The Muslim Angle In The Boston Bombing Story

[Darren10]

Unless my reading is really screwed up, then I think you mean "I have found that Islam is maligned..." rather than the way it is done because it looks like you are talking about those who claim it is maligned as the phrase following the "and" could be given the subject of "those who say they studied Islam" because it is confusing that you meant those who claimed they have, but really haven't....

No big deal, it was just confusing to me...

Now you got me confused.

[Calm]

Apologies if my posts came across that way. I did write the following:

If I didn't think you were an intelligent and thoughtful poster, I wouldn't have taken the time to point out how it came across to me. I figured if it came across that way to me, it might to someone else and they might misjudge you because of it.

[BCSpace]

Isn't it interesting that the killings in the bible were done by men but blamed on God? In another thread they're discussing the BoM and the killing of Laban. And how could God demand killing and then command "thou shalt not kill". Is it men just thinking they're told to kill from above or is it really happening? How do we know? What about the MMM, I'm sure this may have crossed some minds here. It did mine.

We won't know. We have to walk by faith.

Here we have a religious killing also, with an Islamic bend? Sometimes religion or what it perpetuates is so unkind. I think there was a reason we have "thou shalt not kill".

What is your explanation then for when the scriptures, Bible or BoM, state that God commanded the killing?

[BCSpace]

I think more people would have agreed with you, including myself, if you had said the "people of Islam are not intrinsically violent" instead.

I don't care much about how many people agree with me. I care about being right.

Me too. Which is why I recommended the modification.

[BCSpace]

I am also highly biased against those who say that they studieed Islam and found that Islam is maligned with hateful and vengeful doctrinal orthodoxies, again, particularly from the Koran

I give you CAIR on the one hand and http://www.danielpipes.org/ on the other. Who is right?

[tyler90az]

We have the most respected Latter-day Saint Islamic Scholar, Daniel Peterson, telling us Islam is not intrinsically violent. Yet, we still have people arguing that the religion is violent. If you say the Koran is violent you should read the Book of Mormon. We have clear orders in the Book of Mormon that it is better to kill one man then a nation dwindle in unbelief. That is just one of the many violent parts in the Book of Mormon.

If the most respected Latter-day Saint Islamic scholar can not persuade people, then they enjoy being ignorant.

[BCSpace]

If the most respected Latter-day Saint Islamic scholar can not persuade people, then they enjoy being ignorant.

With all due respect to that scholar, there is a far more experienced scholar which DCP himself has stated he that respects:

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans

.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:

• The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;
  
• Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;
  
• Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
  
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;
  
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and
  
• Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.
  

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:

• An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);
  
• "Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and
  
• "Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).
  

It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

http://www.danielpipes.org/990/what-is-jihad

[Darren10]

If I didn't think you were an intelligent and thoughtful poster, I wouldn't have taken the time to point out how it came across to me. I figured if it came across that way to me, it might to someone else and they might misjudge you because of it.

Thank you.

[Darren10]

I give you CAIR on the one hand and http://www.danielpipes.org/ on the other. Who is right?

I have very little respect for CAIR. I don't know anything about the other.

[Darren10]

If you say the Koran is violent you should read the Book of Mormon.

It is not so much that there is violence in scriptures but the nature of which they are propmted and by which God authorizes / OKs it. Take for instance:

23 Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

24 Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites.

25 Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land.

Alma 48

That's a far cry than taking up arms to kill those who are unfaithful, which, by the way, the Book of Mormon explicitly condemns.

We have clear orders in the Book of Mormon that it is better to kill one man then a nation dwindle in unbelief.

No, we do not. We have an instance where *in one specific case* God directs / commands a mortal named Nephi to kill another man. Nephi struggled to make sure that such was indeed God's will before acting upn it. The known reason in this specific case was that if Laban were to be allowed to live than a nation could "dwindle' in unbelief. We do not know of any other reasons God had for commanding Nephi to kill Laban. But, as wit the canaanites, when God commands man to do something, that is the right thing to do. Period.

If the most respected Latter-day Saint Islamic scholar can not persuade people, then they enjoy being ignorant.

I appreciate the compliment but as per my first post, I'm no scholar on the topic.

/Juuust kidding. Dan's the man!!!

[Darren10]

Quote

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans

.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:

• The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;
  
• Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;
  
• Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
  
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;
  
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and
  
• Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.
  

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:

• An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);
  
• "Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and
  
• "Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).
  

It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

http://www.danielpip...0/what-is-jihad

That makes perfect sense. Seems to be a very accurate description of modern-day Islam.

[Calm]

there is a far more experienced scholar which DCP himself has stated he that respects:

CFR from Dan himself and not the wiki quote as I would like to see the whole context....

add-on: Never mind, I found it. And am now wondering if he still stands by this since it was 7 years ago. Do you have something more up to date?

