French President Francois Hollande correctly stated that we "are under the threat of Islamic terrorism"—something which many Western leaders still refuse to admit despite all the evidence. People should no longer be labelled as "lazy", "reductionist", "uninformed"or "bigoted" for echoing Hollande's interpretation of these and countless other events.
The important point to make here is that Hollande explicitly stated "Islamic terrorism" and not just a blanket statement regarding terrorism. The analytical value of this distinction is that the problem can best be tackled once we acknowledge that Islam has something to do with it. Once that acknowledgement is made then one can clearly identify what it is about the religion that invokes the actions of some of its followers. There are countless other contributing factors, inter alia, Western foreign policy, violent intervention, lack of education, lack of integration, post-war reconstruction, socio-economic problems, racism, etc. But we can no longer go on to say that these attacks have "nothing to do with Islam".
If it has nothing to do with Islam then why are people shouting 'god is great' as they kill people? Why do they recite religious passages before they commit these atrocities? In fact, why do they draw on religion at all if it has "nothing to do with religion"? They do so because religious texts and extreme interpretations of those texts (and Islamic practices) provide a framework for justifying these actions. Note, I'm not saying it has everything to do with Islam, but it sure has a lot to do with Islam. Maajid Nawaz's recent article in the Telegraph supports this assertion. He writes, "please stop denying the nature of jihadism. Please stop ignoring the narratives which drive these attacks. Instead of aiding extremists who insist Islam today is perfect, perhaps you should aid us beleaguered reformist Muslims who are attempting to address this crisis within Islam". He is right, it is a crisis in Islam––in the religion. That's the bottom line.
The counter argument against this is quite straightforward: We should be wary of political leaders officially associating terrorists with Islam as it legitimises the terrorist's interpretation of Islam. In other words, it embraces the terrorist's narrative. That does the majority of Muslims who don't think that terrorist attacks have anything to do with Islam a major disservice and creates a clash of civilisations which becomes a recruiting tool for even more violence. Moreover, it can be counterproductive to name the problem Islam— or a problem set within Islam—as it moves the debate away from understanding contemporary terrorism.
Despite the obvious strengths of such a counter argument, there is nonetheless a case to be made for naming things by their proper name. People often incorrectly assume that one is being bigoted, offensive, or oppressive (or worse, racist!) when you criticise religion in this manner. I find this extremely puzzling. I believe that if we don't criticise religion in this manner then we are doing those suffering under its yoke a massive disservice. That is, we don't acknowledge its victims and the cause of their suffering. Islam is the foundation which radical Islamism stands on, to say that this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam is like saying that Basque nationalism had nothing to do with ETA. Its just not true to admit it has nothing to do with religion, no matter how uncomfortable that may be.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Despite being vocal with my opinion that currently, islam is indeed the root of a great deal of death, terrorism, ill treatment of non-male muslims, etc., I've not had anyone tell me outloud that I am being bigoted, offensive, or oppressive. Typically, folks agree.
This leads me to wonder how much of the anti-anti-islam chatter is just the media, and perhaps some moderate muslims, and not the rest of the world.
I am islamophobic...this religion scares the hell out of me.
Okay so let's call a spade a spade. Each and every crime committed is a result of terrorism. A Baptist robs a store and shoots the clerk, they are by YOUR bigoted definition a christian terrorist.
First of all it isn't islamic terrorist. It's radical extremist terrorism. The fact is that Al Qaeda, ISIL and all those extremest groups kill more muslims than all demographics combined.
So don't hand me your right-wing tea party FOX NOISE label and then say it isn't pure bigotry because in fact it is.
I'm actually a social democratic leftist living in Europe, so not sure the FOX or tea party charge is relevant in any way. You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood this post. Of course Muslims are by far the most vulnerable and the most numerous in terms of victims. That's besides the point. The point is that we cannot say these acts have "nothing to do with Islam". Its just not true.
What you don't understand is is that ISIL are the Iraqi Army disaffected by the George W. Bush administration. Al-Qaeda are insurgents that were abandoned by Reagan. The whole make up of these terrorist are people that have been marginalized and recruited by corrupt leaders that brainwash them into terrorism claiming islamic fundamentalism. They are no more islamic than you are I. Calling extremist terrorist "islamic" terrorist pits the entire western world against the entire islamic world. I lumped you into the tea party and claimed that you have been influenced by FOX NOISE because you sounded like it to me. Hate speech will not solve this conflict with terrorist. If you call extremist terrorist, islamic terrorist, then you pit the entire islamic world against the western world. Less the 10% of all are terrorist, yet you want to LABEL an entire culture a people because why, you feel a little frustrated? You have lost all perspective of the reality of terrorist.
