Test Bank For Terrorism Today: The Past, The Players,
The Future 6th Edition By Jeremy R. Spindlove; Clifford
E. Simonsen
Is religious terrorism new? - ANSWER: Historically speaking, the relationship
between religion and terrorism is not new. In fact, some of the words we use in the
English language to describe terrorists and their actions are derived from the names
of Jewish, Hindi and Muslim terrorist groups active long ago. As we observed in
Module 1, early examples of what we now call "terrorist" acts were perpetrated by
religious fanatics over two thousand years ago. Zealot, thug, assassin.
What happened to the public perception of terrorism after 9/11 - ANSWER:
Following the attacks of 9/11, however, the world witnessed a dramatic and
increasing stereotyping of religious groups, particularly Muslims. A clear
manifestation could be observed in the principles of the Bush doctrine, which was
founded on the notion that "the fountainhead of 9/11 and similar aggression is the
culture of tyranny in the Middle East, which spawns fanatical, aggressive, secular,
and religious despotisms."1 This view was not only echoed in media outlets and
public opinion, but was emulated in public policy. This explanation, of course, does
not explain the increasing number of violent incidents involving members of other
religious groups outside the Middle East, nor does it explain why the world leader in
suicide terrorism is not a religious fundamentalist group but in fact the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a nationalist, political and military force in Sri Lanka.2
Indeed, religious fanaticism exists in all corners of the world.
What is religious terrorism used to do? - ANSWER: method to legitimize violence,
dehumanize the enemy, simplify political dilemmas, and shape political extremism.
The meaning of religious terrorism - ANSWER: While most religions are based on
principles of compassion, justice, love and peace, it is important to remember that
all religions come from a violent history. This is shown in various religious texts. The
Jewish scriptures, The New Testament and the Qur'an all include accounts of the
violence and aggression of their time.1 For religious extremists, these passages have
often provided the motivation and justification to commit violence against the
enemy.
In the context of religious terrorism, extremists of all faiths consider their struggle
"divinely inspired," a cosmic war between them and the enemy, the enemy often
consisting of secular institutions or secular lifestyles. Mark Juergensmeyer argues
that because religious terrorists believe they are waging a war between good and
evil, they deem themselves exempt from the bonds of rule of law and other societal
norms.
Understanding religious terrorism depends on developing a clear picture of what
religion says about violence.
,Islamic "justifications" for Violence - ANSWER: On the issue of violence, the teachings
of Islam are ambiguous. "Like all religions, Islam occasionally allows for force while
stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of nonviolence and peace. The Qur'an
contains a proscription very much like the biblical injunction 'Thou shalt not kill.' The
Qur'an commands the faithful to 'slay not the life that God has made sacred.' The
very name Islam is cognate to salam, the word for peace, and like the Hebrew word
shalom, to which it is related, it implies a vision of social harmony and spiritual
repose."1
In view of the above, it comes as no surprise that many Muslim activists often deny
claims that Islam is a violent religion. In an interview shortly after the 1993 bombing
of the World Trade Center, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman said a "[Muslim] can never
call for violence. We call for love, forgiveness and tolerance. But if we are aggressed
against, if our land is usurped, we must call for hitting the attacker and the aggressor
to put an end to aggression."2
In other cases, Juergensmeyer addresses how violence has been justified as an
exception to the rule. "As when Muslim supporters of the al-Salam mosque
defended the killing of Rabbi Kahane, claiming that this deed did not violate the
Qur'an since Kahane was an enemy of Islam."3
In yet other instances, the use of violence has been shown to be consistent with
some Islamic tenets. To illustrate, Juergensmeyer quotes a statement by Iran's
Ayatollah Khomeini, who said he knew of no command "more binding to the Muslim
than the command to sacrifice life and property to defend and bolster Islam."4
While it is true, Juergensmeyer argues, that there are principles that justify violence
(e.g. for the purpose of punishment or defending the faith), Islamic law does not
allow the use of violence for arbitrary reasons, personal gain o
Qutb's Doctrine - ANSWER: Sayyid Qutb was considered one of Egypt's most
influential writers in the Muslim political tradition. In his view, the most basic
divisions in humanity were not nationalist or racial but solely religious. He also
believed that killing that took place in a religious war was morally sanctioned.
According to Qutb, "the ultimate war was between truth and falsehood; satanic
agents of the latter were to be found well entrenched in the Egyptian government."1
His years spent as a student in the U.S. fed into Qutb's notions that American society
was essentially racist towards Muslims and that American foreign policy in the
Middle East was dictated by the Jewish lobby in Washington, D.C. Qutb was
imprisoned in the 1950s and ultimately executed in 1966.
