Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHorror at Fort Hood Inspires Horribly Predictable Islamophobia
Thursday's shootings at Fort Hood army base in Texas -- which have left at least 11 people dead and 31 others wounded -- were of course the "horrific outburst of violence" that President Obama bemoaned and condemned Thursday.
But, because a soldier identified as the gunman had a name that led to the presumption that he was Muslim, the incident inspired an all-too-predictable outbreak of Islamophobia.
News reports named the man who used two handguns in the assault on his fellow soldiers at a base that is a prime point of departure for troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan as Major Malik Nidal Hasan. The major, who was wounded during the incident, was reportedly a psychiatrist who had served in the Department of Psychology at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress at the Bethesda Naval Facility in Bethesda, Maryland, before his transfer to Fort Hood. Hours after the incident, and hours after news anchors and politicians cited his religion as an explanation for the shootings, a family member told reporters Major Hasan was indeed a Muslim.
But that was hardly the only relevant detail about the major.
For instance, according to Texas Senator Bailey Hutchison, preparing to deploy to Iraq. However, the senator said, "I do know that he has been known to have told people that he was upset about going (to Iraq)." Several new reports suggested that the major saw a deployment to Iraq as his "worst nightmare" and recounted how he had treated victims of combat-related stress and was upset about the war.
Military officials at the base and in Washington refused to speculate about motivations or intents. And Paul Sullivan, executive director of the group Veterans for Common Sense, noted that the incident might well be the latest in a series of stress-related homicides and suicides involving soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan or are being dispatched to those occupied lands.
No one knew on Thursday whether stress, fear, anger over mistreatment, mental illness or a warped understanding of his religion might have motivated Major Hasan. The point here is not to defend the soldier or his alleged actions. Rather, it is to question the rush to judgment regarding not just this one Muslim but all Muslims.
It should be understood that to assume a follower of Islam who engages in violence is a jihadist is every bit as absurd to assume that every follower of Christianity who attacks others is a crusader. The calculus makes no sense, and is rooted in a bigotry that everyone from George W. Bush to Pope Benedict XVI has condemned.
But that did not stop right-wing web sites from exploding with incendiary speculation about a "Jihad at Fort Hood?" and a "Terrorist Incident in Texas."
Fox News host Shepard Smith asked Senator Hutchison on air: "The name tells us a lot, does it not, senator?"
Hutchinson's response? "It does. It does, Shepard."
Neither Smith nor Hutchison had any information to suggest that Major Hasan's name offered even the slightest shred of information regarding the incident at Fort Hood.
What could Hutchinson have said that might have been more responsible response?
She could have emphasized that the investigation of the shooting spree has barely begun.
She might also have noted that thousands of Muslims serve honorably, indeed heroically, in the U.S. military; that American Muslim soldiers have died In Iraq and been buried at Arlington Cemetery; that some of the first condemnations of the slayings at Fort Hood came from Muslim veterans such as Robert Salaam.
"I'm sad for those killed and wounded by a traitor to both God and our country, and I regret that I even feel that I have to write something on the subject. Words cannot express my emotions and the instant headache I received when notified by my dear sister Sheila Musaji over at The American Muslim (TAM) concerning the alleged culprit," wrote Salaam, who served in the Marine Corps, within minutes after learning the gunman's name. "They have not yet released further details such as the motive but I will state for the record that no true Muslim could ever commit such a crime against humanity. As Muslims we are reminded that to take one innocent life is as if one killed all of mankind. Muslims are also commanded to keep their oaths when given."
Salaam is not alone in regretting that, as a Muslim, he feels a need to respond to the incident with an explanation of his religion.
But the conversation between Fox's Smith and Senator Hutchinson reminds us why it is necessary to respond.
And so Muslim groups have responded quickly and unequivocally.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, issued a statement that read: "We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured."
Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, declared that, "Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as to those wounded and their loved ones. We stand in solidarity with law enforcement and the US military to maintain the safety and security of all Americans."
Those are sentiments that are worth noting, especially by news anchors and senators who are in a position to inform the discussion of a horrific incident -- rather than to inflame it.
53 Comments so far
Show AllWhy, oh why are we discussing this in terms of Islam? We should be discussing this in terms of Columbine shootings. Under bullying (even the main stream media talked of incidents like a diaper in the shooter's car with a note that this was his head covering...) people crack. Doesn't matter if they are psychiatrists, military people, or high school students, with no outlet and no recourse, some become violent..
