US "National Security": Obama to Break Link Between Islam and Terrorism?

Darrell Ezell writes for EA:

Preparations are under way by key National Security Council officials, reshaping the US National Security Strategy, to break the Bush-era linkage of Islam to terrorism. While this symbolic move is essential to restoring relations with the Muslim world, it promises to unleash a firestorm among conservatives in Washington.

According to sources, Pradeep Ramamurthy, head of the White House Global Engagement Directorate (a four-person NSC team), and his deputy Jenny Urizar are making progress in their rewrite of US national security documents set for release before the President’s trip to Indonesia in early June. They are focusing on the dynamic of language and how a respectful tone in communication, avoiding loaded religious rhetoric, may aid in restoring US–Muslim relations in the world.


It is no secret that the language in the Bush period linking the religion of Islam to terror contributed to ideological tension between the US and Muslims after 9/11. Statements by President Bush such as “This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile…” or academic arguments presented by Bernard Lewis and Samuel P. Huntington that America is facing a “clash of civilizations” contributed to a misinterpretation of the religion of Islam and Islamic society by U.S. officials. This narrow misreading provided the intellectual framework and vocabulary for the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), which asserted, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century and finds the great powers all on the same side – opposing the terrorists."

The 2006 NSS accomplished, on the surface, two specific goals: 1) It identified in clear terms America’s “new” enemy (“Islamic radicalism”, terrorists, and rogue states) against whom the US planned to defend itself at all necessary cost militarily; and 2) It set out a course of action for rebuilding key nations in an effort to promote effective democracies within countries identified as failed states.

To assure the Obama administration does not fall into the ideological traps set up by this approach, Ramamurthy’s office will pursue a set of 2008 recommendations outlined by the Counter-Terrorism Communications Center ("Words that Work and Words that Don’t") and the Department of Homeland Security ("Terminology to Define the Terrorists").

Acknowledging the damage caused by the Bush administration’s choice of language, the January 2008 DHS report made the recommendation that the U.S. government consider more strategic terminology.

The terminology that senior government officials use must accurately identify the nature of the challenges that face our generation....At the same time, the terminology should also be strategic – it should avoid helping the terrorists by inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of their ideology…If senior government officials carefully select strategic terminology, the government’s public statements will encourage vigilance without unintentionally undermining security objectives.

That is, the terminology we use must be accurate with respect to the very real threat we face. At the same time, our terminology must be properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.

The shift in national security language indicates the Obama Administration is comprehending the dynamic of communication as a tool to improve or further deteriorate future relations with Muslims. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh declares, “It’s a good message of assurance, and differs from the former American administration’s position on this matter which showed no real understanding of Islamic countries….This decision by Obama will help to reform the image Muslims have of America.”

The conservative backlash has already begun with FOX News featuring the assertion of Senator Joseph Lieberman (as a former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, a key ally for Obama's opposition) calling the shift in national security language “dishonest, wrong-headed, and disrespectful”. Arguing against the White House’s use of more strategic language, Lieberman insists:

It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists.

Senator Lieberman’s position points to the danger of a continued marriage of the terms Islam and radicalism in US national security documents. Underneath the surface, he, like most conservative writers, seeks to keep the current war on terror framed in religious/ideological terms. That position may make it easier for scholars to follow the narrow-minded resolution of Lewis and Huntington through the call for the religion of Islam to "reform", assuring its compatibility with the West. However, the use of the loaded terms sustained the ideological context of a global debate dominated by the tension between US foreign policy and groups like Al Qa'eda and the Taliban.

By dropping the unhelpful vocabulary, the White House sends the message that it is willing to discern the value of promoting a language of understanding over the theme of "combat". It is essential that the Administration make this linguistic shift, not just to apply political correctness to U.S. foreign policy, but to implement a more engaged framework of communcation before the President's summer address to the Muslim world in Indonesia.

