Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islam Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape   Editorial Reviews Book Description Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat. One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face. FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism. FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families. FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support. FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole. FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective. In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists. More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror: • Are we safer now than we were before September 11? No • Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move? No • Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11? YES Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence. For both policy makers and the general public, Dying to Win transcends speculation with systematic scholarship, making it one of the most important political studies of recent time. About the Author Robert A. Pape is associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he teaches international politics and is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. A distinguished scholar of national security affairs, he writes widely on coercive airpower, economic sanctions, international moral action, and the politics of unipolarity and has taught international relations at Dartmouth College and air strategy for the U.S. Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is a contributor to The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, The New Republic, and The Washington Post and has appeared on ABC’s Nightline and World News Tonight, National Public Radio, and other national television and radio programs.

21.7.05 04:36 Permalink / 2 Comments / comment

Stop violence, terror, war, kidnapping, and torture in the name of my faith (Islam = Peace and Submission to Truth) or in the name of my ideals (Democracy and Justice). fficeffice" />    These are all criminal means, and in absolute contradiction with both Islam and Democracy. Those who commit these crimes are not Human, let alone Muslim, Christian or Secular.

14.7.05 04:22 Permalink / 4 Comments / comment

For Quran, even Killing One Person is Genocide based on a very clear verse in quran killing one person by anybody (whether muslim or non-muslim) and for any reason but self defence is "genocide". this is the meaning of genocide in my faith and that's why i love quran when says:   " For this reason We decreed to the children of Israel that whoever killed a self, whether for revenge or for corruptive aims in the land/earth, so (it is) as if he killed the people all together, and who revived (saved) it, so as if he revived (saved) the people all together, and Our messengers had come to them with clear arguments, then that many from them [extrimists, violators and terrorists], certainly keep acting extravagantly in the land. (5:32) "And Allah invites [all] to the abode of peace and guides whom he/she pleases into the right path" (Yunes 26)

14.7.05 03:58 Permalink / 2 Comments / comment

A turning point for Muslims? Speak Out Or Be Condemned For Your Silence How can peace be established with bombs and suicide attacks and kidnappings? How can peace be spread through killing peaceful civilians? By Irfan Yusuf, July 8, 2005   .... The time to speak is now. Muslims must speak out now. Or else they will be condemned by their silence. And at a time of terror-induced pain and tears coming so soon after Olympic elation, English Muslim silence will speak louder than any detractors' words.   for more see: http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1486_0_25_0_C  and a comment from one of his readers: "As long as we don't develop and popularize a livable Muslim culture which disproves the ideology of extremism, we will be laughably inefective. As long as we insist on not fighting these extremists just because they're Muslim, we'll be completely irrelevant and Western societies will not forget, fair or not. Continuing to deny reality will only hurt us tremendously both in the short-term and the long-term." So I say: Decontaminate the basics of your faith and culture or be determined to naught.

