slavery, status of women, rejection of
modern education and the use of
violence. Obviously, their understanding
of Islam is based on an ideology that has
tribal as well as juristic roots. It relies
on an understanding of the Quran that
calls for perpetual armed struggle
against those who think differently from
the group claiming to be a saved sect.
Even though the groups does not admit
to be ignorant of the message and
meanings of the Quran, its ideas are not
different than what was practiced in
Arabia in pre-Islamic times. The group
has revived all pre-Islamic ideas while
using an Islamic terminology.
Boko Haram are not the only so called
“Muslim” group in the world that can be
identified for having such ideas. There
are many who view the Quran and
Sunnah as a license to promote violence
and terror to achieve their goals. How to
convince such people that Islam does
not promote violence and terror is
where the real challenge lies for Muslim
intellect.
Obviously, the existence of such groups
demonstrate that people are
misrepresenting Islam and intellectuals
that know otherwise need to meet the
challenge effectively, yet the efforts
must continue at all levels, political,
military, social and more importantly
the theological.
But it has now come out that for two
years, Hillary Clinton blocked efforts to
add Boko Haram to the State
Department’s list of terrorist
organizations. This wasn’t just an
episode of bureaucratic indifference.
The Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA
and many in Congress lobbied the State
Department to list Boko Haram, but
Clinton stood firm in defense of the
Nigerian terrorists. Now, with the
kidnapping outrage in the news, Hillary
is tweeting away on behalf of the
Nigerian girls. (THAT will do a lot of
good!) But where was she in 2011 and
2012?
Over the last day or two, debate has
raged over whether adding Boko Haram
to the State Department’s terror
organization list would have made much
difference. (It finally happened in 2013,
after Hillary’s resignation.) But the more
interesting question is why Hillary was
so resistant to labeling Boko Haram a
terrorist group, which they obviously
were.
Her defenders have said that it was
inappropriate to put Boko Haram on the
list because they are a regional group
that hasn’t acted against American
interests. But that explanation holds no
water. You can read the terrorist list
here; there are a number of groups on it,
like the Irish terrorists, who haven’t
attacked American interests. Democrats
have also suggested that Hillary didn’t
want to name Boko Haram because
doing so would add to the group’s
prestige among fellow terrorists.
Could it be that the USA sat back and
allowed this to happen in order to use it
as an excuse to go into Nigeria?