Comments

[Dave]

"It’s a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we’re not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

*******

Government officials talk about "moderate" Islam and rejecting the theology and scriptural interpretations of the extremists. They are ignorant of ancient Islam's mandate for the establishment of a grand caliphate. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong. Muhammad combined within himself the offices of king, judge, general, and religious leader, thus unifying politics, law, the military, and religion. To follow his example means creating a THEOCRATIC POLITICAL ORDER, where the laws of the land are controlled by Islamic theology. No 'moderate' Muslim can deny this fact and no dough-faced politician can whitewash the 'Religion of Peace'. It is what it is. There is no moderate Islam. Erdogan said so himself! One only needs to look at what is happening in England or Nigeria or the Philippines or the Holy Land to understand what is happening. Islam has not changed since the 7th century.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12391

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12400

[Bill]

Scott,

So much I disagree with but I do agree with the stance of using terminology if it is directed at discrediting terrorists. However the statement "It’s a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology" just shows how off kilter we are about understanding Islam. Islam is not just a religion but an ideology that encompasses all aspects of life be it religion, state, and society in general. Simply put Islam is inherently political and much of its power is derived from its politcal manifestation. We are being willfullly naive to ignore this.

The whole irony of the discussion is if anyone bothered to look what former people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Marco Polo, or Wiston Churchill said about Islam centuries ago they would find the terms we are banishing today and often uttered from the mouths of Muslims of the time(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Wars). In fact they would all be called Islamophobes in this day and age despite the fact it was true or not. The fact remains terrorism is in fact an offshoot of political Islam. The difference they have with the "moderates" is not the goal but over the method today. The central arguement for the moderates is the violence is bad for the image of Islam. Its why almost after every terrorist attack we get the statment of the backlash and the image of Islam. This is still uttered despite the fact the backlash never occured and the fact hate incidents targeting Muslims are at levels below pre 911 across the globe. You should also note the fact we have never seen muslims marching in the millions denouncing terrorism like they do for Gaza yet in ten years terrorism has claimed more lives. Another example is when Muslims marched in the tens of thousands for the women murdered in Germany but not one march for the 138 killed in Mumbai. Why is that? Is it a tacit acceptance we were wrong and had it coming?

While I believe people have the right intentions I think of this more as a fit of political and multicultural correctness gone haywire. How are we ever going to defeat the scourge of Islamic motivated terrorism if we cannot identify the enemy? This is just madness to continue tolerating the intolerant. The fact remains Islam is inherently political and this political manifestation owns over 60% of the worlds terrorist organizations, 80% of the worlds seperatist movements(for establishing Sharia of course), and is literally behind the social cohesion being ripped apart in many parts of the world. Its no mystery Islam uniquely has all these conflicts and issue with just about every other demographic group. Why don't the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Animists, Sihks, or Hindus have these issues? Despite the fact most they have a legit axe to grind with the west they don't.

Don't make the mistake so many do of looking at this from your own politicl, societal, or religious upbringing. Doing so incorrectly assumes the values you espouse are those inherently held within the ideology of Islam and thus the tendency to somehow our fault always. You really need to read the Quran, a Hadith source(recommend Buhkari), and the Sira If you have not already. It will help you frame what I have pointed out and correctly view the dynamics of the world from and Islamic standpoint. (sorry vented on this one a bit and hope I am not being to pedantic! :) )

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

First Barbary War:

From Wiki:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

Note Jefferson correctly deduced that continuing to pay tribute will only encourage more piracy. Thus the US has its very first war to protect it interests form Barbary pirates. Jefferson simply would not tolerate the intolernt anymore lesson the West had better learn.

[Catherine]

Hi Bill,
RE "The fact remains Islam is inherently political "

I've taken a couple of courses on Islam and political Islam is always referred to as a late 20th century development and a minority trend within the entire scope of the Muslim world. I'm not looking for a treatise here, just a couple of references to facts that back up your statement. Or maybe you're getting at something else? But pretty please - keep it (reasonably) short :-)

[Catherine]

On a side note - I'm really jazzed that I've got a purple icon today - it's one of my favourite colours and I was really getting sick and tired of pink! :-)

[Bill]

Catherine,

What you don't want another novel from me? Just kidding!!! The question you ask is not an easy one. However I will try to be brief and provide a reference you can read up on at a later date.

