7 ms·

Terrorism is not the sole property of Muslims. There is terrorism motivated by religion, including Islamic terrorism, but also Christian (the Ku Klux Klan, peop

Terrorism is not the sole property of Muslims. There is terrorism motivated by religion, including Islamic terrorism, but also Christian (the Ku Klux Klan, people blowing up abortion clinics in the US), Hindu (Indian Hindutva nationalists killing Muslims), Jewish (attacks by fundamentalists on Arabs in modern-day Israel), Sikh (the assassination of Indira Gandhi), and so on. Or you have non-religious terrorism such as the nationalism of Anders Behring Breivik, or eco-terrorism. The reason for terrorism is extremism in all its forms, not Islam.

jacquesm 11y ago
Best comment on this subject so far, thank you.
tomohawk 11y ago
I think you have to be careful when attributing violent action to a religion. Religions are often used to provide a sheen of respectability to otherwise disreputable organizations, such as the KKK. How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. Would the founder perform the action? Did the founder use violence and coercion to achieve goals? Did the founder encourage their followers to do such things? If not, then it is likely that the claim is not valid. If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it. If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
  - manmal 11y ago
    That quote seems to be taken out of context: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html
    - acqq 11y ago
      It's surely not out of context, Jesus believed that "the (apocalyptic) end is near" (Matthew 16:28) and he's the "Son of man" who brings it. Matthew 16:28: (Jesus speaking:) "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." At medieval times, people couldn't believe that Jesus could have told something that didn't happen, so they invented the legend that one of those present there still lives.
      - muraiki 11y ago
        What you offer is the worldly perspective of Christ as a failed messiah. But Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples saw Christ come in His Kingdom when they witnessed the Resurrection. They saw the end -- that of the end of death and hades' dominion over humanity. They saw the ushering in of a new age: but not in the guise of a worldly conqueror, of a Rome-overthrowing messiah, but that of the conquering of death by humble love. Christ Himself demonstrates dying not only for those who love him but indeed for those who hate him. Now you may of course feel free to disagree with this interpretation. But I think I have presented an understanding amenable to Orthodox Christian theology, which represents not an insignificant amount of people (200-300 million). I'm not trying to appeal to numbers, but rather my point is that when we are seeking to understand religious interpretations, we should be careful to not speak in absolutes such as "it's surely not out of context."
  - ryanmarsh 11y ago
    Wow. Way to take a poorly translated sentence out of context. Grab a concordance and cross reference that passage.
  - hackuser 11y ago
- DanBC 11y ago
  > there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends Please explain the harrowing of hell. My local cathedral has stained glass (14th century) of Christ in full armour, with big sword, going to hell to release the righteous (but not the damned), conquering hell in the proces. http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-04/feature/ http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-04/feature/ (Possibly not quite hell, but the bit before that.) There is a long tradition of Christians using their bible to justify violence. There's plenty of violence in the bible. But, when pointed out, Christians start saying that those bits don't count, or those bits have been misinterpreted, or that you need to read that other bit as well. I have you saying that the quran is violent, and I have hundreds of millions of muslims telling me that it's a book of peace.
  - tomohawk 11y ago
    There is a long history of charletans, politicians, criminals, and other unsavory characters using one religion or another as a pretext for their actions. That doesnt' mean that their actions had anything to do with those religions. You have to exercise a little more discernment to dig into what they're saying and what the religion actually advocates to come to a conclusion. In the case of Christianity, I think it is telling that at the time the founder was teaching, there was a dictator in Rome who claimed to be god and who was heavily suppressing the ethnic group (Jews) that the founder belonged to. Did this man advocate any sort of political or violent acts to remedy the situation? No. I don't think it really matters what the opinion is of a lot of people when we can merely look at recorded history and see what the founder of Islam did.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      As I pointed out above, this is silliness and nonsense. How does the "founder" affect what a particular individual does today? Should an indivdual be judged as a person, or be guilty or innocent, or have their rights taken away, based on what a book says a religious leader did 1300 years ago? If Jesus was so peaceful and the founder is so influential, how do you explain all the evil acts of Christians? The founder of all three religions, Abraham, impressed God by being willing to perform human sacrifice of his own son! I hope I'm not judged by that. Or if you only count Abraham as the founder of Judaism, should all Jews be expected to perform human sacrifice?
- acqq 11y ago
  Some reading. Wikipedia: "Along with the Quran (the holy book of Islam), the Sunna makes up the two primary sources of Islamic theology and law.[1][3] The Sunna is also defined as "a path, a way, a manner of life"; "all the traditions and practices" of the Islamic prophet that "have become models to be followed" by Muslims." An example, on sunnahonline.com: "The Story of the 600-700 Jews Beheaded by the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam at Banu Qurayzah in 5H" http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-of-the-prisoners-of-the-battle-of-badr-the http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-o...
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Please be very careful making implications about anyone's religion, or implying anything about a large group of individuals based on religion. First, it's not significant. Every scripture has brutal violence, including the Old and New Testaments. Second, assuming all these individuals (or any of them) follow some ancient scripture to the letter is absurd. Do you do that? Do you know anyone who does? Even the most religious pick and choose.
    - acqq 11y ago
