We have entered a violent period in Islam’s history. Through most of its history the Muslim world does not seem to have been markedly worse than the West. But over the last thirty years it has got much worse: the horrors now done in the name of Islam almost as a matter of course were rare even a generation ago.
In a simple sense “Islam is violent” is a statement that almost proves itself: Last week Robert Redeker, a philosopher and high school teacher in France, wrote an article stating that Islam is a violent religion. It appeared in Le Figaro, a Paris newspaper, and now as a result he is in hiding after receiving serious death threats.
The way things are going, “Is Islam violent?” will soon become one of those questions that no one discusses in public. Which is bad for Islam because what will wind up happening is that most Christians and Jews will silently believe that it is violent – why else are they being silenced on the subject? What, because it is so peaceful?
My original thought was to go through verses of the Koran for and against the idea of jihad. But that is beyond my depth. And it is probably besides the point. To take a parallel case: a close reading of the New Testament in the years before the Crusades would not have revealed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that their streets would soon run with blood at the hands of Christians.
Four signs that we are entering one of the most violent periods of Muslim history:
- Christians, who have lived in the Middle East for centuries, even as far back as Roman times, are now leaving. It is because Muslims are making them feel that it is unsafe for them to remain. Something they did not feel in past centuries, it seems. That means it is getting worse than it has been in hundreds of years.
- The destruction of the Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Again, they have been there for centuries. Even Tamerlane, for all his destruction, left them standing. But in our generation they have been destroyed. Another sign that it is a lot worse than it has been in centuries.
- The rise of suicide killers as something new in Islam.
- The Ring of Blood: if you look at where people are dying because of war or political violence, you will see that most of it happens along the line where the Muslim world meets the rest of the world: Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya, Israel, Kashmir, Sulawesi, Nigeria, Sudan, Thailand and so on. Muslims make up only a fifth of mankind, so it is not a matter of chance. Nor was it true thirty years ago. Something new is happening.
Why has Islam become more violent? Because Iran, which supports a political form of Islam, and Saudi Arabia, which supports a severe form of it, have suddenly become very rich since the middle 1970s from oil money.
See also:
what the hell was that?if one physco like bin lade does something terrible and innocent muslims are going to be blamed?for example whe a muslim man kills a german man the whole media went on a rampage against islam just because the man who commited the crime was a muslim but when a germen man stabs a muslim egyptian women 18 times in a court the german and western media didnt reported it as if it was that big thing…and if islam was tha evil and violent why is it the largest growing religion by convertion?the prolem is u people are not wiiling to accept islam is going to dominate the world one way or another………..
LikeLike
The next time you comment on my blog, please do me and everyone else the favour of reading the post instead of just spamming your opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Islam is violent if you read the Qur’an it says to kill those who oppose Islam
LikeLike
@Abigond
I’ve just discovered your blog and I find it to be interesting reading. Being a Muslim living in South East Asia (non-white) I would like to offer my own observations as to why many Muslims are drawn to violence as never before.
As a Muslim I feel at a personal level that the kinship bonds between Muslims are strong or at least stronger than what I observed between members of other religious denominations. These bonds of kinship facilitates contacts between Muslims from very diverse countries through religious education centered in the Middle East and North Africa. However these contacts too often exposed them to extremist and fanatical elements which as far as I am able to see is a somewhat recent phenomenon, as you suggested also. I would offer that these extreme elements arose out of a clash between what are deemed, to these extremists, between incompatible ideologies i.e. Islam and the west. I would hazard a guess, although I believe I’m not far from wrong, that these extremists in turn arose out of the many conflicts that Muslims face whether from internal or external sources. It will not be also far wrong to suggest that western imperialism and interference play a large part in many of these conflicts.
From these extremist and fanatical elements then, using Islam as an excuse and as far as I am concerned very much disproportionately interpreted, that their acolytes have to come to accept that physical violence is mainstream and condoned. I do not deny that violence can play a part in Islam as a means of defense but in my understanding these means should not and cannot vilify the end which seems to suggest that many of these Muslims who are involved in unjustified violence have shallow understandings of their own religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part of it I also suspect is that we’ve shown them violence works as a tool; before 9/11 people wouldn’t censure things relating to Muhhamad on television on shows like South Park etc…..post that they would and now they now all they have to do is kill people, even their own people and they can get things done.
Whereas before Westerners did what they want and nobody really reacted because we were all just “The Great Satan”.
And really whats a “shallow understanding” maybe they have an exact understanding and simply don’t alter as much of their reading of the Quran with modern day morality?