The simple answer is as I have stated many times is that Islam is everything to the Muslim. It is societal, religious, and state/legal norms as defined in the Quran and the Hadith(Sunnah.) Much of these norms have later been put into what we now call Sharia. Iran and Saudia Arabia a perfect examples of this and how Sharia law is the basis for their state. Now when you take the breadth of Islam's governance it cannot be anything but political. However having said that not all Muslims agree and Sufism(mystical emphasis) are a prime example. Other Muslims believe Islam has lost it's spirituality and become slaves to the political--they look at Islam as strictly personal. This conflict of ideas is why many Muslims believe Islam is going through today what early Christianity did during the reformation and the elightenment. Yet until this conflict is resolved the fact remains that the political manifestation of Islam is arguably the most powerful ideology in the Islamic world today.

Here is a good reference that provides a look from many different angles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam

It's a bit of a long read but technically I didn't write it so I am hoping I am off the hook for writing novel. :) LOL

Thx
Bill

[Dave]

Hi Bill,
RE “The fact remains Islam is inherently political ”

I’ve taken a couple of courses on Islam and political Islam is always referred to as a late 20th century development and a minority trend within the entire scope of the Muslim world. I’m not looking for a treatise here, just a couple of references to facts that back up your statement. Or maybe you’re getting at something else? But pretty please – keep it (reasonably) short :-)

******

Catherine,

There are courses on feminist interpretations of the Bible, but that doesn't mean any of it is true or even somewhat accurate.

Here are some reasons for Western-Muslim tensions and the increased politicization of Islam in the latter half of the 20th century and today --.....

When nationalism receded in the Middle East, Islamism re-surfaced. Post 1971 Egypt-Jordan) is one example. When nationalism is strong, Islam is weak. When Islam is strong, nationalism is weak. This is what happened when Pan-Arabism (Nasserism/United Arab Republics) fell by the wayside. They were non-confessional Arab republics. Islam has found its way into Egypt's penal codes since the 1970s. Also note that Egypt persecutes its religious minorities so it can maintain its standing as a leader in the Arab world.

The other problem is that Islamism is a reactionary force that and is a response to the ever increasing growth of Christianity in Africa. It is important to note that Muslims generally recognize Africa as part of their natural sphere of cultural influence and their power was consolidated to an extent under the colonial regimes. Christianity continues to spread across Muslim-dominated north Africa (note crisis in Jos, Nigeria, where most Christian organizations are based). The religious demographics changed dramatically in the last century, and missions and evangelizing efforts have been fueled by WESTERN MONEY. Christian missionaries love to to talk about the '10-40 Window'. It's imporant to note that both relgions are growing in the same places across the globe, thereby raising tensions. Remember that both religions are 'mission' religions. They both actively seek converts around the globe and aim to win the world for God/Allah. Hindus do not do this.

Islam and oil wealth -- The Middle East and Central Asia are significant politically because of the continuing connection between Islam and oil wealth. This gives Islam a material foundation for its power.

The Muslim world has not coped well with the challenges of globalisation and modernity. This has also created a lot of anger and resentment toward the West. The Muslim world also ranks dead last in the fields of science and technology. People embrace conservative Islam because they fear the loss of their cultural identity and globalisation has exacerbated the problem. So they fight back at the 'callous' West.

US and Soviet communism -- The Saudis opend up politically in the 1970s (due to oil exports) and helped spread Wahabi Islam with their oil riches. Saudi ally Ronald Reagan favored Islamic movements to thwart Soviet influence in the region -- Mujihideen in Afghanistan, for example. Bin Laden himself takes credit for not only driving the Soviets out, but also bringing down the Soviet Union.

Here's an article that might interest you -

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12161

[Dave]

Bill,

Darrell Ezell is a graduate of Union Theological Seminary. It is left of Lenin. The faculty (probably atheists) and students there see things through Third World lenses -- "Neo-colonialism breeds poverty, poverty breeds anger, anger breeds violence, violence breeds......"

Obama himself wears those same lenses.

[Rev. Magdalen]

Dave,

There was a time when Christianity had all the same characteristics you describe. Many Biblical prophets ruled their tribe as absolute theocrats, as you point out was the case in Islam's history with the Prophet and Caliphs. The Bible and Koran are not really that different, in terms of violence, so I don't think we can blame the Islamic sacred texts for the rise of violent Islamic extremism. Islam has always allowed for interpretation; every branch of it has many schools of thought and many influential teachers within them. There is no Pope of Islam.

