I would actually posit the reverse.
The Charlie Hebdo attack and the Paris attacks of November, 2015, were carried out by Islamist terrorists.
The Nice truck attack? I suspect that the nut-case, with no history of an interest in any religion, much less his own, and no serious connection to ISIS, decided that he would make a bigger “splash” if he made ISIS-like cries as he drove through the crowd.
So we would be dealing with two phenomena: actual terrorism by Islamists and the copycat actions by nut cases using Islamist words to pump themselves up believe that they will get better recognition if they are linked to the Islamists.
It’s definitely true that, at the moment, there’s a significantly large proportion of the violent terrorists of this world who identify with Islam, and are often supported by at least some other Muslims (though not the majority). So to that extent, there appears to be an ‘Islamic terrorism culture’, which ought to be squashed.
It is also true that there’s an overwhelming majority of the rapists of this world who identify as male and are often supported by at least some other men (though not the majority). So to that extent, we seem to have a ‘male rape culture’, which ought to be squashed.
It seems to me that the only consistent position for a human to take on these issues is to consider both ‘Islamic Terrorism’ and ‘Rape Culture’ as aspects of the same thing (ways of looking at a large population, of whom a very small number do truly reprehensible things) , to either demand that men in general work as hard to dissociate themselves from ‘Rape Culture’ as you want Muslims to work to dissociate themselves from ‘Islamic Terrorism’, or conversely to deny that either of these things are useful terms, and demand that people who commit reprehensible acts be treated as individuals, solely responsible for their own actions.
It seems, however, that people who are the strongest condemners of ‘Islamic Terrorism’ are the least likely to agree that ‘Rape Culture’ even exists … and, lets admit, the reverse holds completely true too.
Either we’re going to have a general principle of condemning a whole population based on the behaviour of their worst members, or we’re not. I prefer not, myself.
Your language is interesting. Are Muslims not religious people?
But that cheap shot aside, I think you miss the point, and you do so in a way that is highly counterproductive. Yes, many religions are not currently systemically violent, while Islam has some elements that are currently systemically violent. But it is counterproductive and (understandably) alienates non-violent Muslims to regard their specific religion as the problem. A more accurate representation (as the example of Xtianity in the past shows) is that elements within present Islam are currently using their religion as a justification for violence.
Imagine the point (some time ago) at which the percentage of Xtians that were then using their religion as justification for violence was the same as the current percentage of Muslims who are using their religion as justification for violence. Would it have been productive at that time to characterise “Xtianity” as inherently violent at that time? Or would it be more productive to recognise that Xtianity mostly wasn’t violent, and to support the non-violent Xtians who were being embarrassed by their asshole violent elements?
The problem with your position is that it focusses on the fact that other religions were only violent in the past as a way of distinguishing them as fundamentally different from current Islam. What is IMHO far more useful is to focus on the fact that history suggests that the difference between other major religions and Islam is more one of phase shift than fundamental difference.
You are like someone who writes off a person as being fundamentally moody and dissolute, instead of recognising that they are a teenager evidencing behaviour you and your peers evidenced at one time.
Specialists describe this phase as a possible shift from radicalization of Islamists to Islamization of radicals. At the moment Daesh is believed to encourage radical individuals or groups all over the world to adopt its values and act on its behalf.
I don’t think you’re quite getting the gist of what my question implies. That’s OK, it was a bit convoluted I’ll admit.
Basically, if we see every act of mass violence carried out by someone with a Muslim background as being committed by a ‘radicalized Muslim’ then we’re NOT going any way to find ways to address the horrors. When half (quarter, third??) of these attacks are perpetrated by people who have as much knowledge of the Qu’ran as I do of a car engine, then it’s not meaningful and in fact is dangerous.
Ignoring this other half (quarter, third?) of attacks is not going to help us understand it’s roots and by calling them all ‘radicalized Muslims’ just (IMHO) encourages those without a cause for their violence to pick a cause to legitimize their anger.
I’m not saying that the term radicalized Muslim should be off limits. This isn’t about linguistic pedantry, nor do I attempt to deny that there are indeed plenty of radicalized Muslims in the world. And we need to find ways to rid the world of their scourge.
It’s more a reflection about WHO is committing these acts of mass violence. And I’m seeing more and more incidents (here in Australia and abroad) that are being reported in the media as committed by Islamists or young radicalized Muslims, when the only thing even vaguely Muslim about the young bloke is his name.
Hence why I question what good it does. I can understand why ordinary people in the community are so fearful nowadays. Turn on any news report and almost weekly there’s another attack somewhere in the world. Islam is the new boogie-man of our times, and we like to put a name to our biggest fears.