To fight an unpopular war against a hostile population is a demoralizing and inevitably brutalizing experience for soldiers. The murder and torture that must be practiced to subdue the population could easily drive one dedicated to mental healing to embrace violence. Yet we must face the motivation for these massive crimes with cold and clear eyes. The great game which the U.S. is playing, with the lives of American soldiers, Afghani and Pakistani citizens as its chips, appears to be "the prevention of a Russian energy monopoly" in Central Asia, according to an article published last year in the magazine of the US Army War College by Dr. Stephen Blank. Studying the strategic papers of those who guide the national security state can yield rich understanding to those who want to counter their tactics.
"Not surprisingly," Blank writes, "the leitmotif of US energy policy has been focused on fostering the development of multiple pipelines and links to foreign consumers and producers of energy" that bypass the control of our regional rivals. He singles out the most important of these pipelines as the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAPI) pipeline, which would pump oil and natural gas from Central Asia across the exact territory now occupied by US troops.
Note that it is not a single pipeline that is motivating U.S. foreign policy, but a network of multiple pipelines that are intended to counter the Russian threat. Suddenly, the "nuclear threat" of Iran begins to make sense. Iran has allied with Russia and China and serves as a proxy for the Central Asian hegemonic powers. What anti-war resisters need is a consistent, in-depth analysis of this strategy, so that we are never tempted to fall into the frames of discourse presented by the Democratic party. The key to fighting a successful anti-war campaign is to understand what actually motivates your enemy, not to directly counter the miasma of lies that clouds their strategy. Until the antiwar movement starts to reframe the discourse on Afghanistian away from meaningless disputes promoted by the corporate media, we will continue to waste our energies on trivia.
Does anyone know of someone who has analyzed this "Great Game" strategy in detail? I think it would make an effective talking point for planning anti-war activities. One of the powerful aspects of this narrative is that breaks the corporate media frameworks of discussion, frameworks that have been carefully designed to support the war effort. Secondly, it puts the focus on power relations and provides a predictive check on the validity of our analysis.
The deaths of soldiers might cause you grief, but the Planet breathes a sigh of relief.
Come on. When our deepest mental physical and emotional attachments and investments, come under perceived attack verbally or otherwise the truth at that level suddenly rears it's ugly head. The truth being in this case , that the christians believe the koran is evil and the muslims think the christians are infidels. People convince themselves that they truly feel a certain way because of an accepted tenet and the peer pressure to exhibit this belief. In this case it is tolerance. On the other hand, if The USA does not invade muslim countries and the muslim countries don't attack americans and everybody has food clothing and shelter, then, the liberal BS of tolerance is flowing sweetly. Did i happen to mention that none of the latter exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Please see the posts under this video.
Armey of Dick suckers.
Love
Zero
I went to school with and worked with Muslims in many of my jobs. Most were not the "Suicide Bomber" type. Most also got along very well with the Jewish students and co-workers.
seriously, no offense intended, but this is very descriptive of my above comment. It is reminiscent of ,"some of my best friends are gay" statements. I am sure what you are saying is true,according to the daily circumstances but if the circumstances were altered into an extreme situation of personal attack, would you honestly feel the same way. It is easy to accept someone else's beliefs as long as they don't infringe on your own . Our two cultures, christians and muslims, have been provoking each other for quite some time now and these events are the boil on the skin from bad blood.
They've got to be carefully taught! Those words from South Pacific are so true. It all starts with the mother's milk.
Let's take a look at history. The Crusades were ostensibly to "Free the Holy Land" from the Muslims. The various Knightly Orders came primarily for loot and land. The slaughter of Muslims was horrendous. It was rumored that they (and the Jews) swallowed their valuables to keep them from the invaders. Hence, the captured were routinely disemboweled and their viscera searched for gems and gold. When Jerusalem was finally taken and the slaughter begun, one of the officers asked his commander, "There are Christians and Jews amongst the captives, how do we sort them out?" After a pause, the commander said, "Kill them all and let God sort them out." And they did.