      I'm not implying anything, I'm just providing the link to what actually is in the Sunna (the deeds of Mohammad) and the religious significance of Sunna. If there's anything I stated that is not true or that is an invalid conclusion please specify.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        > I'm not implying anything Nobody is fooled by this denial. If you mean nothing at all, then why post at all? To mention random facts? Why post that? How about something from the other hundreds of pages of the Quran? 1001 Arabian Nights? The price of eggs in Cairo?
        acqq 11y ago
        They aren't random facts. They are the facts that nobody should pretend that they don't exist. Somebody who doesn't know them would believe that the practices of beheadings in the countries which practice Sharia law and by the ISIS fighters are something done "randomly" whereas they in fact practice according to their beliefs and the religious texts they consider "unchangeable" and the words of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_executions_in_Saudi_Arabia#Beheading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_executions_in_Saudi_Ara... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islam
- mercurial 11y ago
  > If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it. > If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder. Who gives a damn? Most religions are full of contradictions, you pick the bits you like the most. "Non-violent" Christianity was behind major milestones of human progress such as the Crusades, the repression of the Cathars and Albigeois "heresies" (who do you think came up with "let God sort them out"?), the Spanish Inquisition...
  - tomohawk 11y ago
    If you miss-attribute the source a problem, how do you solve it? I've stated that the historical record of the founder of Christianity does not provide cover for those who seek to commit violence or use coercion. Do you have evidence that it does? If not, then the cited atrocities are best attributable to other causes.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      Well, the founder of Christianity didn't disown the God-sanctioned/God-committed mass killings and ethnic cleansings of the First Testament. In addition, the Catholic Church built a solid theological work on the notion of "just war". A religion is largely a matter of interpretation. What matters is not so much the original material as what people make of it.
      - nightspirit 11y ago
        Well, the Catholic Church for centuries was a serious part of European political machinery and our politics weren't always peaceful. One could argue that nowadays some religions play similar role, btw.
        jacquesm 11y ago
- hackuser 11y ago
  > How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. This is absurd and ignorant reasoning. I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. Every religious scripture has extreme (by today's standards) violence in it, including the New Testament. And Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the same founder: Abraham, and the founding act was his extremist obedience to God, when he attempted to perform the human sacrifice of his own son. I encourage you to read those three scriptures (the Old Testament is long, so at least the first 5 books there, which make up the Torah); it dispells a lot of ignorant rumors that go around. (Based on what I've read about, and the little I've read of the Quran, the Old and New Testaments are regularly cited, and Moses and Jesus are considered prophets.)
  - acqq 11y ago
    > Based on what I've read about Read the Quran directly, don't just read "about" it: http://quran.com/9 http://quran.com/9 9:30 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" The 9th Surah is considered one of the latest, therefore, by some, the one of precedence over the others (according to the practice of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29), do read at least that one.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      Please see my comment above, which addresses what you say. Cherry picking something bad from the history of Islam as evidence of the whole religion is just an attempt to rationalize hate. It's silly. On that basis, we can condemn everyone and everything. To people reading this and who haven't read the Quran, I strongly encourage you buy a copy and dispell a lot of ignorant nonsense you hear. If you haven't, be sure to read some other scrpture too (e.g., the Torah, the New Testament) for context - otherwise the brutality of ancient societies can be taken out of context. (Remember we were still executing witches; hanging, drawing and quartering; etc. just a few centuries ago (not to mention things like Abu Ghraib and CIA torture recently.)) EDIT: For those looking for a good translation, I did some research into that and recommend Arthur Arberry's. It's probably the most respected among non-sectarian scholars, and Arberry was the head of the Department of Classics at Cairo University and a professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Many other translations push one sectarian view or another. In the U.S. you might need to order a used copy of Arberry or from Oxford University Press directly, but it's widely available.
eevilspock 11y ago
Yes, how soon my white brothers forget about the KKK. Or what was done in the name of Christianity for centuries in Europe, the Middle East, and the newly found New World. Colonialism and slavery were a violence far worse than the terrorism we experience today, not just in scope and numbers who suffered, but because these were state sanctioned and supported by the public (on the benefiting side, of course).
- noobermin 11y ago
  Not to mention that there was Christian justification of slavery, even while the story of Moses inspired blacks to dream of freedom.
Mikeb85 11y ago
No terrorism is not the sole property of Muslims, but Wahhabi extremism has a far reach, and is responsible for a large portion of the problems in the world today. Terrorism and insurrections in China, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Thailand, Mali, Nigeria, the Maghreb, Syria, Turkey, the Balkans, Russia, India, etc... can all be traced to Gulf money and Wahhabism. There's a Gulf sponsored Madrassa in my wife's village (population, maybe 1000) in the middle of nowhere, in a country that most people have never even heard of. So while I'm aware that terrorism is not the sole domain of Muslims, the Wahhabi sect in particular has certainly caused a lot of it, and while we can debate no true Scotsman until the end of time, everyone knows there is a problem - and we all know where it comes from.
sebastos 11y ago
Cancer is not the sole property of people who smoke. There is cancer induced by acute radiation, sunburn, diet, and so on. The reason for cancer is all things that cause abnormal cell growth, not smoking. Ergo, talking about how we can make smoking safer, or convincing people that smoking isn't so great in the first place - is worthless. Right?

