“We are so good and Islam is actually peaceful. So stop being racist people. We are so nice.” This liberal twist is more racist, as it places blame on a particular, imagined social group of Muslims: Is the question really about Islam being peaceful or not ? Is it not the conditions that cause people to engage in terrorism ? “Proving” Islam is a religion of peace or is a peaceful religion, is nothing above cognitive dissonance against engaging in critique with the crimes of their own: Imperialism, war crimes, support for armed extremists, arming extremists and oppression at home.
“Islam is a religion of peace, just few baddies make it look bad”. Nah. It is not that simple. Check yourself before you dissonance your cognition (sigh).
Islam could be the most violent discipline (it is not) and would not change the reality of things, the objective process that going into the inter-subjective reality, the constitutent elements that cause the form: A terrorist.
Extremists, people who the West funded, supported, eradicated their enemies, will use instances of violence in Islam to boil up justified dis-content, anger into an un-justified set of actions. This is what prolonged violence, oppression and humiliation leads to: violence, wether secular or religious. The un-heard voices of despair become objects of terror, the perpetrators of violence.In the context of the world we live in, the elements and particulars of this particular realm of conflicts, Islam and the west (which is a pathetic and ridiculous attempt at dichotomy and formation of mainstream conflict discourse), “Islam” is not even a footnote subject.
If Islam is a religion of peace, which, in my opinion, is neither a religion of peace or violence, what does this change ? Conversely, how would a violent religion of the oppressed have to do with the violence that caused it to become prominent in the collective or individual reaction to this violence ?Ask yourself: Even if it is a violent religion, what caused it to justify the enemy and the imagined futility of the enemies’ life ?
A lion can be incredibly violent: But do you need to get close to him with a camera during one of your safari trips and piss him off, make him feel a sense of danger against him or his family ? You know, like how we reacted to the Blitzkrieg !
The PLO’s auxiliary group (many deny the groups were inter-linked) was responsible for the Munich terrorist attack: 17 people were killed after Black September members took Israeli Olympic team hostage, demanding the release of political prisoners held by Israel. The group christened the operation after two Palestinian Christian villages that were forced-out by the IDF in 1948: Igrit and Biram.
The PLO, Fatah and Black September predominately revolve around its muslim members, though secular. Palestine is a pre-dominantly Muslim geography. Considering that Palestine is considered party to ‘Islamic extremist terrorism’, Hamas, what is the secular, plural Black September party to and which book forced them, as if spontaneously, to commit acts of aggression ? The oppression and violence against Palestinians has not been eradicated; therefore, reaction, justified or un-justified, has not changed, whether through Islamic or secular Arab identities.
How ridiculous is it to ask this question by the considering the element of Palestine in the “terrorism” discourse ? Hammas probably has not committed a quarter of the acts of violence of other, secular counter-parts. Yet, Palestine, in-relation to Hamas, is part of, in our discourse, this Islamic terrorist unity, which Muslims are forced to constantly voice their condemnation of – and has become a play-thing of liberals who play the spectrum tightening part of our discourses. Perhaps this inclusion of Palestine explains why Israel supported Hamas during its early years… but that is a separate question.
The Nazi-esq enemy: ISIS. The reprehensible, violent, in-humane acts of ISIS are easy to condemn by both Liberals (“they do not represent Islam”) and Muslims (they do not represent us)- and others; though is Islam really the significant factor to the causation of the rise of this brutal monastery of violence in motion ?
Former lieutenant Colonel of the Australian Army and “Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism” during the Iraq war, David Kilcullen, pointed to the Iraq invasion as the main cause that gave rise to ISIS:“The environment that we find ourselves in now is almost undeniably worse than it was at the beginning of the war on terror in 2001…[…]…There undeniably would be no Isis if we had not invaded Iraq,” he told channel 4. (1) Thus, the pathetic interpretations of Islamic extracts is a mere catalyst to it, a burial of “clandestine” reality.
To go further: An associate press investigation showed that many ISIS recruits had very little knowledge about the religion (2). How can this incredibly weak discourse, easily demisable on grounds of ‘causation’ (object processes) and its subjective manifestation still permissible space in all mediums ? The cause of terrorism is not islam; its subject, the terrorist, has little knowledge of Islam.
The decent intentions of those who want to resist the racism of their own citizens in the West can be understood. But only candid explanations and arguments can eradicate both oppression and racism. Yes, the importance of portraying Muslims and Islam in honest and positive interpretations is significant: Though it does not demolish the “victim of” complex the citizens of imperialist nations posses, which seeded the birth of the question: Is Islam violent or is it just a few monsters that make it look bad ?! The notion that the discussion of Islam’s peacefulness and/or violence should remain our centre of discussion solves nothing, but allows the liberal to refrain from anti-lazy criticisms of their own, fades the distinction between discussing racism at home, and war, conflicts, injustice in its entirety. I will tell idiots how Muslims are like others and how “not all muslims are liked that”, right after I lecture them on the crimes of their own that caused the “baddies”. Liberal racist interest in defining a group according to their mis-calculated view on conflicts is of no interest to the responsible mind.