Yesterday, I read an article entitled “Please, God, don’t let the Boston Marathon bomber be a Muslim” and found it to be one of the best op-ed pieces I have ever read. And, unfortunately, the current reports show that the brothers involved in the Boston Marathon attack are, in fact, Muslim. The article as a whole, though, raises personal questions about the ideas of terror and terrorism.
Wikipedia defines terrorism as, “…the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).”
Personally, I feel like this definition is a bit narrow. The definition of terror (as opposed to terrorism) lends itself to a more accurate notion of what terrorism is. Terror is defined as, “The use of fear to intimidate people, especially for political reasons.” Terror, then, is not limited to action, but rather, could include words.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Rev. Jerry Falwell stated, “I think Muhammad was a terrorist…a violent man, a man of war…” In 2005, Pat Robertson stated, “Islam, at its core, teaches violence.” And, more recently in 2009, he stated, “Islam is a violent — I was going to say, 'religion', but it's not a religion; it's a political system. It's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world, and world domination. That is the ultimate aim. And they talk about infidels and all this, but the truth is that's what the game is. So, you're dealing with a — not a religion — you're dealing with a political system.”
These words and statements very clearly point an ignorant and uninformed finger at an entire group of people. And, while the words are not a physical attack, the words incite a feeling toward a group of people. As people of influence, words like these have the potential to incite others to act — even ignorantly — and hurt people and people groups.
Are statements like these, then, acts of terror?
Or what about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church that spread a message of hate, condoning violence and death (even going as far as to label them the actions and will of God)? Are their words a form of terrorism?
I do not have the answer.
I will say, though, that ignorance perpetuates stereotypes and vice versa. And the only way to get through ignorance is education and experience. My hope, then, is that local mosques see a growth in visitors — not necessarily converts — who desire to stand in solidarity with another group of God’s people.
At the core, God is God. God is Allah. God is YHWH. Love God; love each other; act in love.
Kyle you call mr. Robertson’s statements or views as “ignorant or uninformed”, what source are you using that presents a political or religious world view that is contrary?
When do we take the adherents words as truth instead of saying what they say don’t mean what they say, especially when it appears more and more are saying it?
Wouldn’t these Islamic terrorists have said they were peaceful the day before they murdered and maimed innocents women, children and men in the name of religious ideology?
Eric–I’ll be honest in saying that I am not sure how to respond effectively to your first two points. Regarding the first one, though, I think it is ignorant to accuse a religion as being solely political. While I recognize that there are some Islamic political states, I also see that it is easy for those outside the US to recognize Christianity as a political system. Much of our constitution and many of our laws reflect a Christian heritage. And, of all things, our currency has “In God We Trust” printed or stamped onto every coin and bill. Is this religious, political, or some combination of the two?
Regarding your third point, it seems like anyone who intentionally maims, kills, or inflicts pain or fear could be labeled a terrorist. We have been conditioned for several decades to believe that Muslim men are more likely to be terrorists than any other person or people group. Does the fact that the man responsible for the Newtown tragedy is white and non-Muslim mean it is any less a terrorist act? Or in Tucson? Or Aurora? Or at Columbine? Those acts also inflicted and resulted in death, pain, destruction, and terror, didn’t they?
When I hear this kind of line thought I simply ask can someone give me a list of democratic Islamic states? Where democracy is practiced in the public square? Where equal freedom and justice is given to women, other religions and opposing ideologies? If a religion-state claims peaceful practice, let’s examine the record? No rhetoric, just facts. If this isn’t the case, what is the practice and do those actions reflect peace and justice?
Eric, I understand your point. But, in all honesty, I have to ask…is it relevant? You are focusing very much on Pat Robertson’s statements and not much on the core of my piece. My argument is that terrorism is not solely linked to Islam. As I mentioned before, we have been conditioned to expect “terrorists” to be Muslim but often reject the idea that many other acts–especially those that are widely publicized–are a form of terrorism. And I would argue that they are. Terror/terrorism cannot solely be linked to a single religion or ideology. Simply put, terrorists are terrorists no matter what their political, religious, or national/ethnic affiliation.
I would just like to kindly say that even the US isn’t a democracy that practices in the public square.