What is so hard about understanding that these terrorist are not acting in the name of islam. That is a sham by the leaders. It's not about religion, it's about power and control.
Mykcob4: You make some good points, and I take that on board. I've been thinking about the exact same issues you raised for many years now. I have been hesitant to admit that these attacks have anything to do with religion. I'm never in favour of any kind of rhetoric that alienates people and reinforces dividing lines. That said, the fact is that theses attacks, at their core, do have something to do with religion. To say it has nothing to do with religion is just not true. This is a crisis in religion.
The difference between what I am saying and what the far right are saying is that the latter's interpretation of Islam and Muslims are based on bigotry and hatred of the "other". That's why I have been hesitant to make these statements openly––in fear of being associated with them. Plus, I argue that all acts of violence in the name of religion are deplorable, no matter the religion. The question of whether this has something to do with Islam is not a question or assertion based on bigotry, and it definitely cannot be called hate speech. It's also not a question about "foreigners" or the bullshit arguments the far right make about so-called Muslim culture being incompatible with Western culture––whatever that is. It's a question about the explanatory factors of the religion.
It's interesting that you only focus on ISIL. What about the domestic terror attacks in Nigeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Europe, etc.? Do all of these examples, in your opinion, have nothing to do with Islam? This is not a case of pitting the West against the rest. This is not a clash of civilisations. Where one can really contribute is by focusing on the positives as well. Give credit to reformers and dissidents. Give credit to moderate and progressive believers. But you don't do them a favour by saying that the kind of terrorism we are seeing has nothing to do with religion. By acknowledging that it has something to do with religion, you actually give them more power and legitimacy to reform and develop.
Ah, there's the rub. The terrorist attacks no matter where they take place isn't about religion, it's about the disaffected and the establishment carried out in the name of religion. Was Hitler a religious leader? Were his atrocities for religious reasons? NO! They came about because Hitler seized on the fact that Germany was suffering socially and economically. He spewed religious rhetoric to justify certain aspects of his tyranny. His attack on the jews, was more about wresting away the wealth of a minority that had become exceptionally successful. He spewed his rhetoric in order to divide and generate hate. That is the case here. It is no small coincidence that the extremist terrorist are doing the same thing. they need a scape goat and to create one they have to create a common cause.
Here is exactly how they do it.
Extremist organization (terrorist): They identify themselves as the only true believers of a pure religion even though they have virtually nothing to do with that religion at all. They recruit outsiders and disaffected people to their cause. They want very much to be recognized as the true religion. Why? To attain dominance and power. If other Sunnis renounce islam the way it is meant to be and join the terrorist cause then the extremist get what they are after. They blame western culture, Arab royalty, Shia muslims, jews and christians for their oppression.
This terrorist war is about economics NOT religion. Religion is an excuse.
The more we feed into this false front this excuse the more we exacerbate the problem. President Obama is very wise not to buy into this false pretense.
Granted many recruits do join for what they perceive as religious reasons, but calling this Islamic terrorism will only increase that situation. If we recognize and call these terrorist what they are extremist terrorist, then we isolate them.
That is why I refuse to recognize them as "islamic terrorist".
If a baptist robs a store in the name of baptism and shoots the clerk while screaming "jesus is great" then it could, in fact, be called xtian terrorism. I call the folks who shoot abortion providers in the name of their religion just that.
It makes zero difference that isil is killing more muslims than non muslims. If they are doing any of it in the name of religion then it is religion-based terrorism.
Ferdinand and Isabella supported religion-based terrorism. So does isil, al qaeda, and any one else who behaves this way IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.
Interesting how whenever one raises the issue in this manner then one is immediately associated with the political right.
I think people in the west have a hard time defining it as ''islamic terrorism'' ...because of how most Muslims conduct themselves in the west, which is kindly and vastly different than those carrying out terrorist acts. Think people struggle with labeling it as such because they have Muslim friends in the west, of whom they have dinner with, and parties, and maybe it will appear offensive. The western culture is so different than the middle east, even for peaceful Muslims living in the middle east. But, this is just my take as to why some people struggle with this, and create word salads, instead.
Spot on exactly. As a onetime atheist you know what labels do. I am an atheist by definition yet that is a moniker given to me by people that believe in a god. Thus when in public most people assume all sorts of things that are not true simple because of this label. For example a neighbor that I befriended and who really liked me told me I was immoral because I am an atheist. Labels are hurtful and misleading. Calling extremist terrorist islamic terrorist is hurtful and misleading. And that's the rub. By disenfranchise a whole religion based on the acts of terrorism people make that whole people a target and an enemy for no real reason.
