Article

Religion Unequivocally Inspires Murder

Comes now Arsalan Iftikhar, an international human rights lawyer, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com, and contributing editor for Islamica magazine in Washington, to claim that religions don’t inspire murder.

Clearly, they do.

Iftikhar claims:

First of all, someone simply saying “Allahu Akbar” while committing an act of mass murder no more makes their criminal act “Islamic” than a Christian uttering the “Hail Mary” while murdering an abortion medical provider, or someone chanting “Onward, Christian Soldiers” while bombing a gay nightclub, would make their act “Christian” in nature.

Simply put; murder is murder and has no religion whatsoever.

Let me try to wrap my head around this logic. He just gave three clear examples of religion inspired murders, then a blatant non-sequitur. It’s worse than a non-sequitur, it’s an out-and-out contradiction of the very facts he just presented.

I know Iftikhar wishes it were otherwise. He condemns the Fort Hood atrocity. If it were an isolated incident, he’d have a point. But the famous website The Religion of Peace has documented over 14,000 separate acts of Islamic murder since 9/11. And the count goes up almost every single day.

In the U.S., we are still freshly smarting from the Christian murder of Dr. George Tiller. The case of the LGBT center shooting in Israel is barely 3 months old.

Iftikhar is in a monumental state of denial. Of course we should not respond by demonizing all Muslims. Most are peaceful people, if a bit overwrought in the name of their Prophet. But this is a Muslim problem, and it must be dealt with by Muslims if they want to avoid the backlash. The way forward is through facing the cancer of militancy by going to the source: the murderous language in their central scripture, the Quran. For it is the Quran (and the Bible, and nearly every other Abrahamic scripture) that contains the violent passages.

The most peaceful religious people are the ones who ignore their scriptures and follow humanistic ethics. It would not be inaccurate to say that adherents who kill unbelievers in the name of their God are technically the most faithful. They are doing what they have been told will secure them a place in heaven.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments (10 comments)

darkeros / November 10th, 2009, 11:37 pm / #1

Trippy stuff. Religions and their 'bibles' are nothing but perpetrators of hatred. They can espouse all the 'love' they want. Elitism as the chosen ones is rife in EVERY SINGLE religion! Its astounding that they do not stop and wonder about their own claims being echoed by every other religion! Unfortunately, hate to admit it… but I know it from the inside out. It is a form of insanity which with the right zealot can easily be turned into murder.
Keep chipping away at this one, Black Sun. Eventually its all going down.

links for 2009-11-12 « Clint’s blog / November 12th, 2009, 9:06 am / #2

[...] RELIGION: Religion Unequivocally Inspires Murder Another good blogpost from my uncle Sean. (tags: politics religion violence murders deaths Islam Muslims GeorgeTiller SexualFreedom Jews Judaism Christians Christianity Catholics Catholocism SeanProphet blog posts) [...]

links for 2009-11-12 « Clint’s Test Blog / November 12th, 2009, 9:07 am / #3

[...] RELIGION: Religion Unequivocally Inspires Murder Another good blogpost from my uncle Sean. (tags: politics religion violence murders deaths Islam Muslims GeorgeTiller SexualFreedom Jews Judaism Christians Christianity Catholics Catholocism SeanProphet blog posts) [...]

Judith Conway / November 19th, 2009, 10:52 pm / #4

Surprised to see no line here on the movie "2012," so I am putting this in the most recent line of discussion. I am most pleased to see this movie so well done. I especially liked the debate on whether to admit the masses trying to get on this obviously gigantic ark and the outcome, i.e., "let not our first act in this new world be one of cruelty." I believe these events *are* a test of our love of our fellow man, as we saw in Katrina and so many other true distasters. It saddens me greatly to have to say also that this movie (and the preceding documentary on 2012) are one of the truest and best things ever put out by Hollywood, including the timeline. I can only hope that this will instigate action so that more people can be saved.

BlackSun / November 19th, 2009, 11:10 pm / #5

Judith, since I haven't seen it, I don't really have anything to say about the movie 2012. It's apparently another Emmerich disaster epic, a genre which he does very well. But why is it that we need to fantasize about the end of the world as we know it in order to think about making the needed changes?

Why can't we just look around at what is happening and make the changes because it's the right thing to do?

Accountability, transparency, sustainability, planetary equilibrium and peace. Also global unity. We are our own worst enemy as people line up behind their narrow interests–to challenge every potential solution.

I understand the attraction of the end-of-the-world scenarios, as people are finally "punished" for their intransigence. It's just a variant on the old fire-and-brimstone preaching. But it won't happen that way. Humanity will grind on in all its tedious glory, lurching from one synthetic crisis to another. We know what we need to do to make a better world–but we probably won't do it.

This stuff will be going on long after we are dead. It's far more likely that large human populations who are now living at subsistence level will be slowly starved and run out of water as the climate warms over the next several decades. If we don't find a way to fix the crumbling natural systems on which all life depend, the climate crisis could spawn unprecedented wars and forced migrations.