jacquesm 11y ago

Best comment on this subject so far, thank you.

tomohawk 11y ago

I think you have to be careful when attributing violent action to a religion. Religions are often used to provide a sheen of respectability to otherwise disreputable organizations, such as the KKK. How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. Would the founder perform the action? Did the founder use violence and coercion to achieve goals? Did the founder encourage their followers to do such things? If not, then it is likely that the claim is not valid. If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it. If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.

Kristine1975 11y ago
Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
- manmal 11y ago
  That quote seems to be taken out of context: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html
  - acqq 11y ago
    It's surely not out of context, Jesus believed that "the (apocalyptic) end is near" (Matthew 16:28) and he's the "Son of man" who brings it. Matthew 16:28: (Jesus speaking:) "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." At medieval times, people couldn't believe that Jesus could have told something that didn't happen, so they invented the legend that one of those present there still lives.
    - muraiki 11y ago
      What you offer is the worldly perspective of Christ as a failed messiah. But Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples saw Christ come in His Kingdom when they witnessed the Resurrection. They saw the end -- that of the end of death and hades' dominion over humanity. They saw the ushering in of a new age: but not in the guise of a worldly conqueror, of a Rome-overthrowing messiah, but that of the conquering of death by humble love. Christ Himself demonstrates dying not only for those who love him but indeed for those who hate him. Now you may of course feel free to disagree with this interpretation. But I think I have presented an understanding amenable to Orthodox Christian theology, which represents not an insignificant amount of people (200-300 million). I'm not trying to appeal to numbers, but rather my point is that when we are seeking to understand religious interpretations, we should be careful to not speak in absolutes such as "it's surely not out of context."
- ryanmarsh 11y ago
  Wow. Way to take a poorly translated sentence out of context. Grab a concordance and cross reference that passage.
- hackuser 11y ago
DanBC 11y ago
> there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends Please explain the harrowing of hell. My local cathedral has stained glass (14th century) of Christ in full armour, with big sword, going to hell to release the righteous (but not the damned), conquering hell in the proces. http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-04/feature/ http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-04/feature/ (Possibly not quite hell, but the bit before that.) There is a long tradition of Christians using their bible to justify violence. There's plenty of violence in the bible. But, when pointed out, Christians start saying that those bits don't count, or those bits have been misinterpreted, or that you need to read that other bit as well. I have you saying that the quran is violent, and I have hundreds of millions of muslims telling me that it's a book of peace.
- tomohawk 11y ago
  There is a long history of charletans, politicians, criminals, and other unsavory characters using one religion or another as a pretext for their actions. That doesnt' mean that their actions had anything to do with those religions. You have to exercise a little more discernment to dig into what they're saying and what the religion actually advocates to come to a conclusion. In the case of Christianity, I think it is telling that at the time the founder was teaching, there was a dictator in Rome who claimed to be god and who was heavily suppressing the ethnic group (Jews) that the founder belonged to. Did this man advocate any sort of political or violent acts to remedy the situation? No. I don't think it really matters what the opinion is of a lot of people when we can merely look at recorded history and see what the founder of Islam did.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    As I pointed out above, this is silliness and nonsense. How does the "founder" affect what a particular individual does today? Should an indivdual be judged as a person, or be guilty or innocent, or have their rights taken away, based on what a book says a religious leader did 1300 years ago? If Jesus was so peaceful and the founder is so influential, how do you explain all the evil acts of Christians? The founder of all three religions, Abraham, impressed God by being willing to perform human sacrifice of his own son! I hope I'm not judged by that. Or if you only count Abraham as the founder of Judaism, should all Jews be expected to perform human sacrifice?
acqq 11y ago
Some reading. Wikipedia: "Along with the Quran (the holy book of Islam), the Sunna makes up the two primary sources of Islamic theology and law.[1][3] The Sunna is also defined as "a path, a way, a manner of life"; "all the traditions and practices" of the Islamic prophet that "have become models to be followed" by Muslims." An example, on sunnahonline.com: "The Story of the 600-700 Jews Beheaded by the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam at Banu Qurayzah in 5H" http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-of-the-prisoners-of-the-battle-of-badr-the http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-o...
- hackuser 11y ago