@ mykcob4 - precisely, labels can be hurtful. And if none of us knew one another's labels here for example, we'd all just chat and carry on without thinking much about it. When labels come into focus, things change. People's thoughts change. When I left Christianity, my atheist friends were so happy. But, I lost a few Christian friends. When I came back to faith, a few of my atheist friends were disappointed. Meanwhile, I'm the same person I always was...my er...um...label...just changed. lol
I wear labels everyday. I'm the "tough guy" even though I'm 5'6" and 164 lbs.Probably because I don't take shit off anybody and threw out the drug dealers that tried to establish in my neighborhood. I'm the "Liberal" because I don't allow bigotry of any kind around me no matter where I'm at. I'm the "atheist" even though I play basketball two nights a week at a Methodist church. I'm "old school" to my b-ball guys because I'm the oldest player on the court usually, at least for a few more years. I'm the "one to go to" in my neighborhood for anything, and I mean anything. I'm the "Marine" because people know of my service (know too much) and try and siphon off credibility from me. I'm the "professor" as I am an avid reader and my degree is in literature. I'm the "Zen Master" because I have been practicing martial arts since I was 4yo. I have a great deal more monikers, labels, tags, all of which barely scratch the surface of who I really am.
I have to agree with Wafson. Perhaps a better expression can be found than "Islamic terrorists," but there is no rational way to say that religion has nothing to do with it. Nor can we blame it all on ex-Iraqi army officers. It's a worldwide phenomena that plays out in such places as Africa and the Far East. As Ibn Warraq, the author of "Why I an not a Muslim," pointed out, it is not a case of a few lunatics departing from masses of moderate Muslims. The whole Muslim world is mostly deeply conservative. True moderation is mostly a veneer although there are hopeful signs from time to time. Islam never had the moderating influences that overtook Christianity. Persecution of "heretical" sects are commonplace, sometimes even at the government level, and in a number of these countries it is a capital crime to leave Islam.
It's the old story of religious arrogance and intolerance, this time under the banner of Islam. By itself it might not lead to terrorism, but once additional ingredients are added, such as poverty and extremist propaganda (which flourishes in intolerant religious environments), it can become explosive. Funny, how we have no problem criticizing the misdeeds of Christianity but get all choked up when it comes to Islam. I don't know what the best answer is, but pretending that religion is not a key part of this problem is simply naive.
Islamic fundamentalist would be a much better term for Muslim terrorists. If one studies islam one will find that the Prophet Muhammad founded their violent activities himself. Islam teaches piece only for Muslims. Muhammad used to ask in his court" who will bring me the head of....." and he would soon get a volunteer that would indeed bring him the head of the named person. This does not excuse similar acts of other religions. You will never hear the history channel mention that world war 2 Germany was a Christian nation. One must consider there would be no Islamic jihad without Islam. We can certainly try to be as nice as sensitive as we can while we are being murdered but sensitivity and denial did six million dead Jews no good during world war two.
Anyone who thinks they know the mind of god (or knows what god wants) is a very dangerous person.
I agree a person of great charisma can convince people to do many things. If they can convince them that God wants it, people will do anything.
I agree a person of great charisma can convince people to do many things. If they can convince them that God wants it, people will do anything.
If ISIS has nothing to do with Islam then why do they call themselves Islamic State?
If ISIS has nothing to do with Islam then why do they call themselves Islamic State?
"Despite the obvious strengths of such a counter argument, there is nonetheless a case to be made for naming things by their proper name. People often incorrectly assume that one is being bigoted, offensive, or oppressive (or worse, racist!) when you criticise religion in this manner. I find this extremely puzzling. I believe that if we don't criticise religion in this manner then we are doing those suffering under its yoke a massive disservice. That is, we don't acknowledge its victims and the cause of their suffering. Islam is the foundation which radical Islamism stands on, to say that this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam is like saying that Basque nationalism had nothing to do with ETA. Its just not true to admit it has nothing to do with religion, no matter how uncomfortable that may be."
___________________
I find no argument with this suggestion of root Islamic causation and discussion. I concur that the counter-argument is compelling in defense of the Muslim population at large, but they themselves must take the responsibility to engage the problem full on and present to the world a healing proposition. What would that proposition be?