This is good in the sense that there's no one Islamic authority figure to abuse central authority and declare a crusade or inquisition for all Muslims, or meddle in worldwide kingmaking and politics, like ancient Popes have done, but it also has a downside in that charismatic teachers can win a wide following, and if they start preaching violent extremism, there's no central authority to declare it heresy.

Hundreds of intelligent, meek, kindly clerics may write thousands of impassioned essays proving that violent extremism has no place in modern Islam, but there is no college of cardinals to excommunicate the other clerics who are preaching the violent doctrines. If state media in a nation make it difficult for people to access alternate teachings, the violent ones can flourish.

It seems to be the goal of these violent extremists to someday establish a pope-like central authority for Islam in the form of a world Caliph, which would make it even more difficult for peaceful voices to prevail on the minds of individual believers, but as yet there is no such person and so there's still a lot of opportunity for the nonviolent voices preaching tolerance to be supported and to have their voices heard.

I think the new security language will be a huge support to the clerics who are advocating nonviolent interpretations of the Koran, who have unfairly been characterized as either practicing taqiyya or being woefully naive to the true violence inherent in the religion of Islam itself. The Old Testament of the Bible is every bit as violent as the Koran, and the Western world still eventually managed to develop religious teachings to justify social change and a reasonable code of human rights and laws of nations. There's no reason Islam can't fit into that consensus of reasonable standards of living just like any other religion.

[Dave]

But there's a difference. Violence in the Old Testament has its time and place. Violence found in the Bible is merely descriptive. Violence in the Koran transcends time and place. The sword verses (violent verses) are prescriptive.

Christianity has had its reformers - Reformation and pre-Reformation eras. St. Francis wanted to bring the Church and its teachings closer to the message found in the Gospel. Bin Laden and other Islamic reformers of his kind wish to bring about a reformation in Islam which would unite the Ummah and establish the Caliphate with full implementation of Sharia and the teachings of Mohommad. St. Francis was also a radical, but he was a very different kind of radical. He had no such designs as the ones envisioned by Islamists.

[Arshama]

Dear all,

Yussefi Eshkevari recently gave a lecture about "Irans Contemporary Intellectual and Political Trends within Islam and the Pro-Democracy Movement" at the UCLA, which started with a general and very useful description of three actual currents in Islam: traditionalists, fundamentalists, and modernists: http://www.international.ucla.edu/cnes/events/showevent.asp?eventid=7863
Here you find the videos of this lecture, unfortunately only in Persian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xt_6m4CNe8

Though I'm fed up with Islam for more than 30 years, I found this lecture a rather appropriate base for further discussion.

Arshama

[Bill]

Dave,

Thanks for the reference I did not catch who the writer was thinking it was scott. I was not aware of Darrell Ezell but will research him. I do find it ironic that the ideologues in the US and the West often go against the grain of the populace on these topics. In some cases they are right but in others they are wrong such as this one. Simply put this is a "its our fault" so lets correct everything in a fit of multicultural political correcteness. What they clearly missed is the West is tired of tolerating the intolerant. We have seen time and time again when Islamists are given an inch it only encourages them. Here are some examples:

1) Israel moves out of Gaza: Violence actually escalates(please note I am very much against the occupation but at a loss for what Israel can do in the face of organizations that want all of Israel.) As a footnote they might want to pay attention to why Islamists only want truces or a Hudna. Maybe then will they realize the truce is only temporary until the Islamists regain power to continue to pursue their goal. Sadat signed an actual peace treaty going against this Islamic concept of truce and got killed for it
2) Play nice with Iran: They have only become more belicose in their rhetoric and threats. However, it should be noted some of this is obviously due to the fact they are trying to deflect
3) All across the EU many states have allowed for Sharia based demands to be met: not surprisingly it led to more demands. In England they just allowed Muslims to legally throw shoes at protests(ironically this is only cultural.) If your a non Muslim you still go to jail for assault if you throw your shoe
4) We took a hands off approach to the Sudan encouraging peace treaties: Hundereds of thousands more died
5) Unrestricted spread of certain types of Islam(Wahhabism/Deobandi) and tolerance for certain groups bent on establishing the Caliphate: Again it is not surprising that now Britian is known as the head of the radical Islamist movement in the West and Westerners are now joining the wakos
6) Billions in aid to the Palestinians: Yet we still have millions of refugees 60 years later, it's the infidels paying 90% of the pals bills each year, Almost no Islamic state will allow the Pals to settle in their territory, and the violence continues(note Israel share a huge amount of blame hear as well)

