“Before blaming Muslims for Isis, remember that Isis terrorist attacks [are] targeting more Muslims than any other groups.”
By Nadia Prupis / Common Dreams
In the aftermath of the bombing that killed hundreds in Iraq over the weekend, Muslims took to social media to remind the world that the primary targets of terrorist attacks are Muslims.
The hashtag #ISISAttackingMuslims trended on Twitter and other networks on Tuesday, as users wrote messages of mourning and solidarity for the more than 200 killed in the Baghdad bombings Saturday night—the deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the so-called War on Terror began in 2003—and the attacks in Saudi Arabia that hit three cities in 24 hours, including the holy site of Medina, the resting place of the Prophet Mohammed.
“They thrive on blood, any kind of it and Muslim’s blood is no exception,” wrote one user. “We are all against those enemies of humanity.”
“We shed the same blood, suffer the same pain, die the same way you do,” wrote another. “We aren’t terrorists.”
Another person added: “Before blaming Muslims for Isis, remember that Isis terrorist attacks is targeting more Muslims than any other groups.”
Others pointed to recent attacks in countries with a majority Muslim population, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, and noting that there were Muslim victims in the recent tragedies in the Western cities of Paris and Brussels. Many users also pointed out the fallacy of equating terror groups with Islam.
An image that circulated on social media showed a graphic with the words, “ISIS is bombing Muslims in Muslim countries in the holy month of Ramadan. And you still think ISIS represents Islam?”
The messages came as Muslim world leaders and activists called for unity.
“There are no more red lines left for terrorists to cross,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted on Monday. “Sunnis, Shiites will both remain victims unless we stand united as one.”
For many Muslims around the world, wrote Center for Global Policy senior fellow Haroon Moghul, the attacks were “an assault on Islam itself.”
____________________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Source
Latest posts by Source (see all)
- And Then They Came for the Vietnamese… - December 13, 2018
- Amazon’s Disturbing Plan to Add Face Surveillance to Your Front Door - December 13, 2018
- 140+ Arrested as Youth-Led Protests Demand Green New Deal on Capitol Hill - December 11, 2018
This article is misleading in the sense that, while it is Muslim on Muslim violence, what it really is is Sunni on Shiite violence. I quote the Atlantic: “ISIS, whose supporters and fighters follow Sunni Islam, regards Shiites as apostates.” Until the underlying facts are made clear, that it’s not just random Muslim on Muslim violence, a clear understanding of what’s going on can not be had. The attacks in Baghdad by ISIS were Sunni on Shiite violence , not Muslim on Muslim violence.
Who did the attacks in Saudi Arabia is not clear, but with one branch of Islam considering the other branch apostates (and vice versa) who deserve to be killed, Muslims cannot be considered a generic group
Okay… but in the context of the above article, does it really make a difference?
From the Huffington Post: “Abd al-Wahhab [the founder of Wahhabism, the state religion of Saudi Arabia] demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.”
The article states: “We aren’t terrorists.” Who is the “we” in this statement? And what is the definition of a terrorist? Certainly the Sunni/Shiite violence that has gone on for centuries makes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace subject to dispute.
John Lawrence has quickly made a valuable point. No more than Catholicism, Islam cannot be viewed as one single people, and I’m afraid the criticism here is revealing that view.
Mr. Lawrence, I appreciate that you are trying to differentiate between the branches of Islam. But recognize that Sunni Islam comprises as much as 90% of all Muslims. That’s not every one, but rather close.
And not only ISIL is Sunni but al-Qaeda and Taliban, too! Can’t get much more encompassing than that.
Also, as you said, Sunnis consider Shia to be heretical. But, it is not the other way ’round. Shiites are the more moderate branch.
Of course, Hezbollah is Shia, so perhaps, as Ms. Zaragoza writes, it really matter.
Michael-Leonard, Iran and Iraq are majority Shiite. Does that help explain the enmity between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Also does it explain the war between ISIS in Iraq and the Shiite government in Iraq?
While there has been much more persecution of Shiites by Sunnis than vice versa, the Shiite group, Hezbollah, is anti-Semitic and conducts jihad against Israel. Neither Muslim group is blameless, and their constant fighting in the Middle East is at odds with the claim that Muslims are a peace loving religion. They are peace loving when it comes to the members of their own group but not to outsiders. Religious tolerance is not their forte. That said most American Muslims are peace abiding.
Answer to your first question: absolutely. Also, there is a political rivalry between the 2 countries because Iran, seat of the ancient Persian Empire and many biblical sites, wants to be the leader of Islam. But, Arabia has the sites holy to all of Islam. (this is very simplified, of course.)
And yes, all of Islam unites only in their hatred of Israel and Jews. But that was not the point of your first comment which I replied; they are accepting (not ‘peace-loving’) to members of their own sect.
I also agree that Islam is NOT a “peace-loving” religion. While all faiths have some good philosophy in them, Islam is the only religion founded by a leader in battle; the only one that declares all non-believers be killed. As you noted, the fundamental Sunni branch even views truly peaceful Sufis a heretics to be killed.
The Inquisition was not sanctioned in the bible (rather it was a creation of the church) but jihad is in the Koran. Not what I consider peace-loving.
(Many/most) Muslims living in the US have sought to escape those more radical tenants of Islam while not renouncing the religion completely. It is a difficult position for those folks.
BTW, I dropped a word earlier; should have been “perhaps, as Ms. Zaragoza writes, it doesn’t really matter.”