All religions oppose terrorism
True spirituality is a path to peace
By Jeff Flashinski
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
Robert Fisk is one of the leading journalists in the world who has covered the Middle East for the last 30 years. He’s written for the New York Times as well as the British newspaper, the Independent. He received the “International Journalist of the Year” award seven times, and twice won “Reporter of the Year.” For his latest book he researched the last 80 years of history in the Middle East and said, “I found myself amazed at how much restraint Muslims had shown towards the West.” Today in America, the mainstream media and culture denounce Muslims in a style reminiscent of Nazi propagandists. On April 30, David Horowitz came to speak at UWM. He accused Islam of being a dangerous religion that is associated with terrorism. But, globally Muslims are not the aggressors; they are the victims. In Iraq, they are being assaulted by an invasion that the US launched against them.
The 1991-2003 sanctions on Iraq ended up killing over 1 million Iraqi civilians. In the most academic and reliable studies estimating mortality in Iraq, more than one million Iraqis have been killed due to violence since the U.S. invasion. Indonesia, which is the most populous Muslim country in the world, had to suffer over 3 decades of a brutal dictatorship under President Suharto that was funded and supported by the United States. Suharto committed “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century” according to the CIA, which helped train and supply Suharto’s regime.
Palestine has been under a brutal military occupation for 4 decades. In many instances, Muslim countries are under brutal dictatorships, which are in power because of the essential military and diplomatic support that the U.S. gives them. Furthermore, there can be no such thing as a “religion of terrorism” because religion and terrorism are incompatible. Anyone who commits an act of terrorism is someone who is irreligious and opposed to morality. Therefore it is impossible for a religion to be associated with terrorism.
The central teachings of all major religions condemn terrorism and violence. The Buddha taught that an enlightened being never kills others. Jesus taught total non-violence and said that “whoever slaps you on your right cheek, offer him also your left.”
Muhammad taught violence was only morally acceptable in cases of self-defense. The Old Testament taught, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” This last teaching has been radically perverted in understanding, but its meaning is that only reciprocal acts of violence are morally justified. If an American today were to advocate for “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” they would be saying that Iraqis would be morally justified in invading the U.S. and killing one million Americans. Certainly no Americans should be advocating for that. But do Americans or Christians have a right to accuse others of terrorism? Wasn’t it Christians who colonized Africa and carried out the slave trade that killed 100 million Africans? Wasn’t it Christians who had the Crusades and the Inquisition? Wasn’t it Christians who slaughtered up to 150 million indigenous people in North America in the greatest genocide in world history? Wasn’t it Christians who carried out the Nazi Holocaust?
The answer to all these questions is no because the people who carried out these atrocities only called themselves Christian. Since they carried out or supported these monstrous acts, they acted in complete opposition to the teachings of Christ and therefore qualify as anti-Christ.
Given that the vast majority of the casualties in Iraq are civilian, that violence qualifies as terrorism. Therefore, the U.S. is responsible for a terrorist attack against Iraq 300 times as great as that of Sept. 11. Since terrorism is directly opposed to the teachings of Christ, those who support the U.S. assault on Iraq are anti-Christ. Americans should look at themselves and their own history before accusing others of terrorism. The most quoted living scholar in the world, Noam Chomsky, said, “the U.S. is the leading terrorist state in the world.” Martin Luther King said that the U.S. government was “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”.
In 1841, Frederick Douglas said to “search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”
> Comments
JF on May 05, 2008 at 10:45 AM:
Robert Fisk wrote for the London Times not the New York Times
Aaron Jeske on May 06, 2008 at 06:51 PM:
"But, globally Muslims are not the aggressors; they are the victims. In Iraq, they are being assaulted by an invasion that the US launched against them."
Here we go...
Honestly how can you preach about Horowitz's supposed Islamophobia and then make a comment such as this.
Now if you were there and you were paying attention with a slightly opened mind you would have heard the words: "Muslim's greatest oppressors are Islamo-Fascists"
Every Religion has had its bad history. While you blame Christianity for the Crusades, you also forget that Islam was the aggressor that caused the Christian world to react and start the crusades. What you also don't realize is that while Christianity may have had its past blunders, today Christianity is much more likely to fight within it self than to declare a genocidal war against an entire culture.
Muslim's are not the threat, Islamo-Fascists and people who support them are. The US led intervention in Afghanistan and in Iraq was to counteract this destructive force that murders women, Jews, homosexuals, Christians and any other "unbelievers".
Why can you even think to write an article that accuses the US, a place where more groups of people have more rights than anywhere else, of being the aggressor in the war on terror is appalling and tasteless. Never mind racism, here we have treason and betrayal.
JF on May 07, 2008 at 02:52 PM:
So the US domestic population has more freedom than the countries which the US plunders with violence through puppet dictatorships and you're surprised by this? The US has supported these radical Islamic elements which you claim you are opposed to, like the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia. This radical form of Islam is a reaction to the brutal regimes which are kept in power by the US in the Islamic world as well as the assaults the West has launched against many of these countries. You should read more. Eisenhower had a discussion about this with his top advisors and they came to the same conclusion. I guess Chomsky, MLK, and Douglas are traitors to America according to you. But I personally think it is unpatriotic to support US terrorist acts which you neoconservatives constantly do. To blindly support the government is one of the greatest sins you can commit. It is what the German people did in the 1930's. The German Government at that time was also carrying out a "War on Terror" which was called "Terror Against Terror". And while there were terrorist acts being committed against Germany, those acts did not even come close the quantity and quality of the terrorist acts which Germany was carrying out against others. It was Germany which was carrying out the most significant terrorist acts, but the domestic German population did not think so because of the massive use of state propaganda. The Bush Administration has nothing but contempt for international law, and I do not think it is patriotic to support such an administration.
