Islam not to blame for violence
The recent merciless massacre at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has sparked a global narrative of a range of topics, including free speech, religious stratification and international dialogue on acceptance. A particular thread of the narrative that calls for attention is the relationship between those who committed the heinous crime and Islam. Let it be clear that neither Islam nor Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a villainous few.
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch stated that all Muslims should be held accountable for the tragedy in Paris, tweeting, “Maybe most Moslems [sic] peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.” Murdoch’s methodology behind this statement is illogical. Blaming Muslims for violence disrespects religion. Those who stepped into Charlie Hebdo and killed staffers were not associated with any religion. No religion condones the killing of innocent, unarmed civilians. Instead, the cowards who ended the lives of those who spoke out, acted on their own accord. Furthermore, to say that Islam should be held accountable is to say adherents are the cause of crime; the projection of guilt on a population based on the deeds of a few denies Muslims fundamental agency. As author J.K. Rowling astutely replied to Murdoch, “I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate.” Actor Aziz Ansari also shared sentiments, tweeting, “Are you responsible for the evil sh-t all Christians do or just the insane amount of evil you yourself contribute to?”
The tragedy at Charlie Hebdo underscores the risk of adverse attitudes and actions toward those who are different, or as literary theorist Edward Said would say, “the other.” The two suspects, now deceased, should not be categorized with Islam. The guard on duty that day who was also tragically killed was a practicing Muslim. The attackers clearly did not discriminate against their targets, just anybody associated with Charlie Hebdo. Yet, despite all that, there still exists a threat of violence toward Muslims as retaliation for what transpired. No one condones the massacre. Muslims not only in France but across the world would stand against such atrocities.
Many, particularly those in American media, have characterized and described Charlie Hebdo as a “satirical magazine.” Charlie Hebdo is satire, but make no mistake; it is not Jon Stewart. Charlie Hebdo is revered for its unfiltered, honest take on subjects and issues but is, at times, extremely racist and prejudiced. It utilizes stereotypes, slurs and derogatory epithets to make points. Though one might disagree with what the magazine says, they cannot disagree with its right to say it. What Charlie Hebdo publishes and prints is a fundamental right that must be kept, despite its often divisive nature.
The “Je Suis Charlie” campaign, which is French for “I am Charlie,” has taken the world by storm. Millions have poured out to streets across the globe in support of Charlie Hebdo, and rightfully so. It is important, however, to understand that declaring “Je Suis Charlie” does not mean one necessarily supports all the viewpoints expressed by the magazine, but you support the fundamental right for the publication to speak out, print and voice their opinion without repercussion. Simply put, Charlie Hebdo is comedy, and as Jon Stewart noted after the attacks, comedy shouldn’t be “an act of courage.” It is meant to entertain and amid all the laughter, the satire makes a point. Whether you agree with the humor is a discussion in and of itself, but the idea being made is not to make a scapegoat out of the those you may not know. Those who hold views similar to Rupert Murdoch are ignorant of Islam and lack the subtlety that encompass acceptance and understanding. It is dangerous to make Islam a scapegoat, and we should open the discourse in society on how those who differ from us are viewed and treated.
Je Suis Charlie.
Athanasius Georgy is a sophomore majoring in economics. His column, “On the World Stage” runs Thursdays.
“No religion condones the killing of innocent, unarmed civilians. Instead, the cowards who ended the lives of those who spoke out, acted on their own accord.”
+++
Then why is the Qur’an, hadiths and Sunna filled with admonitions to kill infidels? Do you have any idea what you are writing about?
+++
There is not a day goes by that a Muslim does not quote chapter and verse from the Qur’an as justification for murder of others. But let’s bury our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise, OK?
“Those who stepped into Charlie Hebdo and killed staffers were not associated with any religion.”
+++
And I am the tooth fairy.
“Blaming Muslims for violence disrespects religion.”
+++
No, Islam disrespects all other religions.
“Let it be clear that neither Islam nor Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a villainous few.”
+++
How many barbaric attacks do Muslims need to commit before we realize there IS a connection between Islam, Islam’s core tenets and terrorism?
+++
Muslims are the only people at war with every other religion as well as internecine warfare. But, gosh, let’s ignore this reality, OK?
23% of the worlds population is Muslim (according to Pew) so referring to 1.6 BILLION people as though we are all the same makes you sound ignorant.
