Islam and terrorism

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Mar 9, 2013 at 08:07

Dr. PIpes

On the 10th anniversary of the 1993 Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in NYC Andrew McCarthy wrote a great article in NRO

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341607/twenty-years-after-wtc-bombing-andrew-c-mccarthy

In this article he makes it very clear that back in 1993 linking Islam and the Islamic literary sources to this atrocity was still possible and that this indeed helped in getting the blind terrorist so called Shiekh abd al-Rahman to be found guilty and now he is in prison for a long time

McCarthy argues that this would not have been possible today because he was able to prove that Abd al-Rahman was acting on a well known doctrine in Islam and that is the doctrine of al-jihad fi sabeel Allah aka holy war. He says that this cannot be done now in a court of law after all we have an adminstration that tells us that jihad has nothing to do with holy war and that it is about this bogus self improving (which is bogus because to self improve in Arabic it rweally means IJTIHAD and not jihad). In other words McCarthy would not have been able to use the literary evidence from the Islamic literary sources to prove the guilt of the so called terrorist Abd al-Rahman

Dr. Pipes I iwsh that you post this great article by Prof. Mark Lilla which was published in the NYT op-ed page on Oct. 7/2001 or less than four weeks after the 9/11 atrocity and the title of the article is: "Extremism's Theological Roots" and I really suspect that if he would try to have it published today he would not be able to do so

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/opinion/07LILL.html

And this article is just as excellent today as it was some 12 years ago and I urge readers to read it because Lilla indeed hits the nail on the head

His thesis is: "Reflection on this matter (violence and terrorism in the name of Allah and islam and the 9/11 atrocity) must begin with the uncomfortable fact that in religion as in nature there is no such thing as spontaneous generation."

It other words he is saying that it is up to Muslims to find those theological roots of such criminal behavior and declare them to be contrary to the teaching of Islam once and for all and for Muslims and their enablers to deny that Islam has nothing to do with the crimes of these terrorists is to deny the very obvious and that is there are indeed such theolgical roots for terrorism in Islam

Now in 2013 our leaders tell us that Islam is the religion of peace and that jihad really means the bogus "inner struggle" and it has nothing to do with terrorism and that those 19 hijackers were misguided and not practicing real Islam and I suspect that the NYT would not have published Lilla's article

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".