Something vaguely interesting in the wake of recent terrorist attacks.

[Monty92]

I think my general point is that it is absurd to blame the entire religion for the actions of a tiny group of people who have been indoctrinated with a medieval interpretation of that religion’s very worst imperatives. And that you could apply the same to any religion if you look at a different period of history.

I don’t think it is fair to say that all these people are mentally ill but I do suspect that there is something seriously wrong with them. On the journey from curious young man finding out about Islam on his computer to standing outside a large event with a nailbomb in a rucksack there are a million points of departure, a thousand different avenues to go down. The fact that very, very few get this far suggests that it isn’t something that appeals to those with a semblance of balance in their lives. And thank god…. These forms of terrorism are a piece of piss to pull off. If there were a million muslims just itching to get over here and hire a van we would be scraping bodies off the pavements every hour. We aren’t, because there isn’t….. because despite the best efforts of radical clerics, one handed beardy ****s and a load of would-be gangstas in Toyotas rolling through the desert with a childish flag the prospect of blowing yourself up in order to kill a few teenage pop fans still seems to appeals to very, very few people, even among the ardent believers.

So no, your two points are not really a fair summation, if for no other reason than you contrast 1) where the subject is a murderer with 2) where he or she is simply a religious fanatic. Of course, in 2, it is not mental to believe what you were taught growing up and what everything in your environment tells you. Maybe that includes butchering people but if it is all you have ever known……. **** knows, maybe it is a perfectly sane and rational response. Neither of us would know, would we.

The original point was whether Islam itself is to blame for this, whether the religion itself is the inevitable root cause of all these events. I don’t think it is.

So, the behaviour of a father in Afghanistan who stones his own daughter to death for adultery, as prescribed by the hadith, is not the fault of Islam itself.

A citizen of Saudi Arabia who openly advocates death for apostasy, supports his government in applying such a law and expresses his enthusiasm for it by attending public executions, is not the fault of Islam, even though it explicitly prescribes this punishment.

A law-maker in Iran who in good conscience helps to implement the death penalty for homosexuality, because he believes Islamic scripture, which commands that homosexuals be killed, is the infallible word of God, but this is not the fault of Islam.

Even though all of these actions are at the direct behest of the religion you claim should not be blamed...

On another note, you wrongly assume I absolve other religions for their past (and enduring) moral failings. I do absolutely no such thing.

If I am singling out Islam, it is because Islam remains an intolerably dangerous religion (dangerous to other muslims far more than to non-muslims) whereas the others do not. That is not to say that other religions do not continue to do untold harm, but to no way near the same extent as Islam.

I think it’s incredible that you deny the primary role of religion in these matters and how different things would be without it. It is indisputable that without Islam (or certainly with LESS Islam) these societies would have had a far better chance of adopting modern western values. For starters, without Islam (or any other religion), no geopolitical events would have created a climate of religious devotion in which apostates are executed (by definition this is true, because without religion there would be no such thing as apostasy) and there’s every chance that women and gays might be spared by now as well.

The other point is that the geopolitics you rightly refer to as a factor in how these societies have failed to progress is also inextricably linked with religion. This is because Jihad is justified by Islamic scripture when Muslim societies are being attacked. Given this, how can you possibly separate geopolitics from religion, as you seem so keen to do?