There are no Muslim terrorists
I spent 12 solid hours yesterday editing comments as they poured in to thisisplymouth. Wading through so much filth can really wind you up.
In the end to distract me from the barrage of extreme racism I had to resort to extreme measures of my own - origami.
OK, it may seem fairly trivial, but believe me it's hard to think about just how evil some people's minds are when your trying to carry out a tricky reverse inside mountain fold along a line you won't even make for three more steps.
And the end result? Well, people are still racist, but at least I have a small green paper rabbit to look at.
At least 20 per cent of the comments that came in yesterday had to be taken down, and of course those making the comments have no idea why and get very indignant about it. The real curse of racism is that the people holding racist beliefs honestly feel them to be reasonable.
Of course some comments are worse that others. Those comments ordering we immediately round up all foreigners and execute them are rare, while those saying our country has been diluted by people intent on harming us are more common, and the most common are those saying 'send them all home' and 'Enoch Powell warned us this would happen'.
The real problem does come down to a lack of integration, this ghettoisation which is more prevalent in a city like Plymouth where the communities of people from minority ethnic backgrounds are smaller.
How many people in Plymouth spend a significant amount of time with Muslims? Very few. So of course there is misunderstanding, fear and hate. If you don't spend time with Muslim people your only view of Islam is what you have been told by people who can never understand it or, worse, may want to give you the wrong impression.
Many of the comments taken down imply or outright state that Islam is an aggressive faith, bent of world domination, that violence to infidels is at the core of the credo.
The truth is the exact opposite. There are no Muslim terrorists. No-one who commits acts like 9-11 or July 7 can call themself a Muslim. No-one who would use a lonely and broken individual to commit acts of terror is a Muslim. They are not considered Muslims by anyone inside or outside that faith.
I freely admit that I myself have spent little time with Muslims. I grew up and spent 18 years in Leicester, but my friends were Sikhs and Hindus. Same again when I spent four years in Peterborough and again when I spent three years at college.
I grew up counting Rashpal, Gurpreet, Mayur and Akash as my friends. While the Mooken brothers made my life hell in the playground.
I ate in the temple with Rashpal's family, enjoyed the sweets Gurpreet's mum made. But I have never spent significant time with anyone from a Muslim background. (Unless you count the Muslim guy called Innocent my cousin briefly dated, who my dad accidentally fed pork - we didn't see him much after that)
But because I grew up and have spent a lot of time in a fully integrated city I find it 'more difficult' to think in a racist manner - it just doesn't come naturally.
All those saying we sould send the Muslims home, the only answer is the opposite, invite all people into our homes.
The objective or terrorism isn't to blow things up, it is to instill terror. If your reaction to these attacks is fear and hate, the terrorists have won.
11 comments:
Nicely written blog, some great points. By the way I think I have interfered wih the RSS feed on my blog. Tried to install a feedburner feed (unsuccesfully)and have probably overwritten the RSS feed, Whoops!
Sam x
It isnt racist to be concerned about muslims trying to blow you up, while you and the Herald do everything in their censoring power to make people look like they are racist.
Instead of demonising people with genuine concerns, try seeing the problem from BOTH sides and not just from the side of your new muslim friends
Seems you and your newspaper cant take criticism. I refer to the lovely Grace and her blog.
Your are supposed to be outlet for different views, but all you do is censor views that disagree with your own. You shouldnt be in journalism, you are pathetic
Thanks for the comment, however you won't be surprised to hear I disagree.
There is a difference between opinion and abuse. The Herald is eager to encourage everyone to voice their opinion, but will not be a mouthpiece for anyone's abuse.
I could not disagree with you more. Firstly, this issue is not about race, although I don’t doubt that some of the comments removed from the site were racist. By viewing the issue as comparable to immigration I can see how you might come to the conclusion that we need more understanding and integration.
People who feel marginalised or misunderstood do not blow themselves up attempting to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, they do not film themselves beheading other human beings and release the footage on the Internet, and they do not hijack planes and fly them into buildings full of people they have never met.