The Muslims had their own disputes, mainly Sunni vs Shiite, but when it became obvious what was going on, they set aside their differences to fight the common foe. Eventually it became a stalemate. The Templars made a treaty with the Muslims to allow trade to resume so all could profit. For a short time, peace reigned, then the commander of one of the other orders could not stand seeing goods and riches transiting "his land" and attacked and destroyed a caravan. After this had happened a few times, the treaty was over and the war recommenced. The Christian Knights tried playing one sect off against the other, often fighting for one or the other alongside the Muslims.
Eventually, it was decided that "White man speak with forked tongue," as the American Indians found to be true centuries later. Finally, the "Christian invaders" were driven out of the Holy Land.
Not much changes though. We're doing the same thing yet again (with the possible exception of disemboweling prisoners for their gold) and uniting the Muslims against us. As the Crusaders were defeated in part by their long supply lines, so we are being bankrupted trying to maintain ours.
Despite our propaganda to the contrary, those who have studied the Holy Qur'an find that it is a loving, very humanistic and caring religion. About the only warlike parts are concerning the Islamic struggle for survival during Mohamed's lifetime. Those calling for Jihad and war are not unlike our own religious right who take parts of the Old Testament with its wars and slaughters (in the name of God) to stir up hate and war against "the infidel."
If more religious leaders throughout the world would carefully read and practice the tenets of their faith, perhaps these wars would dry up and die as anachronisms. Remember, almost every religion has a version of "Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you." And yet we slaughter and are slaughtered despite this.
We don't disembowel prisoners yet, but give us time. Just ask Dick Cheney.
Horror at Fort Hood inspires horribly predictable Islamophobia? Geez, I could have sworn that Islamophia was (a) here long before Fort Hood; and (b) the cause for the Fort Hood incident.
Man, if there is one thing Americans can do to perfect is hate. Imagine if they could love only half as much as they can hate, this country would be a Utopia.
And, of course, what the media doesn't dare address is the fact that what else can be expected from people who are trained to kill women and children in cold blood. People that kill so that they can feel alive. They don't dare speak of why this happens and what they've had to do and endure in order to protect the empire from itself. Truly, I don't know why anybody should be surprised. Killing is what this guys do best, what difference does it make if its precious Americans instead of dispised brown people? Maybe if more of them go postal, they'll end up killing each other and sparing the innocent that have nothing to do with this crusade.
The truth lies somewhere in between...
It is not that Islam is the problem - it is no different from any other religion.
The issue is the current stage of Islam as a religion. It is similar to Christianity 1100 years ago with Crusades, religious intolerance, etc.
So, we live long enough, we will see Islam as a totally non-violent, tolerant religion.
Not that Christiany Circa 2000 is much different than that of 1,100 years, except for the burnings at the stake and that may be back soon if we continue on the present course. God only knows that dungeon-type torture and murder are back and so is the persecution.
"She might also have noted that thousands of Muslims serve honorably, indeed heroically, in the U.S. military; that American Muslim soldiers have died In Iraq and been buried at Arlington Cemetery; that some of the first condemnations of the slayings at Fort Hood came from Muslim veterans such as Robert Salaam."
Islamophobia bothers me also. I've never known a Muslim that wanted me to die. I even fell in love with one.
On the other hand, and I have said this when the idiotic issue of gays in the military comes up, no one should be serving, especially right now!
I don't care about the soldiers' ethnicities, religions, genders, or sexual preferences, they're all fighting for wealthy, powerful criminals and are not making anyone safer aside from their rich masters!
If they'd have let this guy out, would he have killed anyone? If US troops were pulled from all the nations Empire occupies, would we see so much havoc and bloodshed?
Btw, has the conservative media addressed Blackwater? Uh no. Do the ever address the real roots of terrorism? No.
Yet it is almost human nature so to do - jump to conclusions.
I felt it deep in myself today, as contrary as it is to everything I believe in, have ever stood for in my 52 years on this planet, and everything that my late mother taught me.
I was taught "Never judge a book by its cover," and that was thoroughly explained to me, as a child - judge a person for what is inside, not what they look like on the outside.
I have tried to adhere to that, all of my life.
Yet, I understand how one can start to jump to what amounts to equally radical extreme conclusions as any (Muslim or otherwise) extremist has ever voiced.
But that does not make it okay to do so.
All the more reason to strive to be right, upright, above the fray of it, if you will.