Yet despite all of this some of the elite would have us think if we solve the Israeli Arab conflict, pulled out of Afghanistan/Iraq, and changed our foreign policies everything would be hunky dorry. Wrong because they all fail to see the underlying current behind all these Islamists movements that being Sharia must dominate the globe. Not realizing this the US amazingly is considering engaging the MB. They seem to have forget while the MB renounced violence they still share the same goals as the terrorists, Sharia--they only differ on the method to achieve it. Trully amazing the willful blindness of others. When will they learn appeasing Islamists only begets more demands and violence when those future demands are not met. Islamists only respond to one thing that being power. All throughout history the only time Islam was stopped when it was on the march was through power nothing else. Some seem to have forgot Christianity lost close to 2/3's of its territory in antiquity to Jihad and up until the early 1900's the Ottaman Empire was at war with Europe almost every year of its existence.

When will these elites pay attention to the people screaming "stop tolerating the intolerant." When are they going to realize the Swiss Minaret ban was nothing more than people finally vocing their concern and polls across Europe show a majority of Europeans share these same concerns. Yes it was a nee jerk but if anyone paid attention to the events it was directly tied to intolerance Islamism permeates in societies. The best challenge for these folks is to have them look at the OIC report on Islamophobia vs any number of human and religious rights for Islamic states. It will become clear it is not the West who has failed Muslims but the Islamic world that has and continues to fail our coreligionists across the globe. Simply put Westerner don't want what they see in any number of Islamic states in their own backyard--when will these people ever get it? Arggh--instead it is always were at fault and a recent event in Britian titled "is Europe failing its Muslims" is symptomatic of this malaise. They all seemed to have missed the facts:

1) Muslims are expoentially growing in the west while religious minorities are literally fleeing out of the Islamic world
2) Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religion while ours are either outright banned our oppressed
3) Muslims can call us to their religion but their own states either imprison or put to death those calling Muslims to another faith
4) The fact a debate like this could occur in the West when in most Islamic states it would not be tolerated but most likely be met by a band of raving lunatics

Argggh Argggh--PC and Multiculturalism will be the death of us with the too liberal left blind to the fact the crocodile will eat them as well. Maybe they could try moving to Suadia Arabia, Egypt, or Pakistan and see how well their liberal ideas would be received. I am all for honest critique but these actions just stink of self hate.

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

Rev. Magdalen

Excellent point on the decentralization of the theocracy in Islam. However that function was a dual role in the hands of the Caliph, head of the state in an Islamic Caliphate. This person was always religious and by extension political because Islam itself is political. Caliphs in fact did call for thousands of Jihads to spread faith. The long history of Muslim conquest attests to this. In fact the Europeans knew this and that is why they demanded the Caliphate in Turkey dismantled after WWI. It is also one of the reasons Muslims want the Caliph restored because technically speaking the Caliph is the only one authorized to declare offensive Jihad.

Couple other points:

1) The violence in the Bible is descriptive in nature tied to a specific place time and event. The Quran, as noted by Dave, is a prescriptive mandate good for all time. In addition the Bible has no doctrine for war while the Quran does
2) The Crusades actually have no scriptural basis in Christianity and actual directly contradict the messages of thou shalt not kill, love they enemy, and love thy neighbor. In fact the Crusades, as noted by many scholars, was a learned trait from Islam. The first Crusade was actually a direct response to over 700 years of Islamic expansion that claimed 2/3's of the Christian world
3) On interpretation you are partly correct: independent interpretation of Islamic source material was called Ijtihad. The gates of Ijtihad were slammed closed in the Sunni world over thousand years ago while Shias have largely kept it open. The importance of this is easily seen through the fact Sunni Jurisprudence and Sharia have largely been unchanged since then. This is actually a hot topic in the Sunni world because many forward thinkers want to see ijtihad reopened to allow Muslims to adapt to modern times--the Salafists are directly opposed to this. Ironically why Shia are much more ideological in line with the West than their Sunni coreligionists.