If your call is for a greater understanding of each other, I suggest you take your own advice and listen to what has been said by these people – not just the bombers in their suicide notes but the Islamist imams, thinkers and leaders too. To say that there are no Muslim terrorists or that bombers are “not considered Muslims by anyone inside or outside that faith” is demonstrably untrue and is to bury your head in the sand.
It seems to me you are working on the underlying assumption that all religions are inherently good, or at least harmless, and that to do anything harmful automatically prevents you from acting in the name of any religion. If not, well then who are you to decide who is Muslim and who is not? If people commit terrible acts in the name of a religion, why shouldn’t we take their word for it?
If, hypothetically, there really was a religion whose central principles encouraged violence towards non-believers and pursuit of world domination, perhaps you could explain how you would identify it and what you would say to those who blamed atrocities done in its name on lack of integration or understanding? Then could you explain how those criteria differ from what we are experiencing now.
If, hypothetically, there were a religion which preached violence towards non-believers and a quest for world domination - then people adhering to those beliefs would clearly be part of that faith.
But Islam does neither of those. No religion does. Islam says that anyone, believer or not, has an equal chance of gaining access to the afterlife and to spend eternity with God - so there is no requirement to convert or destroy others.
Chrsitianity on the other hand is very clear that "I am the way, none shall come to the Father except through me", and it makes it clear that the mission of Christians is to spread the word. Have you ever had a Muslim knock on your door trying to tell you about the afterlife?
As for world domination, Islam is unique in still having fixed points around which Muslims are supposed to focus and gather, the Hajj to Mecca - there is no call to 'go forth and multiply'. There is no 'on Earth as it is in Heaven'.
All religions ARE inherently good. A religion is a belief, a fear of, an obedience to a supernatural power. This fear, belief and obedience has a tendency to make a group good - though of course good is an objective definition.
You could argue Buddhists are selfish as their entire existence is based around the perfection of their own soul, while Islam and Christianity focus on giving to those in need and forging better societies. Buddhists could argue that Christianity os not good as it can lead to or require the gathering of great wealth.
I feel comfortable in my assertion that suicide bombers and terrorists are NOT Muslims. I have an imperfect understanding of the Quran, but I know it expressly forbids the killing of civilians, women and children, and it expressly forbids suicide.
The same goes for any imam calling on others to perform such acts - they are not considered Muslims by the 2.5billion true Muslims - they are a minority, twisting the faith to fit their own world view and to further their own agenda.
These terrorist acts are not about faith, they are about land. The disaffected few do not want Westerners to have any control or influence in the Middle East. But we have no flag to hate, these terrorists are from Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Oman and a dozen other nations - so we hate and fear what they have in common, the faith of their birth.
Disaffection and marginalistion lead people to seek the comfort of others, and the weak and vulnerable when they go seeking comfort can be preyed upon by evil men.
If we could be the light and warmth that the strangers in our midst need, they won't turn their back on us and turn their disaffection into hatred.
Simplistic maybe, but all I am suggesting is that the solution to extreme Islam is Christianity, more compassion - not less.
I made a mistake in my last post, when I said I could not disagree with you more I was clearly wrong.
There is no justification in saying “All religions are inherently good” or that “fear, belief and obedience has a tendency to make a group good”. It all depends on what you are obedient to. Would you consider Satan worshipping to be inherently good? What about human sacrifice for the gods of the Aztecs, is that good too? If you think these examples are too obscure (remember there are hundreds of religions to choose from) what about the Crusades, or the Inquisition? These were hardly a few radicals on the fringes of Christianity.
Religion can be used as justification for good or bad. You might argue that so far in history the good has outweighed the bad, although I think you would be hard pressed to given the countless wars undertaken in the name of religion, but this does not show religion to be INHERENTLY good – only that its accounts are currently in the black.
