Terrorism and Islamaphobia


Irishfury97's avatar
It is no secret nowadays that Muslim extremists are behind many of the terror attacks that have affected modern civilization. Islamic State, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, all commiting horrible acts in the name of their so called Holy Book.

My question is, do the American people and in general the world population have a right to view Muslims and practitioners of Islam with suspicion? I do not argue racial profiling and prejudice, but seeing as lone wolf terrorists and small cells claiming allegance to extremist groups have enacted plots leaving multiple dead and wounded, could slight proactive measures, even if viewed as racist or xenophobic, save lives?
Comments296
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
shiromushiichika's avatar
 "all commiting horrible acts in the name of their so called Holy Book"

I disagree with this statement, would you like to point out on what page and parts did the Qur'an said to slay other human?
this is why I dislike a shallow people who value other just based on "what other people said"
every religion taught their believer to live in peace and loving each other, then if you want to blame, then blame the believer, not the belief.
actually I'm in the verge as being agnostic, but even so I can't say "I hate this religion!" because after all what makes the religion seems wrong is the people its self... so please don't just judge people blindly without looking the other side :) 

blakk's avatar
There`s few things that one should keep in mind, while discussing about Islam/terrorism connection...

1- Islam is not only Religion,that deals with spiritual or soul matters, but also has a very powerful rules for day-by-day living and even more powerful rules for society. Just like Christian church back in middle ages.
1- There`s no "head" of Islam, like Pope in Catholicism, or Cardinals or other positions...every Imam in each Mosque can twist and bend things according to his beliefs and his goals...
2- Spread of Islam, as the only true religion is a MUST for every Muslim person, however, in Quran only "unlettered" (classic Islam accepts Christianity and Judaism as "lettered" religions)  persons are targets of this "sharing the wisdom" and only by teaching and arguing with them. But classic Islam is giving ground to more extreme and violent teachings, and they are kindly skipping "unlettered" and "teaching and arguing" part...
Valzeras's avatar
1- There`s no "head" of Islam, like Pope in Catholicism, or Cardinals or other positions...every Imam in each Mosque can twist and bend things according to his beliefs and his goals...

You can blame the British for that since they destroyed the Ottoman Islamic caliphate and the emperor of all muslims
blakk's avatar
Ottoman empire was a country, that was an ally with Germany during WWI...so kinda wrong to "blame it on the England"....Also most of the work by Ottoman empire destruction was made by Ataturk, native Ottoman citizen...
ITAFTRS's avatar
If you blame a whole religion because a group of people within said religion has done something horrific, then yes, it's racist. Besides, I myself think that people who commit crimes "in the name of their religion" just use that phrase as an excuse. No religion that I can think of has (in its core) any evil motives.
Bunnixia's avatar
That's called religious discrimination or prejudice, not racism.  Gods.
Diacraft's avatar
Islam isn't a race
ITAFTRS's avatar
Yes, I'm aware of that. Mankind is a race.
Diacraft's avatar
Mankind is a species.
ITAFTRS's avatar
Sure, whatever. A one-raced species, nevertheless.
Diacraft's avatar
Actually there are several races, just like the other animal species in nature.
ITAFTRS's avatar
What races are there, then?
View all replies
gvcci-hvcci's avatar
I think all religious people are weird. :nod:

But that's okay, we're all a bunch of weirdos in our own ways. :giggle:
MechaKraken's avatar
No they do not. That would be generalizing.

Try not to view extremists as fanatics. Instead, view them as simple madmen who seek to further their own political agenda, and have decided to use a religious venue to both collect recruits and have a scapegoat prepared towards that purpose. The interpretation of those madmen should have nothing to do with the faith itself, of which there are many peaceful believers.

The Boko Haram are one such group of madmen who have no qualms about opening fire on school children, even if the children are Islamic themselves.
CouchyCreature's avatar
Boko Harem are often painted as madmen, but they have a specific goal. They are essentially anti-westernisation. The fact that children may be muslim stands for nothing if they are going to westernised schools. Boko Harem basically means that books (boko) are banned (haram)

The North of Nigeria has always been an Islamic country, a sovereign sultanate with a majority muslim population. In 1903 Britain took over, amalgamated 3 different ethnic groups into one country and tried to spread christianity overall. They left in 1960 and the country gained full independence in 1963. In 1966 there was a military coup involving mostly soldiers and officers from the Southern district (Nigeria had been spilt into 3 distinct political regions).

Ever since then there has been conflict.  The struggle for control of the country is fueled by poverty. Nigeria is Africa's biggest economy but most in the country are not sharing in the wealth from Nigeria's resources. Over 60% of the population lives on less than $1 per day.

Boko Haram now control an area in the North of Nigeria the size of Belgium. Civil war is being waged and the North is winning right now, although John Kerry has been diplomating around in the South and promised US support against the Islamic North.
intermetal's avatar
Do you think their Prophet, Muhammad himself, could equally well be described as a madman who sought to further his own political agenda? 

As I understand it Boko Haram tend to target Christian children, either for slavery of forced conversion.
Kamal-Q's avatar
himself, could equally well be described as a madman who sought to further his own political agenda?

Sure, he's no pacifist - but that does not make one violent. 

He made treaties with the Meccan Arabs that persecuted and warred against him for near 20 years, ended centuries of inter-tribal Arab conflict, and in Medina he forms a constitution that is inclusive of other faiths and tribes - how can such a man be considered violent? Only a person totally immersed in their ignorance, not really caring to learn, would think so.

And what is this supposed political agenda?
Notorius-Quack's avatar
It depends of what these slightly proactive measures means.

Every country have their own security methods but there's a limit. You can be more aware of a certain group but you can never discriminate, people have to supervise in a subtle way so people don't feel awkward... That's the theory...the practice is another story.
CouchyCreature's avatar
what's your point in relation to this news article? It talks about a school that is not meeting government standards and might be closed down if it does not improve.
Jafar-AsSaleem's avatar
If the fact that a guy has a turban on or uses the word muslim is all you need to be convinced that it is muslims doing it, then I would say what you say really doesn't matter, and your fears should be wholly ignored.
Notadrugdealer's avatar
Because the Qur'an has multiple verses saying you must kill nonbelievers
CouchyCreature's avatar
All the Abrahamic religions are fucked.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ...it's pretty clear, repetition is not required.