But an equally valid fear should be the lone nut-jobs, calling out Islamic slogans as they go down in a hail of bullets. It’s the kid who hasn’t got a girlfriend or a job (but has a gun and his name is Waheed or Mohammed). It’s the older bloke with psychiatric issues who the police knew about but because he wasn’t known to be part of any Islamic group of the radical kind, they ignored him.
THIS is the issue. We ignore those who we don’t believe to be radicalized at our own peril. It’s these people (to whom we retroactively assign radical Muslim status because it’s easier to have ONE name for our boogie-man) than look at the real histories of those who engage in mass killings.
I understand what you are saying and think you are probably right that the distinction you are seeking to draw is there to be drawn. However, I don’t think it leads anywhere useful.
You just end up in a gigantic no true Scotsman in which one side says these terrorists aren’t really Islamic terrorists, they’re just disaffected assholes who adopt an expedient veneer of Islamic fanaticism for one reason or another, and the other side says if they quack like Muslims they are Muslims. And since there is no ultimate authority as to who is or is not a True Muslim, it’s wasting electrons to debate it.
Perhaps not on a board like this, but it’s a distinction that should certainly be made in terms of drafting public policy wrt modern terrorism.
Because while we know governments pander to the lowest common intellectual denominators when spouting fear-based policies, if they REALLY want to address the issues of mass killings, they need to know their enemies. And their enemies are not only Islamic idealogues.
There’s as much evidence that Dylan Roof is a Christian as there is that the Orlando shooter, or San Bernadino shooters, were Muslims. That is, there’s plenty of evidence for both.
The way I understood what **Latro **was trying to say was more along the lines of the fact that in its discussion of jihad and its decentralized nature compared to say… mainstream Christianity, Islam sort of fertilizes the ground for disaffected assholes and/or for politically radical Muslims to incite people to acts of violence in Islam’s name, or to carry out those acts themselves. That’s not to say that they’re interpreting it right, but the exhortations to jihad are there, and there’s no Islamic Pope or Council of Bishops to proclaim it wrong- all you get is some disparate Islamic scholars and Muftis saying some things, while others say things that are completely opposite. Plus, there are a whole lot of assholes out there.
There isn’t really a comparable point of doctrine in Christianity- I’m not a Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I can’t recall any exhortations by Jesus to go smite the nonbelievers or anything like that.
All that’s not to say that there hasn’t been a lot of blood shed in the name of Christianity, but in large part, it was politically motivated without very much theological justification- at best, there was some tortured logic assuring illiterate medieval participants that what they were doing wasn’t sinful- i.e. killing infidels in the Crusades was a form of penance.
Only because you’re using your own definitions of Christian and Muslim, and not the ones that actual Muslims and Christians tend to use.
The sociological definition where anyone who claims to be X is X is good for their purpose, but is not good for society.
A Christian cannot commit murder. At that point, they become a non-Christian, barring actual repentance (which requires sorrow for one’s actions, refusing to do it again, and making restitution for your actions).
I don’t if it works the same way with Muslims, but it sure seems to be, given what actual Muslims say. They do not regard this guy as Muslim because he committed murder.
These definitions do not hurt anything, as they do not say that “He can’t do it. He’s a Christian/Muslim.” But they do help, by not allowing all the religious bigotry that tries to blame the religion, and thus discriminates against people because of their religion.
You may disagree, but do realize you’re just arguing a semantic issue. The only real problem is when you have one standard for Christians but another standard for Muslims.
Not Jesus, but you ignore that there is an Old Testament, and particularly the book of Joshua, where the Israelites are told the same sorts of things as are in the Qur’an. And you have the laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy which require killing
Heck, I’m on record as saying that at least there were exceptions for “people of the book” in the Qur’an. So I think the Qur’an is better–at least, from the parts I read–which are generally the parts around where people misquote it to claim it means something it clearly doesn’t if you actually read it.
But, you say. Christians say that the Old Testament is superseded by the New. But who came up with that? Is that in the Bible? No. Did the Pope say it? Kinda. But half of Christianity doesn’t follow the Pope. Most of Christianity is the same state as Islam, without a central authority figure. Different sects can claim different truths.
Someone who reads part of the Bible without paying attention to the historical significance could come away with the idea that stoning gay people is okay. That killing people who worship the wrong god is okay.
But they don’t. And why is that? It cannot be the text itself. It has to be the culture in which it is interpreted. And is that culture Islam? Well, no, since Muslims outside the Middle East don’t interpret it the same way. The issue is the culture of the Middle East.
I mean, that is the simplest way to prove that Islam is not at fault. If it were, then American Muslims would be just as likely to radicalize. But they aren’t. The issue is that the Middle East has problems with the West. ISIS believes this is a religious war, Islam against Christianity. But they are wrong.
Islam will continue to exist when ISIS is defeated. Christianity will continue to exist. They are not the problem.