Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of any causes they claim to be serving. There is no magic formula for understanding Islamic terrorists, nor should there be. The ideals of religious tolerance are meant to be used to understand other religions not the terrorists who adhere to these religions. They are ideals of religious tolerance - not 'terrorist tolerance'. Also (I know this is nit-picking) I think the term should be 'Muslim terrorists' and not 'Islamic terrorists'.
It never ceases to surprise me how ignorant people who read a few articles on the Internet, or a piece in a newspaper written by a repentant Islamic militant (whose religious learning is probably derived from the Muslim radicals who indoctrinated him in the first place) can give themselves license to write so 'authoritatively' on Islam.
It would never occur to me to expound on the principles and interpretations of any other religion, and then to blithely go on and write about the various sects of that religion based on some light research. In fact, I don't even know enough to write about 'sects' in Islam, my own religion.
What I do know is:
- Suicide is a sin in Islam, meaning that if you kill yourself on purpose, you go to Hell - the 'Islamic version' of course. NOWHERE in the Quran or in the Sunna does it say that you may go and blow yourself up and then become a martyr and go to the 'Islamic version of Heaven'. Martyrs are not people who kill themselves on purpose - regardless of what terrorist leaders tell suicide bombers. Martyrs are people who get killed defending a rightful cause. 'Rightful cause' is a very subjective concept of course, but according to the Muslim religion killing yourself (let alone others) is a sin. God certainly did not give us the option of choosing this 'easy' way of getting into heaven because we are having trouble being 'good' on earth!
- The Koran does not exhort Muslims to kill non-Muslims. Muslims who are killing non-Muslims are not doing so because their religion requires them to. If the killing of all non-Muslims were a religious requirement in Islam, Muslim armies would have killed off all the Christians, Jews and others who lived in the countries they conquered ages ago. Did God or Jesus require Christian crusaders to kill all infidels? Maybe, but I don't think so.
- Of course, many (if not most) non-practicing or moderate Muslims probably believe in the basic tenets of Islam, just like the majority of non-practicing Christians or Jews or Buddhists etc. believe in the basic tenets of their respective religions. How, exactly, does it follow that these 'non-practicing moderate Muslims' therefore support those who are burning effigies of the Pope, rallying in the streets and killing people? Are killing, burning and rallying basic tenets of Islam? And while we're at it, why not look upon the burning of effigies as an expression of an opinion in a free society? Why be so sensitive to anything that is 'deemed critical' of a religion? It's just an effigy.
- Although it is true that this did change later, with the Iraq War fiasco, the weeks following the shocking 9/11 terrorist attacks had more Muslims sympathizing wholeheartedly with the US than for decades before - in spite of the many, many times people in Muslim countries (and not just Muslims but Christians also) have asked themselves, in the wake of massacres and attacks, why so little sympathy is extended to them from the West.
- Where in the UN Charter does it say that that organization is entitled to request clerics to please be kind enough to revise the teachings of their religion? Any religion? I thought the whole idea was to separate Church and State? What a preposterous idea!
- I know Islam (as well as Christianity a few hundred years ago, Judaism and Hinduism today) can, and obviously have, been interpreted as condoning violence - but that never was the intent of any of those religions.
- Intolerance, bigotry and violence exist wherever men (and women) are found - and advocating peace and human dignity is not a western monopoly. It feels foolish to even have to write something that is so obviously true.
- Is Islam not present in the here and now? How can one seriously refer to tensions 'between Islamic theology and the modern world'?
- Finally, Muslims live in more than one country, more than one region, more than one culture. They cannot be lumped together as one. In fact, that is precisely the goal of many radical Islamic movements. They want to turn the clock back several centuries, to the days of ancient empires, and re-instate what was once the 'Muslim Umma', or 'Nation of Islam'. Westerners who perceive Muslim nations as somehow being one entity are doing these people the greatest service.