Religion Was Not the Reason for the Paris Attacks

Earlier today, French police pursued the suspects in the murders at Charlie Hebdo to a warehouse north of Paris, where the duo was killed in a swift raid. But questions remain: why did they do it, and did religion play a role?

As soon as it became clear that the perpetrators of Wednesday’s military-style assault were Muslim, and that they had shouted out as they raced from the scene of their massacre that this was in revenge for the insults levied by the cartoon portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad, the die seemed to be cast. This was a case of Islamic terrorism.

Senator Lindsey Graham said so. The Paris attacks prove that we are “in a religious war” with radical Islam. The respected journalist, George Packer, hurriedly posted an opinion piece at The New Yorker arguing that this act had nothing to do with the ethnic tensions in France and it was simply a calculated attack on behalf of “Islamist ideology.” Twitter and Facebook were full of accusations that once again Islamic religion has propelled its faithful into violence.

But the truth may be more complicated than that.

We must consider that this case may be similar to many of the other lone wolf terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States in recent years. Before Paris, there was the 2013 Tsarnaev brothers’ attack on the Boston massacre, the deadly assault on a Norwegian youth camp by Christian extremist Anders Breivik in 2011, the December 2012 Newtown massacre by Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook school, the July 2012 movie theater shootings by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, the August 2012 attack on the Milwaukee Sikh Gurdwara by Wade Michael Page, and before that, the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad, and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic park by Eric Robert Rudolph, who was related to the Christian Identity movement.

As I argued after the Boston bombing:

Some of these were committed by Christians, some by Muslims, and some by those with no particular religious affiliation at all. In almost all cases, though, these have been instances where lonely, alienated individuals have raged against a society that they thought had abandoned them.

These lone wolf events are different from other instances in recent years where organized radical religious groups such as the Christian militia or Muslim jihadi organizations have plotted attacks and recruited participants to be involved in them. In the lone wolf cases, religious ideas, when they appeared at all, were more of an excuse than a reason for the violence.

This week’s tragedy may be a case in point. Though at least one of the brothers may at one time had ties to the Yemeni al Qaeda, there is no evidence that they were sent by some higher authority in the organization to commit this crime. The details of the background and motives of Said and Cherif Kouachi are not yet clear—as it turns out, religion per se might not have been a primary motivation.

The brothers Kouachi were hardly saints. In fact, they were scarcely religious. They were raised in a secular household and their youth was filled with petty theft and brawls. Neither held a solid job, though Cherif occasionally delivered pizzas. The lure of the jihadi ideology seemed primarily to be the call to warfare, coupled with a sense of bringing honor to their communities and to themselves, a dishonor they had earned through their vagabond lifestyles. According to the New York Times, Cherif Kouachi liked to smoke marijuana and listen to rap music; he described himself as “an occasional Muslim.” Neither brother seems to have had a very sophisticated notion of their faith nor of Islamic jihadi ideology. They simply wanted to join a fight.

It is true, however, that the target of their angry, vicious attack was related to religion, since the enemies in their military assault were satirists who had portrayed the Prophet Mohammad in cartoons. This is the kind of insult to religion that would offend all Muslims, not just the angry ones like the Kouachi brothers. It is one thing to make fun of real life leaders, quite another to belittle someone’s faith. The cartoons in Charlie Hebdo are analogous to the ethnic cartoons of Jews in Nazi Germany, or the bespeckled buck-toothed drawings of Japanese in American World War II posters. These images demean a whole race or culture, in the case of Muslims. Algerian Muslims in France already feel demeaned, and for many the cartoons were the last straw.

But no matter the keenly-felt injury of satire there is nothing, as so many have said this week, that could justify the brutality of this attack—or any similar vengeful violence. There is plenty of satire that angers or wounds religious folk without causing violence—the 1989 photograph of a statue of Jesus on the cross immersed in a jar of urine comes to mind. It enraged many Catholic Christians at the time—just as the recent musical, The Book of Mormon, infuriated many Mormons. But the unhappy Catholics and Mormons did not storm the artists’ and writers’ homes with military-grade weaponry.

Neither did any other Muslim except the Kouachi brothers. Even though Muslims in general may have been displeased by these drawings of the Prophet Mohammad (or any attempt to picture someone who should not be portrayed at all) no other Muslim attacked the cartoonists’ office in Paris. This brings us back to the idiosyncratic nature of this terrorist act. It was not Muslims in general who attacked the Paris office, it was these guys. Hence no amount of thundering about Islam or Islamic radical ideology in general explains why these particular people did what they did. If they were not commanded by some radical organization to undertake the attack, then the relevant questions are why the Kouachi brothers were angry about the society around them, and why they used a religious pretext related to a religious issue (the cartoon portrayals of the Prophet) as a cover for their rage?

