I decided to take a step back from this thread a couple of days ago for personal reasons and also because I am on vacation and my noble work of subverting the youth had to be put on hold. But since
@AnneDVille seemed to imply elsewhere that me,
@Lunella, and all the europeans who are worried about the muslim refugees bringing a wave of terrorist attacks in our countries are nothing but vile racists, I want to take the time to explain to anyone lurking this thread why that isn't so.
Every time a terrorist attack is committed in the name of Allah we all are forced to look at the question of whether the attacker was motivated by fanaticism or by islam. If it is a problem of some extremist nut jobs or if it is an actual tenet of their religion they are carrying out.
At a first glance it is tempting to conclude that the problem is just fanaticism, that the guys who do terrorist attacks are just radicals. After all, we find it very difficult to believe that a religion that has so many followers could actually be this violent. It doesn't help the fact that we tend to interpret every other religion from the POV of our own. So, for example, when christians ask me about judaism they are incredibly interested in Moses, like he was some sort of messiah, like he was our Christ. And they also believe that the Torah is the only sacred text of ours, like the Bible for them. In the same way they understand islam through the eyes of christianity. They believe Muhammed is a christ-like figure, and the only important book is the Qu'ran. They are really surprised when they learn that it isn't so. That both judaism and islam share the fact that they are both disorganized religions with a constellation of important sacred texts and that Moses and Muhammad have nothing to do with each other or with Christ.
Similarly, christians (and people raised in countries where christianity is the dominant religion) tend to believe that all religions have similar moral values. For example, they believe that the Ten Commandments are universal, that every religion is in essence the same thing, just a different flavor. They think all religions espouse that killing is bad, stealing is bad, while being humble or peaceful, for example is good. They are very surprised to learn that other religions might have nothing to do with this.
Judaism, for example, is not a pacifist religion. Giving the other cheek is unthinkable for a jew. In a couple of instances in the Torah, God tells the jews that they must wipe amalek from the face of the Earth. Every man, woman, and child of amalek and even their beasts! God tells the jews to flatten the entire city, to not let a rock over another rock stand. This was told to the jews because the nation of Amalek was planning to exterminate the jews, it was a "pre-emptive" war, and also a war of retaliation. So even when starting a war against another nation with no reason, is bad in judaism, you don't simply give your enemy the other cheek. When you are attacked or threatened by another who wants to kill you, you fight until they die or you do. This is a very important difference in morality. For jews to retaliate with all our might to defend our people is not just seen as necessary, it is seen as good, as just, as godly. For christians giving the other cheek is. So it is important to not assume that all religions have the same values when it comes to life, death, and other important issues. Islam could be just as peaceful as christianism is, or it could not be. Maybe it is something entirely different. We have no way to know this until we learn what islam is.
Some people think that studying islam is an act of racism. They feel that by studying that religion without assuming that it is peaceful from the start must be an act of discrimination, against muslims and against their muslim friends. Furthermore they feel that anything that one could say about islam is something we apply to all muslims in the world regardless of who they are.
First things first, twenty percent of the world's population is muslim. That is 1.6 billion people. That's more than all of China's population. That is a
lot of people. Obviously not all of them are terrorists. Not all of them are violent, and not all of them support, accept or even know very well what their religion is about. After all there are many christians and many jews who are those things in name only, and the same thing happens with muslims. The vast majority of them are peaceful, lead peaceful lives, and all they want is what we all want: to be safe, to have food on the table, a family that loves us.
Unfortunately, though, even when the majority of muslims are pacific, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice Truck Killer, wasn't the only muslim who thought killing would redeem him. Every day we hear news about new terrorist attacks all performed in the name of islam. Since 9/11 there have been almost 30 thousand terrorist attacks done by muslims in the name of Allah and that number grows by 4 or 5 new attacks every day. With every one of these attacks we are forced to look at the question yet again. Is this the result of muslim doctrine or is it a problem of fanaticism?
The way to do this is studying islam for what it is. Not for what we would like it to be. To study their sacred texts, their traditions, and how muslims practice their faith. Only by doing this can we find an answer to our question.
And this is why this isn't an act of discrimination: we need to learn to make a difference between an ideology and the people who practice it. Islam is obviously not a race, it is a religion, a more apt term for it would be an ideology since it also includes a political and militar dimension, and criticizing ideas is not an act of discrimination. People who feel this way invented the word "islamophobia" as if by criticizing islam you are somehow committing an act of hate speech. But thinking this way is just as silly as thinking that whomever criticizes communism is committing an act of "communistophobia". Makes no sense.
The second thing we need to keep in mind is to make a distinction between what people actually choose to do and what their ideology says. For judaism it is imperative for a parent to circumcise their male babies when they are 8 days old. It is such a central tenet that if you don't do it, supposedly, your baby will not be considered to be jewish. Do all jews agree with circumcisions? No. Do all jews give their babies circumcision? No. Many jews find that practice terrible (me included) and do not circumcise their kids. Does that make judaism a religion that doesn't practice circumcision or that frowns at the practice? No, the religion is very clear, circumcision
is a tenet and always will be. Circumcision is just as jewish as braided bread and passover matzo. All that this means is that some jews choose NOT to practice this aspect of their religion.
With that in mind we could start studying islam for what it is. I will post another post later with this information as I am a bit tired of writing and want to go for a walk.