When questioned as to his true i.d.,Jesus responds:I AM I,THE ALPHA AND OMEGA-THE BEGINNING AND THE END.Another story has the prophet Yeshuwah/Jesus telling his listeners to BE KIND,GIVE ALMS,FOOD,AND SHELTER TO "THE LEAST OF THESE,MY BRETHREN" The only example of J's anger I was ever given,was his tossing of the money lenders out of his fathers' house. then there's the whore who's about to be put to death for her "sin"; yep-there he is again-THOSE AMONG YOU WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!Of course the previous words are wildly paraphrased AND I'M no scholar, bible or otherwise-but do we need any plainer commands on how to behave? ONLY problem with the above teachings? They tend not to have a very controlling quality. The Muslim,Jewish,Christian,or wiccan cultures all have the same message:LOVE EACH OTHER! I have seen and heard how abusive people can be behind the banners of God and Country.
Nichols' column is a good start at identifying the terrible journalism that immediately started following the killings. Virtually all major news organizations reported speculative and usually inaccurate claims in their search for a "motive", usually motives that were inflammatory.
People love to psychologize regarding others' motives, especially when it can be used for political or economic gain. But in many cases (and I believe this may be one), it makes very little sense to speak in these terms. When the brain is placed under long term stress, many people are vulnerable to functional breakdowns (biological alterations) that can give rise to conditions such as PTSD, schizophrenia, and so on.
Under these conditions, it can be highly misleading to speak in terms of motives and ideologies, or to use such volitional terms as choices and decisions. This is not to say that religious ideologies and beliefs are not relevant, but only that they are secondary to the primary problem, which is a biological rather than psychological in nature.
It is crazy to jump into Islamophobia but terrorism has been tied to the Muslims more than any other religious group. The Christos are catching up but I'm afraid the Muslims still have a lot of work to do in trying to shake off that bad trait of killing and suicide sometimes going with it. I have come across hundreds of cases where terrorists identified as Muslims would carry out their terrorist acts against other religions and the Muslim community would look the other way. That might be a strong cause for Islamophobia and the Christian, Hindu, and Jewish communities. Hasan did himself a dishonor by joining the Army in the first place. Second, the Army does a poor job of actually training and enforcing discipline against such atrocities.
"...but I'm afraid the Muslims still have a lot of work to do in trying to shake off that bad trait of killing and suicide sometimes going with it."
I can't believe you actually said that. How much of that do you think has to do this incidents exactly like this one and many others that are over-reported, wrongly-reported, etc.? Have you not noticed the fear-mongering and brainwashing going on with regards to Islam/Muslims these days? Do you think that is by accident? And, if that weren't enough, if we compare the victims of Islam and those of Christianity, who do you think would win that contest? 10 bucks says the Christofacists do, hands down!
Check out the Crusades and the massacres of the people of Palestine (Muslim and Christian) by European Christians, remember the witchburnings and burnings of reform Christians committed by good Catholic Christians. Check out the atrocities committed by Christian colonials on the native populations around the world. Muslims don't even come close. And then check out the atrocities committed by European-Jewish zealots in Palestine upon both Muslims and Christian Palestinians and the massacres committed by the IDF in Lebanon including the woman and children refugees of Qan'a (where Christ turned the water into wine).
On that note, I could say that the Christians had their own evils that exceeded those of the Muslims. What you wrote I am aware of and I have studied hundreds of cases where Christians carry out the nastiest forms of cruelty from forced conversions of Muslims and Hindus to Christianity to Christians cannibalizing their own soft-nature kind as you described. Myself a Christian, I don't subscribe to the cruel brand of Christianity.
In both cases of extremists within the Christian and Muslim communities, I have witnessed and read about the persecutions and killings of the moderated minded as well as systematic cruelty to women and children. Extremists in both camps have committed plenty of acts of terrorism both against their own and against other religions. Suicide bombing is the worst forms of terrorism since the bomber cannot be held accountable once the damage is done unless he or she is caught and apprehended before the damage is done. That may explain why the combined atrocities of what the Christo and Judeo zealots did is not registered in people's minds. I don't know the numbers but there's plenty enough in both camps to put them in absolute disgrace.
" Myself a Christian, I don't subscribe to the cruel brand of Christianity."