This raises an issue that George Packer, in his New Yorker essay, specifically said that we should ignore: the multicultural tensions of contemporary French society.

If we are looking for a link that connects a couple of individuals’ personal sense of anger and alienation to a public demonstration of how the immigrant community of which they are a part (Algerian Muslims) are angry and alienated in contemporary France, the cartoon issue is a perfect link. Moreover, there is a prevailing radical Islamic ideology that presents an image of cosmic war between Islam and secular society that allows these individual angry frustrations to be vented. Hence Packer’s identification of the jihadi ideology as a factor is relevant, but the evidence does not indicate that it is the sole cause of the attack; rather it is the vehicle through which a personal and ethnic anger is expressed.

For the deadbeat, dead-end Kouachi brothers, the notion of being a part of a great jihadi battle may have seemed appealing for many reasons. For such people, real wars are exciting, and the imagined wars of great religious conflict are more than exhilarating. They also offer the promise of opportunity, of playing an ennobling role within that cosmic war. Perhaps most directly, such imagined wars provide a justification for doing something destructive to the very society that they think has shunned them and their community.

Hence the defense of religion provides a cover for violence. It gives moral license to something horrible that the perpetrators may have longed to do, to show the world how powerful they and their community really could be, and to demonstrate their importance in one terminal moment of violent glory. Religion doesn’t cause the violence, it is the excuse for it.

One does not need religion to do this, of course. After all, Adam Lanza shot up the Newtown School and John Holmes attacked the Aurora movie theater crowd without a nod towards religion.

But in the case of the Norwegian youth camp murderer, Anders Breivik, Atlanta Olympic Park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph and the Sikh Gurdwara attacker, Wade Michael Page, their motivations appear to have included an imagined defense of Christian society. Times Square attempted bomber, Faisal Shahzad, Boston bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, justified their acts of rage as defending Islamic society, as did the Paris attackers, Said and Charif Kouachi.

It is not right, of course, to blame Christianity for the acts of angry young men who are Christian, even when they claim to be defending the Christian community. Similarly, Islam is not responsible for angry Muslims.

Sadly, by evoking faith as an element of their bloody rage, however, they compound their crimes: the tradition they name and its community of adherents are victims of these attacks as well.


  •' DKeane123 says:

    They received training in this type of assault by religious zealots with the idea that they could use the training in the future to carry out acts like this. Has RD turned into The Onion – this post can’t be real?

  •' MainTour says:

    This article is contridictory on itself as it vainly tries to extract religion from the motivation of all four French attackers. It is very obvious they were following Radical Islamic ideals (Wahhabism) to exact revenge on a perceived offense to their god. Their extremist religious ideology says it is okay for them to ignore the laws of their land to hurt, kill, torture and terrorize others.

    Extremist Islam (places that ban all forms of competing religion or secular thought) is a lot different from Moderate Islam (where Muslims sincerely attempt to coexist peacefully in a multi-cultural society).

    “For the deadbeat, dead-end Kouachi brothers, the notion of being a part of a great jihadi battle may have seemed appealing for many reasons.” Duh, The Great Jihadi Battle is the very essense of their religion. The Jihadi religion must be stopped. It is the leading cause of 80% of the violence in our world today in France, Boko Haraam, Middle East, and many Lone wolf attackers around the world.

  •' Eric says:

    You are the reason articles like this need to be written.

  •' Eric says:

    “If they were not commanded by some radical organization to undertake the attack…”

    This is a significant “if” that remains to be determined either way, yes? Especially since they claimed to be commanded by al-Qaeda in Yemen in their TV interview. These awful events raise another question for your analysis: what is the difference between these (possibly) lone-wolf agents and a bona fide jihadi terrorists–especially since many jihadi recruits fit the profile of these two, yes?

  •' DKeane123 says:

    This article is a farce of poorly drawn conclusions derived mostly from speculation and in the process does a poor job of sweeping a ton of contrary evidence under the rug.

    You also didn’t even attempt to counter a single point made by the OP.

  •' Eric says:

    Pff, another member of the tin-foil hat club is heard from. Yes, there is evidence that needs to be clarified–reading further elsewhere we learn the Coulibaly claimed authorization from ISIS, a rival of al-Qaeda, but worked with the Kouachis, casting some suspicion on their claims to be working for either of those orgs–but the author hardly sweeps it under the rug. And his conclusions are drawn from comparative analysis, not speculation, if you’d bother to read closely. Sure, no footnotes, but he’s not making stuff up.

