In My Opinion: Acts of extremism are not exclusive to one religion
February 5, 2015
There is no religion in world history that has been immune from acts of violence being done in its name.
In 1948, Zionists massacred Palestinians at Deir Yassin. Responding to the massacre, Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister of Israel, said that they would go forward to “attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.”
In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, a Christian, murdered over 75 people, mostly teenagers. In doing so, he called himself a warrior of God.
In 2015, two Muslims slew 10 journalists and two police officers protecting them. During the attack, they yelled “Allahu Akbar,” and “the prophet is avenged.”
While it’s easy to point out the association of religion and violence, it would be naïve to ignore the other factors acting on the people involved in these acts of violence.
It was not Judaism, but nationalism, that was the dominant force that led to the unjustified deaths of over 100.
It was not Christianity, but xenophobia that triggered the gunning down of children.
In the same way, it was not Islamism or intolerance of free speech that was the main driving force for attacking Charlie Hebdo; according to Amedy Coulibaly, the terrorist that attacked a kosher market in Paris in early January, it was France’s history of imperialism and recent military involvement in Libya, Mali and Syria.
Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo attack, and as the attackers said as much themselves, there is good reason to believe it. In order to be successful in importing their ideology to France, al-Qa’ida has to create a common political identity in the Muslim community around their persecution. Suddenly, the waters clear. The purpose changes from attacking free expression to provoking a radical anti-Muslim reaction.
The plan to incite a reaction has been successful. Since the carnage in Paris, 25,000 Germans marched in Dresden to protest Muslim immigrants in Germany. Marine le Pen of the far-right Front National party has demanded a purging of fundamentalist Mosques from France. Charlie Hebdo published yet another attack on Muhammad.
Al-Qa’ida is trying to make Western Muslims alien outcasts, more prone to join extremist movements like theirs.
Most in the Western world recognize that the message of Jesus is one of love, not violence. As a Christian, I count this as a blessing. If the present discussion of Islam is any indicator, Muslims are not afforded this blessing.
Many Muslims are now facing a sea of isolation. Pictures of their Prophet are shoved in their faces, and they’re being told that they can like it, or they’re one of them. Right now, Muslims need allies, not antagonists. For that reason, I have to come out.
Je suis Muslim.
Michael • Feb 10, 2015 at 1:59 pm
What acts of violence have been committed by Mennonites?
Gage Counts • Feb 20, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Probably no more than Ahmadiyya Muslims.
Gage Counts • Feb 8, 2015 at 4:03 pm
A few points:
1) I did not argue that Islam was a religion of peace. I did argue that Islam was not the driving force behind the Charlie Hebdo attack; what was the driving force was Western intervention. If you would like to refute that, go ahead.
2) I did not argue that Muhammad wasn’t violent. That’s not an important question to me, because as I have demonstrated, terrorism has little to do with Muhammad or Islam. If you disagree, please warrant your claims.
3) Thriller isn’t that good of a song. Neither is Allah’s Killers.
I suggest you read the letter from Osama bin Laden addressing the question of why he wants America attacked. It’s an educating read: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
antonio moreno • Feb 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm
Very good article. It really puts the whole matter in its correct perspective.
Gage Countss • Feb 9, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Thanks!
Carole Jean • Feb 8, 2015 at 9:09 am
The real question is not how isolated acts committed by some are related to religion, but rather whether a particular religion, in its basic principles, encourages violence and crimes against people. Therefore, one has to read religious “sacred” texts to see if they encourage or not violence and criminal activity.
Gage Counts • Feb 8, 2015 at 3:50 pm
Certainly. However, the people that I have come across argue two things only: 1) you only ever see Muslims commit acts of terrorism, and in the context of Charlie Hebdo, 2) Muslims attacked Charlie Hebdo because they hate free speech.
I don’t deny the importance of going to the sacred texts to see what it is in there about violence, but it was beyond the scope of what I wanted to refute.
The Wisdom Fund • Feb 8, 2015 at 7:23 am
Karen Armstrong, arguably the foremost authority on religion and violence and author of “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence,” “makes vividly clear that religion is not the problem.”