14.7.05 02:58 Permalink / 2 Comments / comment

Universal values like justice, democracy, civilization, civility, have been abused throughout the history to justify interventions, colonization, and exploitations of others. Non-westerners for a long time have been conceptualized as un-civilized people (by powerful states) as those who need to be disciplined. Many movements have been critical of abusing the human rights (say the rights of being sovereign or autonomous) "in the name" of very broadly universalized values like democracy (say in the case of ffice:smarttags" />Iraq). Today the imperialist interventions are mainly directed through imposing economic codes by WTO, IMF etc, on under-developed or developing countries. these codes are designed to direct economic relations in uneven ways between the North and South in favor of the Rich and to make more pressures on the labour in both global south and north (and of course more on the southern workers, women, elderly, children etc.) and again all of these are justified by some universal, so-called humanist values, behind development, liberalist, and democratic discourses. fficeffice" />   In my country, 27 years ago, we had a revolution to stop these interventions and to gain our autonomy-sovereignty by relying on our traditional, Islamic values, and our indigenous, national culture. However, the revolution was hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists who justified their brutality by these traditional values. Now after a century being completely disempowered by both corruptive "secular" and "theocratic" regimes, we are tired of both the so-called spiritual and humanist values. We (people like me and I) can no longer trust religious institutions and secular ideologies (isms). They both have restricted our creativity. Think you want to say a poem inspired by a religion or ideology. And now compare your ability with the time you are free from both.     People like me have two options: (1) simply rejecting humanist-secular values (under which we have been exploited) together with spiritual-religious values under which we were disempowered. (2) Starting from criticizing the history of both modern and traditional movements and their ideological basics to achieve an alternative, or a synthesis instead of just mixing them in a contradictory way. Now I can say that Islamic humanism is a critical philosophy that starts from de-constructing both the histories of Islam (my culture) and humanism (the World's modern history) to understand their deviations from their original values and then to re-construct a synthesis based on which we can build a new life for ourselves. Both of them have been real historical experiences and worth to be reviewed.   Reviewing the history of Islam against its original massages has opened new perspectives for us: in Islam unlike Islamic scholasticism, humans by discovering and realizing the attributes of god (like honesty, mercy, compassionate, justice)in relation to other humans can reached to a level very closed to God (it is called me'raj. God has given humans self-autonomy and self-consciousness (we call it khalifattollahi- human is the caliph of God on the earth), God is the process of creation itself, therefore humanity is included in this process and the relation between humanity and god is not like a slave and a master. Therefore there is no mediator in original Islam between God and human, clericalism has no legitimacy in original Islam. Islam itself was a movement for secularizing-humanizing  the religion (by reducing so many gods to one God which is omnipresent everywhere even inside the humanity, by destroying religious institutions and building self-autonomous communities known as Shura, by rejecting clerics and clericalism, by turning the attention of people to material life based on justice and evenness etc). Therefore Islamic humanism inspired by these original principles, while stressing on human autonomy and freedom as its central principle and unlike secular humanism, does not isolate humanity from the nature and the whole existence by giving him an ultimate omnipotence.   Unlike Islamic scholasticism and traditional Islam, Islamic humanism believes that God has shared his/her omnipotence with human beings to be autonomously able to reach the ultimate goals of life. Secular humanism by giving ultimate centrality to humanity against the Mother Nature and moral life has caused lots of damage in the environment and in morality. The supremacy of humanity in secular humanism gives him permission to over-exploit the nature. Women are turned into commodities for sale, share and sexual exploitations etc. unlike some other religions, spirituality in Islamic humanism is not something practicable in isolation from societal responsibilities. "The way to God passes only through the masses". Just by struggling for justice, freedom and moralities, we can realize God in ourselves, and we may reach to the highest level of eternality. Body and soul (say 'mind' or 'morality' in Islamic humanism) are created together and will die together and will be again revitalized in new formats in after life.

