No, you haven't... because that was not used when IRA (Irish Republican Army) was bombing and terrorizing. But blindly the term 'Islamic Terrorist' is wrongly used in the media which signals very negetive signal and give wrong perception.Here is a thoughtful article from author, Karen Armstrong in Guardian (11 july 05). One quotable paragraph from that article,
We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.
Complete Article here. (Image: The horrific scene after a Real IRA bomb killed 29 in Omagh in 98)
it's a controversial issue. I think the situation is kind of hard understand if you don't live in the west. The western people don't mean to disrespect Islam. We understand that the Islamic terrorism is totally different than Islam. Therefore, when we, the western people call something as "Islamic terrorism," we don't mean to disrespect Islam. We disrespect those people, who take the words from Islam change them to fit into their terrorist ideologies.
ReplyDeleteBin Laden was a hater of the US. He is a hater not because of Islam but because of whatever reasons. Therefore, he wanted to get back at the Americans and therefore, he used Islam as a weapon to gather mass. That was his only weapon.
There are some verses in Quran, which can be used as a weapon against other people if you interpret it a bit differently. Bin Laden took advantage of that.
I think it is important for Muslims to understand that the notion of people like Laden is actually destroying the reputation of Islam. For instance, now-a-days, there are more anti-islamic writers in the west than before. Before it used to be just some athiests, agnostics and ex-Muslim freethinkers, who used to criticize Islam such as Ibn Waraq, Dr. Younus, Ali Sina, Taslima Nasrin, Anwar Shaikh etc but now-a-days, many non-Muslims have also started criticizing Islam.
I don't agree with the people, who criticize Islam like that because I believe religions are open to interpretation and totally depends on the way you would like to interpret it. If I want I can write pages criticizing Christianity or Hinduism through crooked interpretation but that won't be the correct representations of these great ancient literatures.
Firstly, 'Islamic Terrorism' is a term that encompasses the entire faith. This is not unlike 'Muslim Terrorist'. As the terms 'Islamic' and 'Muslim' can be applied to all Muslims and attempted adherents of Islam.(all of us can only 'attempt' at religion as we are, if not anything else, highly fallible) If 'Islam' is the faith, then logically 'IslamIC' would be a direct reference to the faith. I personally utilise the term 'Islamistic', meaning, derived from but not entirely so. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the whole language used to make sense of this 'terrorist' phenomenon has to be scrutinised. When i say 'make sense of', one would immediately think that this aids in the exposition of reality. However, to 'make sense of' may also refer to the channelling or interpretation of reality which may not represent reality in the first place or may just present it from the orientational biases of certain sectors of humanity.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i feel that the term 'Terrorist', 'Suicide Bomber', 'Fundamentalism', amongst others, are highly suspicious. These terms require a prior legitimisation of a state of affairs which in turn serve as a standard via which other phenomenon are 'made sense of'. Additionally, i believe that the paradigmatic bias from which these terms arise are themselves the cause of terrorism. I'm considering these at present and will publish them online when i'm done.
With regards to 'Catholic Terrorism'.
ReplyDeleteThere may be a tendency to view the aggressively oppositional impulse of the Islamistic variant as 'Islamic Terrorism' because, unlike the 'Catholic' IRA-ians, the elements composing the former seek to institute a state that attempts to bring together both Mosque and State. K.Armstrong made a mistake in linking the two and arguing one case by reference to the other.(but i suppose her views were published and considered by the mainstream(core)media simply because she is 'K.Armstrong'...celebrity worship continues.) The IRA, in contrast, never sought to marry Church and State.
Secondly, the congregation of 'Catholics' under the IRA banner was mainly due to their opposition to those who had migrated or been transported by the English Govt. to dilute Irish dissent/descent. These persons were of those swearing allegiance to the Church of England (in other words, a church subsumed within 'mammon') An adherent of the CE is simultaneously a subject of the Monarchy. Thus, the 'Catholic' faith simply became a flag or relevance because it found itself in opposition to a colonial master waving the flag of protestantism. People did not support the IRA because of Catholicism, but because of its opposition to the English. 'Catholic', in this sense, simply became an interchangeable term with that of 'Irish', as opposed to the English invaders. Catholicism was incidental to the situation not causative. Opposition to the English was not because the latter were Protestants, but because they were Colonialists. This is why 'Catholic Terrorism' would have been a less representative term with regards to the IRA.