  •' DKeane123 says:

    I would rather belong to the tin foil hat club than an organization whose members have been gunning down cartoonists and schoolgirls. Hear about the atheist today that started the first set of his 50 lashes for starting a website that promotes freedom of conscience and rights for women?

  •' Eric says:

    Nice dodge. Now the post isn’t the problem. Religion is. You are both the reason articles like this need to be written and an example of the response jihadis want.

  •' DKeane123 says:

    Open up a gay bar where Islamists are in control, and then tell me I’m the problem. I’m the liberal here.

  •' Eric says:

    Struck a nerve, I see. Sorry the author didn’t whinge about moderate Muslims failing to denounce the attacks, but you stay classy.

  •' movgp0 says:

    “religion per se might not have been a primary motivation”

    I disagree with the conclusions of the author, because the fact that almost all religious people are not committing such crimes, does not rule out religion as a cause.

    According to the Global Terrorism Index, religion is THE driving motivator and enabler of such terrible acts.

    To defend religion, the author would need to come up with a better explanation, which not only explains this act, but also the correlation of the GTI, which he totally fails to do so here.

    Even worse, the author suggests that the cause is the training by terrorists, totally ignoring that they are also religious motivated, and misleading by stating that we don’t know the details of motive. The terrorists clearly stated that their motivation is in revenging Mohammed – so we don’t need the details to see the religious correlation.

  •' Eric says:

    Perhaps you should spent less time reading Richard Dawkins’ twitter account and more reading, I don’t know, what this author actually said and didn’t say.

    First, he isn’t trying to “defend religion,” whatever you think that means.

    Second, since you clearly missed it, he did in fact offer an alternative explanation–angry, marginalized young men looking for ways to make a mark on the world and exert their power through violence as lone wolves–that correlates with a broad range of cross-cultural data.

    Third, the author has forgotten more about religious violence than you’ve ever read, and if he doesn’t address the GTI (here) that’s partly because it is not relevant to his point. If you want him to talk about the rise of Islamism, find another article.

    Fourth, no he doesn’t ignore their claims to be acting on behalf of terrorist groups. He offers an explanation for both their acts and their claims. Maybe he’s wrong, but he hasn’t ignored anything.

    Last, as I’ve said before here, people who say thing like “we don’t need the details to see” are exactly why articles like this need to be written.

  •' Xipe Totec says:

    Sine qua non. Simple as that. They might have been street thugs, or anti-post-colonialists; we’ll never know. Their religion, or their version of their religion, which is the same — and is the same for every single believer, hateful or benign in any religion — drove them to do this Charlie Hebdo attack. Now, if you have someone kill a cop and yell some religious slogan, maybe you could write your article and make sense. Not this time.

  •' Charlie says:

    How do you know what the author is “trying” to do? Take the angry young men meme and you can explain anything as hormonal and psychological. Big deal. Not helpful. But actually it is obvious what the author is “trying” to do, and I know it just as well as you. Islam IS responsible for these angry young Muslims; as is Christianity responsible for those angry young Christians … and the list goes on. The article is an empty shell.

  •' Charlie says:

    You are the reason articles like this should not be written. Seems to give you a martyr complex. Who knows WHAT you’ll do next.

  •' Eric says:

    “Sine qua non. Simple as that.”

    Another true believer heard from. Great. I don’t know what “drove” you to repeat the same reductive claims others on this thread have already made, but you are just as blinkered as they are. If you took more than two seconds to follow the logic of your own argument (if we can call it that), you’d see why. If “religion” is that without which this attack would not have happened–then so is every other factor the author highlights. Factors that you simply dismiss, natch.

    Like about every other true believer on this thread, you can’t explain why 99.99% of the Muslim community was not “driven” to attack Charlie Hebdo, even though your *cough, cough* “theory” says that simply how religion works. Now, if you bother to think things through a bit more, maybe you could write your comment and make some sense. Not this time.

  •' Eric says:

    “How do you know what the author is “trying” to do?”

    Well, for one thing, I can read. Funny though, you pretend I can’t know what he’s trying to do–and yet you say it’s “obvious” what he’s doing. Sure, if by “obvious” you mean “according to the script written on my eyes the world must be like this.”

    “The article is an empty shell.”

    Maybe the one that exists in your imagination is, but the actual one is a bit stronger than than.

  •' Eric says:

    I’m not the true believer here, Charles. You are. Keep buying your simplified view of the world, though. I know what you’ll do next: whine and vilify. Stay classy!

