On Jul 6, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Jon Johanning wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
>> i was wondering how exactly the politically correct response differs
>> from this. certainly the dad's politically correct straw men will say
>> that the US has brought this on itself in important ways, that
>> political-economic factors weigh heavily, that war may not be the
>> appropriate response, etc. but who among us actually says that there
>> are no muslim terrorists, that a particular understanding of islam is
>> not a key component of their ideology, or that muslim terrorists are
>> not these days aiming to terrorize americans and their allies
>> specifically?
>
> I habitually begin my posts by saying that I am not an expert in the
> field in question -- because I am not an expert in very many fields.
> In this case, I have to emphasize that I am *really* not an expert
> either in Islam or the history of terrorism.
ok, well, that's two of us.
> However, my layperson's opinion is that it is not a very good idea to
> refer to "Muslim terrorists," because I don't think the Islamic
> component of their actions is terribly important,
it's certainly an important part of the self-identification of many of the terrorists, and an important part of their self-promotion and propaganda. this is why words like jihad get thrown around.
much of this may be a cynical deployment of islam on the part of leadership, but i don't think that mitigates the fundamental point that islam -- more accurately, a very particular form/interpretation of islam, see below -- is integral to organizations like al-qaida, hizbullah, jamaa-i-islamiya, and any number of other related orgs.
> and because the great majority of Muslims around the world would
> obviously never think of flying a plane into a building or blowing
> themselves up on a bus, any more than the average Catholic would ever
> consider shooting a doctor, no matter what they though about the
> morality of abortion.
i agree that these muslims ("muslims"?) are no more mainstream in their understanding of islam than are christians who bomb abortion clinics, but this parallel only reinforces my point: christian identity and a specific form of christian ideology is absolutely critical to the anti-abortion terrorists. the fact that most christians don't agree with their tactics or even necessarily their conclusions on abortion doesn't make them any less christian in their ideological foundations -- even if it does make them "less christian" from a mainstream point of view.
>
> It certainly seems to be true that, at the moment, the terrorists most
> Americans have uppermost in their minds are primarily Muslims, but it
> was not so long ago that they were shaking in their boots from the
> threat of the "militias" drilling in the woods of Michigan -- plain
> old American folks like them. Fashions in terror apparently come and
> go. Again, I know little about Islam, but I don't think it provides
> much of an explanation of the behavior of the people Americans now
> consider the prime terrorists, though of course Islamic ideas and
> terminology are very important to the latter. As a parallel, many
> (probably most) of the "militias" which were considered a threat a
> while back were Christians, and many of them certainly spouted a lot
> of Christian language. But that didn't mean that a study of Christian
> theology would have shed much light on the reasons for their behavior
> as militias.
i agree, but this is exactly the point i've made on this list several times -- it's not the study of the bible or the qur'an that will help us understand, because their religious ideologies are ultimately grounded outside the text. but that doesn't make them any less grounded in christianity (or islam) UNLESS you want to reduce the expression of a religion to consistency with some particular interpretation of the scripture. i think that would be a mistake.
>
> If we are going to use the term "Muslim terrorists" as a short-hand
> name for this particular group of people, we have to be very careful
> that we understand that it is only short-hand. I can't think right off
> the top of my head of a handy name which is less misleading, but
> perhaps someone else can.
well, in the end i think "muslim terrorists" is reasonably accurate, but i agree with you that another term would be preferable. otoh, isn't that exactly what the War-on-Terror-mongers would want? something that allows them to say, we're fighting muslims but we're not fighting islam? that's exactly what they keep trying to do, the line they keep trying to draw. i think they don't buy it, themselves, which is one reason they can't find a way of talking about it that doesn't sound like a pile of BS.
it comes back to the clash of civilizations thesis, and in that respect, i'm not sure a change of terms would get us very far at all.
all that said, i appreciate your post, jon. if nothing else, it makes it clear that i was wrong in my earlier post when i said that all this is more or less agreed on. my bad.
peace,
j