world

Pope says it wrong to identify Islam with violence

74 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

74 Comments
Login to comment

wrong to identify Islam with violence and that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism.

Hear, hear!

3 ( +12 / -9 )

"wrong to identify Islam with violence and that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism."

"Hear, hear!"

Yep. All those underprivileged kids from the UK going to join Islamic State....

4 ( +10 / -6 )

"...young people that we Europeans have left devoid of ideals. They then turn to drugs and alcahol or enlist in ISIS."

Huh??

1 ( +7 / -6 )

It is wrong to not identify radical Islam. At the extremes islam is evil and that needs to be identified or innocent lives will be lost weekly.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

I'm guessing God did a big face palm over this comment. Not that I disagree, but why not be more specific and name the ONE country in the world that actively pushes it. You're the Pope, why are dancing around.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

I think it is not right to identity Islam with violence,”

I agree.

I speak of Islamic violence, I have to speak of Catholic violence.

People have correctly done so when it has come to Northern Ireland.

Not all Muslims are violent,” he said.

Yes, I agree.

Francis said the killing of the priest and a string of string of other attacks were proof the “world is at war” but that it was not caused by religion.

While it is true that war should not be caused by religion. It has and continues to be one of the main causes of war in many parts of the world.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

“I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence because every day when I look at the papers I see violence here in Italy - someone killing his girlfriend, someone killing his mother-in-law. These are baptised Catholics,” he said.

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I have to speak of Catholic violence. Not all Muslims are violent,” he said."

People of any religion or none are capable of doing appalling things.

I think the point is whether they are committing disgraceful acts motivated or even partly motivated by Islam or Catholicism, your holiness. This isn't a minor point.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I speak of Islamic violence, I have to speak of Catholic violence.

People have correctly done so when it has come to Northern Ireland.

Much of the violence was indeed perpetrated by baptised Catholics.

But Catholics there would find the term "Catholic violence" insulting, bigoted and grossly ignorant of the facts.

The same goes for all the Muslims I've spoken, broken bread or shared a roof with.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I guess the Pope never read newspapers and never watched TV. As someone said, "there is no worse blind than someone who doesn't want to see".

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Jimizo, good post. That is indeed the point - any crimes carried out by catholics are not being done in the name of their religeon or God. The same cannot be said for all the terrorism, honour killings, etc being perpetrated by muslims. BIG DIFFERENCE that this pope is conveniently - or blindly - ignoring.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The IRA has never pushed to install a theocracy. ISIS has. So to equate the two terrorisms under the banner of "religious terrorism" is disingenuous and ahistorical.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Indeed, the IRA was in a political struggle - not a religeous one. No one in the IRA was fighting on religeous grounds and they would say so without hesitation. The catholic - protestant divide came down to generally catholics favoring independence from Britain and a united Ireland, and protestants favoring union with Britain - christianity had absolutely nothing to do with it.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The IRA has never pushed to install a theocracy. ISIS has.

And millions more Muslims are fleeing from it than flocking to it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Francis said the killing of the priest and a string of string of other attacks were proof the “world is at war” but that it was not caused by religion.

I am not a religious person but I have liked a lot of things Francis has said, but the above is so far off the mark it really is incredulous!

Religion has played very high roles in a lot of death & destruction throughout history, and there are certainly examples that don't involve religion, but a great many DO.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Meanwhile Muslims attended Mass yesterday across France and Italy:

Reporters on the scene said that between 100 and 200 Muslims gathered at the towering Gothic cathedral in Rouen, only a few miles from Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, where the 85-year-old Rev. Jacques Hamel was killed by two teenage attackers on Tuesday.

In Italy, the secretary general of the country's Islamic Confederation, Abdullah Cozzolino, spoke from the altar in the Treasure of St. Gennaro chapel next to Naples' Duomo cathedral.

Three imams also attended Mass at the St. Maria Church in Rome's Trastevere neighborhood, donning their traditional dress as they entered the sanctuary and sat down in the front row.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/31/muslims-go-to-catholic-mass-across-france-to-show-solidarity.html

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The article fails to mention that yesterday was a particular day in many French (and a few italian) churches as believers of all faiths attended mass. From what i have read and seen this was a success on all counts and many believe this may mark a new start. Not the first time i hear that tbh but they msy actually mean it this time who knows.

In this context i thought, as an atheist, that pope's words were pretty spot on and in line with what people wanted to hear on this day. Anything else targeting Islam would have been completely inappropriate and counter productive (coming from a pope).

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"The IRA has never pushed to install a theocracy. ISIS has."

