Which islamic sect is responsible for terrorism

For nothing, absolutely nothing, could remotely be advanced as an excuse for these barbaric acts. They represent a total negation of Islamic values, an utter disregard of our fiqhi tradition, and a slap in the face of the Ummah. They are in total contrast to what Islamic reason, compassion and faith stand for. Even from the more mundane criteria of common good, the maslaha of the jurists, these acts are treasonous and suicidal.

Islamic faith has been so callously and casually sacrificed at the altar of politics, a home-grown politics of parochial causes, primeval passions, self-endorsing piety and messianic terror. Millions of Muslims who fled to North America and Europe to escape poverty and persecution at home have become the object of hatred and are now profiled as potential terrorists.

And the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorize their critics and dissenters. This is what Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists and sponsors have done to Islam and its community worldwide by their murder of innocents at the World Trade Center in New York and the Defense Depart-ment in Washington.

The attack must be condemned, and the condemnation must be without reservation. Instead of engaging with the abundant problems that bedevil Muslim lives, the Islamic prescription consists of blind following of narrow pieties and slavish submission to inept obscurantists. Instead of engagement with the wider world, they have made Islam into an ethic of separation, separate under-development, and negation of the rest of the world. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists.

But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities. They are murderers and terrorists. If there were any person who felt happy for that incident we would not be able to equate them with those criminals, but we can say no one with faith and ethics would accept anything of that murder and targeting of innocent people. No cause, howsoever noble or just, can justify terrorism.

So while one may sympathize with the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and support their claim to a state of their own, while one may appreciate the democratic awakening among the people of many Muslim states and uphold their demand for withdrawal of foreign presence from their soil and support their struggle for revision of the terms of trade for their natural resources, no thinking Muslim can go along with the use of terrorism for securing political goals.

I am always considered to be a radical in the Islamic world and even I condemn it. Viewing on the TV networks what happened to the twin towers. Those who commit such crimes are the worst of people.

Anyone who thinks that any Islamic scholar will condone such acts is totally wrong. This barbaric act is not justified by any sane mind-set. This act is pernicious and shameless and evil in the extreme. Sayed G. Islam is against any form of terrorism, whether it be carried out by an individual, a group or a state. This includes civilians of any faith, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian. According to Islam, all people are the family of God. The target of religion is peace. Pacifism is all too often a weapon of the status quo….

When Islamic movements in the world do need to resort to the use of force, that force must be used morally. When extreme fringes of those movements are pushed to use force indiscriminately, immorally, wrongly against illegitimate targets, and using illegitimate weapons such [as] hijacked jumbo jets , those are crimes for which the people who share their cause, who share their view of the world, their understanding of the need to use force, must also criticise them, turn against them, isolate them.

Our standards must be higher than those of the people whom we are fighting, because if we descend to their standards then there is no difference between us. Earlier version also on-line via archive. The perpetration of terrorist acts supposes a rupture of such magnitude with Islamic teaching that it allows to affirm that the individuals or groups who have perpetrated them have stopped being Muslim and have put themselves outside the sphere of Islam.

Assault upon the life of a human being, be it murder, injury or threat, is an assault upon the right to life among all human beings. It is among the gravest of sins; for human life is the basis for the prosperity of humanity: Whoever kills a soul for other than slaying a soul or corruption upon the earth it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity, and whoever saves a life, it is as if has revived the whole of humanity.

There is neither place nor justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism or terrorism. Suicide bombings, which killed and injured innocent people in London, are HARAAM — vehemently prohibited in Islam, and those who committed these barbaric acts in London [on July 7, ] are criminals not martyrs. Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against all of humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives.

Extremist groups will remain, governance and economic development will be weak and divided, ethnic and sectarian differences will be critical, and the outside role of powers like Iran, Russia, and Turkey will be deeply divisive. Limited tactical victories are no substitute for a meaningful grand strategy that addresses the lasting outcome of such victories.

The trend data in this section show that even tactical success is uncertain in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Again, there is no clear indication of the capability to build on the defeat of the Taliban, Haqqani Network, and other extremist groups to bring lasting security and stability to either Afghanistan or Pakistan. The final section in the report provides a different kind of warning.

It shows that the cost of failing to create effective strategic partnerships can be far greater and more destabilizing even if such partnerships only really address a limited part of a nation's tensions and divisions and focus almost exclusively on security. Yemen is only one such case study. Libya, Somalia, the Sudans, and a number of Sub Saharan African countries already present similar challenges.

Skip to main content. Download the Report. Written By. Media Queries. Contact H. Most Recent From Anthony H. Cordesman Upcoming Event. Book Launch: Armies of Arabia. November 12, The New Challenges in Aid to Afghanistan. October 28, In the News. Washington Post Mariana Alfaro.

October 22, Iraqis remember Powell as both liberator and 'engineer' of endless war. October 19, Reflecting on Colin Powell's legacy. NPR Steve Inskeep. October 18, October 15, October 4, All parties have been too long accustomed to blaming others for the problems they face.

Their attention should be directed to his criticism of the West:. We ought to take these exhortations seriously on at least two accounts.

All the same, he manages to use his Islam cleverly to exploit the long-festering anger of Muslims, especially in the Middle East, toward the West. We would be foolish to acquiesce in this perverse strategy. The Arabic word for catastrophe is nakba , and this was to be only the first such nakba experienced by the Arabs during the twentieth century. The rage of Arabs and other Muslims continued to grow throughout the rest of the twentieth century, not because of any teachings of Islam as such but as a result of the forced domination of Muslims by Western nations, which increased with one nakba after another.

The first was the onset of the Cold War, which ended the period of European ascendancy and polarized the whole world, including Muslims, between the United States and the Soviet Union. Then another major nakba occurred in —the greatest nakba of all in most Arab eyes—when all the Western nations collectively imposed the formation of Israel with no apparent concern for the fate of half a million non-Jewish Palestinians not only Muslims but also Christians and secularists.

Arab humiliation grew as the United States both strengthened Israel militarily against the Palestinians and other Arabs and armed Middle Eastern dictators during the Cold War in return for their often cruel support in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

To many Arab intellectuals this seemed to be the final, intolerable blow. But the collapse of the Soviet Union would prove to be yet another catastrophe from the point of view of Muslims who had looked to it for salvation from the United States. This hope in itself was particularly remarkable because the official atheism of the Soviet Union had long been thought to exclude the possibility of Muslim cooperation. According to Abou el Fadl:. Many of them speak of another Islam, their personal, private faith.

No argument here. A far more elaborate and relentlessly negative treatment of Islam is that of ibn Warraq. His strong resentment toward the religion of his childhood resonates with many humanist readers, myself included, whose path out of traditional bondage was mainly intellectual in nature. This book and The Origins of the Koran , which followed in , are entry points into the slowly expanding literature highly critical of Islam, past and present, in general and in specific detail, with particular focus on contradictions in the Quran and the traditions surrounding the Prophet, violence in the history of Islamic interactions with other groups, and issues of the status of women and the relation of religion to the state.

This is required reading for all who may doubt that Islam even has a darker side. Twice during the past decade I have published in Humanism Today an organ of the North American Committee for Humanism and the Humanist Institute , my own optimistic assessments of chances for the future evolution of Islam in the direction of humanism. These favorable estimates, while clearly contingent on events yet to unfold, are based on some sixty years of comparative study of the history of civilizations.

I then went on to list a few of the hundreds of sources from which my optimism was derived. In the harsh, eerie glare of September 11, what I am saying here may be considered an update of my earlier remarks. It would be hard to make the case that Islam is intrinsically more cruel or violent than Judaism or Christianity. The Old Testament—the foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition—echoes, after all, throughout the Quran and can easily match the Quran on a literal basis for violence and brutality.

Jews, and later Christians, have never had any problem with ascribing violence to their religion when it served their purposes. The gradual liberalization of Judaism and Christianity included the metaphorical interpretation of such phrases, with the heavenly host referring to the stars and the angels.

And the cruel punishments set forth in the Old Testament laws notably death by stoning for what the modern world might regard as civil wrongs or misdemeanors or no wrongs at all are all-of-a-piece with the severe hudud punishments called for by Wahhabi jurists in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The brutality of the Christians in the Crusades was unmatched. John L. Esposito writes in Islam: The Straight Path:.