Well we can talk about terrorist that are not Islamic, even though the dead Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists. Seems bizarre to me.
I was also sad to hear they might be Muslim. Although we don’t know much about them yet, I fear this is just going to inspire a lot more hate.
Kyle, I would take issue with your last statement, the one you claim as the core issue. You say that God is Allah, that God is YHWH. I’m not sure where they’re theology is at at Gonzaga, but that statement cannot be true. YHWH is the Father of the only begotten Son, The Lord Jesus Christ. The Quran states that Allah begot no one and was begotten by no one. Muslims who worship Allah deny the deity of The Lord Jesus Christ. They are not the same God. So it’s one or the other, not both, and in Isaiah God says He is the only God, there is no other. Sorry, but Jesus said Himself that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Not a sword of war or violence but a sword of division between Truth and error, between Him as the only Savior or us working our way in by ourselves (not gonna happen.).
Regarding the previous thread–I think that the following portion of text (borrowed from Wilmington FAVS–http://wilmingtonfavs.com/ethics/death-and-dying/10-essential-points-about-the-boston-marathon-bombers-islam-and-america) sums up well what I am trying to say. Omid Safi states:
Islam forbids terrorism
No matter what the experts on TV say, and for that matter what the two brothers might have said, here is one simple fact. Islamic law does not permit the random, indiscriminate killing of civilians. It is categorically forbidden. The Prophet Muhammad himself forbade the killing of women, elderly, civilians and religious leaders.
Over the next few weeks we will undoubtedly learn much more about the two brothers, but we should not conflate their deranged motivations and the teachings of the Islamic tradition. Period.
Muslim organizations immediately condemned Monday’s atrocities, and have set up a fund for the victims.
As everyone is of course fully aware, there are some Muslims who engage in terrorist activities. There are also some Jews, some Christians, some atheists, some Hindus, etc. No religion has a monopoly on hatred and idiocy, and no religion has a monopoly on love, compassion and beauty. Rather, my point is quite simply this: Even in those cases (including this one, if the judicial process proves it to have been one) that some Muslims engage in terrorist activities, they do so over and against Islamic teachings about the sanctity of human lives that prohibit the violation of shedding civilian blood. These prohibitions go back to the very example of the Prophet.
Muslim terrorists (and all perpetuators of violence and oppression) deserve to be studied carefully. However, to depict them as embodying the essence of Islam (as Islamophobic forces routinely do) is precisely to grant them the very legitimacy that they crave. They neither possess nor deserve this legitimacy.
You beat me to it! That story is going up on our site in about 50 minutes 😉
Dennis–I appreciate what you are saying, but I personally disagree. If we read the Hebrew Bible, we see God meets Hagar on the road and blesses her and Ishmael (Genesis 21:17-21). Both Abraham and Ishmael are considered prophets of God and ancestors of Muhammad in Islam. God, then, is Allah.
And the “Jewish” God did not disappear at the arrival of Jesus. Jesus himself was Jewish. God, then, is YHWH.
And Christianity generally does not reject the Hebrew Bible (Genesis-Malachi) or the God of the Hebrew Bible. Rather, Christianity believes that Jesus is the son of God and the mouthpiece of God on earth. God, then, is God.
I don’t think that our human minds can begin to comprehend the “largeness” of God or the ways in which God can manifest Godself. As such, I hesitate to say what god is not and focus on what God is or even could be.
Finally, just to be clear, I am not an official representative of Gonzaga nor does my theology fully or completely reflect Gonzaga’s theology. Gonzaga encourages its students to think for themselves and think critically about any belief system before blindly adopting all aspects. My thoughts are very much mine and continue to evolve as I learn and read and experience.
Kyle, Thank you very much for this!
Hanane, I just read your article (https://favs.news/culture/social-issues/dude-you-have-no-quran-a-response-to-terry-jones) and I think that your comment regarding the torture and murder of Muslims by Christians deserves some attention. It is unfortunate that the media (and, subsequently, the eyes of the world) is so focused on one type of violence.
Much in the same way that I believe God to be God (across religious and political lines), I would argue that an atrocity is an atrocity–no matter the victim or perpetrator. And I would further argue that intentional violence cannot be an action of love. And, as such, intentional violence is a “sin” regardless of religious affiliation.