Do you know where the majority of the worlds Muslims are? Indonesia and India.
And did you know that Muslim jihadists killed 70 million Hindus in their conquest of southern Asia? (Rhetorical question.)
If I were to count all the lives that have been taken at the hands of “Christians” it would be a greater number but it would be absurd to lump all Christians together.
Really? And how do you know that? You’re making it up because you think with your gut not with your head and if your gut tells you it is so, then it must be so.
+++
Truth be told Christians have been responsible for countless deaths. No denying that.
+++
But Christ was a man of peace, a man who turned the other cheek and taught love for one’s neighbors. Mohammed raped, enslaved, pillaged and tortured.
+++
If you want to believe in fairy tales then go for it. It’s no skin off my back. But if you really believe that Christianity is like Islam, that good practicing Christians are like devout Muslims then your gut really is your brain and your brain share many similarities with a cabbage.
I believe it to be so because Christianity has existed for hundreds of years longer than Islam and the population of Christians has always been larger than the population of Muslims. “Fairy tales” aside, my point was that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the majority are not subscribing to violence. There are violent people in this world and some of them are Muslim. Clearly you are an expert on Islam.
Soleil, If we were assuming raw statistics were the only factor then you would be correct, but there are many variables involved.
+++
Since Islam is a violent, aggressive, expansionist ideology it is also likely this factor sways the results towards Muslims murdering more than Christians.
+++
In any case this is something we will never know the answer to. There are too many variables and too much water under the bridge.
+++
But what we do know is that when Christians kill they have sinned, but when Muslims kill in the act of Jihad (spreading Islam) then they are martyrs promised virgins in paradise. This is likely the most important factor and likely weighs the scale in a meaningful way against Muslims and their murderous ways.
Soleil, if the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to violence, why does this majority celebrate whenever Jihadist terrorists succeed in killing large numbers? Why does this majority not expose those in their midst who preach violent Jihad? Why does this majority not expose the terrorist training camps and facilities in their midst? Why is this majority’s first reaction to a terrorist act always to complain about an anti-Islamic backlash rather than to condemn the terrorist act and express solidarity with the attacked? If YOU do not subscribe to violence, why did YOU attempt to blame the American military for causing the terrorist attack (see above)?
Soleil, Christianity has evolved since the Crusades. Unfortunately, Islam is stuck in the 15th Century.
Not all Muslims are the same other then that they believe in a supremacist, hate-filled, sadistic ideology.
Responsibility is not a binary phenomenon. While they may not have pulled the triggers or detonated the bombs, many people celebrated the terrorist acts of the last 15 years. Many people knew that violent radicalism was being promoted in the places where they pray but they said nothing. The reality is that the vast majority of such people claim to be Moslem. It is self-destructive to ignore reality. The question is what is to be done with that reality that is helpful, legal and fair.
You say: “Many people knew that violent radicalism was being promoted in the places where they pray but they said nothing.”
Would you also hold the population of the United States responsible for the acts of warfare and aggression that its military commits throughout the world? Your reasoning sounds the same as the terrorists’.
Soleil, if by “acts of warfare” you mean the liberation of Europe in the 1940’s, the liberation of the Pacific in the 1940’s, the attempted liberation of Korea in the 1950’s, the attempted liberation of South Vietnam in the 1960’s, the liberation of Kuwait in the 1990’s, the attempted liberation of Iraq in the 2000’s and the liberation of Afghanistan in the 2000’s through restrained military engagements conforming to the norms of international conventions: then yes, the population of the United States is responsible for those acts and you’re welcome. If you can name an instance in which Jihadist terrorism was employed to resist and turn back a totalitarian regime or insurgency that was in the process of depriving hundreds of thousands of people of their individual liberties and their national sovereignty with uniformed troops and without targeting defenseless civilians: then confusing the two is understandable, otherwise it’s simply baffling.
If by “acts of warfare” you mean the handful of covert operations carried out by U.S. Presidents over the past century: then no, the population of the U.S. isn’t responsible for acts it doesn’t know about and doesn’t approve through the Republic’s due process.
If by “aggression” you mean military interventions that aimed primarily to capture treasure and territory for the U.S. or to impose an unwelcome totalitarian or sectarian government upon already-free people: then your question is a non-sequitur. You must be talking about the military of Russia, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Daesh, Al Qaida or AQAP.