David Quinn
It is not good enough to simply say ‘Islam is a religion of peace’, writes David Quinn
Is Islam really a ‘religion of peace’ as some of its defenders insist? So many acts of terrorism today are being carried out by followers of Islam. Yes, they are extremists. Yes, their version of Islam may be a gross misinterpretation of true Islam, but the fact remains that they use Islam to justify their actions.
Thus, the killings in Belgium last week were carried out by the followers of the self-styled ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS), while the even worse attack on Christians in Pakistan on Easter Sunday (over 70 people massacred) were carried out by members of the Taliban, another radical Islamist movement in the style of ISIS.
These Islamic movements tend not to be called ‘Islamic’ at all, but rather ‘Islamist’. The reason for this is to show that they are not Islamic as such but rather are inspired by a perverted version of Islam and hence are ‘Islamist’, rather than ‘Islamic’.
Imagine now a world in which similar acts of violence were being carried out with the same ferocity and with the same regularity by groups acting in the name of Christianity. Obviously, and to its great shame, many acts of violence down the centuries have been carried out in the name of Christianity, but we are talking about today, not the past.
Today, there is no Christian (or ‘Christianist’) movement that is worldwide in scale and is carrying out numerous acts of mass terror. Indeed, in the history of Christianity it is hard to think of any such movements. Christian states have carried out acts of violence, as have Muslim states and atheist states and every kind of state, but it is hard to think of Christian movements that were non-state actors in the manner of Al-Qaeda and that were not merely localised, but were international in scope and which specialised in targeting innocent civilians.
But if there was today a Christian equivalent of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or ISIS or Boko Haram in Nigeria, or one of the numerous other Islamist movements, what would the reaction of the world be? Would politicians insist that Christianity was a ‘religion of peace’? Would the media do likewise? Would commentators bend over backwards to absolve Christianity per se of all responsibility for what was being carried out in its name?
It is more likely that Christian leaders from the Pope down would be under tremendous pressure to do everything they could to bring the situation under control and that all Christians would in some way be made to feel responsible for what was being done in the name of their religion.
Equivalents
If Christianist equivalents of ISIS or the Taliban existed, these groups would be blowing up or shooting other Christians. They would be doing the same to members of other religions and of no religion.
Most of their atrocities would be carried out in historically Christian countries. They would be targeting Muslims as they gathered for Friday prayers.
In countries where Christians were in a minority, these Christianist groups would not hesitate to target the host population. Imagine if today, Pakistani Christians (say), who make up 1.6% of the Pakistani population, were targeting mosques. It is unthinkable, actually, because it is unthinkable that Pakistani Christians would do such a thing and the reprisals that would be carried out against them are too awful to contemplate.
If such a virulent strain of Christianity existed, and if support for this virulent strain existed among 5-10% of the broader Christian population, then it would indubitably be the responsibility of the rest of Christianity, and especially its leaders to do something about it. It would not do to simply say that ‘Christianity is a religion of peace’ and that these ‘Christianists’ have nothing to do with ‘true Christianity’ and to leave it there.
Why then do we insist that Islam is a religion of peace, and why it is that the more acts of violence are carried out in the name of Islam the more we insist upon this?
I think a big part of the answer is that Muslims are perceived to be part of a minority, and according to the complicated calculations of what we will continue to call ‘political correctness’ (for want of a better term), once a group is granted minority status the normal moral rules are not applied to that group.
Minority groups are considered to be relatively powerless. They must be lifted up, while dominant or ‘oppressor’ groups must be pulled down.
When minority groups engage in acts of violence, it is considered understandable. Excuses are made. It is claimed that their marginalised status has pushed them to acts of desperation. We are told that the alienated Muslims who live in Paris and Brussels are easy fodder for ISIS because of the way French and Belgian society is said to have treated them.
But it can as easily be said that the fault lies with a multi-culturalism that sees fault in seeking to integrate minorities into mainstream society because this would not sufficiently ‘respect’ their cultures.
It could also be said that the ‘Welfare State’ has reduced them to a permanent state of dependency rather than requiring them to find jobs that might help give their lives some direction.
In addition, it could be pointed out that there are other alienated groups in society that do not resort to acts of violence beyond ordinary crime, that is, they do not engage in politically or religiously-motivated acts of mass terror against the rest of the population. So why are alienated Muslims the most inclined to do this?
This brings us full circle. Is it good enough to simply repeat the mantra that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ every time some terrible act of violence is carried out in the name of Islam? No, it is not. Islam itself has a desperate need to engage in more serious soul-searching than it appears to be doing at present.
There must be a systematic and sustained campaign launched by the broader Islamic community both here in the West and in the Muslim world itself, aimed at extirpating the extremists from their midst. And there must be no more excuse-making either by ordinary Muslims, or by the politically correct class here in the West. Nothing less will do.