  Please be very careful making implications about anyone's religion, or implying anything about a large group of individuals based on religion. First, it's not significant. Every scripture has brutal violence, including the Old and New Testaments. Second, assuming all these individuals (or any of them) follow some ancient scripture to the letter is absurd. Do you do that? Do you know anyone who does? Even the most religious pick and choose.
  - acqq 11y ago
    I'm not implying anything, I'm just providing the link to what actually is in the Sunna (the deeds of Mohammad) and the religious significance of Sunna. If there's anything I stated that is not true or that is an invalid conclusion please specify.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > I'm not implying anything Nobody is fooled by this denial. If you mean nothing at all, then why post at all? To mention random facts? Why post that? How about something from the other hundreds of pages of the Quran? 1001 Arabian Nights? The price of eggs in Cairo?
      - acqq 11y ago
        They aren't random facts. They are the facts that nobody should pretend that they don't exist. Somebody who doesn't know them would believe that the practices of beheadings in the countries which practice Sharia law and by the ISIS fighters are something done "randomly" whereas they in fact practice according to their beliefs and the religious texts they consider "unchangeable" and the words of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_executions_in_Saudi_Arabia#Beheading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_executions_in_Saudi_Ara... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islam
mercurial 11y ago
> If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it. > If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder. Who gives a damn? Most religions are full of contradictions, you pick the bits you like the most. "Non-violent" Christianity was behind major milestones of human progress such as the Crusades, the repression of the Cathars and Albigeois "heresies" (who do you think came up with "let God sort them out"?), the Spanish Inquisition...
- tomohawk 11y ago
  If you miss-attribute the source a problem, how do you solve it? I've stated that the historical record of the founder of Christianity does not provide cover for those who seek to commit violence or use coercion. Do you have evidence that it does? If not, then the cited atrocities are best attributable to other causes.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Well, the founder of Christianity didn't disown the God-sanctioned/God-committed mass killings and ethnic cleansings of the First Testament. In addition, the Catholic Church built a solid theological work on the notion of "just war". A religion is largely a matter of interpretation. What matters is not so much the original material as what people make of it.
    - nightspirit 11y ago
      Well, the Catholic Church for centuries was a serious part of European political machinery and our politics weren't always peaceful. One could argue that nowadays some religions play similar role, btw.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
hackuser 11y ago
> How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. This is absurd and ignorant reasoning. I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. Every religious scripture has extreme (by today's standards) violence in it, including the New Testament. And Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the same founder: Abraham, and the founding act was his extremist obedience to God, when he attempted to perform the human sacrifice of his own son. I encourage you to read those three scriptures (the Old Testament is long, so at least the first 5 books there, which make up the Torah); it dispells a lot of ignorant rumors that go around. (Based on what I've read about, and the little I've read of the Quran, the Old and New Testaments are regularly cited, and Moses and Jesus are considered prophets.)
- acqq 11y ago
  > Based on what I've read about Read the Quran directly, don't just read "about" it: http://quran.com/9 http://quran.com/9 9:30 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" The 9th Surah is considered one of the latest, therefore, by some, the one of precedence over the others (according to the practice of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29), do read at least that one.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Please see my comment above, which addresses what you say. Cherry picking something bad from the history of Islam as evidence of the whole religion is just an attempt to rationalize hate. It's silly. On that basis, we can condemn everyone and everything. To people reading this and who haven't read the Quran, I strongly encourage you buy a copy and dispell a lot of ignorant nonsense you hear. If you haven't, be sure to read some other scrpture too (e.g., the Torah, the New Testament) for context - otherwise the brutality of ancient societies can be taken out of context. (Remember we were still executing witches; hanging, drawing and quartering; etc. just a few centuries ago (not to mention things like Abu Ghraib and CIA torture recently.)) EDIT: For those looking for a good translation, I did some research into that and recommend Arthur Arberry's. It's probably the most respected among non-sectarian scholars, and Arberry was the head of the Department of Classics at Cairo University and a professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Many other translations push one sectarian view or another. In the U.S. you might need to order a used copy of Arberry or from Oxford University Press directly, but it's widely available.