Just my two cents.

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

Arshama,

If it is not to much trouble can you provide a synopsis of the video. I would like to at least know what its message. I am also keen to find out because it is my belief that Iran is actually in the forefront of trying to adapt Islam to modernity and in general the global community. May be able to see this but when you look at the teachings of Montazeri and Sistani the evidence is in abundance. They both ecouraged the pursuit of the knowledge for knowledges sack, openly preached tolerance sometimes at odds with the regime, and most importantly challenged the often destructive forces of political Islam.

Thx
Bill

[Scott Lucas]

Darrell Ezell has just obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Birmingham, which may or may not be to the left of Lenin (I'll find out how Red his supervisor is).

S.

[Dave]

Dr. Lucas,

Most academics today are overwhelmingly leftist and shove it, without true balance, down the throats of their unsuspecting students. Because the faculty at these institutions are overwhelmingly leftist and hubristic in their rectitude, they believe all wisdom resides left of center. So, in exchange for students' fortune of money and time, instead of a full-dimensioned education, they spew a truncated, arcana-larded brainwashing.

[Catherine]

RE Violence in the Bible and the Koran

One of the widest perceptions in the Western world, especially after the attacks of September 11, is that Islam's holy book, the Quran, promotes conflict, violence and bloodshed.

Muslims argue that many of the verses of the Quran – such as the one asking the Prophet Muhammad and his followers to "slay them [unbelievers] wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out" – are taken out of context.

Muslim scholars say that the scriptures have been intentionally misused by Muslims and non-Muslims alike to advance political agendas.

Critics say that the texts promote extremism, and that Islam has left a trail of blood across world history.

Recently, Philip Jenkins, one of the world's leading religion scholars, conducted a study comparing the texts of the Quran and the Bible, and found that "the Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Quran."

Waych this edition of Riz Khan with Philip Jenkins and Shaker Elsayed, the imam of Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Centre in the US and former secretary general of the Muslim American Society:
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2010/03/201032584118951469.html

[Dave]

Catherine,

We are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. There is a lot of violence in early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but it remains to be seen if the Muslim world can EVOLVE OUT OF IT. The violent sciptures in the Bible remain dormant (if not dead), but the violent ones in the Koran are not dormant. We see them constantly promulgated by so many Muslims in the 21st century.

I don't think it will happen in our lifetime. As I mentioned in an earlier post -- globalisation, modernity, poverty and backwardness, and the rapid spread of Christianity have caused a great deal of frustration and have angered the Muslim world.

[Bill]

Dave and Scott,

I was not able to find anything on Darell and I think its a bit much to unilaterally label him "left of Lenin" because of his school or an article he has written. However, considering it was a theological school, the article fits the mold to a degree. As we are all aware religion in the US is mostly pacifist. Thus I don't think it's a stretch to assume this article is a reflection of that mindset. They look to avoid conflict and the actions that may cause it even at times when they are not at fault--ironically it works many times. However I think if continued with certain groups it actually perpetuates the issues because the other side feels more emboldened to continue.

To sum it up I don't fault the authors intentions because they are good. What I fault is the author not truly knowing the other side of the conflict. Yes things will calm down a bit if certain issues are addressed but in the end the underlying motivation of the Islamists will never change. Something will always be used to ply their trade. A clear example is the Defamation of Religions legislation being forced on the UN. This legal adventure looks to bring back blasphemy laws abolished centuries ago in the West--and not ironically the only religion mentioned is Islam. The gripe is the canard Islamophobia. The OIC states sponsoring this legislation to combat Islamophobia are in reality are all on the who's who list of the worst religious and human rights abusers around the globe. The hypocrisy, in my mind, is a clear example of try to appease and somehow tolerate the intolerant. Foor goodness sake if they truly believe in the universiallity of it you would think they would correct the problem first instead of pointing fingers. All in all its why I believe changing terminology is not going to stop the fanatics from citing scripture and shouting allahu akbar while waging war against the west! Their core motivation comes from their religion not us.