"And millions more Muslims are fleeing from it than flocking to it."

Nobody is stating otherwise. It's those who are sympathetic to it we need to worry about. Admitting this has at least something to do with Islam would be a step forward.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Much of the violence was indeed perpetrated by baptised Catholics. But Catholics there would find the term "Catholic violence" insulting, bigoted and grossly ignorant of the facts. The same goes for all the Muslims I've spoken, broken bread or shared a roof with.

I think you and the Pope are mstaking 'Islamic or Catholic violence' to mean 'Muslims or Catholics are violent.'

The first is merely stating a fact, the second would be insulting, bigoted, and grossly ignorant fo the facs.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Is he serious?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

backscratcher,

I don't know how familiar you are with the Irish Troubles, but talk of 'Catholic violence' - or 'Protestant violence' for that matter - was the sole preserve of knuckle-dragging bigots for whom peace, love and understanding was an existential threat.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Sensenotsocommon, Im not sure what you mean by your last post.

As for the catholic mass you supply the link to it is very curious why the reporter chooses not to mention that it is a regular event and not a spontaneous display of interfaith solidarity as the article would lead us to believe. Even so, if we take it to be a one off gesture by muslims against islamic terrorism the numbers are miniscule!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I don't know how familiar you are with the Irish Troubles, but talk of 'Catholic violence' - or 'Protestant violence' for that matter - was the sole preserve of knuckle-dragging bigots for whom peace, love and understanding was an existential threat.

Let me apologize in advance if I am reading your post incorrectly. However, it seems that you are claiming that people against relgious violence and call religious violence by this name are knuckle-dragging bigots while those that actually perpetrate religious violence are more so. If so, I disagree. It is those that perpetrate violence in the name of any religion that are the knuckle-dragging bigots and should rightly be called so.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

are more so= are not

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Sensenotsocommon

How far are you willing to take the "knuckle-dragging bigots" idea?

Would you be prepared to call people who want homosexuality criminalised "bigots"? Do you think these people are promoting peace, love and understanding?

I've been called a bigot for calling the religious people who believe homosexuality should be criminalised bigots.

Peace, love and understanding?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

backscratcher,

if the question was whether specifying (Irish republican) violence of the Troubles as Catholic violence is insulting, bigoted and grossly ignorant of the facts, then yes, it remains so, unless you know better?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"I don't know how familiar you are with the Irish Troubles, but talk of 'Catholic violence' - or 'Protestant violence' for that matter - was the sole preserve of knuckle-dragging bigots for whom peace, love and understanding was an existential threat."

Religious sectarianism played a major role in the filth we saw in Northern Ireland. Bigotry was spouted from politicians and from the pulpit. You hear similar or worse filth coming out of certain mosques.

You talk about peace, love and understanding. Religious sectarianism is one of the major obstacles to achieving these virtues in our society.

I'll repeat what one man who's been on the receiving end of manic, sectarian belief, Salman Rushdie, said - "call it out every effing time". Stop making excuses for this.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

if the question was whether specifying (Irish republican) violence of the Troubles as Catholic violence is insulting, bigoted and grossly ignorant of the facts, then yesI

If that was the question, yes. However, that is not the question. I am stating my opinion that violence done in the name of religion, any religion is religious violence. If it is done in the name of the Catholic faith, as it was on the Catholic side in Northern Ireland, I think it is fair to call it Catholic violence. It is done in the name of the Protestant faith, as it was on the Protestant side, I think it is fair to called it Protestant violence. If it is done in the name of the Islamic faith, I think it is fair to call it Islamic violence. I am only happening to name three, but it goes for all of them. There is plenty of religious violence all overr the world as we write these posts. Perhaps you and the Pope do not see it, but the victims do. This includes the countless Islamic victims.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

To repeat what I wrote earlier, individuals are not to blame, only ancient backwater bronze age garbage trying to remain relevant in the age of science and reason. That's it, pure and simple.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

MarkGAUG. 01, 2016 - 08:44AM JST At the extremes islam is evil and that needs to be identified or innocent lives will be lost weekly.

You say this as though it was different from any other religion, philosophy, or belief in the entire history of human thought. Once you put the word "radical" in front of something, it kinda usually stops being a huggle party in Candyland and blood starts getting spilt.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"You say this as though it was different from any other religion, philosophy, or belief in the entire history of human thought."

Let's stick to the present and keep it nailed down to a particular continent. The continent where this pope lives.

