The History of Islamic Terrorism

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting, I'd heard of Otaibi, but I did not know he had captured the mosque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juhayman_al-Otaibi

Perhaps if they had sent in his teachers earlier, the violence may have been avoided.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the roots of Islamic terrorism, there is no better place to start than the quran. Use the navigation aids on the right hand side :


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Instead of posting a link to a hatesite, post the verses you are talking about here.

 

This event is covered pretty well in the book The Looming Tower. I fail to see how it relates to the US/Soviet Cold War game, though. The fellow who siezed the mosque was crazed. He thought he was the Mahdi. So while the incident fits into a larger tapesty, Fraggle, I don't think you can lay this at the feet of the West...

 

The skeptic's annotated bible is a skeptics' site not a "hate" site. I can see how those being criticized would find criticizism "hateful," but this is evidence of delusion or irrational thought more than evidence that the critic and skeptic is actually being "hateful."

Those who prefer the status quo and that their cults not be criticized will probably always consider inquiry "hateful."

 

It is a skeptics site in name only. It summaries verses in 1 or 2 lines from false translations and thinks that Muslims read verses only 1 at a time from false translations. Hence the idea behind the Skeptics Annotated Quran is not to criticize, but to spread ignorance about the Quran, which eventually leads people to hate it.

 

The root of Islamic terrorism has a lot to do with the Western governments meddling with the affairs of the Muslims and Muslim countries, and some Muslims allowing them.

 

Thanks for the link Kaneda, what a hateful book

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If that is the case, then the terrorism would be purely political and have political aims. It isn't and it doesn't. The terrorism is religious and has religious aims, which are easy to identify.

 

It does have political aims. But unfortunately, people are being roused for that political aim by abusing a religion. After all, when the US chose to support and nurture Khomenism because it saw it as the lesser of 2 evils against Communism, some Muslim imams got it into their head that they could use religion for this purpose.

 

What are Al-Qaeda's political goals? They have none that I can see. Getting the US to "leave" places masks their true intent, which is why the constantly have to reinvent their supposed political aims to fit whatever scenario they find themselves meddling with. Meanwhile, their true aims are entirely religious in nature. Broadly speaking, they want to purge the East of what they consider lax Muslims and non-believers, drive "corrupt" Western culture away and establish a Caliphate. All of these goals are religiously-based and religiously-oriented.

 

The distinction you're trying to draw between religious and political motivations is problematic when it comes to Islamic terrorism, for the simple reason that the terrorists in question do not accept the division of church and state. Politics and religion are the same thing for these people.

 

I agree, which is why I argue their approach cannot be viewed in political terms.

In other words, they are not engaging the political system with political methods to change it the way paramilitary groups or revolutionaries who use terrorism as a method would. The Islamic terrorists have loftier goals: They are attacking culture and society. And they are doing so purely for religious reasons. To illustrate, I think it's instructive to consider how Islamic terror has largely been hostile to capitalism and communism. It has been hostile to any and all political systems, because it doesn't believe in them.

 

Unfortunately all studies of Islamic terrorists so far have shown that they are politically motivated and not religiously motivated.

 

No, there is no separation of the political and religious with these guys, so it follows that they cannot be motivated "purely" by religion. Their religious convictions are political, and vice versa.

No, they're not hostile to political systems that accord with their religious ideas of what a state should look like. They're hostile to *secular* political systems, like capitalism and communism, but they certainly weren't bothered by the system the Taliban set up in Afghanistan. One of the avowed goals of these groups is the establishment of an Islamic state with particular laws about how people should behave, and rules about how said state should be run. If that's not a political aim, I don't know what is.

 

Those are, of course, the hand-picked select few that Sam has been good enough to share as part of her Islamic anti-American propaganda campaign.

 

And this is where the imagination kicks in. basically that is what Al Qaeda wants.

 

And communism and capitalism have been hostile to eachother. This doesnt prove anything.

They dont have to engage the political spectrum as other groups have done in the past. Terrorism remians terrorism and always has had the goal to achieve a certain political end. Wheterht ath be withdrawal or change of law, it remains political.

This idea that terrorism committed by some people who call themselves Muslim is automatically Islamic terrorism is wrong. Religion in these conflicts is always used as a morale booster, some kind of bond between the people who want to achieve the same politicla goals. History testifies this through the various wars where a common ground was sought and people were united using that common ground. It doesnt mean that they did it because of that.