25.4.05 03:10 Permalink / 1 Comment / comment

- A Statement for Reconstructing Islam - Islam is a NON_DELEGATORY religion (stop further prophecy, mulla!) - A Statement for Reconstructing Islam - From a general point of view, Islam like any other religion must be considered as a non-deliberative (non-delegatory) school of thought/faith. This means that No one may represent or make decisions or speak on its behalf, no statement, interpretation, command, fatwa, or platform can be exclusively issued in its name. Prophecy is ended 1400 years ago by the death of prophet Muhammad who had direct link with Allah. ANY interpretation or understanding must be considered as a particular understanding of Islam and can be questioned, criticized, falsified, or endorsed by other Muslims. then how to achieve the truth about islam? Any understanding or conception of Islam must be the subject of free dialogue and discussion relied on the most reliable knowledge of this religion and its history. Insofar as an interpretation can gain consensus out of such open spaces of dialogue (Ejmaa') among Muslims, it can claim validity and reliablity as a framework for conduct by those who are convinced about it, until it be confronted with new challenges in new conditions. The relations between Islamic scholars (any body who is trying intentionally to understand the original messages of Islam with or without necessarily formal certifications) and Islam is similar to the relationship between a social scientist and society, a Natural scientist and Nature. Just through discussions and dialogue on the words of Allah, the truth of Islam can be realized. The Sunna, the sayins-conducts of Muhammad (SWA) that are in accordance with the principles of Islam (in Quran) and with strong historical evidences, regarding thier particularities and historical contingencies, should be employed to better comprehend the verses of Quran. The dialogue is required to be free from any coercion and exclusion. Of course, in an open public forum free from coercion in which no body has any link with the political and economic sourses of power, those who have more knowledge  will direct the discussion and those who are rationally weak will be loosers. Just those claims out of such free-democratic forums of scholars can be trusted as something close to the will of Allah. The first and the most urgent duty of progressive muslims in the world is to defend their faith and identity, and thereby their own rights, by establishing, defending and securing such open spaces for practicing free Ijtihad. This, of course, requires strong direct actions against any oppressive power in Islamic societies. The Emancipation of Muslims depends upon the Freedom of producing Islamic Knowledge and Information, as the Emancipation of Humanity has been partially achieved through freeing the scientific knowledge. Such open spaces of Ijtihad based on democratic Ejma' must be grounded in civil society that is deliberately autonomous/independent from both government and business. Autonomy, openness, equality of rights in questioning and raising issues, self-reflexivity, democratic consensus (Ejma') are the principles. Lack of these principles questions the validy of claims. The whole above process can be employed in dialogue with other cultures/faiths/civilizations to incorporate their humanitarian achievments in extracting/updating Islamic laws for soveriegn Islamic societies. _________________ "I desire nothing but reform so far as I am able, and upon none but Allah does my success rely" (Quran, Hood, 88) <comments are welcomed>

11.4.05 06:41 Permalink / 7 Comments / comment

How to change Muslems' common sense (It's time for Islam to Shed; Socialism and Democracy too) As Gramsci points out, critical thinking should not merely oppose but become part of people's understanding of their conditions, bringing about a new common sense. Those who reject Islam and people's beliefs have chosen the most ineffective way to bring about changes because they will be simply rejected by people. the most effective way, as I understand, is to keep the forms and change the contents of values and norms by presenting new interpretations that are more compatible with human rights, freedom, and justice as they are understood today (this strategy was employed by the Islamic reformists: Jamaluddin Afghani, Allamah Iqbal, and  Ali Shariati). However, sometimes (like in the case of theocratic regimes - especially in the context of ffice:smarttags" />Iran) the forms are so contaminated and abused that keeping them always implies their coercive and unjust contents. Talking about the values and norms even with new egalitarian interpretations is less effective because the Islamic values are completely hijacked by the fundamentalist regime. In this case what intellectuals need is neither rejecting the values again nor revitalizing their egalitarian contents. Rather, inventing new discourses, new language, and new forms that revitalize the lost egalitarian contents of hijacked values in new formats. This is a very difficult job. However, this can be among the rare situations that society can mutate into a radically different era (or otherwise get into the dustbin of history).fficeffice" /> In the context of Arabic countries, like Egypt, and South Asians, Islamists have not gained power. Islam can be reinterpreted progressively without being accused of having relationship with the fundamentalist regime. However, they are at the stage of being socially tolerated and even accepted movements by the poor grassroots thanks to the failure of corrupted secular regimes in solving problems like poverty. Even to recruit more soldiers from the grassroots, they justify their goals with the help of egalitarian elements of Islam and they expose the failures of secular regimes. They also exploit the Israeli's aggressive behaviours to legitimize their own violent reactions. Therefore, there is still a chance for Islamic Humanists to free Islam from dogmatism and to avoid the expropriation of Islamic values by fundamentalists. However, in the process of cultural reform, the reform must be radical enough to keep Islam secure from the threat of Islamist hijackers. Otherwise the reformism may help the fundamentalism to gain supply for its own legitimacy (as it happened during the Iranian Revolution). In the current Iran, stressing on humanitarian values like those endorsed in the Human Rights protocols by few NGO activists, may help to make pressure on the regime to withdraw from some of its brutality. But any radical change requires internalizing these values into the culture in new formats and with new language. Since the level of popular disappointment with religious discourse is getting high in this country, and People still feel strange importing western/universalist discourses and values, the invention of new discourses involving familiar elements is highly required. Like Islam that internally suffers from fundamentalism, both socialism and democratic ideas suffer from the authoritarian and (neo-)liberalist interpretations. The best way to defend and reconstruct each of these is to attack their false representatives. It's time for Islam, Socialism and Democracy to shed their old skins by starting a radical self-reflection; by shedding light on their own histories of deviations. Dr. Shariati       Allama-Iqbal         Jamaluddin Afghani        Gramsci (Italian Critical                                                                                                               Marxist)