Would you say that radical Islam is the most dangerous strain of radical religious belief in Europe at this moment in time?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Katsu78, Islam IS different from any other religeon in current times. The hindus, buddhists, jains, christians, etc arent out there committing mass murder in the name of their religeons.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Hmm so calling out islam for the barbarism that it is is not ok on this forum? I'm not slandering or anything, it's fact!

Moderator: Hate-filled anti-Islam rants are not permitted. You better used to that now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Pope is partially right. It's not wrong to associate JUST Islam. How about religion as a whole. Islam just happens to be the most violent at the present moment. World would be better off without any of them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JimizoAUG. 01, 2016 - 07:57PM JST Would you say that radical Islam is the most dangerous strain of radical religious belief in Europe at this moment in time?

I wouldn't. Personally I think far right nativist movements are equally dangerous.

OutriderAUG. 01, 2016 - 08:07PM JST Katsu78, Islam IS different from any other religeon in current times. The hindus, buddhists, jains, christians, etc arent out there committing mass murder in the name of their religeons.

Ah, see this is how the agitprop gets spread. I compared a radical interpretation of one religion to radical interpretations of other beliefs. You are trying drop the "radical" bit from other ideologies while leaving it attached to Islam to make an unfair comparison. Considering that up until these recent attacks in Europe the death toll from radical Muslim attacks wasn't even anywhere close to the death tolls from internal terrorism in Europe's 20th-21st century history and considering at least one other radical movement in Europe have had death tolls in the multiple millions, its hard to make a credible argument that the problem is the "Islam" part of "radical Islam", and not the "radical" part. Unless you're someone who just hates Muslims.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I'm a pretty left leaning person, as many here may recognise. I've travelled through Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and loved them all. But:

I think it is not right to identity Islam with violence

I'm starting to disagree with this, based on what's going on in various parts of the world. I'm sorry to say that more, and more, I AM associating Islam with violence. Because these acts are being committed in the name of Islam. Not just the stuff against Westerners, but the stuff against other Muslims too. I know it's not a politically correct thing to say, but it's pretty hard to deny.

Trucks in Niece

Brussels Airport

The Bataclan

Shootings in Munich

Bombings in Ankara

Bombings in Baghdad

Beheadings in London

Shootings in Paris

Hostages and shootings in Sydney

Civil War in Syria

Honour killings in Pakistan

Schoolgirls shot in the head in Afghanistan

and on, and on, and on

I don't want to associate Islam with violence, because there are so many incredible things I previously associated with Islam, but I'm afraid that under current circumstances it's what I do lately.

I'll be more than happy for that to change, too. But that will only happen one way.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

"Would you say that radical Islam is the most dangerous strain of radical religious belief in Europe at this moment in time?

"I wouldn't"

Who is?

The far right nativist movement aren't religious as far as I know. Even if you make that comparison, how many people have they killed? We all know these people are scumbags, but I don't think they are even close in the body count in recent times. One writer pointed out that Charlie Hebdo made many scathing and ridiculing attacks on the far right in France but it wasn't neo-Nazi skinheads who burst in with Kalashnikovs.

Yes, we know that historically there have been terrorist groups and historically Christianity has a bloodier history, but let's deal with the here and now.

Which group is committing mass slaughter at the same level as Islamists at the moment in Europe?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Because these acts are being committed in the name of Islam.

Let's unpack this claim, 'cause it's getting repeated a lot here without critical examination.

What makes these acts committed in the "name of Islam"? Please quantify that.

I know it's not a politically correct thing to say,

Pretending people's objections to your claim is anything other than doubting the accuracy of your claim is the sort of Trumpian tactic for misdirection we really should be getting past.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

What makes these acts committed in the "name of Islam"?

Feel free to refute the claim. Knock yourself out.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

JimizoAUG. 01, 2016 - 10:00PM JST We all know these people are scumbags, but I don't think they are even close in the body count in recent times.

Last I checked, the number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks were far higher than the number of casualties from Muslim attacks in Europe. It's not the death toll that makes radical Islamic terrorism scary, it's the combination of its target being unpredicable and our cultural ignorance of the Islamic world making the attacks seem alien.

Yes, we know that historically there have been terrorist groups and historically Christianity has a bloodier history, but let's deal with the here and now.

We can't, that's not an intellectually honest comparison. The west has spent over a century destabilizing the Middle East. Between redrawing national borders so they're convenient for Imperial cartographers, ponying up to brutal regimes who promise oil, and joining international bombing coalitions on the hunt for imaginary WMDs, the west has built the crucible that these radicals are coming out of. What we're seeing is just another turn on the cycle of violence, but a lot of us are only noticing it for the first time because it's the first time we have any chance of getting hit back. Pretending that all the other turns on the wheel "don't count" because they aren't right at this moment isn't going to solve the problem.

