Here’s a meme to watch, and it’s been popping up pretty frequently lately: “Terrorism has no religion.” People mean different things by it, so let’s scan some news stories.
Meaning one: People in religions should not be persecuted for the actions of their most violent minorities.
This article is from 2002, and the quote is from Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, talking about 9/11.
For me and many of my colleagues in the MCB, there is no such thing as family life any more; we are under so much pressure. It cannot be right that an entire civilisation is tarnished because of the actions of a few. Terrorism has no religion. We must not fall into the trap of responding with anger and hate. Our emphasis should be on justice, not vengeance.
Okay, scapegoating sucks. And in many of the news stories that contain this phrase, they’re trying to tamp down religiously-motivated violence between Hindus and Muslims. A real nightmare scenario. I get that.
But here’s the other reading, and it’s this one I object to:
Meaning two: Extremists are not members of any religion.
Senior Congress leader B. Janardhan Poojary has said the terrorism has no religion and this has been revealed in the arrests of alleged Hindu extremists in connection with the Malegaon blast case.
Mr. Poojary condemned the Malegaon blasts by the Hindu community and said the “People who commit acts of aggression in the name of Hinduism are not Hindus. People who take to violence in the name of Islam are not Muslim.”
Does he mean they’re not good Hindus or Muslims? No, he’s saying they’re simply not Hindus or Muslims at all, which is untrue.
About one instant before 5 guys stopped being Muslims, protecting Islam from criticism.
Here’s another recent article on the same theme.
Bollywood star Aamir Khan wrote on his blog on Friday that politicians may try to use the Mumbai terror attack to their own advantage and stressed that terrorists have no religion.
“I dread to think of how various political parties are now going to try and use this tragedy to further their political careers. At least now they should learn to not divide people and instead become responsible leaders,” wrote Aamir on his blog.
“When will these politicians realise and admit that terrorists have no religion. Terrorists are not Hindu or Muslim or Christian. They are not people of religion or god. They are people who have gone totally sick in their head and have to be dealt with in that manner,” he added.
Does he mean that terrorism is not confined to one religion? No, he’s saying that a religious person in the midst of committing a terrorist act ceases to be a member of that religion.
This seems like an attempt to shield religions from criticism by performing ad hoc disavowals of anyone who commits a terrorist act. But this is irresponsible. You can’t raise someone in a faith, tell them the doctrines are literally true and must be obeyed, tell them that they must always be true to their faith, teach that they must sacrifice for the cause, and then cut them loose when they sacrifice their lives in a mistaken effort to promote their religious ends. Religions are responsible for the consequences of their doctrines.
I wish people in religions could honestly confront the possibility that they enable terrorism by promoting unquestioning faith as a virtue and holding out the hope of an eternal future of happiness if followers obey the commands of a god. But I suppose that’s too much to ask.
2 December 2008 at 3:13 am
I firmly believe in what you have chosen to have the title of your post however, without the question mark (ie. Terrorism has no religion). Please read the post.
2 December 2008 at 5:25 am
Hi, DEEPENDRA.
I read your post. No one is saying that everyone in a certain religion is automatically a terrorist. But I am saying that religions, even moderate ones, have certain features that can make terrorism seem appealing to believers.
Terrorists do have a religion. It’s the religion they were acting to promote when they were carrying out a terrorist act. We don’t have to say that all members of that religion are bad, but we do have to confront the idea that perhaps supernatural ideologies may have a bit of a downside. Instead of the whitewash job some people are trying to pull. Would that be too much to ask?
2 December 2008 at 8:09 am
Deependra I read your article.
The issue whether or not terrorists are practising ‘real’ religion is irrelevant. All religions to a greater or lesser extent are based on a group of people taking a philosophical/spiritual idea and using it for social and/or political ends. Sometimes this is benign (though I think any form of groupthink is problematic as it opposes critical thinking) but throughout history religion has been used to oppress people (women usually) and justify wars. You cannot so easily distance yourself from terrorists just because they are interpreting religion in yet another way. If those religious people who criticise terrorists’ interpretation of their religion were to look at themselves and the spiritual roots of their religion they would need to be honest and give up their riches and live life in service to others – don’t see much of that in any religion.
That’s why you can’t get the ‘good’ to unite against ‘bad’ – they’d be exposed as the hypocrites they are.
Best just to live a decent life based on humanist principles and give up the childish nonsense of gods and the supernatural.
2 December 2008 at 1:29 pm
Dear Daniel and snowqueen,
I appreciate your views on this sensitive issue. please allow me to put your views as responses to my post so that readers at my blog may get a chance to have a look. I think it will be like adding a different dimension to the thoughts reflected in my article.
Thanks