Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

    Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise

    Karen Armstrong
    Monday July 11, 2005
    The Guardian

    Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and
    intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear
    one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell
    had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely
    practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to
    "Muslim terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had
    nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely
    inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive.

    Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to
    convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must
    be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as
    al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their
    religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have
    convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable
    enemy. Yet, as we found at the conference, it is not easy to find an
    alternative for referring to this terrorism; however, the attempt can
    be a salutary exercise that reveals the complexity of what we are up
    against.

    We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts
    may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they
    violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive
    warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true
    Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also
    states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and
    for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance
    than Christianity.

    Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like
    all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and
    compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which
    Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the
    use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent
    civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians
    or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is
    not because of the religion per se.

    We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism
    because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a
    religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many
    fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism
    in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case
    with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic
    Christian right in the US.

    In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has
    always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a
    search for social identity and national self-definition than religion.
    They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the
    culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.

    Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way
    represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but
    this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians
    have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning
    of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are
    commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic,
    intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into
    practice.

    Sometimes a military effort may be a regrettable necessity in order to
    defend decent values, but an oft-quoted tradition has the Prophet
    Muhammad saying after a military victory: "We are coming back from the
    Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad" - the
    far more important, difficult and momentous struggle to reform our own
    society and our own hearts.

    Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has
    no connection with violence. Last year, at the University of Kentucky,
    I met a delightful young man called Jihad; his parents had given him
    that name in the hope that he would become not a holy warrior, but a
    truly spiritual man who would make the world a better place. The term
    jihadi terrorism is likely to be offensive, therefore, and will win no
    hearts or minds.

    At our conference in Washington, many people favoured "Wahhabi
    terrorism". They pointed out that most of the hijackers on September
    11 came from Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant form of Islam
    known as Wahhabism was the state religion. They argued that this
    description would be popular with those many Muslims who tended to be
    hostile to the Saudis. I was not happy, however, because even though
    the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful
    ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts
    of terror.

    Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the
    Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser
    in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been
    strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the
    violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb
    urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism
    of modern society and fight it to the death.

    Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and
    become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in
    the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions
    about Islam, which tends to be regarded as an amorphous, monolithic
    entity. Remarks such as "They hate our freedom" may give some a
    righteous glow, but they are not useful, because they are rarely
    accompanied by a rigorous analysis of who exactly "they" are.

    The story of Qutb is also instructive as a reminder that militant
    religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political
    factors. Qutb was imprisoned for 15 years in one of Nasser's vile
    concentration camps, where he and thousands of other members of the
    Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to physical and mental torture. He
    entered the camp as a moderate, but the prison made him a
    fundamentalist. Modern secularism, as he had experienced it under
    Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal assault on faith.

    Precise intelligence is essential in any conflict. It is important to
    know who our enemies are, but equally crucial to know who they are
    not. It is even more vital to avoid turning potential friends into
    foes. By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly,
    we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to
    solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems
    of our divided world.
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

  • #2
    That's because there isn't footage of IRA bombers screaming "God is Great." I'm not the smartest man about the IRA movment, so somebody correct me if I am wrong, but IRA terrorism was about achieving a political victory over Great Britain and having them withdraw from Northern Ireland. On the other hand, if you look at the varying Islamic terrorist groups, "Allah Akhbar" is a common refrain in their videos and their views are derived nearly directly from their version of Islam.

    I think the title for the article is a terrible one - it distracts the reader from the meat of the article.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      Semantics!
      The people carrying out the terrorist attacks are Muslims. The organizations to which they belong are Islamic. They are fighting, killing and dying for Islam.
      Therefore it is neither illogical nor wrong to call them Islamic terrorists.
      Anyone in doubt as to their aims should refer to bin Ladens statement of intent which he sent to the American people.
      – p.s. I lost my link to it when my computer crashed recently.
      When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

      Comment


      • #4
        the problem with your analysis is that for every bin laden saying x about islam you have ten other blokes saying y.

        no religion is so fluid that it can encompass everyone who says they are an adherent regardless of their actions, yet the actions carried out by adherents of a particular religion can be mutually exclusive.

        jesus's message was one of hope, faith and compassion, yet 'christians' burnt other christians for saying prayers in the wrong language and more recently, they wouldn't allow black folk to vote or sit on the same bus as them.

        were these people christian, they described themselves as christian, but is that enough?

        i could say i'm the spiritual light of the US army, but that doesn't make it true.

        as for the IRA, while they publicly embraced marxism - mainly to secure funding and arms - the IRA's support comes from deeply conservative irish catholicism, which is a very statist form of catholicism that played a central role in the nationalist movement in Ireland.
        before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dave angel
          the problem with your analysis is that for every bin laden saying x about islam you have ten other blokes saying y.

          no religion is so fluid that it can encompass everyone who says they are an adherent regardless of their actions, yet the actions carried out by adherents of a particular religion can be mutually exclusive.

          jesus's message was one of hope, faith and compassion, yet 'christians' burnt other christians for saying prayers in the wrong language and more recently, they wouldn't allow black folk to vote or sit on the same bus as them.

          were these people christian, they described themselves as christian, but is that enough?

          i could say i'm the spiritual light of the US army, but that doesn't make it true.