TamaramaAUG. 01, 2016 - 10:24PM JST Feel free to refute the claim. Knock yourself out.

The claim doesn't have enough substance to be refutable. What does "In the name of Islam" even mean? You claimed it, so surely you must have some idea of what you wanted to convey. Please clarify.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Religious sectarianism is one of the major obstacles to achieving these virtues in our society.

Amen to that. And the gatekeepers to Mecca just happen to be the biggest hurdle of our age to peace, love and understanding.

I'm encouraged that the French government is considering a ban on foreign financing of mosques (though I'm sure their military industrial complex is alarmed):

Valls said Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, whose portfolio also includes religious affairs, was working on building a "new model" for France's relations with Islam. He added that Salafism, the fundamentalist branch of Islam espoused by many jihadists, “has no place in France”.

The sooner the rest of the world calls a spade a spade and addresses Wahhabism upstream, the better.

We all deserve nothing less.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Katsu

Ok, you won't name the group killing more than Islamists in Europe at this moment in time. Fair enough. Let's leave it at that.

Let's take the most virulent form of Islamism at the moment ( although I'd like to hear you views on Boko Haram - not a middle eastern phenomenon ). One interesting explanation of ISIS is the not unique fusion of fascism and Islam. ISIS is after all a group which calls itself an Islamic State, has the stated aim of creating a superstate based on a particularly brutal imposition of Sharia and as far as I know, is made up entirely of Muslims. It has been suggested that the fascistic component is actually redundant when we are faced with the difficult and sensitive question of is this so different to what the prophet did in his lifetime. These people are looking to revive rather than create a caliphate created in the name of spreading Islam.

I don't see how you can sincerely disentangle this from Islam.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

JimizoAUG. 01, 2016 - 11:05PM JST although I'd like to hear you views on Boko Haram - not a middle eastern phenomenon.

Not a Middle Eastern phenomenon but still arising in a part of the world that suffered heavily from Western imperialism and interference. Now they don't get covered as much in the news so I'll not pretend to be as informed about them, but they seem very much to be a similar theme.

One interesting explanation of ISIS is the not unique fusion of fascism and Islam. ISIS is after all a group which calls itself an Islamic State, has the stated aim of creating a superstate based on a particularly brutal imposition of Sharia and as far as I know, is made up entirely of Muslims.

Right, and the vast majority of Muslims reject it. It's been shown that many of the fighters who join Daesh aren't truly committed to their theology (many are illiterate and have never studied the theology they claim allegiance to), they join up either because not joining up is potentially deadly, and because until recently Daesh were the only stable organization in countries like Iraq after America and her allies overthrew the Baathists.

It has been suggested that the fascistic component is actually redundant when we are faced with the difficult and sensitive question of is this so different to what the prophet did in his lifetime.

All kinds of ignorant things get suggested, let's limit our discussion to facts rather than speculation.

I don't see how you can sincerely disentangle this from Islam.

I'm not disentangling this from Islam. The radicalism you're concerned about clearly corelates with Muslims, at least certain communities of them. What I'm saying is that all this attempt to say that Islam is the cause of the violence is bunk. Islam is just the latest language through which anger and violence are getting expressed. This lie that it's all somehow Islam's fault isn't accurate and it's not useful in combating extremism - it's nothing but a lie we keep repeating to ourselves because it lets us imagine ourselves to be better people than several million other people who have nothing to do with the terrorism we're afraid of. It's a lie we tell ourselves to deny the complex reality of the Muslim world.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Katsu78 & SensenotsoCommon. I recommend you to both prove that compared to other historical founders such as Buddha, and Jesus that Mohammed was just as peaceful as them.

It's not about how the followers of religions act, its about the message and influences of their leaders. Because the founding leaders set a standard for their followers in the past, present, and future. Buddha set a peaceful standard for his followers, Jesus set a peaceful standard for his followers, and Mohammed set a violent oppressive standard for his followers.

Prove it to yourselves that Mohammed was a "peaceful" founder of Islam. I guarantee you will not find any except at the very beginning of his "interpretations".

Violent Christians, and violent Buddhists are not adhering to the core teachings of their founding leaders. Violent Islamists are. One group is denounced for their violent actions, another is glorified and upheld as an exemplary martyr of the faith.