In contrast, Islamistic 'Terrorism' emerges from the contradistinction of Islam and Infidelism. That is why cooperation between various Islamistic groups throughout the world is possible.
*i enclose 'Terrorism' because, 'Terrorism', when sanctioned by the state through its 'official' armies miraculously transforms into 'Soldierism'. The 'nation-state' is the magic wand that accomplishes this feat.
the face of terrorism is the same no matter what you call it. Therefore, what's the point of branding terrorism on the basis of ideologies anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we just give terrorism a new identity? We just call it terrorism.
Terrorism always has this religious touch to it. The reason is because for the terrorists, it is a matter of life and death. Therefore, when the death comes in, religions become important. For instance, during the Indian struggle against the British, the freedom fighters (or terrorists from British perspective) of Bengal took the teaching from Hindu philosophies of Vivekananda learning centres. However, Vivekananda centre is one of the most liberal and peaceful centre of all. However, the teachings of this centre was used as a fuel. Just like, that Islam is being used as a fuel.
I also agree that there are differences between IRA and Al-Quida terrorism. The reason is because AL-Quida is after civilians but IRA is not. However, religions still plays a role in IRA fighter's mentalities.
I think the difference between what you call Catholic terrorism and what the media calls Islamic terrorism is, that for one thing, the people fought for their country. Northern Ireland was or still is considered a occupied country because it belongs to Ireland and not to Great Britain.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, even though the difference in religions exists between the two parties involved, the Catholics never did this for some sort of religious aim.
What would that be? Resurrection of Christ in Dublin? What would James Joyce think?! :)
Anyway. Getting back to Islam.
On the other hand all those "other" terrorists who are constantly on the news, use a faith to back up what they are doing.
And there is your difference.
Beloved V,
ReplyDeleteThanks for ur comment.
I also agree with your idea. many of the so called 'muslim terrorist' termed personnel are fighting for their own country as well. For example, Palestinian (hamas etc. groups), Kashmiri in India, Chechen's in Chechnia, Russia etc. Now they all claims that they fight for the cause of their country.
Sometime out of frustration they are bringing their campaign to west because nobody is caring about them. Iraq is now occupied by Americans. So if a iraqi national thinks i need to bring this back to USA who is occupying my country, then how do u respond to that?
Those who are blowing themselves up are not doing it to establish islam. they r simply protesting injustice in their land (by palestinian, iraqi etc.) which is mostly caused and influenced by western countries with self interest.
I'm not in support to killing any innocent ppl anywhere on universe. But we should not be blind to one side or another. We should ensure justice to all. Sorry if i sound hard. Pls, forgive me.
So if a iraqi national thinks i need to bring this back to USA who is occupying my country, then how do u respond to that?
ReplyDeleteOk, I don't want to take sides here. Especially not with Bush, but I know Iraqis and even though they look forward to govering their own country at last, they also appreciate that the U.S. and the U.K. rid them of Saddam.
Per se. There is absolutely no reason to attack anyone. Just watch the news, the most people being killed are Iraqi civilians and policemen. They are killing their own people.
v.pohode - I agree with most of what you say.
ReplyDeleteOff topic slightly but "Northern Ireland was or still is considered a occupied country because it belongs to Ireland and not to Great Britain."
Northern Ireland belongs to the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of whom clearly wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Yes folks, it's that simple.
v.pohode is right in the rest of his post though. The IRA's terrorism was just as bad as the Islamic Terrorism of today, but it was not Catholic terrorism. Why the difference? Islamic Terrorists carry out their actions in the name of Islam. It may be a twisted version of Islam, but Islam is their motivation.
The IRA were no motivated (at least not directly) by their Catholocism, they were motivated by hatred of the British (or "freedom for Ireland" if you buy that). They also didn't seek to impose Catholic rule throughout the world (or even in Britain) and religion was only even a secondary consideration at home in Ireland.