<p>Stressedout, I believe people who think all Muslims are terrorists are completely wrong in just the same way that people believe they have no more of a terrorist tendency than anyone else. It’s not a yes/no question but shades of gray.
If you look at Hasan or the guy who shot a soldier in a recruting center a few years ago, or 9/11, these guys certainly had something in common that was different from Colorado or Newtown or VA tech. Denying this is as inaccurate as saying all or majority of Muslims are bad. And when you factor in how many of these incidents there are in proportion to the representation in the general population, it is disproportionately high.</p>
<p>Even your comment
is disturbing as it essentially concedes a minority of them are - not the odd outlier cookoo one, but just “not a majority”. The bar is low for what is considered OK.</p>
<p>Romani, sorry, I misread her post and thought she was saying that muslim terrorists do exist in large numbers and was citing the UK stat as evidence. That is why I questioned it. </p>
<p>My point was that peaceful interpretations of Islam are no more or less Islamic than violent interpretations of Islam. There are clerics who issue fatwas in favor of suicide bombings and clerics who issue fatwas against them. Which interpretation is more Islamic?</p>
<p>Obviously, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. But if you want to argue against sweeping generalizations, you can’t just take the “liberal” views of, say, jihad and throw out the more literal interpretations of jihad. </p>
<p>I don’t dispute your perspective, Stressed, but I understood the commentator (some guest on ABC News; don’t remember his name) to make the exact point you express; to separate the lunatics from rational, peaceful, tolerant and faithful worshipers.</p>
I understand your point, and I would have agreed with you a while back. but I have studied more about Islam since then, and those interpretations are truly less Islamic. if you know the religion, the contradictions are ridiculously obvious. unfortuneately, most people don’t.</p>
<p>what do you mean by the literal interpreation of jihad? jihad can include fighting, but only when you’re being persecuted, and there are many rules defining it, including no harm to civilians.</p>
<p>Okay romani…I appreciate the honest answer but as you are tired of people labeling all muslims as islamist terrorists and feel the heat because of the city you live in, I too will feel free to call it what it is…a terrorist attack by islamic radicals. This of course isn’t something confined to Arabics or dark skinned people so I am not sure why you had to emphasize the color of their skin. I am tired of the PC crowd being to afraid to call it what it is . I am sick of people being too afraid to insult a particular religion and turn a blind eye to the reality that there are very dangerous, hate filled mosques run by imams that recruit radicals on our own soil…
Boston is my city.
I walked on Boylston the day before the bombs exploded
My daughter is a marathon runner and I was terrorized in the hours that followed, thinking she fled the bombs
My youngest daughter battles with anxiety issues ( one of the biggest is fear of being in a big city and feeling vulnerable to terror attacks ) Taking her to Boston last weekend and having her face her fears and walk away with a sense of calm was a major accomplishment in dealing with her issues…we have worked very hard at her overcoming this, only to come home knowing she came closer than I hope she ever will to being part of an cowardly act of terror by ( yes ) islamic terrorists</p>
<p>So please forgive me if I am not feeling particularly sympathetic and understanding</p>
<p>If a terrorist claims that the State of Israel is the dar al-harb, actively engaging in persecution of Muslims, do you mean to say that this interpretation is so off the mark that it can’t even be called “Islamic?” Do you think Sayyid Qutb is propagating blatant falsehoods when he reads Ibn Taymiyyah in a certain way? That’s overly simplistic. The fact is that they’re interpreting texts in a different way than you do, because they have a different worldview.</p>
<p>I and my Muslim boss use the term “Islamist” which is a very specific ideology which is incompatible with western values, along the line of FLDS. This group hates other Muslims as much as they hate Jews or Christians.</p>
again, you haven’t studied Islam, so don’t make claims.
as to claiming that the state of Israel is persecuting Muslims and should be defeated, no I don’t think that particular interpretation is so off that it can be called unIslamic. but harming civilian Israelis certainly can be. fighting a state is a different story.</p>
<p>Good people should always strive to understand and have sympathy for the innocent and the unjustly treated. None of us have sympathy for the evil and malevolent men and women among us.</p>
<p>Is there a difference between say, Osama bin Laden and the ruling parties of Tunisia, Egypt, and Iraq, which are all self-described as “Islamist”? Do you think that term might be improper if there is a difference?</p>
<p>I live in the DC burbs, land of the snipers, so I do have a feel for terrorism unfolding in my area in live time.</p>
<p>I like this quote from Paul Waldman, “Substituting Identity for Motivation”:</p>
<p>"The truth turned out to be… well, we don’t really know yet. Assuming these two brothers are indeed the bombers, they’re literally Caucasian, but they’re also Muslim. Most importantly, as of yet we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (his emphasis) about what motivated them. Nothing. Keep that in mind…</p>
<p>"But for many people, their motivations are of no concern; all that matters is their identity…</p>
<p>“Does the attacker in these kinds of cases say to themselves, “This is really going to make a difference”? It’s hard to get inside their head in a way that makes any sense. So it’s easier to say, “They did it because that’s just how those people are.” It’s an answer that means you don’t have to ask any more questions.”</p>
<p>So, how should the state be defeated? Can a Muslim blow up an Israeli military compound? Must every Muslim do so? Do you think there is disagreement on either question? If there is disagreement, then you must concede that there are rival interpretations within Islam, including on the spectrum of violence.</p>
<p>EDIT: As I’m sure you know, disagreement in interpretation is a historic part of Islam. The founders of the schools of jurisprudence had their own ijtihad on various points.</p>
<p>^Of course, but it’s problematic when a singular term is claimed by many people, all of whom actually believe different things. Mainstream Protestants may call themselves “fundamentalists” because they believe in sola scriptura and they may call themselves Evangelical. But when the media calls someone a fundamentalist, Evangelical Christian, they don’t mean the same thing ;)</p>
<p>How often does the media use the term Islamist in the context of describing violent behavior? Serious question. I don’t think I have seen it too often.</p>
<p>Another thing. In a climate of fear, words do matter. I said that I think semantic debates are useless, but while reading this thread in the last couple of minutes, certain memories of the aftermath of September 11 came to me…specifically I remember the fear and anxiety of a muslim woman co-worker. She always wore an Islamic headdress in the office prior to the WTC attack. In the weeks after the September tragedy, you could see fear if not downright fright in her eyes when people stared at her headdress. I don’t ever want to be a person that allows such an innocent individual to be so frightened.</p>
in that case, I take back what I said. sorry for the assumption.</p>
<p>I don’t deny that there are many different interpretations within Islam. but there are certain, fanatic interpretations that can easily be identified as unIslamic, such as ones that say suicide bombings are perfectly valid</p>