Once again prove that to yourselves... you'll be amazed at just how different as night and day it actually is.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"It's been suggested that the fascistic component is actually redundant when we are faced with the difficult and sensitive question of is this so different to what the prophet did in his lifetime."

"All kinds of ignorant things get suggested, let's limit our discussion to facts rather than speculation."

Ignorant? Why do you say it's ignorant? This is not an unimportant point and one which Muslims generally recoil from ( not surprising as you can face something very menacing for asking certain questions about the prophet ). Mohammad was a conqueror involved in many battles. His conduct in those battles is something which is erm, a bit sensitive.

I remember Sam Harris people made the point that the more you abide by the literature of Jainism, the more pacifist you would become. The same could not be said of the monotheisms. Sensenotsocommon mentioned the influence of Wahhabist ideas. I'm still waiting for a reason why Wahhabism shouldn't be seen as a plausible reading of the perfect word of the creator. Also, who is listening to these Wahhabist ideas? Secular humanists?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

While I agree that the Pope is politically savvy here, I do not think his position is correct.

Islam is linked with violence.

To deny that link, while politically necessary, is what it is.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Pope Francis said on Sunday that it was wrong to identify Islam with violence and that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism.

He can say till Muslims cut his throat.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Pope Francis said on Sunday that it was wrong to identify Islam with violence and that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism. LMFAO so let me see is social injustice and idolatry masturbation the blame for many catholic priest being pedophiles in the catholic church and being protected by the Vatican?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

HonestDictator,

Here's the orthodoxy:

Christians are free to take their divine teachings

which advocates for violence and stoning people for "sin"

with a pinch of salt.

But woe betide anyone who dares to be a Muslim. She must be condemned and profiled for the less savoury contents of her "good book."

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Pope Francis said on Sunday that it was wrong to identify Islam with violence and that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism.

I think that the Pope needs to take a look at the latest magazine published by ISIS itself, telling its followers and the world that those who say such things are wrong about them.

The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled “Break The Cross” and appears to be primarily directed at those that ISIS considers its enemies, particularly Christians. One section is devoted to the words and actions of Pope Francis and is headlined “In The Words Of Our Enemies.” An editorial titled “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” takes aim at Westerners and “apostate ‘Imams’ in the West” who refuse to define ISIS’ motivation as being Islamic. ISIS calls this rhetoric purely political.

Just to show how up to date this magazine is and how much they watch US politics, they show a picture of Khan's grave, the one who's father spoke out against Trump at the DNC and the following controversy, ISIS declares in a caption below Khan’s grave that the soldier is an “apostate” of the Muslim religion and urges other Muslims to “beware” a similar fate.

And yet, if you say that you want to screen so called refugees who are not US citizens and have not Constitutional rights while they are outside the USA, you are called racist. They (ISIS) is not playing by the rules, and it would be better if those who are in the decision making process and influence those who do realize that and stop leading the world to slaughter like a bunch of sheep and do something about this group and call it for what it is.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Last I checked, the number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks were far higher than the number of casualties from Muslim attacks in Europe.

Moving the goalposts. The number of casualties from Islamist attacks in any single year out of the past ten years is far higher than the cumulative number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks for the past hundred years.

What makes these acts committed in the "name of Islam"? Please quantify that.

What part of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" do you not get?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But woe betide anyone who dares to be a Muslim. She must be condemned and profiled for the less savoury contents of her "good book."

@SensenotsoCommon, interesting comment. "She" would most likely be persecuted by more "devout" Islamists and fundamentalists who are adhering strictly to the teachings of their "good book" for some slight or other before I'd ever be found be condemning her. It amazes me how people like you still can't tell the difference between criticism of an religious ideology founded by a violent "prophet" that influences people to do harm, and people that claim to follow that ideology in name only, yet not adhere to it completely and ignore the violent aspects of their "religion".

How it, can you find any examples or documents whatsoever that Buddha or Jesus conquered others with an army of their own, and Mohammed did not use force with his own militia to conquer Mecca and other areas? Even the Ex-Muslims know nobody can do it, even though it's been tried which is why they challenge nay-sayers and apologists with it every single time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

HonestDictator, EXACTLY.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The number of casualties from Islamist attacks in any single year out of the past ten years is far higher than the cumulative number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks for the past hundred years.

Why let the truth weaken an argument?

The IRA killed in excess of 1,700 people since 1970. ETA killed over 800.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/#append https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_conflict#Casualties

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

9/11 beat those numbers in one fell swoop.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ignorant? Why do you say it's ignorant? This is not an unimportant point and one which Muslims generally recoil from ( not surprising as you can face something very menacing for asking certain questions about the prophet ). Mohammad was a conqueror involved in many battles. His conduct in those battles is something which is erm, a bit sensitive.