Faraj: "The Neglected Duty" - ANSWER: The doctrinal essence of Qutb was taken
further by another Egyptian scholar in a pamphlet titled "The Neglected Duty." The
author, Abd al-Salam Faraj, based his arguments in Islamic tradition and argued that
the Qur'an and the Hadith were about warfare.1
, From this perspective, the concept of jihad was to be taken in the literal sense. The
targets of jihad included apostates within the Muslim community and external
enemies. Moreover, Faraj dismissed peaceful and legal means to achieve apostasy
since he considered them inadequate.
In fairness to Faraj, he set some "moral" limits on the tactics that could be used—for
example, innocent bystanders and women were to be avoided whenever possible.
Faraj believed that the duty to engage in such actions was every Muslim's duty.2 The
reward was a place in paradise, a place Faraj surely hoped for after he was tried and
executed for his involvement in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Mawdudi and Islamic Revivalism - ANSWER: Mawlana Sayed Abdul A'ala Mawdudi is
considered the father of modern day Islamic revivalism, a movement that emerged
in response to colonialism and its aftermath.1 He was also the founder of Pakistan's
Jamaat-e-Islami religious party.
In his writings, Mawdudi not only called for the union of religion and state but also
blamed the West for the separation of religion and politics and for the decline of
Muslim societies.
Islamic scholars have attributed the transformation of jihad to Mawdudi's thoughts.
The al Qaeda movement - ANSWER: The al Qaeda movement today is best described
as a networked transnational constituency rather than the monolithic, international
terrorist organization with an identifiable command and control apparatus that it
once was. The result is that today there are many al Qaedas rather than the single al
Qaeda of the past.
The current al Qaeda exists more as an ideology that has become a vast enterprise—
an international franchise with like-minded local representatives, loosely connected
to a central ideological or motivational base, but advancing the remaining center's
goals at once simultaneously and independently of each other.
The loss of Afghanistan does not appear to have affected al Qaeda's ability to mount
terrorist attacks to the extent some had perhaps hoped to achieve when "Operation
Enduring Freedom" began.
According to the 2004 edition of the Strategic Survey, a cadre of at least 18,000
individuals who trained in al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps between 1996 and 2001 are
today theoretically positioned in some sixty countries around the world. It comes as
no surprise then that al Qaeda claims to be stronger and more capable now than it
was on 9/11.
911
9/11
(Source: Wikipedia.org)
What all al Qaeda members have in common is a combination of:
The Future 6th Edition By Jeremy R. Spindlove; Clifford
E. Simonsen
Is religious terrorism new? - ANSWER: Historically speaking, the relationship
between religion and terrorism is not new. In fact, some of the words we use in the
English language to describe terrorists and their actions are derived from the names
of Jewish, Hindi and Muslim terrorist groups active long ago. As we observed in
Module 1, early examples of what we now call "terrorist" acts were perpetrated by
religious fanatics over two thousand years ago. Zealot, thug, assassin.
What happened to the public perception of terrorism after 9/11 - ANSWER:
Following the attacks of 9/11, however, the world witnessed a dramatic and
increasing stereotyping of religious groups, particularly Muslims. A clear
manifestation could be observed in the principles of the Bush doctrine, which was
founded on the notion that "the fountainhead of 9/11 and similar aggression is the
culture of tyranny in the Middle East, which spawns fanatical, aggressive, secular,
and religious despotisms."1 This view was not only echoed in media outlets and
public opinion, but was emulated in public policy. This explanation, of course, does
not explain the increasing number of violent incidents involving members of other
religious groups outside the Middle East, nor does it explain why the world leader in
suicide terrorism is not a religious fundamentalist group but in fact the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a nationalist, political and military force in Sri Lanka.2
Indeed, religious fanaticism exists in all corners of the world.
What is religious terrorism used to do? - ANSWER: method to legitimize violence,
dehumanize the enemy, simplify political dilemmas, and shape political extremism.
The meaning of religious terrorism - ANSWER: While most religions are based on
principles of compassion, justice, love and peace, it is important to remember that
all religions come from a violent history. This is shown in various religious texts. The
Jewish scriptures, The New Testament and the Qur'an all include accounts of the
violence and aggression of their time.1 For religious extremists, these passages have
often provided the motivation and justification to commit violence against the
enemy.
In the context of religious terrorism, extremists of all faiths consider their struggle
"divinely inspired," a cosmic war between them and the enemy, the enemy often
consisting of secular institutions or secular lifestyles. Mark Juergensmeyer argues
that because religious terrorists believe they are waging a war between good and
evil, they deem themselves exempt from the bonds of rule of law and other societal
norms.
Understanding religious terrorism depends on developing a clear picture of what
religion says about violence.