Dan, you are quoted in the Wiki in the section approving of Pipes:

Daniel C. Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, thinks positively of Daniel Pipes' works, that he is "a legitimate, well-trained scholar, and very bright." Peterson also worries about what he thinks is a campaign to blacken and marginalize Daniel Pipes, because "if he’s wrong, that should be demonstrated with evidence and analysis, not by name-calling."[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#cite_note-41

[BCSpace]

there is a far more experienced scholar which DCP himself has stated he that respects:

CFR

Biography:

Daniel Pipes is President of the Middle East Forum and the Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He has previously taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, the Naval War College, and Pepperdine University. He has also served as vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and board member of the US Institute of Peace, and directed the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Pipes has appeared on television programs such as ABC World News, Crossfire, Good Morning America, News-Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O’Reilly Factor, and the Today Show. He has also appeared on global television networks such as the BBC and Al Jazeera and lectured in twenty five countries, as well as consulted for a variety of private sector entities and government organizations in the US and Canada.

He has published in magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly, Commentary, Foreign Affairs, Harper’s, National Review, New Republic, Time, and the Weekly Standard, along with over one hundred American newspapers. His writings have been translated into thirty three languages and he has written twelve books.

Academic Qualifications:

AB, History of Science, Harvard University

PhD, History, Harvard University

http://www.wikistrat...t/daniel-pipes/

I think highly of him. His father, Richard Pipes, was a famous Sovietologist at Harvard whose writing I admired. He himself earned a Ph.D. At Harvard with a dissertation on the Mamluks of medieval Egypt that became a fine book entitled, as I recall, Slaves on Horseback. He’s a legitimate, well-trained scholar, and very bright.

I confess that I have a bias with regard to Dr. Pipes, since he’s had some nice things to say about me (on the basis, in my view, of insufficient evidence). But, even factoring that in, I think his is a voice that should not be shunned.

I have at least one colleague here at BYU who despises him, too, but then, that colleague and I disagree very, very much on politics, as well.

I’ve never found Daniel Pipes to be a demagogue.

...but I am not very pleased with the campaign to blacken and marginalize Daniel Pipes. If he’s wrong, that should be demonstrated with evidence and analysis, not by name-calling.

http://ldspatriot.wo...n-daniel-pipes/

[BCSpace]

That makes perfect sense. Seems to be a very accurate description of modern-day Islam.

Yes. But it is often quite a different view from those who accuse of backlash and bigotry.

[Calm]

....those who accuse of backlash and bigotry.

Are you suggesting there had actually been no increase in hate crimes against Muslims (and those mistaken for Muslims)...and Muslims in general, not obvious militant ones? or perhaps that there are no hate crimes and other forms of bigotry at all?

[BCSpace]

....those who accuse of backlash and bigotry.

Are you suggesting there had actually been no increase in hate crimes against Muslims (and those mistaken for Muslims)...and Muslims in general, not obvious militant ones? or perhaps that there are no hate crimes and other forms of bigotry at all?

Not at all. But I am suggesting that those who actually know something about Islam and criticize it are accused of backlash and bigotry.

[EllenMaksoud]

Wow.

I've been both astonished and, at times, disheartened at the response to this blog entry. (Some of the comments on Facebook, especially, are excruciating.)

http://www.patheos.c...on-murders.html

Having been Muslim for 6+ years, I saw no reason to begin hating Muslims because I left Islam to become Mormon. I still have deep sympathies for Muslims because I did and still do know lots of them. I became Mormon because I never stopped believing in Jesus Christ. I was so finished with Evangelicals, not Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ. I did notice quite a number of people around me saying that we should not be jumping to conclusions about Muslims because of this attack. Such are my feelings that on Friday, I went to one of the Masjids that I used to attend (As Saber) , sans Hijab, and told them that I and my friends do not blame Muslims in general. It saddened me that some of my Mormon friends thought that my life would be in danger by going there. Those sentiments are right out of Hollywood and Fox news. I am very familiar with both the Sunnis and the Shia, and feel no particular fear of either sect.

[EllenMaksoud]

This is a very strong accusation. Rather than relying on others to prove you are wrong, I think before you make it you should demonstrate that you are right...that the Koran as well as its prophet preached this. I don't think it is right to repeat it just because it is an impression you've received.

Then this should cause you concern for making any global accusation as you have about their faith. They just may not be the exception that you seem to be painting them as, but the rule and if so, then how can it be their faith that promotes the violent acts rather than the peacefulness that most Muslims participate in?

My question is do the Muslim terrorists actually look at what they are doing as spreading the faith through violence or do they see it as retribution for past acts of oppression by political nations that happened to be Christian? If the latter, then how is that any less political than the Irish war between Protestants and Catholics?