It's ignorant because anyone with even a passing familiarity with world religions knows that the character and behavior of the people who founded a religion or influenced its early history have almost no influence on its modern interpretation - that always comes down to what's in the headspace of its followers. Christ was radically egalitarian, caring for the sick, the people despised by society, railing against wealth and greed. Look at modern American Christianity - exactly what influence does he exert? Americans created a whole new branch of Christianity called Prosperity Theology just so their church could preach the opposite of His message. Buddha called the world an illusion and called desire the root of all suffering. Fast-forward a couple thousand years and one country heavily influenced by Buddha's religion, Japan, is the 3rd largest economy in the world driven almost entirely by its consumerist culture. Jewish leaders in the Old Testament were so militaristic that some researchers think that Yahweh was a national god of war before the concept of monotheism truly took hold in the Hebrew community - they were conquering neighbors and committing genocides all over the place. And yet outside of right-wing thought in the nation of Israel we rarely associate Jews with militarism today. The behavior of early leaders clearly has little to no influence on modern interpretations of the religion, but modern Islamophobes still like to use it to discredit all of Islam, even when only a tiny portion of the Muslim community are involved in terrorism.

Sensenotsocommon mentioned the influence of Wahhabist ideas. I'm still waiting for a reason why Wahhabism shouldn't be seen as a plausible reading of the perfect word of the creator. Also, who is listening to these Wahhabist ideas? Secular humanists?

It's illogical to attach the beliefs or behavior of one subset of Islam to Islam as a whole. By definition, Wahabism doesn't represent the majority.

NessieAUG. 02, 2016 - 08:31AM JST What part of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" do you not get?

The part where you look at a name (in English no less!) consisting of 7 words, and think that the most weight should be put on not the only noun on which the rest of the phrase is dependent ("state"), but rather you think we should ignore the other 6 and just focus on "Islamic" as the only meaningful part of it.

Because if these terrorists are making attacks in the name of ISIS, it means they're making attacks in the name of a political group, not a religion. That distinction matters. Hardly anyone will doubt the claim that ISIS are terrible - most of the Muslim world even agrees with you. But for uninformed westerners who don't know much about Islam and who don't speak Arabic, it's hard to tell the millions of perfectly normal, harmless Muslims from the few, deadly ISIS fighters. So people have to invent rhetorical tricks to pretend that those millions of perfectly normal, harmless Muslims are all secretly tainted with guilt for ISIS.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Katsu The strange case of the Christian Right in the US is an example of cherry-picking. The stuff about giving all you have to the poor, taking no thought for tomorrow and turning the other cheek are conveniently forgotten. They are often called hypocrites for doing so.

It can be argued that ideas of Wahhabism cannot be called hypocrisy to anything like the same level. What some people call fundamentalism is another person's honesty and lack of hypocrisy. The Koran and the Hadiths are far from pacifist manifestos. Add on the idea that the Koran is regarded as the perfect word of the creator for mainstream Muslims and you have a real problem. Even the most cracked evangelicals in the US are not burning witches or executing homosexuals or heretics nowadays. That can't be said for some Muslim majority countries.

Overall, I'll take the hypocrites over the honest types in this case.

My point about who is listening to preachers spouting the Wahhabist hatred and intolerance is a pretty simple one. Who is listening to and being influenced by this filth? All Muslims? No. Most Muslims? No. Are all people who are influenced by this intolerant barbarism Muslims? I'd venture to say yes. I'm not sure if you've seen the results of some polls in the UK on the beliefs held by UK Muslims, but some of the results are terrifying in a 21st century European democracy. I really respect the Muslims in the UK who call this out and see the problem rather than cry Islamophobia. I recommend a reading of some of the work of the journalist Mehdi Hasan, a devout Muslim who when commenting on rampant anti-Semitism in the Muslim community including holicaust denial, wrote that that the Muslim community needs to get its own house in order before throwing the word phobia around. A very good point from a man who can't be called an Islamophobe.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

9/11 beat those numbers in one fell swoop.

True, if rather disrespectfully put.

9/11 was 15 years ago, though.

And if the whole world is in scope, Iraq easily trumps 9/11. Or had everybody forgotten?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

JimizoAUG. 02, 2016 - 11:22AM JST My point about who is listening to preachers spouting the Wahhabist hatred and intolerance is a pretty simple one. Who is listening to and being influenced by this filth? All Muslims? No. Most Muslims? No. Are all people who are influenced by this intolerant barbarism Muslims? I'd venture to say yes.

