|
Soapbox Philosophy: Terrorists not helping their religion
Op-Ed · January 16, 2015
Violence against people in the name of religion happens far too often, but the attack Jan. 7 on Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris added an element of attacking free speech, which is a broader attack on society as a whole.
And so newspapers, like the one you’re reading, and media outlets around the globe made it a point to condemn this particular attack. Killing a man for no discernible reason only kills a man, but killing someone who represents an idea, a belief, a right or a freedom is an attack on that idea, belief, right or freedom. In this case, though, it led to a backlash.
And questions. Why is it that Charlie Hebdo, a satirical publication in Paris some compared to Mad Magazine, has only been attacked (they also had their offices firebombed a few years ago) by those who profess to follow Islam?
Is it really because the Quran tells followers to do so? There are verses from the Quran — like 2:191-193: “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...” or 8:12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” — that strongly suggest violence. But is this what led to the attacks?
If that’s true, and if there really are more than a billion Muslims around the globe, then the entire world would be gripped in religious war.
Ah, but there’s this thing called free will — a power held by every Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Quaker, Morman, atheist, etc. — that can distance what people do from what their god tells them to do, even if they are their own god. So despite these verses and others like them, many Muslims don’t attack nonbelievers. Instead, they practice their free will and ignore those calls to violence.
Of course, there are some who do act out the Quran’s calls for violence, like the trio who attacked Charlie Hebdo’s offices, striking out quickly and in secret. And there are others doing something similar by exercising their rightful authority.
For example, according to the Associated Press, a Saudi blogger by the name of Raif Baddawi was arrested and sentenced to 10 years for insulting Islam. On Friday, he began receiving the first of 50 lashes each week for 20 weeks, for a total of 1,000 lashes. Baddawi was originally sentenced to 600 lashes but he appealed; he lost and the judge stiffened the sentence.
We all should join the chorus of those denouncing the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices both for the attack on free speech and for murder. But we need to exercise caution before labeling an entire religion based on the violent acts of a few.
I write this in part because there are plenty of bad examples of people speaking or acting in the name of Christianity. Westboro Baptist Church is an easy example here, but as crass as their behavior, they have not killed anyone. While plenty of people have tried to pass laws limiting Westboro’s speech, funeral protests, flag desecration, etc., it is difficult to write a such a law without unintended consequences on peaceful adherents of any particular religion or without violating the First Amendment.
But getting back to the Muslims, why do so many ignore the Quran’s calls to violence? Is it because they see and understand the value and power of free speech? No doubt many in the Iowa City area, which includes the University of Iowa, use and enjoy the open arena of ideas. Is it that they see, firsthand, that better decisions on life, including which religion is true, come from more information, not less?
Perhaps like many others, I did a search to see for myself what kinds of drawings Charlie Hebdo published that insulted Mohammed or the Islamic religion. And while the drawings seem childish, disrespectful and inappropriate, I cannot understand how anyone could take them seriously. They are, after all, in a satirical publication.
Second, anyone serious about their religion would simply dismiss the drawings as juvenile. Sure, I can understand momentary anger, but for these silly drawings to settle into their mind and cause terrorists to burn with violent hatred suggests the attackers’ faith is actually quite shallow. Those serious about their faith also question it, poking at the apparent weak claims until 1. They understand the strength of those verses and deepen their personal conviction, or 2. They understand the weakness of the verses and walk away from the faith. People who don’t question their faith may simply be looking for identity, so an insult against their religion is taken personally.
At my church this past Sunday, Pastor Brooks Simpson talked about the gap between how the Bible says we should behave and how we actually behave, and how that has led us to a world filled with strife, dysfunction and pain — and that’s before we read the news.
He also made this observation: “Religious people obey God to keep God at a distance.” That is, rather than following God out of gratefulness, they follow God believing good behavior will assure good things happen to them and their family.
Now I’m no expert on Islam, but when you apply that observation to the three who attacked Charlie Hebdo firing and shouting “The Prophet has been avenged,” and “God (Allah) is greatest!” it strongly suggests that they believe they can earn their way into Allah’s good graces.
Maybe it’s just me, but putting fear over free will does not seem like a great way to draw converts.
Obviously, most of the world is taking sides with Charlie Hebdo. Not necessarily approving of their choice of drawings, but of exercising free speech. The hashtag, #JeSuisCharlie (I Am Charlie) went viral on the Web and thousands of demonstrators waving pens in the air back up this point.
The terrorists are losing in the arena of ideas, they’re losing support for Islam, they’re failing to convert nonbelievers and they’re making martyrs out of their victims. Where is the upside to their attack? They won a small battle, but they’re losing the war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
