A historical question.

I wonder if I may move into the 21st century and pose the following questions:

Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?

What justification can be offered for such acts?

What started this program of violence?

What books does one need to obtain a balanced view of the events that led to the acts I referred to?

1. I attempted to reply to the above but the following came up. You are not allowed to post any kinds of links, images or videos until you post a few times.

Scimi asks, Do you believe that Muslims were responsible for 911?
I am obliged to reply, “Most certainly not!” I’m not even certain that asking, who was responsible gets us anywhere?” Maybe the question I should have asked was; Did whoever was responsible for destroying the Twin Towers believe that they had a valid reason for carrying out its destruction with all of the people that were in it and if so what was that reason?

Zafran stated; Many great saints and people have been assassinated or killed throughout history. Look no further then the Christian version of the death of Christ, or John the Baptist. Does that appear savage to you as well? Does that put Christianity in disrepute?
Well, it certainly was savage but without wishing to be pedantic it was not the Christians that put either of those two to death.

The Muslim states; The teachings of Islam can fail under no circumstances. With all our systems of culture and civilization, we cannot go beyond Islam and, as a matter of fact, no human mind can go beyond the Qur'an.
That statement has nothing to do with the questions that I raised and it appears to be very much like many such statements one can find in the Bible.

Zafran asks; “While you are at it maybe you should also look at the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Kuwait as well or does your inquiry only focus on a few countries on the west. If so why? Are there lives more important?”
I regret that Zafran appears to be introducing an adversarial form of argument to what I had hoped would have been on my part a search for truth.
The very thought of anyone dying as a result of violence brings pain to any civilised person. People in the west had a view, which was often confused, regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers. However, most people in the west are utterly unable to understand why such atrocities as the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Kuwait should occur.

I would still welcome answers to the questions I put and in conclusion I wish to thank you for pointing me towards the Siege of Uthman.
Many years ago before television during the 1940s the BBC used to broadcast a program called, “The Brains Trust” which answered all sorts of questions from the audience. When the turn came for CEM Joad an English philosopher, to put his view he always started his answer by saying, “It all depends on what you mean by.” He followed that by setting out what he thought the question meant.

With the utmost respect I am obliged to say that the above three comments appear to be somewhat confused and incoherent.

I just got carried away on a tangent, very barely kept it relevant..

Although it's not bad considering my normal.

Hey, welcome to the board, bro! And hope you have a great experience here. I'll leave your first question for some other fellow on IB and begin to answer the questions in your second post God-willing to the best of my ability.

format_quote Originally Posted by BML

I wonder if I may move into the 21st century and pose the following questions:

Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?

Well, I dislike terrorism and feel there is absolutely zero justification for terrorism, no matter the terrorists' religion, creed, ethnicity, political ambition, race, etc.

However, that said, from what I have read and researched and discovered, terrorists in this specific context as you enumerated say that they are only taking revenge on world governments who carried out mass killings of Muslims in other countries or because of unwavering support of Israel which continues to commit many human rights violations against the people of Palestine with its illegal occupation.


What justification can be offered for such acts?

As a Muslim, I state categorically that no such justification can ever exist for such acts as they are evil acts and Islam has no place for such extremism or adoption of evil acts. Unfortunately, terrorists do not take into account orthodox Islam's position on acts of terrorism and only keep doing the evil they do because what drives them ultimately is a political agenda and utopian ambition of having a Caliphate.

What started this program of violence?

Hmm, I'd once answered this privately and so will paste what I'd written therein here also with minor changes.

The answer:

Global rise in Wahhabism, a particularly virulent strain of extremism, and Salafism to a lesser extent.

Wahabbism, that is, if you are unfamiliar with the term, is an ideological movement that originated in the 18th and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the Arabian Peninsula and was premised on rejection of traditional Islamic scholarship and practices under the guise of "reviving true Islam" and "protecting monotheism." However, what this purification comprised of is extreme censorship in the form of burning books containing traditional prayers, interpretations of law and commentaries on the Qur'an and ahadith (prophetic traditions), and encouraging Wahabbi followers which diverged also into Salafism movement to interpret Islam on one's own regardless of grounding in fundamental Islamic principles and knowledge. Anyone opposed to this new ideology was considered outside of the realm of Islam - an apostate, disbeliever or idolater, thus paving the way for bloodshed and enabling "permissible" confiscation of their wealth. The Wahhabi ideology is especially antagonistic to non-Muslims, and Salafism is too though to a lesser extent. And in the modern era Wahhabism is witness to the adoption of a militant stance against non-Muslims. "Wahhabi" followers and their offshoots in the Salafi movement have taken up an increasingly confrontational standpoint, attempting to impose their ideology in many regions around the world and is funded by Saudi Arabia under the current regime. Under this modern ideological extremism, Islam's essential principle of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims has been abolished and all non-Muslims are believed to be "kuffar" and thereby you and I now are witnessing the attraction some Muslims feel for terrorist organizations like Daesh that are so blithe about their fanaticism.

What books does one need to obtain a balanced view of the events that led to the acts I referred to?

Hmm, to be honest, that's a hard thing to say because the Islamophobic Orientalism phenomena presently seeks to paint Islam and Muslims as the problem responsible for both Twin Towers and Paris Attacks. Of course, Paris Attack is more recent and therefore I'm not even sure what is currently in works in regards to academic scholarship and understanding of this as Daesh is a different organization to Al-Qaeda.

Hopefully, that helps, bro. Take care. Have a great day.

format_quote Originally Posted by BML

Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?

I'd say it's mainly because of various grievances, and being denied effective legitimate ways of obtaining redress. Something those complaining the loudest about Islamic terrorism are invariably unwilling to grant. As several statesmen have said, those who make nonviolent change impossible make violent change inevitable.

why you are only remember the 911? why you are forget the thousands of Muslim killed since 1940 in plastine Kashmir and many more countries and the world biggest terrorist ever is america because of his atomic attack in japan and millions of people killed just in a few minutes do you agree with me.

format_quote Originally Posted by BML

The first book I found described the development and some of the history of Islam and within it I read that when Muhammad died his position, if that's the correct term to use, was followed by what were described by four "rightly guided “caliphs whose rule covered the period 632 to 661. I then read that three of these were assassinated which appeared to me to be rather savage bringing Islam into disrepute. Is it possible to say why, how this happened?

I apologise if anything I have written above offends anyone and if it does please explain to me why.

They were heads of state. Why do you think heads of state are protected by bodyguards? It seems to me like you're the one who are thinking the assassinations imply something, so why don't you go ahead and make your case for whatever you think it is?

Futuwwa
Of course you are quite correct. Heads of state do get assassinated and I suppose that my idealistic view of expecting something better than the average state from Islam was idealistic.
You asked me to make my case and I have to say that before I started asking questions about what are nothing other than atrocities I really had no case other than to believe that nothing happens in the world without a reason and it was the reason behind these atrocities that I was looking for.
I started by believing that those who committed the atrocities were motivated by their hatred of those who they killed and that their hatred was primarily aimed at western states especially America for their support of Israel and their actions in the middle east. As I started to read it became obvious that there was a body of opinion that considered Islam to be at fault.
If I am going to be able to reach a valid conclusion I need to find truthful and valid accounts that deal with what I have stated above and finding that the books that are available fall into to camps is not helpful.