... to dispel the myth that there is anything at all unique about Islamic radicalism (as opposed to other forms of radicalism):
1. Terrorism in Europe has been steadily declining since 2007, and the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by non-Islamic groups.
2. The Westboro Baptist Church is planning a rally in honor of Jared Lee Loughner, the man who killed six people in Arizona, including a nine-year-old child.
Actually, that should be three data points, since Jared Lee Loughner is not a Muslim either.
6 comments:
I don't buy your religious relativism. The mainstream community support for Loughner and Westboro, is nothing like the widespread support that Qadri is getting in Pakistan.
Loughner is a lone lunatic, and Westboro is a tiny congregation of wackos that is publicly condemned by almost everybody.
Whereas in Pakistan, not only does Qadri have huge rallies in his support, but "moderate" Muslims are so intimidated that it's hard to find public criticism of Qadri's supporters.
Oh, also: it's not even clear that Loughner had a particular political point to make, or that the "reasons" given by Westboro for the killings match at all the real motivations of Loughner for acting out.
Whereas, in Pakistan, everyone is united behind a clear "justification". Taseer was killed because he tried to argue that blasphemy perhaps should not be punished by death. That was the concrete reason for Qadri's murderous attack, and it is the specific reason why the local community is so supportive of Qadri.
Qadri did send a political message with his assassination. Loughner, not so much.
> in Pakistan, everyone is united behind a clear "justification"
That's simply not true. To be sure the proportion of wackos in Pakistan is higher -- much higher -- than in Topeka or Tucson, but many Pakistanis are protesting Taseer's murder. It's a difference of degree, not of kind.
The only example I know of where "everyone is united" on the wacko side is Jamel, and the wackiness there is strictly secular.
> Qadri did send a political message with his assassination. Loughner, not so much.
I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether religion and/or Islam is evil.
I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether religion and/or Islam is evil.
I suppose that it seems to me that "evil" requires some kind of purpose. It's a deliberate attempt to inflict suffering. When a tsunami or earthquake or volcano kills hundreds of thousands of people, that's a tragedy, but it isn't really "evil".
It's still early yet, and we don't know for sure, but so far Laughner just seems unhinged, mentally ill.
Qadri, on the other hand, is an industrious, hardworking professional who believes (with considerable support) that he rationally decided to do something that is "good" and "right". Qadri's moral justification came from religion (and culture), not from mental illness.
> I suppose that it seems to me that "evil" requires some kind of purpose. It's a deliberate attempt to inflict suffering.
Was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan evil? Both were deliberate, and both inflicted a huge amount of suffering on mostly innocent people.
> It's still early yet, and we don't know for sure, but so far Laughner just seems unhinged, mentally ill.
Yes. But again, I don't see what that has to do with anything.
> Qadri, on the other hand, is an industrious, hardworking professional who believes (with considerable support) that he rationally decided to do something that is "good" and "right". Qadri's moral justification came from religion (and culture), not from mental illness.
It's hard to respond here because your position is a moving target. First it's religion, then it's Islam, now it's culture. These are three very different (though not completely disjoint) things.
Yes, people do evil in the name of religion. That does not make religion evil any more than the fact that people occasionally do evil in the name of patriotism makes patriotism evil. Yes, what Qadri did is evil. Yes, the fact that so many people are supporting him is appalling. But if you want to argue that Qadri and his supporters are doing what they are doing because they are religious or because they are Muslim then you have to account for the fact that the vast majority of religious people -- and even the vast majority of Muslims -- don't do evil. You also have to account for the evil being done in the name of various secular causes: North Korea, Rwanda, Sudan -- I could go on and on.
What causes people to do evil isn't religion (as the atheists would have it), and it isn't a lack of religion (as most religious people would have it). It isn't even mental illness (the vast majority of schizophrenics are harmless, even off their meds). It's something else.
Yes, religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for evil. Yes, most human wars have been fought over control of resources: power, land, water, women, oil, etc. "Religion" is often a thin veneer over a more fundamental resource conflict, causing essentially tribal warfare.
But not in this case. All that said, Qadri's action -- and especially the widespread enthusiastic support of the town -- was caused by the teachings of Islam, one of the world's "great" religions.
Religion is not responsible for all (or even most) of the evil on the world. But this particular little patch of evil, Taseer's assassination, should be "credited" to Islam.
Post a Comment