism and recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and also economy.

No doubt, I should exclude the tabloid writers from the above generalisation. Their papers inform the public and uncover information. But they address mainly the Western readership and mainly to effect change of attitude towards asylum or the Islamic communities in general and says very little in the way of inviting intellectual discussion or offering a way out of the religion into alternative communities. This attitude of tabloid newspapers may only increase the sense of siege and alienation on both sides. Consequently, we could say that the silence of serious Western intellectuals make the lives of terrorists much easier.

What Morality?

It is usually said that there was a design to revive Islam in order to halt the unravelling of the moral fabric of Islamic families and communities in the West. It is also said that even the government officials in many Western countries approved of the move as a means to tackle drugs and crimes among the Islamic youths. It is difficult to say how much truth there is in these propositions. However, it is obvious that alcohol and drug misuse, and a host of other related antisocial behaviours are less prevalent among Muslims than among the Western communities.

No doubt, the hostile attitude toward drug abuse is limited to non-Muslims. Drugs are produced openly in many Islamic countries; some of them have been or are under Islamic governments or organisations. One should expect that Muslims are bound to justify such inconsiderate activities for themselves in a way that preserves one’s self-respect. How do Muslims justify that for themselves? One possible line of justification might be to say that drug exportation is a means to undermine the West, the enemy. However, if we were to ignore this lack of consideration towards non-Muslims, then of course the drive against crimes and drug abuse could be seen as a positive achievement. On this basis some commentators would advice caution in criticising Islam.

Another line of approach taken by some Western critics of Islam is to say: “Why shouldn’t Western culture be good enough for an immigrant to the country?” Indeed, the Western governments should feel entitled to demand that immigrants to their countries respect their culture. However, this is not necessarily based upon the notion held by some multiculturalists that any and every culture entitled to equal respect.

The rationale of the entitlement of liberal democracy should be based on the fact that liberal democratic culture is what allowed the development and the wealth the West enjoys, which is also the reason that immigrants were attracted. Moreover, because it is liberal democracy through its belief in human rights that allows the immigrant to come in. (Perhaps, the reason that the West does not make such a demand is that the development and the wealth are attributed to capitalism. Thus Muslims do not waste the opportunity to boast that there is what they call an “Islamic political-economy,” which is even fairer than capitalism, on the account that it takes greater care of the poor but is less amenable to the promiscuity which is associated with communism.)Though, in this context, no mention is made of the fact that slavery within Islam existed for centuries, and might still exist today in some Islamic countries, e.g. Sudan, some Gulf states and Mauritania, and that although writers of the Koran did not consider it important to forbid slavery outright, but eating pork was significant enough for Allah to forbid it clearly and unequivocally.

Definitely, a culture that sanctions forbidding apostasy, outlawing infidels, atheists and flagrant discrimination against women and religious minorities should not be entitled to equal respect at all. Otherwise, why should we have opposed fascism and racism or murderous communists like Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge?

Despite these it cannot be denied that the current liberal democratic philosophy is leaving a moral vacuum with its vision of social life as no more than an aggregation of individuals aiming at their interests, without providing a framework for a sense of belonging or sense of the human collective mission.

Religions, on the contrary, do offer such a framework, which is also the reason that they can curb antisocial behaviour. Religions offer meaning to individual commitment, suffering and sacrifice. That is why Christianity is still making an important contribution to the moral ground of Western societies. This is despite the admission that it is purely a faith, which implies that it cannot withstand rational scrutiny. Of course, Islam could also play a similar role, but not before it submits to liberal democracy and declares the religion is a faith as rather than the literal truth.

The inference of many politicians is that, in the current condition, some kind of religions or belief system is needed. Religions, however, have damaging effects. All religions impair the intellectual capacity of individuals by captivating them within mistaken and primitive worldviews, depriving humanity from great intellectual resources which could serve science, the environment and technology. With Islam, in its present form, the price cannot be graver. It is even threatening the survival of humanity and the earth as we know it. (No doubt, those carried out 9/11 would not have hesitated to inflict bigger carnage if they had had the means.)

Although even if we grant that religions like Christianity and Buddhism do not lend themselves to terrorism, which is not necessarily completely true, all religious thinking undermines efforts to finding proper solutions for political problems.

Had the West been completely free from Christianity, the Western intellectuals and governments might have dissolved Islam by their criticism or perhaps ridicules. No doubt, the failure to identify the elements of a belief system that are responsible for the terroristic nature explains why there is this unconditional concept that belief in religion is one of the basic human rights. Consequently, with this right in place many governments and intellectuals just hold back from participating in any campaign to undermine Islamic beliefs.

Islamic morality is extremely costly for the little benefit it shows. It cares very little about the environment or the explosion of population. Indeed, Islamic clerics encourage rapid Islamic procreation. Mohammed told his followers to reproduce so Allah might boast about them over the nations. It might also be motivated by a will to out-reproduce non-