The so-called ghettos of the world are nothing more than ethno-centric communities in diaspora. The Muslim ghettos can be found throughout the world and the logic of these cultural groups is people of a culture migrate towards and stay close to their own ghettos (herd instinct). Within these ghettos should be agencies for self-policing and reporting of suspicious people or agencies within their midst. This is the triage for stitching the tear now bleeding distrust between Islam and the global communities.
Investigations of recent events reveal neighbors of the perpetrators giving accounts of behavior and conduct that's clearly suspicious in character. This makes the ghetto the epicenter for gathering preemptive information on people who might otherwise go unnoticed until they've carried out their bad intent. If communities did organize in such a manner it would be a model for all like and unlike cultures in diaspora, a street-level interpol, where information could be collected and used in a preemptive manner.
There's a large world of counter-cultures brewing bad and no accounting of it. If France embraces the world, as is their character, and it becomes a victim of a national counter-culture for whatever concocted excuses to breed violence within it, then France must first close its borders and turn in upon itself in distrust of its own citizens. This will bring the country to a war posture with itself. That is exactly what the counter-culture's strategy is. The so-called IS has broadcast the message to recruiting functions to tell recruits to stay put where they are and bring the bad locally. To combat that kind of insidious problem the ghettos must take a stand to aid in preemptive measures to get the poison out of their own cultures first.
The Muslims who are at peace with themselves owe it to the world and themselves to contribute much more than collective and individual disclaimers for any part in the on-going violence clearly rooted in Islam's influence. They need to engage against it.
Labelling of terrorism does as much for the victims as it does for the perpetrators. Nothing. Do the people killed really care what the cause of the terrorism was or that a heinous crime was committed.
Of course it is hard to deny here that Terrorism is being carried out in the name of Islam with the Koranic verses as a source of inspiration to the madmen and definitely the koran and Islam has enough to indict itself. However Labelling in my opinion has a lot of shortcomings.
1- Religion itself is in my opinion self preserving and thus in its effort to preserve itself all religions harbour some verse or passage that justify murder and heinous acts, and every religion has gone through this phase of self preservation where it becomes more oppressive until finally it becomes more liberal. Islam could be the exception but the probabilities are low.
2- It marginalises the community. I am sure you have heard this argument countless times but it is true. constant vilification does marginalise. lets consider here we term terrorism as islamic which means that terrorism is not just terrorism but gradable i.e. islamic, hindu, catholic and so on. so is one worse than the other and if so which is worse? which can we allow and which must we eradicate?
All this does is marginalises an already marginalised community. I will give you an example; The Indian prime Minister has been accused of masterminding a large scale riot against the muslim population in his home state of Gujarat (Godhra riot - Not been termed Hindu terror, @ CyberLN they were shouting slogans) and when this was brought to court only 6 convictions were made. His party is now in power and the muslims of India feel vulnerable. Every now and again they come up with some ridiculous statement aimed at the muslims and brand people as anti national. My Father was a social non practising muslim. A highly educated man (A physician). He drinks socially. His friends are non muslims. He never prayed and during our personal conversations came off as more agnostic than religious. However recently he finds himself pushed into the corner where he must become communal if not religious so much so he is willing to disown me but not accept a non muslim daughter in law. People who know a little about my sect may claim that my sect is one of the most peaceful muslim sects but the marginalisation is affecting people like my father and so is probably worse on lesser integrated people.
3- Would the solution after labelling be to initiate self governance as Pitar suggested. Are you expecting a marginalised community to report on itself. These people do not trust the world they live in. They are forced to band together. The only solution to them is to stick together and hope for the best. Definitely they do not want their kids or loved ones to be victims of a terrorist attack but they also do not want to be harassed by authority and society at large for their identity. Expecting them to report on themselves is stupid. No one would invite misery onto themselves.
4- What solution does labelling offer. a) we identify the group responsible and take them out along with their families like a Mr Trump advocates. or we segregate them from society or we get them to convert either to another religion or none. None according to me are feasible options saving the genocide (And I really hope no one wants that).
The best option we have is to Integrate people try to use less dissociative terms and more associative ones. No one needs deny the terrorist act or the association of the terrorist to a particular faith or its ills. we do not even need to stop criticising the religion nor stop posting pictures/cartoons of mohammed. But to make that the only association and only source of the conflict works against our best interest.
I have never heard of the term Hindu terrorism or buddhist terrorism or christian and so on and they do exist. Its just that labelling one group of people would lead to a divide that we would be hard pressed to bridge.
Pitar - "The so-called ghettos of the world are nothing more than ethno-centric communities in d̲i̲a̲s̲p̲o̲r̲a̲."
I learned a new word today!