Sunday
Oct242010
Terrorism in Europe
Issandr El AmraniSome illuminating statistics via Juan Cole:
"A Europol report on terrorist attacks in Europe in 2009 [pdf] says that out of hundreds of terrorist attacks iin Europe in 2009, most were the work of ethnic separatists. About 40 were carried out by members of the extreme left. A handful by the European far right. See also this analysis.One terrorist attack was carried out in 2009 in all Europe by persons of Muslim heritage (I do not say ‘by a Muslim’ because terrorism is forbidden in Islamic law).
That is right. Out of hundreds. Exactly one."
Incidentally, not to nitpick on this one, but I find it rather risky to say that terrorism is forbidden by Islamic law. Someone will always be able to find a legal justification for terrorism, which also depends on how terrorism is defined. No religion can confidently exclude such legalistic perversions of original intent.
Reader Comments (6)
There might be some kind of consensus that "terrorism," as the concept is understood by Muslim scholars is illegal. But there is absolutely no consensus that al-Qaeda's terrorism is illegal, the way that Cole is suggesting. If some Muslim cleric makes a statement that says something to the effect of terrorism being illegal, his definition of what exactly counts as terrorism is different than the way the term terrorism is usually understood in the American context. There is a general clerical consensus that in cases of self-defense, some violence is permissible. There's a fine line, however, between what violence is self-defense and what is not.
So Cole's statement is just stupid and makes no sense whatsever.
i think you're spot on with your qualification, issandr. speaking of islam in the abstract is not particularly useful to counter misconceptions or deliberate vilifications.
the way to approach the 'islam is a religion of violence' discourse is not to counter with 'islam is a religion is peace', since that buys into the very same essentialising logic of understanding religions. much better, it seems to me, to see how articulations of islam or islamic law (even - if not especially - when they claim to represent the totality of islam) are shaped and conditioned by specific contexts, identifying ruptures and continuities.
though it may seem right to speak of terrorism being anti-islamic law per se, since there is no hostile intent in it, cole's logic goes uncomfortably close to the distraction of takfiri rhetoric.
i hope i have understood what you were getting at correctly.
Well put Simon. I would add that a majority of Americans in surveys when asked about whether it's acceptable to suspend basic civil liberties to fight baddies (I paraphrase) strongly support even torture in certain cases - doesn't mean American culture is Fundamentally Violent and Illiberal.
"the way to approach the 'islam is a religion of violence' discourse..."
is to say: "as opposed to Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Tibetan Buddhism?
If you go to the exhibit you'll read that the use of human skin was not always so metaphorical.
Cole is much too passive.
When we consider the history of religions, we often come across teachingss which were interpreted in different ways, depending on the historical context. The consequence has always been the development of opposite practices inside the same religious movement. By chance, I have just had a look at a web page (<http://jihad-al-kuffar.com/jak_reference3.php>), which might be rather interesting. Here, some verses from the Bible and the Quran are quoted. As we read these verses, there might be some concern about the role of God. However, a convenient interpretation can certainly allow us to reach positive conclusions about Judaism and/or Christianity and/or Islam. What happens today in the Islamic world (or among people who claim to be Muslims) is probably similar to what happened in the past when many Christians (or alleged Christians) used the words of Jesus Christ to promote military campaigns and enforce conversions (just think of the Crusades and related crimes). Today, however, if someone tried to promote a crusade or encourage the killing of infidels in the name of Jesus, he would certainly be rebuked by an overwhelming majority of Christians and by angry Christian scholars and priests. In my opinion, this is what is missing in the Islamic world (or in what the West perceives to be the Islamic world). In many places (especially Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria) no one seems to make any special effort to explain that Islam has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah and their spokesmen. We definitely hear that Islam is a religion of peace and that suicide bombers are not true Muslims, but many crimes are tolerated far too often. (Incidentally, I am not Christian and my favourable remarks about today’s Christianity are not prompted by religious motivations).