Apparently, you follow Christ. Isn't that what all Christians are supposed to do per their namesake? I'm not trying to make a snarky comment, I am very serious. I live in the "Bible Belt" of East Texas, and frankly, it is rare to see a Christian who truly follows Christ.
No, you are absolutely correct. I can see how it's too easy for one to thump the bible and not read it or selectively quote the bible to justify wrongful deeds. I've been to East Texas myself some years back and I can see just how bad it can get. We have similar problems up here in Virginia Beach, home of the devil Pat Robertson, and in the western part of VA as well. For a while, VA Beach looked like it might be settling down on being so hard-core "Christian" but our recent governor-elect Bob McDonnell has gotten swell support in this city as if the Democrats running mum campaigns wasn't bad enough. I should consider visiting East Texas again. I know Fort Hood very well having been there a couple of times in 2006. How has ET been since that year? I am assuming that it's moving further to the right thanks to this administration getting everything wrong as if VA and NJ weren't bad enough.
C'est cette guerre
http://www.truthout.org/11050912 is worth reading:
Mass Shooting Indicates Breakdown of Military
Thursday 05 November 2009
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report
[...]
Fort Hood, located in central Texas, is the largest US military base in the world and contains up to 50,000 soldiers. It is one of the most heavily deployed bases to both Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the shooter himself was facing an impending deployment to Iraq.
The soldier says that the mood on the base is “very grim,” and that even before this incident, troop morale has been very low.
[...]
There was also chaos and mayhem within the army for hours after the incident and they reported everything that they possibly could have, wrong. I think it's a sign of the times and a new brand of self-inflicted pain that these bastards have to face. Once again, I'd rather they kill each other than innocent women and children who have absolutely nothing to do with the imperialistic agenda.
I agree that some reports sound''off''. It was stated that he wore his uniform even at his mosque.It is logical that if one is leaving ones' home vacant one would want to give stuff away.What troubles me most is this:I have heard no further reports/explanation-about ''friendly'' fire.From past observation of military spokes persons-for that statement even to have been whispered is significant!
If history is a teacher, the brass at the Pentagon will try to blame some lowly non-com so that they can continue the tradition of a spotless officer corp. Their principle seems to be that all blame must be laid on someone five ranks down the ladder. A one star orders a massacre at Mi Lai, so they pin it all on a Lieutenant.
OK, now times this by as many soldiers that the us has trained in our occupied lands--wait till the pot starts to boil--bam, we loose again. When you think how immersed into our culture this dude was and he was still able to pull the trigger and shout "God is Great," one can partially determine that there is never any victory with fanatics like religious fanatics--and just because they take our money and dress up in our uniforms--it don't men shit--they plan to kill us in the end--GET THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR LAND NOW BEFORE YOU GET ALL OF US KILLED you stupid assholes who pose as our leaders and daily destroy our country.
The man was born in the USA. He served in ROTC in his schooldays and joined the army after college because they would pay for his medical schooling. In his case his land is this land as much as it is yours and his culture was American, as much as yours.
There is no suggestion that he was a religious fanatic but a great deal of evidence that, as happens very often with psychiatrists (who have an extraordinarily high rate of suicide and mental breakdown compared to the rest of the population), he just lost his mind when his request to be let out of the military and be allowed to pay them back for his education was turned down.
Crying "Allahu Akbar" means nothing except that he was about to die. Every Muslim is supposed, if he's able, to die with the Name of God on his lips just as Christians do in the Last Rites.
What? What makes you think that this horror was perpetrated due to some Islamic mandate?! My question is: Why was a psychiatrist who was "helping" post traumatic stress victims being sent to the front lines?! Was he meant to become a combatant? If so, what on earth for??? Was this some sort of "punishment" or something? He must have felt in between a rock and a hard place. I wouldn't be surprised if, after hearing all the tragic stories of fellow soldiers, he experienced some trauma himself....by indirect association. This happens all the time to medical personnel and those in the caring professions. Judge not!
" He must have felt in between a rock and a hard place. I wouldn't be surprised if, after hearing all the tragic stories of fellow soldiers, he experienced some trauma himself....by indirect association."
As I understand, he was trying very hard to negotiate his way out of the military. He was opposed to both wars and it went against his conscience to be deployed. Apparently, he believed that he was saving lives by his actions. Unfortunately, one cannot kill and still save lives obviously. HE was to be deployed, today I believe, and fought legally to stop his deployment up to the last minute. Perhaps if the military had listened to and honored his wishes, the tweleve people who were killed would still be alive. IMHO the culpability of this tragedy falls 90% with the military itself.
I'm much more afraid of all of those Bible toting grunts than I am of a lone Muslim who went ballistic when he was asked to deploy to a country of fellow Muslims. When I see the colonels and other officers trying to describe (and later to explain) what happened, I don't see men who are conditioned to listen, but only to bark out commands. Our military is broken, just as is our economic system and our health system. One only wonders the conditions Major Malik Nidal Hasan had to work under, in a military so obviously under the thumb of fundamentalist Christians.
After reading the boneheaded comment of Sen. Hutchinson and some of the recent statements of Joe Leiberman, I'm more convinced than ever that any random 100 people picked out of the phone book could do just as well, if not better, than the 100 Senators we have now.
Those weren't boneheaded comments. They are carefully calculated to promote Islamophobia in the US population. The US Muslim population occupies the same position as the German Jews in the 1930's. I'm sure AIPAC continues support senators promoting this intolerance.
And they would be a hell of a lot more honest.
If Caligua could appoint his horse Inciatus as Senator why can't we.
Because horses would be overqualified in our senate. We should try asses--they come cheaper.
I don't know, according to OpenSecrets.org, they were very expensive in 2008.
Just as predictable will be the portrayal of this guy as a lone nutcase. It won't ever be mentioned that perhaps he was a normal person put into an untenable position first by a commander in chief who we all knew was a warmonger, then by another who we all thought wasn't.
It might be fair to ask if Islamophobia had anything to do with it? Did pressure on Hasan include a stream of hearing about killing 'ragheads' and such? Such things can cut both ways.
Indeed it did. He'd complained to his aunt that, after 9/11, he was constantly harassed about his religion and treated like a pariah. It was one of the reasons he wanted to get out of the army.
Good point. In any case, perhaps now the next time some "normal" American goes postal, we should point out his or her Christian upbringing. On a more serious note, it never seems to occur to anyone in the corporate media that the model for such behavior is not Muslim culture, or even Christian or Jewish culture (historical precedents notwithstanding), but AMERICAN culture: militarized, gun-toting, SUV-driving, in-your-face bulldozing of anything that stands in its way, such as we find in our cinema, television, policing, and politics. It's all there, folks. Deal with it.
That just happened today. Shooting spree in Orlando, 2 dead, 8 wounded, last time I checked.
How often did we hear that Tim McVeigh was a fundamentalist Christian who prayed before going out and bombing the Murrah building, (including a nursery-school)? Never? I only just came across that bit of supressed information on the Thom Hartmann program.
Clovis, well said, the AMERICAN culture of violence. We're number one in militarization and prisons -- not much positive, sadly. Much to do to turn it around.
"...the AMERICAN culture of violence. ...Much to do to turn it around." –(Kate Ann)
–Turn it around? No. It can only be destroyed.
A politics must emerge that takes that that as ipso facto. It is something that must be imposed. Reverse engineering 'the 'culture of violence' by ratcheting increments is not an option.
Know what must be done in advance as a programmatic agenda. Then proceed. –(Jill Bains)
Excellent post.
I ask the same question!
There is more violence in ten pages of the Bible than there is in the entire Qu'ran.
Well, it all depends on the ten pages. Christians should try honing in on the actual words of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Gospels. Jesus is usually forgotten by all of those who would urge us to war, or to taking away the rights of gays, etc. I was brought up believing that all else in the scriptures was superseded by Jesus and his message and his sacrifice. This was fundamentalism before the right wing and televangelists got ahold of it.
Well, yes true. I was simply making - admittedly - a generalized statement on how there is much more violence in the Bible than in the Qu'ran. And I agree . . . the words of Jesus, which were peace-promoting, should supersede all the rest.
The Qur'an is so much more peaceful because it was created by a peaceful man, and didn't include letters from a follower who claimed to have had a vision of Muhammad. Also, it is not as closely linked to the Hebrew Scriptures as is the Bible. That doesn't mean those who are filled with hate and bigotry can't find ways to make the Qur'an into a bloodthirsty guide. The world can do without fundamentalism, no matter what it's origins.