Well then you've pretty conclusively made my point for me. It's obviously not Islam that is causing this violence, as there exists a huge community of Muslims who reject the violence. Like I said earlier, it's correlation, not causation.

Why do they correlate? I'd say the biggest factor is not something inherent to Islam itself, but rather the fact that for about the last 60 years or so, western powers have supported dictatorial tyrants in the Middle East, under whose regimes Islam was the only way to express people's anger over the system they were forced to live under. These dictators kept a lid on extremism by brutally suppressing anyone who challenged them, but it didn't stop the cause of anger- it only created more pressure. When the US and her allies moved through and toppled many of these dictatorial regimes without establishing real, stable societal structures into place, anger which for decades could only be expressed through Islam exploded.

When westerners fail to see the this issue with complexity, we legitimize the demagogues currently claiming power through their interpretation of Islam. It feels good to look down on Islam from a smug position of self-righteousness, but if we want to actually get the problem solved, step 1 is recognizing that Islam is not the cause of the problem. It's just window-dressing.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Katsu, oh here we go blaming "the west" - that old standby of islamic apologists.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Katsu

I've never claimed Islam is the sole factor in this issue. Check my previous posts on this thread and other posts. I'm claiming that the terrorism we see has many factors and Islam is one of them. The disgraceful behavior of the west in the Middle East is undoubtedly a factor and so is the doctrine of Islam which so easily legitimizes this kind of barbarity by reference to its holy scriptures. The failure of people to recognize this makes these people part of the problem. ISIS is a movement which is inseparable from Islam and nobody here yet has given a convincing argument, or actually any argument at all, that the actions of ISIS are against the ideas of the founder of the religion. You understandably sidestepped this question.

Why could these anger only be expressed through Islam? This is a very strange statement. Why did it have to be Islam? It seems strange that the religion of peace was a vehicle to legitimize such violence.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OutriderAUG. 02, 2016 - 12:41PM JST Katsu, oh here we go blaming "the west" - that old standby of islamic apologists.

I knew as I wrote that comment someone was going to latch onto it, misunderstanding it as a statement of blame and not of complexity. The fact is, when dealing with complex intercultural conflicts, the issue of blame, either of assigning it or avoiding it, is a childish and simplistic irrelevancy. We bring up the west's involvement in the Middle East not to say the west is "to blame", but to show that people fighting now have more complex motivations than their religion. You should ask yourself what exactly it is you're trying to get out of the conversation if all you're concerned with is silencing any suggestion that the conflict was two-way and dismissing everyone who says truths you're uncomfortable with as an apologist. Rhetorical games like that aren't how you solve problems, and if you're not interested in solving the problem what's your cause for injecting yourself into the discussion?

JimizoAUG. 02, 2016 - 01:07PM JST ISIS is a movement which is inseparable from Islam and nobody here yet has given a convincing argument, or actually any argument at all, that the actions of ISIS are against the ideas of the founder of the religion.

It's not my job to answer irrelevant questions. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject ISIS should tell you all you need to know about the validity of your question.

Why could these anger only be expressed through Islam? This is a very strange statement. Why did it have to be Islam?

Because any other ideological vehicle through which anger was expressed was brutally silenced (usually fatally silenced) by the tyrants of the region. Anger voiced through democracy? Dead. Anger voiced through capitalism? Dead. Anger voiced through Christianity or Yazdânism? Really, really dead. Anger voiced through appeals to secular human rights? Dead. But anger voiced through Islam? That's a little safer. Dictators like Saddam Hussein could exploit their power to support for example Sunni minorities over Shias, but to do anything that smacked of opposing Islam as a whole would basically turn their entire country against them. So as long as Muslims in these dictatorships voiced their anger through Islam but never criticized their leaders directly, it was generally a safe vehicle.

Now after 60 years of this western meddling you have a population that very well-practiced at voicing their anger through Islam, which makes them able to be easily manipulated by demagogues who interpret Islam in a way that targets their anger at the west. This is not unique to Islam, literally every religion and philosophical belief can go through the same perversion if subjected to the same historical pressures. What we're seeing is not a problem with Islam, but a problem with how Islam is interpreted today, which is not itself a problem inherent to Islam, but a problem with how the forces of history have shaped how people today think.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Just how many Islamist attacks will it take for it to sink in? Probably won't sink in until it's too late and the apologists find themselves in the minority and victim's of extremist views. Merkel's blunder has taught these folks nothing. They're blindly pacifist to the point of complete naivete. That's all right, give another 10 years and see how things turn out.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why let the truth weaken an argument? The IRA killed in excess of 1,700 people since 1970. ETA killed over 800.