          as for the IRA, while they publicly embraced marxism - mainly to secure funding and arms - the IRA's support comes from deeply conservative irish catholicism, which is a very statist form of catholicism that played a central role in the nationalist movement in Ireland.
          I believe it’s a matter of perception, Dave.
          They perceive themselves to be Muslim, as does the world around them. That they violate some of the cardinal tenets of their creed is irrelevant.
          After all how many adherents of the various religious and political creeds are pure in their faith and beliefs.
          Christians, Jews and Muslims daily break the Ten Commandments; which are said to be the very word of God, simply as matter of expediency. Yet they still call themselves Christian, Jews and Muslims, and are preceived by their fellows as such.
          These fanatics are still Islamist/Muslims, and trying to deny that fact is simply burying ones head in the sand and succumbing to a kind of political correctness.
          Call a spade, a spade, Dave.
          When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

          Comment


          • #6
            Most of these are political issues anyway.

            "Allah Akhbar" is a common refrain in their videos and their views are derived nearly directly from their version of Islam.
            If that is going to be your defination of a muslim than you are not gonna get very far. The fact they say "Allah -u-Akber" in their videos is irrelevent. In the West you have atheists who say "Thank God". People here (and that includes non-muslim) say Allah Akber in the same way as you may say "Thank God".
            "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

            Comment


            • #7
              same old , same old....

              Islam is the perfect religion.
              Or so my friends here say.

              Conflict is unavoidable....

              sparten,

              Nobody says Thanks to God when they are beheading another chap.Not in India atleast.May be the evil kaffirs of the USA are doing it eh ?
              Last edited by Samudra; 20 Sep 05,, 06:46.

              Comment


              • #8
                The IRA blows up Brits for Ireland, Sendero Luminoso blows up Peruvians for their vision of Peru, Red Brigade blows up Italians for their version of Italy. Even though all three can technically be called Catholic groups because of the major religion where they originated, two of them are really atheists because of their adherence to Maoism and Marxism, and the IRA never claims to be lighting fuses for the Pope.

                Whereas all over the world we have Muslims killing everyone who disagrees with their vision of Mulsimhood, and doing it often, and always doing it in Allah's name, no matter their location, nation, or religion of origin.

                Anyone who denies that there is a real, and dangerous, MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST terrorist movement on the planet is a f*cking idiot.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  Whereas all over the world we have Muslims killing everyone who disagrees with their vision of Mulsimhood, and doing it often, and always doing it in Allah's name, no matter their location, nation, or religion of origin.
                  Yes, the people who behead the poor bastards (including a Pakistani Citizen I might add) are doing it for the glory of Islam. Last I checked Osama Bin Laden' main beef with the US was the stationing of US troops in S.Arabia. And now Iraq. In Thiland it is for an independent state, ditto Phillipines. In Iraq it is to get rid of foriegn powers. Palestine end of occupation/ end of Israel (depend on group). In all cases it is a political dispute rather than a religious one. Not to say that the casue is just so to speak, but only to point out it is not "Islamic".


                  Anyone who denies that there is a real, and dangerous, MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST terrorist movement on the planet is a f*cking idiot.
                  Nope, anyone who refuses to listen to anyother point of view besides his own, is a f"cking idiot.
                  "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, the people who behead the poor bastards (including a Pakistani Citizen I might add) are doing it for the glory of Islam.
                    The most sorry thing is that you have posted the truth.

                    I'm yet to know why Osama clubbed the USA,Israel and India as enemies of "Islam" instead of Kashmir,Palestine or any region.

                    same old , same old....pious platitude.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Samudra
                      The most sorry thing is that you have posted the truth.

                      I'm yet to know why Osama clubbed the USA,Israel and India as enemies of "Islam" instead of Kashmir,Palestine or any region.

                      same old , same old....pious platitude.
                      Simple, the mulsim world has little in common besides itself. As a Pakistani Pathan I have almost nothing in common with say Somalis. Or Indonesins. And vice versa. The exception is religion. Osama and his kind need support from their cause. So they emphaisze the similarities. Fillial bias of a sort.

                      Same reason Russia jumped to Serbia's aid in 1914, fellow Slavs. THe IRA got support from Boston Irish. Why? Common roots

                      Just a convinient way to get support for your cause.
                      "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Samudra
                        The most sorry thing is that you have posted the truth.

                        I'm yet to know why Osama clubbed the USA,Israel and India as enemies of "Islam" instead of Kashmir,Palestine or any region.

                        same old , same old....pious platitude.
                        Samudra,
                        OBL and AQ became US-centric when the infidels stepped foot on holy territory to defend against Arab Musliims that had invaded and conquered another Arab Muslim country in 1990. When the Saudis revoked his citizenship and kicked him out of the country, it became an obsession for him.
                        Last edited by Shek; 20 Sep 05,, 16:57.
                        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Very well, but I thought they went in to liberate Kuwait!
                          Surely it is the fault of Americans!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Samudra
                            Very well, but I thought they went in to liberate Kuwait!
                            Surely it is the fault of Americans!
                            You're correct about the liberate Kuwait part, although the original scope was only to defend Saudi Arabia (I changed my post above to reflect).
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Shek,

                              They are not US Centric anymore.
                              India,Israel,UK and just about anyone that is a non-Muslim country is their enemy , right ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X