Thx
Bill

Thx
Bill

[Catherine]

Dave,
RE "There is a lot of violence in early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but it remains to be seen if the Muslim world can EVOLVE OUT OF IT. "

It's a real shame there is no site search that allows us to search through readers' comments - the Google site search function is also very inaccurate - because Bill, Rev Magdalen and I had a discussion about this very point and came to this same conclusion, although perhaps a bit more optimistically than you might :-). Basically that this evolution has started in a number of countries and regions and largely goes hand in hand with the direction in which surrounding dominant socio-economic, educational and technological contexts develop.

I watched the programme I linked to quite a while ago, but I think they end up concluding that it's not so important which scripture is "more violent", but how they are interpreted today. One could say that Christianity started moving away from the violent, merciless, eye for an eye prescriptions of the Old Testament at the moment Christ's teachings began gathering followers, even before it officially existed as a religion. So that's quite a headstart ;-). Yet in poor, conservatie male-dominated societies, honour killings can occur amongst Christians as well as Muslims.

[Catherine]

Bill, RE your post 6, thanks for the link - you were never really on the hook anyway :-). I'll definitely have a look at the info. Your reply and Dave's right afterward show that you weren't referring to "political Islam" the movement, but rather what you describe as the inherently politcal nature of Islam because of the place it occupies in and influence it exercises on both individuals and societies.

We've already discussed the conflict you mentioned between various types of Islam, and developments in modern Islamic thought in other threads, and I am reminded of the first thing that a professor of Islam from the University of Leiden said to us on the first day of an introductory course on the religion: "There are as many forms of Islam as there Muslims". :-)

[Bill]

Catherine,

Statistics can lie. Here are some tidbits:

1) The Bible depending on which version can be anywhere from a 1,000 pages to 3,000
2) The average bible has over 31,000 verses
3) Most Qurans run around 600 pages
4) The Quran has a bit over 6,200 verses

When you then look at violence per length of the book the numbers look equal. However when you look at the verses percentage wise the Bible has roughly half of what the Quran has.

However, as stated, this is largely a mute point. Its mute because the Bible is viewed as contextual(as narrative how to live life) while the Quran largely is not but instead prescriptive. The contextual debate is a hot one within Islam and it is a central arguement of Muslims looking for reform. However they are in the minority because the Quran itself hinders this view of itself in favor of literalism. As a lithmus test to prove this out try finding current and historical peoples crying out verses of the Bible to wage violence towards some goal then compare it with those in the Islamic world. You will it in both but one has a clear trail of doing so since its inception and with much much greater frequency.

Thx
Bill

[Catherine]

Bill,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that Wikipedia article you suggesed I read starts off: "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam

Anything else you can recommend? :-)

[Bill]

Catherine,

You are correct and I am greatly relieved I am off the hook!!! :) I do also realize their are many forms of Islam, Muslims, and political Islam. The reality remains politics is like cheese is to a pizza--can't seperte them(well only if your weird on the cheese bit!!) Removing the politics from Islam would be removing huge chunks of the scritpture--won't ever happen. Its sort of an alien topic for Non Muslims because we in fact have already relegated our religions to the limitations of the person. On the flip side it is why at times individual freedom, liberty, and the western tradition of allowing one to offend through critique is quite alien to Muslims.

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

Catherine,

I will do some digging and see what I can come up with outside wiki. However I would note many of the wiki pages on Islam are hotely contested and partly the reason I choose to reference it. Doesn't mean it is not a good article but just that some don't agree. Note when you flip over to the discussion pages you can find the fight. Some of it is pretty comical especially so when a non Muslim pens the page--after all as we have seen Muslims are not to keen on critique about their religion from any source. I have actually noted in several wiki page discussions the old Edward Said arguement that an orientalist wrote this with the intention of harming Islam or it typical Western racism. Personally I always get a laugh out of the racism bit because Islam is not a race.

Thx
Bill