I fear being in trouble over what I am going to say. If you study history in the Middle East in just the last 100 years, there is provocation by the West to the inhabitants of the Middle East. It is after Midnight, so I am not going to do my usual research on this. Look at the history of Iran from the end of WWII to date. The West went into Iran and deposed a lawfully elected government and Installed the despotic Shah, who was then deposed through a violent revolution where equally violent Islamists gained power. Why was that done? Well Iran was getting chummy with Russia. The West installed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, The Russians invaded Afghanistan to raid their Mineral wealth. The West kept despotic but pro West rulers in Egypt, also. I am not sure what is going on with Saudi Arabia, but I suspect that if the West did not keep the Saud family propped up there, that the Wahabbis would take over and then the West really would be able to rationalize a reason to invade there. I am an American patriot. I support the men and women that we have serving in our military. However I think that some of our leaders are as tyrannical as the worst leaders in the Middle East, and good men also in our government keep them in check, by the grace of Heavenly Father.

[ERayR]

Having been Muslim for 6+ years, I saw no reason to begin hating Muslims because I left Islam to become Mormon. I still have deep sympathies for Muslims because I did and still do know lots of them. I became Mormon because I never stopped believing in Jesus Christ. I was so finished with Evangelicals, not Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ. I did notice quite a number of people around me saying that we should not be jumping to conclusions about Muslims because of this attack. Such are my feelings that on Friday, I went to one of the Masjids that I used to attend (As Saber) , sans Hijab, and told them that I and my friends do not blame Muslims in general. It saddened me that some of my Mormon friends thought that my life would be in danger by going there. Those sentiments are right out of Hollywood and Fox news. I am very familiar with both the Sunnis and the Shia, and feel no particular fear of either sect.

I too think we should not be jumping to conclusions, ever. We should gather information and make the best decisions possible with the evidence we have. However, in the process of gathering information on a bombing, such as happened in Boston, it is a good idea to look at those who are known for such actions. While it is possible that a boy scout group or grandmas literary club planted the bomb it is not likely.

[thesometimesaint]

Mainstream Christians routinely condemn acts of violence from the KKK.

That is not the point. The point is that the fringes of any religion do not mandate the beliefs of the mainstream of that religion.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Daniel Pipes is not a reliable source of information.

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/promoting-islamophobia/the-main-purveyors-of-islamophobia/item/1336-islamophobia%E2%80%99s-main-purveyors-daniel-pipes

[canard78]

Thank you Dan for making such a bold and public statement. It needs to be said. Some of the online commentary (some apparently from Mormons) has been quite disturbing.

I grew up the UK where a group of 'religious' terrorists (the IRA) killed British citizens and terrorised/terrified many more. The notion that their actions was somehow a blight on Catholicism was almost never mentioned. It's sad that the west is making this such a religious divide. This probably worsens the pull of some of the anti-West fanatics.

[ERayR]

That is not the point. The point is that the fringes of any religion do not mandate the beliefs of the mainstream of that religion.

Yet it is actions like this which require that we look to the fringes of religion for our perpetrators and not ignore it because it is politically incorrect to mention these religions in connection with these horrendous acts. Experience tells us the probability is high that it was one of these fringes so they can not be ignored.

[thesometimesaint]

I fear being in trouble over what I am going to say. If you study history in the Middle East in just the last 100 years, there is provocation by the West to the inhabitants of the Middle East. It is after Midnight, so I am not going to do my usual research on this. Look at the history of Iran from the end of WWII to date. The West went into Iran and deposed a lawfully elected government and Installed the despotic Shah, who was then deposed through a violent revolution where equally violent Islamists gained power. Why was that done? Well Iran was getting chummy with Russia. The West installed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, The Russians invaded Afghanistan to raid their Mineral wealth. The West kept despotic but pro West rulers in Egypt, also. I am not sure what is going on with Saudi Arabia, but I suspect that if the West did not keep the Saud family propped up there, that the Wahabbis would take over and then the West really would be able to rationalize a reason to invade there. I am an American patriot. I support the men and women that we have serving in our military. However I think that some of our leaders are as tyrannical as the worst leaders in the Middle East, and good men also in our government keep them in check, by the grace of Heavenly Father.

The west overthrew Mossadegh for the oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

[thesometimesaint]

Yet it is actions like this which require that we look to the fringes of religion for our perpetrators and not ignore it because it is politically incorrect to mention these religions in connection with these horrendous acts. Experience tells us the probability is high that it was one of these fringes so they can not be ignored.

Then investigate that fringe, but we have to be very careful when we start assigning the word fringe to any one sect. From the Danites, to MMM, to the Abraham Smoot hearings LDS experience in history should give us plenty of pause in that regard.