Terrorism and the Muslim World

#16, Abey, #5 and #6 in my post #15 pertain to the role of Islam in promoting and nourishing terrorism. The Ozone layer is affecting many people`s comprehension. :)

Given the passage of time, many terrorists become national heros and some even go on to win Nobel Peace prizes - Menachem Begin, Sadat, Arafat, Sharon, Bhagat Singh, Netaji, Tikka Khan, Nathan Hale, Putin, Ahmed Shah Massoud.

How can we discuss terrorism, when we can`t even define terrorism. Who is a terrorist? Can anyone answer that question on this forum?

`` Al-Qaeda fought in Afghanistan on behalf of the US for so many years. It only used Islam for rallying support for its own cause. The US and its supportive governments in Pakistan under Ziaul Haq turned blind eye on certain sections closely knit to parent Al-Qaeda organization that played havoc with people and property of certain sections of society that did not adhere to their interpretation of Islam. Shia in Pakistan, so to speak, were at the receiving end of the unceasing ire of first Sipah-e-Sabaha, then Janghavi, Riaz Basra, Akram Lahori groups etc and many other nondescript rebellious factions of the same organization since 1985. Pakistan society was torn asunder; however, ‘greater national interest,’ while serving the interest of the US, sealed the mouths of the people in power corridors. It is not difficult to visualize the situation at home if 11 September’s diabolical event had not taken place and the Al-Qaeda had not been taken good care of by the US. Pakistan would have completely become pre-September 11 Afghanistan by now. Saddam, like Al-Qaeda, was West’s erstwhile partner. Later he turned against them when he was ditched at the end. Presently Mujahideen-e-Khalq working against Iran are being supported by the US in Iraq on the same lines as of Al-Qaeda, and if in near future it turns against the US, it should not blame anybody else rather curse its own Frankenstein fate. ``

Al-Qaeda did not exist in the 1980s. Few hundred of Osama`s henchmen fought against the Soviets. Most of the Afghan Arabs are living in Arab countries where they originally came from.


`` Shia in Pakistan, so to speak, were at the receiving end of the unceasing ire of first Sipah-e-Sabaha, then Janghavi, Riaz Basra, Akram Lahori groups etc and many other nondescript rebellious factions of the same organization since 1985. Pakistan society was torn asunder; however, ‘greater national interest,’ while serving the interest of the US, sealed the mouths of the people in power corridors. ``

It is a stretch to say that all actions of the Pakistani elite are to bidding of the Americans.
That would call for some imagination and creativity that most elites lack.

`` It is not difficult to visualize the situation at home if 11 September’s diabolical event had not taken place and the Al-Qaeda had not been taken good care of by the US. Pakistan would have completely become pre-September 11 Afghanistan by now. Saddam, like Al-Qaeda, was West’s erstwhile partner. Later he turned against them when he was ditched at the end. Presently Mujahideen-e-Khalq working against Iran are being supported by the US in Iraq on the same lines as of Al-Qaeda, and if in near future it turns against the US, it should not blame anybody else rather curse its own Frankenstein fate. ``

Pakistani Punjab and Karachi would never live under Taliban like rule. Attempts by the Pakistani military to impose mullah rule would backfire severely.

#19 by FawadR on September 12, 2005 5:17pm PT


How can we discuss terrorism, when we can`t even define terrorism. Who is a terrorist? Can anyone answer that question on this forum?


It`s like pornography...I know it when i see it...

re: Syed Javed Hussain

I will post my comments, when time permits. However, there are some points, with which I disagree. The foremost is that Al-Qaeda did not exist till the 1990s and the nucleus of its membership did not fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan on the behalf of United States; it fought the Soviets on the behalf of Islam. Secondly; Pakistan and Zia-ul-Haq were well aware of the situation and Zia did use/exploit this Islamic militancy for his own ends. Lastly, Mulism nations have supported Islamic militancy for their own political end-games and hence, the argument that they were unwilling dupes of the United States (and the west) is not a valid one.