,Islamic "justifications" for Violence - ANSWER: On the issue of violence, the teachings
of Islam are ambiguous. "Like all religions, Islam occasionally allows for force while
stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of nonviolence and peace. The Qur'an
contains a proscription very much like the biblical injunction 'Thou shalt not kill.' The
Qur'an commands the faithful to 'slay not the life that God has made sacred.' The
very name Islam is cognate to salam, the word for peace, and like the Hebrew word
shalom, to which it is related, it implies a vision of social harmony and spiritual
repose."1
In view of the above, it comes as no surprise that many Muslim activists often deny
claims that Islam is a violent religion. In an interview shortly after the 1993 bombing
of the World Trade Center, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman said a "[Muslim] can never
call for violence. We call for love, forgiveness and tolerance. But if we are aggressed
against, if our land is usurped, we must call for hitting the attacker and the aggressor
to put an end to aggression."2
In other cases, Juergensmeyer addresses how violence has been justified as an
exception to the rule. "As when Muslim supporters of the al-Salam mosque
defended the killing of Rabbi Kahane, claiming that this deed did not violate the
Qur'an since Kahane was an enemy of Islam."3
In yet other instances, the use of violence has been shown to be consistent with
some Islamic tenets. To illustrate, Juergensmeyer quotes a statement by Iran's
Ayatollah Khomeini, who said he knew of no command "more binding to the Muslim
than the command to sacrifice life and property to defend and bolster Islam."4
While it is true, Juergensmeyer argues, that there are principles that justify violence
(e.g. for the purpose of punishment or defending the faith), Islamic law does not
allow the use of violence for arbitrary reasons, personal gain o
Qutb's Doctrine - ANSWER: Sayyid Qutb was considered one of Egypt's most
influential writers in the Muslim political tradition. In his view, the most basic
divisions in humanity were not nationalist or racial but solely religious. He also
believed that killing that took place in a religious war was morally sanctioned.
According to Qutb, "the ultimate war was between truth and falsehood; satanic
agents of the latter were to be found well entrenched in the Egyptian government."1
His years spent as a student in the U.S. fed into Qutb's notions that American society
was essentially racist towards Muslims and that American foreign policy in the
Middle East was dictated by the Jewish lobby in Washington, D.C. Qutb was
imprisoned in the 1950s and ultimately executed in 1966.
Faraj: "The Neglected Duty" - ANSWER: The doctrinal essence of Qutb was taken
further by another Egyptian scholar in a pamphlet titled "The Neglected Duty." The
author, Abd al-Salam Faraj, based his arguments in Islamic tradition and argued that
the Qur'an and the Hadith were about warfare.1
, From this perspective, the concept of jihad was to be taken in the literal sense. The
targets of jihad included apostates within the Muslim community and external
enemies. Moreover, Faraj dismissed peaceful and legal means to achieve apostasy
since he considered them inadequate.
In fairness to Faraj, he set some "moral" limits on the tactics that could be used—for
example, innocent bystanders and women were to be avoided whenever possible.
Faraj believed that the duty to engage in such actions was every Muslim's duty.2 The
reward was a place in paradise, a place Faraj surely hoped for after he was tried and
executed for his involvement in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Mawdudi and Islamic Revivalism - ANSWER: Mawlana Sayed Abdul A'ala Mawdudi is
considered the father of modern day Islamic revivalism, a movement that emerged
in response to colonialism and its aftermath.1 He was also the founder of Pakistan's
Jamaat-e-Islami religious party.
In his writings, Mawdudi not only called for the union of religion and state but also
blamed the West for the separation of religion and politics and for the decline of
Muslim societies.
Islamic scholars have attributed the transformation of jihad to Mawdudi's thoughts.
The al Qaeda movement - ANSWER: The al Qaeda movement today is best described
as a networked transnational constituency rather than the monolithic, international
terrorist organization with an identifiable command and control apparatus that it
once was. The result is that today there are many al Qaedas rather than the single al
Qaeda of the past.
The current al Qaeda exists more as an ideology that has become a vast enterprise—
an international franchise with like-minded local representatives, loosely connected
to a central ideological or motivational base, but advancing the remaining center's
goals at once simultaneously and independently of each other.
The loss of Afghanistan does not appear to have affected al Qaeda's ability to mount
terrorist attacks to the extent some had perhaps hoped to achieve when "Operation
Enduring Freedom" began.
According to the 2004 edition of the Strategic Survey, a cadre of at least 18,000
individuals who trained in al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps between 1996 and 2001 are
today theoretically positioned in some sixty countries around the world. It comes as
no surprise then that al Qaeda claims to be stronger and more capable now than it
was on 9/11.
911
9/11
(Source: Wikipedia.org)
What all al Qaeda members have in common is a combination of:
