Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Terrorism should be made a monopoly for the Muslim only

A few days ago I attended a hearing in The International Criminal Court in Den Haag and happened to sit in the same room with 25 lawyers and judges from Iran. As the discussion went about the terrorist act of the suspect, we shared a great deal of similar opinions.

According to Europol's 2010 data (PDF), attacks by separatist/ nationalist group far outnumber attacks by extreme Islamists (only 3 out of 249 cases in the whole Europe). Violence in Europe is very often associated with secular nationalism and not much about theological disputes along the sectarian lines (look at the conflict in Ireland).  Taking this perspective to look at the turmoil elsewhere, it is quite obvious that Hamas, Taliban, or Pakistan-backed radicals in and around Kashmir, or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are operated on ethnic nationalism. However, "in the name of religion" is of course a good cause for any communal and collective acts, and should be seen as sincere.

Thus, it may be true that no one can deny that there have been a lot of terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. However, even though this number is much smaller than non-Muslim attacks, the difference is that if a Muslim does it, the deed is immediately attributed to his faith. When a non-Muslim does it, no religious connection is ever mentioned.

The bombing of a government building in Oklahoma (1995) was first seen immediately as a Muslim terrorist act. When it turned out to be a non-Muslim who did it, the fact that the bomber was a Christian was ignored. The bombing and killing between two different Christian sects in North Ireland have never been named Catholic or Protestant terrorism. The ethnic cleaning of ten thousands of Muslim in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not seen as Christian terrorism. And the anti-Muslim maniac who killed more than 80 people in the Norway massacre has never been  once called a Christian extremist.

That's it! A Muslim terrorist act is a Muslim terrorist act. The rest are NON-muslim terrorist acts. Maybe we should change the name to fit the current mentality: It is either Muslim terrorism or NON-muslim conflict. Terrorism should be made a monopoly for the Muslim only. Because (quoting a Norwegian citizen), how come a white Christian man can be a terrorist, isn't it true that only Muslim do that? 

THAT is how far off the track we have been derailed. 


  1. Soo true, so sad, and sooo well-stated, Phuong Mai. Thank you for this.

  2. Maybe because the Muslim openly defense their religion while other religions sneak under other sorts of cover such as secular system.

  3. Religion is also a great part of ethnic conflict. Actually it's the main part. Many anounced secular systems are not actually secular. Hamas, Taliban, Tamil Tiger, Norway masacre, North Ireland etc, all have root in religion. It's strange that closely related religions provoke more complicts. Muslims and Christians fight with each other but not with Budhism... or else?

  4. To small_koala
    I think because Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have the same root and worship one ultimate God, so they fight to prove they are the righteous. Other Drahamic religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism) have no ultimate God and thus there is no need to fight for the one and the only Truth.


For COMMENT AS and selecting profile, please choose:
1. NAME/URL and fill your name or email in.
2. Ignore URL if you don't have a website.

Để lựa chọn PROFILE cho COMMENT AS, xin click:
1. NAME/URL. Bạn điền tên hoặc email vào NAME
2. Bỏ qua URL nếu bạn không có trang web cá nhân