Ciao

Re: # 15
Dear Salim_Chauhan. I really welcome and appreciate your serious comments. I fully agree with you. A wrong can never be justified even though it is held very dearly by the whole world. This is the essence of teachings of Islam which stands for human dignity, liberty, solidarity and respect to human institutions. Any organisation, institution or a leader acting in defiance to this ideal is devilish in spirit and contents.
thanks
Sincerely yours,
Syed Javed Hussain

Re: # 15
Dear Salim_Chauhan. I really welcome and appreciate your serious comments. I fully agree with you. A wrong can never be justified even though it is held very dearly by the whole world. This is the essence of teachings of Islam which stands for human dignity, liberty, solidarity and respect to human institutions. Any organisation, institution or a leader acting in defiance to this ideal is devilish in spirit and contents.
thanks
Sincerely yours,
Syed Javed Hussain

good entertaining read.
keep up the good work!

Re: # 25 Thank you so much.

re: Islam
People tell me that Islam is a peaceful religion. I am sure most muslims are peaceful by nature.
Some recent developments in India are however, disturbing. For eg, Islamic Sharia courts have started to interfere in the criminal justice system to the extent that Supreme Court of that country has asked for an explanation from these courts. Sania Mirza, the teenage tennis sensation from India, was recently issued a Fatwa by a Shia cleric in India for violating Islamic dress code!
It is disturbing that these things happen in India. I thought those who wanted such things have already moved to Pakistan but apparently not. It is imperative that this be nipped in the bud. It is the inability of muslims to see the other viewpoint and join the mainstream that makes them easy targets for suspicion and ridicule.
Sridhar

re: this article
BTW, this article is crap! No sense wasting time on it.
Sridhar

#21 by arjun_m

++
How can we discuss terrorism, when we can`t even define terrorism. Who is a terrorist? Can anyone answer that question on this forum?
++
It`s like pornography...I know it when i see it...

That`s acceptable as a layperson term. But it has no legal significance. You can`t prosecute anybody on the basis of this definition. For that you need a legal definition. And voila! There actually is a legal definition for obscenity:

Legal definition of Obscenity
U.S. Supreme Court, Miller vs State of California, 1973:

For a work/act to be deemed obscene, it must meet a 3-part test:
(a) the average person, applying contemporary community standards finds the work/act taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
(b) the work/act depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

All 3 tests must be met. A substandard test would be miscarriage of justice.

Regards

Re: # 18

Yaar, this intellectually sad piece of an article is titled “Terrorism and the Muslim World”… therefore, I think the discussion should focus on current day Islam and how it is the cause of all evil without divulging into historical accounts of Hellenic conquests into Troy.

The way Islam promotes and encourages terrorism is thru it’s constitution that clearly defines the world into two entities: (a) Muslim people with Penis and (b) the rest of the world. The rest of the world includes Muslim women and everyone else. All the rights are granted to Muslim men and the rest of the world is there to serve them. When are they done enjoying this life, it continues with each of them getting 72 bytches in paradise too. Do you think it is fair?

It is true that 99% of Muslims are neither terrorists nor their sympathizers and the reason for that is that they have rejected that filthy constitution that creates hierarchical divisions among humans.

#29 by FawadR on September 13, 2005 7:09am PT


That`s acceptable as a layperson term. But it has no legal significance. You can`t prosecute anybody on the basis of this definition.


Legal in what court? Legality bound by sovereignty....

As an example, you pakis may say the ``indigenous kashmiri freedom fighters`` are not terrorists... you could present all kinds of self-serving arguments you want..

what matters, in the US, is that the US courts look at it as terrorism..hence the prosecution of the virginia jihad network and other groups you only gave ``moral and diplomatic support`` to...

so split hairs all you want...What the US considers terrorism, it will prosecute as such...same thing goes for India, Israel and Russia...

#30, {``The way Islam promotes and encourages terrorism is thru it’s constitution that clearly defines the world into two entities: (a) Muslim people with Penis and (b) the rest of the world. The rest of the world includes Muslim women and everyone else. All the rights are granted to Muslim men and the rest of the world is there to serve them. When are they done enjoying this life, it continues with each of them getting 72 bytches in paradise too. Do you think it is fair?``}

Mr. Axeman,
And what is wrong with that? :) As a member of the first set, I am OK with this definition. :)


{``Yaar, this intellectually sad piece of an article is titled “Terrorism and the Muslim World”… therefore, I think the discussion should focus on current day Islam and how it is the cause of all evil without divulging into historical accounts of Hellenic conquests into Troy.``}


Seriously, in order to address current day symptoms it is imperative that we address yesterday`s mistakes. OK, maybe you don`t have to go all the way back to Helen, but you must admit that she was worth visiting. :)