Or to put it another way, there may simply be aspects of the Quran that are violent, probably the same as the bible or take the recent military murder, maybe the guy went psycho, maybe he always was and thats why he joined but alot of people don’t even want to discuss that aspect of the military that some of them are just people who joined because it gave them a chance to kill somebody.
Of course I suspect its like Christians who are anti-abortion or homosexuality but have no problem wearing clothes with multiple fibers or eating pork/shellfish.
What they do because the bible tells them pretty much comes down to what they want to do and what they don’t they just pretend isn’t there.
Pick and choose, its always pick and choose.
LikeLike
Abagond, you originally thought to actually research by reading the Qur’an, thereby allowing you to gain knowledge on Islam’s teachings regarding aggression and violence, yet you choose not to.
“And it is probably besides the point. To take a parallel case: a close reading of the New Testament in the years before the Crusades would not have revealed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that their streets would soon run with blood at the hands of Christians.”
Actually, it is “the point”. If one is to make a statement that is to be accepted as being factual, they must provide evidence. Islam is a religion and is not an individual, a group of people, a country, an event, a time, a garment, or an action other than the submission to God, which is the very meaning of the word “Islam” and which the Qur’an states it to be so. The highest source of information on the Qur’an. Therefore, to claim that the actions of individuals or the current affairs of some nations is Islam or represents Islam is incorrect, baseless, and ignorant.
In order to claim even an ounce of reason and logic, one would have to look at reliable sources in order to back their claims. In this case, you would have to read the Qur’an. Yet your refusal to do so is perplexing. Why neglect to try and gain any knowledge on the subject that you chose to write about when the sources as easily available to you and instead to willingly choose to rely on ignorance (that is, lack of knowledge)?
“To take a parallel case: a close reading of the New Testament in the years before the Crusades would not have revealed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that their streets would soon run with blood at the hands of Christians.”
This reason you have provided for choosing not to seek knowledge and utilize the information you gain does nothing to support your argument. It implies that any information gained on Islam would not allow one to predict the actions of Muslims. You are asserting that “Islam is violent”, not trying to predict the actions of people. As previously stated, Islam is not a people. Therefore, Muslims are not Islam, they are not a religion. They are simply a people who claim to follow a religion but that is not the same thing as being a religion. So, in order to back your claim that “Islam is violent”, you would need to seek knowledge and information on the subject you write on. This may be done by reading the Qur’an. Otherwise, your statements and claims on Islam are merely based on ignorance rather than on research, knowledge, and information.
LikeLike
@whoever. Abagond is not saying Islam IS violent. He is holding forth in the statement and the hypothetical question “Is Islam violent?” Giving Muslims who are interested in replying a chance to voice their opinions on said statement/question. He is making observations that cannot be denied. Yes he did not read the Quran but that’s not ignorance. I just wish people would read and understand the post before they replied
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have chosen to do this analysis but have not done your research. It seems not much different from the Islamophobes who blame Islam for everything, without any evidence.
I’ll point out a few things to show you what I mean.
Let’s start with the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. When that happened, then all of the media was going crazy over saying how bad Islam and the Taliban are; and it seems you have just taken that narrative rather than doing some research. Which I do admit would be quite difficult if you wanted the correct answer since the majority of the world media is owned by those who have waged war on Islam and Muslims.
The story with the Buddha statues is that western countries wanted to go there and restore them. The Talibans told them that the people are starving in the country and they want to spend money on some statues? if they wanted to spend money then spend it on the poor and the needy in the country who need it and will benefit from it. That is what a good leader would want, to feed and take care of the poor and needy under his rule than to waste the money on a statue. The westerners refused and did whatever they could to get into the country to spend money on the statues. So, the leadership decided to demolish the statues, not because they hated the statues or were against Buddhism (they have been there for so long without being harmed), but because they were causing problems in the country where foreigners are trying to muscle their way into the country and spend money on that when the people are dying of hunger. So, the demolition of the statues has nothing to do with violence and Muslims being violent. To say so is the same as saying the Christians are violent because they demolished a useless building to spend money elsewhere rather than waste it on it.
As for the other violence in the Muslim world, look at when it started. It all started when the Christian world got together and started invading Muslim countries, kidnapping people, torturing people in secret prisons, and raping their women/children. What person would not fight back? Since then you have the Muslims fighting back anyway they can and you call it violence while ignoring the millions (yes millions) that Christians’ “war on terror” (ie war on Islam) has killed, along with other war crimes.
People are quick to point the finger at Muslims and blame them for defending themselves and don’t see the real aggressors who go and attack innocent Muslims living in their own land peacefully.
LikeLike
I would have to agree completely with your analysis
LikeLike