It's fun to watch everything explode (as long as its a fantasy), but in reality, 2012 is just another more-or-less unremarkable date on the calendar.

lookinforneil / December 9th, 2009, 6:20 am / #6

Hey kids, the word of the day is DECONTEXTUALIZATION.
Wow, that guy in the CNN video, Younes Abdullah Mohammad, is a wacko,and does not speak for all those Muslims in the mosque. As a converted Jew, his friend Yousef Khattab is know for having given up radical Zionism for radical Islam, where his misinterpretation is that there is no peace with the unbeliever, which actually is more in line with Zionsim than Islam. These guys are both reading the Koran without context, which leads to error. When the Koran tells Muslims to kill their enemies wherever they are, who are 'they'? When was the verse revealed? 10 years after the Prophet started preaching, at which point the enemies in question were beginning to ratchet up their harassment, persecution and forced expulsion of Muslims into all-out extermination. Was this instruction intended to be a commandment for all time? No, because when the Prophet returned to Mecca 13 years later, he forgave all his enemies - they were afraid they would be slaughtered but not a single drop of blood was shed. And there were no forced conversions.
Suhaib Webb, a scholar of some repute, is also a convert. He used to DJ in Oklahoma as a teenager. His grandfather founded a Christian college. He had something interesting on his website about these nutbars:

It is one thing to say something about someone which is not true, but it is an entirely different affair when one does so with God’s words. In fact, one of the major sins in Islam is to speak about Allah without knowledge.

A quick look at the entire verse, and the one that follows it, should be enough to clarify the ignorant nature of Abdullah’s claim:

“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows.” [Qur'an, 8:60]

Orthodox scholars hold that “them” in this verse is in reference to “the polytheists of Mecca;” the reference to “others besides them” was in reference to a tribe known as Bani Quradha which was a Jewish tribe that acted traitorously, or as some said, the Persians. I’m not sure how `Abdullah and his friend apply this verse to people who live in New York City on their way to work? But a simple glance at the next verse clarifies their false claims and ignorant notions.

“And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.” [Qur’an, 8:61]

Thus, instead of seeking to strike fear in the hearts of people, the Muslim is encouraged to seek peace." (end of excerpt)

The vast majority of Muslims refer to scholars like this Mr. Webb. CNN, BSJ, and other 'exposers' go out of their way to latch on to the wackos. Good for you.

Oh, and being an expert on the Koran takes more than a few hits on exposeislam.com. You might have to actually pick up the Koran yourself.

Peace, and good reading to all.

BlackSun / December 9th, 2009, 6:35 am / #7

No need to be an expert on religious texts to understand that they are completely unsupportable arbitrary documents written by human beings. As such, they lack principle and are not grounded in empiricism. Since so many people base their lives on them, they must be considered primarily political documents which served the agendas of rulers in both church and state. But they do not serve the deepest human needs. They are historical documents with historical value, but add nothing to innate human morality.

Moderates of all religions lay the philosophical and political groundwork which allows extremists to persist. But the extremists are usually the ones who hew most closely to the literal interpretations of their texts. Radical Islamists, Zionists, and Christians have all drunk from the same poisoned well of "revealed" truth. They all use their cherry picked passages of their pet scriptures to justify whatever violence and oppression suits their current political and social goals. When those goals change, so does their so-called interpretation of scripture. The whole process is circular and can never be anything but corrupt.

goddamnathiest / January 3rd, 2010, 5:50 am / #8

Ya know, I really can't see the difference between any of these religions when it comes to killing and murder.
Honestly, in all religions you have the "nut cases" that are willing to die for their beliefs and think nothing of killing you. No matter what your beliefs are. Or non-beliefs.
However, I do have an idea on how to handle these clowns.
First we evacuate all of Australia.
Second we move them all there.
Third we arm them to the teeth.
Forth, we let them have at each other.
Winner take all.
Of course, there is just one tiny drawback to all this.
If they all get together and realize just how much they actually have in common the might ban together and attack us.

Tim / February 9th, 2010, 12:06 pm / #9

This is one of the worst examples of the blind leading the blind I have ever witnessed. The idea that religions are clearly just excuses for legitimized killing is assumed self-evident without even a whit of anything that would pass as logic or evidence. “Black Sun” is an apropos moniker, since the “ideas” expressed herein are clearly the result of a lack of illumination. Have those herein bashing Christianity actually even read the Bible with an understanding of what its overall teachings point toward? Or have we just come to the decision that since some misguided people commit violence in the name of Christianity, Christianity apparently teaches that it is right to do so? Is that really a logical deduction, or just muddled thinking? To find out, try this exercise:

1. Suspend your disbelief in the supernatural. Temporarily eliminate its nonexistence from your null hypothesis.

2. Read the Bible with a view toward its message of the salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ. Avoid trying to find fault and to ridicule. Just assume what you are reading is the truth (at least temporarily - you can always rationally judge it afterward).

3. Based on your (hopefully unbiased) reading, reflect upon whether modern Christians are called to lives of violence or to lives of love and service.

Prejudice against religion will necessarily lead to viewing it pejoratively whether such a view is logical or not. Furthermore, religion has no monopoly on generating extremism. We can easily point to the examples of Mao and Stalin to produce tens of millions of victims of non-religious extremism. Can ANY supposedly religion-inspired murderers do “better”? (I’m guessing not.)

(PS - next you can try my experiment on the Koran. See what conclusion you draw from it.)

TMaster / October 20th, 2011, 11:42 am / #10

Religion… The truth… Well the truth is religion follows books of the past misread and misinterpreted and then preserved and twisted to those who inspire religion… Simply fact everyone should know is religion has caused more death and murder then anything else we have ever contacted… Religious leaders sit in comfy expensive custom build homes while a large majority of their followers starve to death.

Religion will only and always serve to control the population, They claim they care and follow this booggy man they have constructed… They sell propaganda like every tv news station out there.

Religion is just another form of incapable government,,, and all governments are incapable.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.