Okay, so 2,500 IRA/Basque terrorist deaths. (I think your IRA figure is a low estimate, by the way.) I see you left out the comparison data for deaths per year from Islamist terrorism, which was my argument. I'll fill you in.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/11/blogs/graphic-detail/20151121_woc557_0.png

So I stand by my claim: The number of casualties from Islamist attacks in any single year out of the past ten years is far higher than the cumulative number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks for the past hundred years.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Sensenotsocommon, Katsu78 one of the apostates of Islam has allowed a free download of his books. Might help you get a better perspective as to what many of them have been saying for decades before 9/11 all the way until the present.

Free PDF.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/understanding-muhammad-free-download/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Last I checked, the number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks were far higher than the number of casualties from Muslim attacks in Europe.

Counter assertion:

Moving the goalposts. The number of casualties from Islamist attacks in any single year out of the past ten years is far higher than the cumulative number of casualties from IRA/Basque attacks for the past hundred years.

Okay, so 2,500 IRA/Basque terrorist deaths. (I think your IRA figure is a low estimate, by the way.)

The link provided is the universally accepted academic research, but why trust the experts, eh?

I see you left out the comparison data for deaths per year from Islamist terrorism, which was my argument. I'll fill you in (dead link).

There have NOT been 2,500 deaths in any year in Europe at the hands of jihadists. Nowhere near.

Let your colleagues - old and new - down vote this all they want. The truth will not go away.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

There have NOT been 2,500 deaths in any year in Europe at the hands of jihadists. Nowhere near.

What's your rationale for limiting to Europe? Are non-European terrorist casualties somehow less important? The topic is Islamist violence. There's no reason to limit it to Europe, especially when the most common victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Nessie,

I didn't decide the scope, nor did you. It was explicit in katsu78AUG. 01, 2016 - 10:28PM JST, to which you replied with your assertion.

It's a nonsense to compare a global phenomenon to two relatively small separatist conflicts in Western Europe.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Jimizo, Honest Dictator, Nessie and others, Excellent posts. For sure, I also dont know how many islamic atrocities it will take before the dreamers wake up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's a nonsense to compare a global phenomenon to two relatively small separatist conflicts in Western Europe.

What comparison would you consider valid? Comparing IRA/Basque victims in Europe to Islamist victims in Europe is clearly apples and oranges.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What comparison would you consider valid? Comparing IRA/Basque victims in Europe to Islamist victims in Europe is clearly apples and oranges.

The scope was identified, Nessie. I wasn't the one barking up the wrong tree.

Comparing IRA/Basque victims in Europe to Islamist victims worldwide is apples and duck-billed platypus: of no relevance or utility whatsoever.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Still waiting to hear what comparison you would consider valid, Sense.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Still waiting to hear what comparison you would consider valid, Sense.

How about you surprising us, Nessie.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How about you surprising us, Nessie.

Well, there are a few ways of parsing the data. One is to look at Islamist terrorists as a share of all terrorists. In the US, at least, Islamist violence is under-represented as a share of overall terrorist violence. This is for several reasons, the main one being that Muslims make up only a tiny fraction of Americans. In Europe, I'm not sure if the above holds true. So in the U.S., you shouldn't be particularly concerned about being a victim of Islamist violence. But worldwide, a disproportionate amount of terrorism is Islamist terrorism, particularly in the past decade. And unfortunately, Muslims are the ones who bear the brunt of Islamist terrorism, which is why I'm in favor of freedom of conscience in combination with strict secularism everywhere. Sorry, Church of England: Out you go.

The other way of parsing the data is to look at the incidence of terrorism among Muslims versus the incidence of terrorism among non-Muslims. In the U.S., the incidence of terrorism among Muslims is higher than among non-Muslims. So if you're thinking about immigration, there's a legitimate concern that Muslim immigrants will be more likely to perpetrate terrorism than non-Muslims will. In my personal opinion, the difference is not enough to warrant banning Muslim immigration as right-wingers want, but the concern is still legitimate.

If we're talking about global Islamist violence, which is what the Pope is talking about, the metric would be pretty simple: What share of terrorist incidents are Islamist terrorism? I think it's pretty high, since the Islamosphere, particularly the Middle East, is still sorting out the power vacuum from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Islam is particularly resistant to secularism, so I think things will get worse before they get better.

How'd I do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites