2008 Woodie Awards
Terrorism Discussion
Professors and students meet to discuss whether a connection exists between Islam and terrorism.
Jake Kohlman
Issue date: 11/5/04 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
On Thursday, October 28, The Society of Enlightened Academics hosted a discussion on Islam and terrorism. The meeting was designed to start a dialogue in which information could be shared, and misinformation could be corrected.
Islam and terrorism are two huge issues in the world today, and it was hoped this meeting could help air out some of the nuances of the topics. The group that showed up was an anti-Bush crowd, disappointing to some because that cut down on possible debate.
The meeting started out with a rather lengthy monologue on several important aspects of Islam. It was pointed out that Islam does not condone killing, nor does it condone suicide. There are apparently strict rules when it comes to killing: you are not allowed to kill old men, women, or children.
Jihad, a term much used in the media, was explained to mean "personal struggle", which is not what perhaps much of American people thinks it means. Additionally, someone pointed out that the phrase "Islamic terrorists" is an oxymoron, as Islam means "peace" and "peaceful terrorists".
Of much importance was the role the American media plays in creating certain impressions of Islam. The consensus of those in attendance was that the American media does a pretty poor job in explaining nuances and differences, instead it uses generalizations.
Several people stressed that those who commit terrorist attacks are not typical Muslims, nor do they represent the average Muslim. The American media, it was felt, does a poor job of explaining this distinction, as well as painting a sensationalist picture of things.
Of much discussion was President Bush's foreign policy and his approach to the "War on Terror". Many disagreed with the notion of a war on terror at all, saying that such a thing is unwinnable and only leads to a constant state of fear. Also, the war in Iraq was viewed as only serving to create a new generation of terrorists, as well as creating the potential for a mass civil war.
The meeting was viewed as a success by most because the most important objective, talking about issues, was certainly achieved. While agreement may not have been reached on some topics, at the very least ideas were shared.
Islam and terrorism are two huge issues in the world today, and it was hoped this meeting could help air out some of the nuances of the topics. The group that showed up was an anti-Bush crowd, disappointing to some because that cut down on possible debate.
The meeting started out with a rather lengthy monologue on several important aspects of Islam. It was pointed out that Islam does not condone killing, nor does it condone suicide. There are apparently strict rules when it comes to killing: you are not allowed to kill old men, women, or children.
Jihad, a term much used in the media, was explained to mean "personal struggle", which is not what perhaps much of American people thinks it means. Additionally, someone pointed out that the phrase "Islamic terrorists" is an oxymoron, as Islam means "peace" and "peaceful terrorists".
Of much importance was the role the American media plays in creating certain impressions of Islam. The consensus of those in attendance was that the American media does a pretty poor job in explaining nuances and differences, instead it uses generalizations.
Several people stressed that those who commit terrorist attacks are not typical Muslims, nor do they represent the average Muslim. The American media, it was felt, does a poor job of explaining this distinction, as well as painting a sensationalist picture of things.
Of much discussion was President Bush's foreign policy and his approach to the "War on Terror". Many disagreed with the notion of a war on terror at all, saying that such a thing is unwinnable and only leads to a constant state of fear. Also, the war in Iraq was viewed as only serving to create a new generation of terrorists, as well as creating the potential for a mass civil war.
The meeting was viewed as a success by most because the most important objective, talking about issues, was certainly achieved. While agreement may not have been reached on some topics, at the very least ideas were shared.