12.2.05 02:00 Permalink / 3 Comments / comment

Two verses of Quran in English While Quran Accept there are some social and historical mechanisms that are partially deterministic to human willingness, it endors the idea that human agnecy has the upper hand over these mechanisms in the final analysis. However, human subjectivity must starts self-reflectively from confirming and changing herself in relation to soceity. ان الله لا یغیر ما بقوم حتی یغیروا ما بانفسهم(11/13)و The more a society act upon themselves, the more Allah will change its destiny.     ولا تهنو ا و لا تحزنوا و انتم الاعلون ان کنتم مومنین (آل عمران 139) ی And do not fall off and do not be grieving, you are advanced if you believe in the ends you are struggling for.

13.1.05 13:37 Permalink / 1 Comment / comment

Ramdan and its lost original philosophy Ramadan, the Muslims fasting season, has started last Friday. And like in past years, the starting day was the subject of dispute, while the moon is single, its first waxing crescent happens once, and all Muslims are required to start it and finish it at the same time regardless of their location jsut whenever they become aware that the related crescent is seen by their fellow Muslims anywhere in the world. فَمَن شَهِدَ مِنكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ ...therefore whoever of you is aware of the month, he shall fast therein, except ..... Today calculating the new moon is possible and there is no excuse for the current disharmony. Symbolically this implies unity and solidarity while the reality of the current disputes over a very simple issue shows the depth of disunity among Muslims. I believe the main cause of such disputes like other essential ones can be found in authoritarian Clergisms and their ideologies called Sharia law. Clergism in each Islamic society does not trust its rival in other society and wants to be the only source of authenticity in its own society. Both Crescent and Muslims have to wait for the orders and confirmations from above, the religious leaders to start and to end!! fficeffice" /> Inside the society, fasting a month does not make a difference for the Poor who does not earn enough money to buy enough food throughout the year; they are always fasting actually. But for the rich, it is a time for posturing as faithful to the religous institution, and as the people who have received enough bliss from God (actually from their exploitative businesses and their links to power). They increase their consumptions  and decrease their activities to afford the burden of fasting. Ramadan is the God's party. However I must confess to say that some of them may remind themselves the Poor’s situation and give food and money to them as charity - again this is a religous posture for many of them to raise the social trust for themselves; the food and money which has achieved through exploiting their society. Therefore the philosophy behind Ramadan for the poor is to obey God and for the rich is to relax their conscience, if there is a bit of conscience. But for Islamic humanism, the original philosophy behind Ramadan is as following: RAMADAN  A SYMBOLIC HUNGER STRIKE   To protest against the creators of hunger and poverty   To show sympathy with poor and hungry people   To condemn any kind of economic exploitation (every where and at all times)   To condemn consumerism, individualism and selfishness   To reject the money culture and the objectification of human being   To enhance individual and collective conscience in the struggle against oppression   One month fasting from sunrise to sunset by Muslims who are healthy enough to fast, , “and whoever is sick or upon a journey, then (he shall fast) a (like) number of other days; Allah desires ease for you, and Allah does not desire for you difficulty”(Quran 2/186) and those who are not able to do it may effect a redemption by feeding a poor man (Quran 2/184)-[i.e. donating up to one simple meal for every failed day depends on the ability to pay].

17.10.04 04:53 Permalink / 4 Comments / comment