This is the same for religious texts, such as the Quran. You might say that it expressly forbids the killings of civilians, women and children, but I could quote passages that say otherwise. We could both say that the other’s reading was taken out of context, or that one rule has been superseded by another. On Fatima Muganzi’s blog a commenter has posted a whole list of morally questionable Suras http://fatimamuganzi.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-in-name-of-my-religion.html. Here’s one that contradicts what you said earlier about there being no requirement to convert others:
Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Even if you think these things are taken out of context, or start along the lines of “well, I think what God MEANT to say here was…” you must surely admit that religious texts are subject to interpretation, and that sometimes these interpretations can lead to bad consequences.
Satanism is not a religion, it is a loose collection of cults and anti-religions.
The Aztec and associated Mesoamerican faiths brought structure, order and stability to their people for centuries. They thrived and allowed their people to thrive. Human sacrifice was conducted by willing participants, warriors and priests who lived and died like gods. Their deaths were the ultimate act of goodness, as they believed that only by giving their own lives could their societies continue to exist.
The Crusades were primarily about land, borders and economics - not religion.
The Inquisition was about national security, not faith. As for the Inquisition not being about a radical fringe, Torquemada was so hated by the mainstream he needed 300 bodyguards.
Religion HAS been used to justify evil acts, but it is never the cause and never a valid justification.
As for deliberate misinterpretation and mistranslation of ancient texts with no inclusion of the centuries of analysis by eminent theologians - even the devil can quote scripture.
Faith is a personal relationship with God, not a quest to twist religious texts to justify evil acts you want to commit. Words twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
The core of Christianity is love. The core of Islam is peace. Acts committed out of anything other than love and peace are neither Muslim nor Christian.
Then I think we differ in our definitions of religion. I would evaluate a particular religion based on the words and actions of its believers, including any sacred texts they might have and their various interpretations. I would use the term Islam, for example, to encompass the broad range of actions, beliefs, laws, writings, etc. of Muslims.
On the other hand, you seem to be defining religion in absolute terms. You have said that “the core of Islam is peace” – it is by definition peaceful, the words and actions of its believers cannot be used to define it. Anything done by Muslims that damages peace cannot be done in the name of Islam – it is in fact anti-Islamic. That’s a pretty narrow definition, and not very useful.
You could imagine a religion whose core was “peace” or “love” or whatever good word you like, but all the people that identified themselves as followers were amoral murderers, liars and thieves. This dangerous community may not have understood the core of their religion, but they are still an identifiable group and a real problem for other communities. Ok you might not want to identify them using the name of their religion, since they’ve apparently misunderstood it so badly, but they still need to be identified as a problem, even if you use another label.
To use your approach, I agree - there are no Muslim terrorists – but this is about as useful as saying “there are no peaceful terrorists” or “there are loving terrorists”. There are still dangerous communities in the world who justify their actions through religion, you can call some of them “people-who-identify-themselves-as-Muslim-but-actually-have-completely-misunderstood-it” if you like, but I think most people will use the broader definition and save their keyboards.
There are 2.5billion Muslims in the world and maybe another billion who have lived throughout history. I am sure one of them was probably a paedophile. Does that make all Muslims paedophiles? Does Islam support and promote paedophilia.
He may still consider himself a Muslim. He may find texts to justify his actions.
The actions of a small number of individuals do not define the faith as a whole.
He is not a Muslim.
The same is true of any 'sin', you cannot commit that sin, believe it to be right in the face of overwhelming opposition and call yourself a true believer.
Well it’s funny you should use that as an example since Mohamed was supposed to have taken a nine year old girl as a wife, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha. This is used as justification for the extremely low ages of marriage in some Asian (Islamic) countries; Iran for example sets the minimum age for females at nine years old.
But that is an aside. I agree that “the actions of a small number of individuals do not define the faith as a whole”, but their actions do have some effect, however small, on the centre of gravity of the faith. We may disagree on how many individuals, or what proportion of believers it takes before we can start to make generalisations about that faith, or to identify problems with it, but we are at least agreed in principle that it is the actions of a faith’s believers that contribute towards defining it.
This is why I disagree with you when you say “there are no Muslim terrorists”. We must acknowledge that there are some, even if the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, good people.
Post a Comment