eevilspock 11y ago

Yes, how soon my white brothers forget about the KKK. Or what was done in the name of Christianity for centuries in Europe, the Middle East, and the newly found New World. Colonialism and slavery were a violence far worse than the terrorism we experience today, not just in scope and numbers who suffered, but because these were state sanctioned and supported by the public (on the benefiting side, of course).

noobermin 11y ago
Not to mention that there was Christian justification of slavery, even while the story of Moses inspired blacks to dream of freedom.

Mikeb85 11y ago

No terrorism is not the sole property of Muslims, but Wahhabi extremism has a far reach, and is responsible for a large portion of the problems in the world today. Terrorism and insurrections in China, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Thailand, Mali, Nigeria, the Maghreb, Syria, Turkey, the Balkans, Russia, India, etc... can all be traced to Gulf money and Wahhabism. There's a Gulf sponsored Madrassa in my wife's village (population, maybe 1000) in the middle of nowhere, in a country that most people have never even heard of. So while I'm aware that terrorism is not the sole domain of Muslims, the Wahhabi sect in particular has certainly caused a lot of it, and while we can debate no true Scotsman until the end of time, everyone knows there is a problem - and we all know where it comes from.

sebastos 11y ago

Cancer is not the sole property of people who smoke. There is cancer induced by acute radiation, sunburn, diet, and so on. The reason for cancer is all things that cause abnormal cell growth, not smoking. Ergo, talking about how we can make smoking safer, or convincing people that smoking isn't so great in the first place - is worthless. Right?