Aaron Jeske on May 07, 2008 at 10:30 PM:
"The US has supported these radical Islamic elements which you claim you are opposed to, like the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia."
You are right! We did support these groups. We supported the Mujahidin against the Soviet Empire in the 1980's. We also supported Muslims in Serbia, and in Somalia. What did we get in return? 9/11! The supposed puppet arm that we have in Middle Eastern affairs is only the invention of leftists and Islamo-Facists to blame America for being attacked. In reality the sole reason the terrorists hate is the Islamo-Facist ideology that they spread. We stand for freedom and democracy and they see that as a threat to their own agenda.
"It is what the German people did in the 1930's. The German Government at that time was also carrying out a "War on Terror" which was called "Terror Against Terror"."
Nice of you to compare me to a Nazi, it would be a lie to say you are the first one to do so. First of all Hitler advocated for genocide on an innocent domestic population, whereas neoconservatives advocate for an aggressive foreign policy to seek and destroy our enemies. There is a big difference there that you obviously have missed. We are not seeking one entire population of peoples to wipe off of the map. Our attacks are aimed specifically at the terrorists who threaten us. Yes civilians have died, it is unfortunate but it happens in every war. “The Bush Administration has nothing but contempt for international law, and I do not think it is patriotic to support such an administration.” I’m pretty sure that any supposed violation of international law that you think the US has committed would be overturned in the long run. Laws have to be interpreted all the time because no law is exact under every circumstance. If that were the case every woman who has had an abortion would be in jail for murder. It is my belief that in the interest of self-defense we have every right to retaliate to threats whether domestic or abroad. I also noticed the several attacks on Christianity “Wasn’t it Christians who colonized Africa and carried out the slave trade that killed 100 million Africans?” Yes and it also was Christians who started the abolitionist movement to end slavery. One could also make the argument that it wasn’t Christian ideology that was responsible for slavery, but rather the ideology of the people who were Christian “Wasn’t it Christians who had the Crusades and the Inquisition?” Crusades were a response to aggression from the Islamic world. They were attacking the Byzantine Empire and the Catholics came to their defense. You are right that Christianity was responsible for the Inquisition. Yet the entire death toll is exaggerated. The Catholic side of the inquisition burned only a total of 100 people. There have been worse atrocities in the world trust me. “Wasn’t it Christians who slaughtered up to 150 million indigenous people in North America in the greatest genocide in world history? Wasn’t it Christians who carried out the Nazi Holocaust?” Once again, people who were Christian, not Christianity as a movement. Particularly in the case of the holocaust it should be noted that Hitler hated religion. His holocaust of the Jews was independent of the religion his people followed. “Given that the vast majority of the casualties in Iraq are civilian, that violence qualifies as terrorism. Therefore, the U.S. is responsible for a terrorist attack against Iraq 300 times as great as that of Sept. 11.” Well there you have it! If we only possessed such logic and reasoning that you have!
Let’s first note the difference between civilian and innocent civilian. Just because they fight doesn’t mean that they are military personnel. They are non-military combatants. With that established I don’t have to get into the questionability of the 1 million dead statistic we keep hearing. 1 million dead terrorists equal 1 million less problems left in this world.
DOug on May 13, 2008 at 01:34 PM:
"Wasn’t it Christians who colonized Africa and carried out the slave trade that killed 100 million Africans? Wasn’t it Christians who had the Crusades and the Inquisition?"
However, Muslims started a slave trade in Africa which pre-dated the "Christian" slave trade by about 500 years. Indeed, slavery still exists TODAY in some of the Muslim dominated areas of Africa. The practices of the Muslim slave traders were at least as brutal, and there are several well known examples of mass killings.
Likewise, the Muslim Jihad predated the Crusades by 450 years. The Crusades were largely a Christian response to Jihadist actions--plundering raids, and occupation of territory, which occurred throughout much of Europe. In the 10th and 11th Centuries, there were Islamic enclaves up and down the Italian peninsula. Sicily and other Mediterranean islands were occupied by Arabs. [Many of the practices of the Sicilian Mafia--the "Omerta" (code of silence), the "Vendetta" (blood feud), and the "hit" (assassination), can be traced directly to Arab/Islamic cultural influences Nearly all of Spain was under Moorish (Muslim) control. Even Geneva (in what is now Switzerland) was plundered. By the end of the 11th Century, europe wa beginning to emerge from the Dark Ages, and finally had the wherewithal to effectively fight back against Muslim domination.
You are simply rewriting history if you fail to acknowledge that Arab Muslims created an Empire that was based on conquest, and that Islam was born in an atmosphere of strife and militancy.
Muslims had a good run of success on the battlefields about 1300 years ago. Islam has kept much of what was conquered in its name. Now, let's move beyond that....
The more Muslims fight, the more that they stand to lose....
Wake Up Jeske on May 15, 2008 at 09:55 PM:
That puppet arm is real, but eventually it comes back to bite us in the ass because they're not really on our side. It's called opportunism. If someone shells out millions of dollars to people who are already power hungry, what do you think they're going to do?
Sometimes the recipient breaks the agreements, sometimes we break agreements. Either way, we're manipulating other countries' political processes in ways which we would never accept in our country. So why do we expect other countries to do what we say? Why is it ok that we pump millions of dollars into their political systems?
> Post a Comment