  •' rayyan says:

    This article is pretty legit and people should show more dignity to each other’s

  •' etseq says:

    Thanks for demonstrating the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of “religious studies”

  •' Katharina von Kellenbach says:

    I completely agree with Juergensmeyer’s analysis except in one point: these “lone wolfs” are not generic individuals but male individuals. The gender neutral language obscures the fact that all of cases the author discusses involve men who deploy terrorist violence to reassert power and reclaim their masculine honor. The metaphor of “lone wolfs” already suggests that this analysis should involve global changes and clashes over gender roles and norms.

  • Is a person’s own vision of their religion really religion? Was Timothy Mc Vey’s bombing in Oklahoma then Christian terrorism? Were the abortion clinic bombings and assassinations acts of Christian terrorism? Were all the KKK’s burning crosses and lynchings also Christian terrorism? Hey, they are all men! So regardless of whether they were Christian or Muslim, aren’t they all acts of patriarchal terrorism?

  • Extremist Islam, extremist Christianity, extremist Judaism, extremist Buddhism, extremist atheism, etc. It is time to acknowledge that when people in a group become so extreme that they dehumanize other humans and attack them that they are no longer members of the religion or ethical system that they claim they are acting for.

  • Yes, they are not acting in the name of religion, they are acting under the influence of patriarchy which wears the robes and clothes of all religions. .

  •' Craptacular says:

    “This is the kind of insult to religion that would offend all Muslims, not just the angry ones like the Kouachi brothers. It is one thing to make fun of real life leaders, quite another to belittle someone’s faith.” – Mark Juergensmeyer

    No, it is not. But you have articulated why it keeps happening, though. One group of people believing their ideas are more important than the lives and criticisms of another group of people will continue to produce violent results.

    Faith, beliefs, and ideas do not require love or respect, they require criticism. Until a religion and its attendant beliefs can handle that, it exists due to coercion and fear, not love and respect (despite what is written in their holy books).

  •' paganpat says:

    religion is the problem, always has been. Good news is religion is slowly being replaced by reasoning.

  •' aminahyaquin says:

    Thank you for this sane and sound contribution to the wholesale demonization of Islam from self righteous scions of political and cultural chauvinism. It took a great deal of knowledge and courage to write this thoughtful, deep and respectful article. There are many things I could share factually about terrorism in the Middle East, how atrocities that kill thousands of Palestinians and allow an apartheid theocracy to massacre families and bury young women with bulldozers for exercising their human dignity and consciences, but I will not say that now except in passing. As a devout muslim for whom the gift of my religion has brought peace and calm and guidance to help and not to hurt others, I thank you from my heart.

  •' David Root says:

    “Radical Islam” is not a religion, it is the corruption of a religion.

    We have seen “Radical Christianity” rear its ugly head — the Westboro Baptist protests, the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, the Norwegian youth camp attack. These were no more representative of Christianity than they Charlie hebdo attack was of Islam.

  •' IftikharA says:

    Sir George Bernard Shaw

    I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful
    vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity.

    I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of

  •' EqualTime says:

    This criminal violence in the name of Islam differs from criminal violence in the name of other religions or no religion in its frequency and magnitude, and the exuberant approval of the acts by what would appear to be hundreds of thousands of other Muslims around the world when such events occur. In a vacuum, the Boston Marathon bombing might be comparable to Eric Rudolph’s Olympic bombing, in which one was killed and 111 injured (per Wikipedia). However, that’s where the equivalency ends. If Irish Catholic members of the IRA had perpetrated 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, violence comparable to the Sunni/Shiite civil war in Iraq, Mumbai, Nairobi, Ft. Hood, Benghazi, Boston, kidnapping of 300 girls and slaughter of thousands in Nigeria, and now Paris, all in the name of Irish Catholocism and Northern Irish nationhood, most of which acts were publicly praised by other Catholics around the world, and more criminals seemed to be inspired though Catholic sermons, I trust Irish Catholics would join me in screaming, unequivocally, “Enough!” and not taking the approach that these criminals were not “Irish Catholic” because they’d misinterpreted the religion. This issue is not going away any time soon, and moderate Muslims living in denial that it is not their problem to correct are sorely mistaken. If not them, who is in a better position to do so?

  •' EqualTime says:

    Your Christian examples are nowhere close in equivalency to the criminal acts of Radical Islam, let alone the execution by beheadings or stonings by Sharia governments.

  •' hopleyyeaton says:

    Maybe it isn’t the religion, just a corruption of it. But that corruption is widespread enough that if you look around the world, almost EVERYWHERE where there is conflict, the Islamic world abuts the rest of us. Je suis Charlie Martel.

  •' hopleyyeaton says:

    But like Dawkins tweeted the other day: Not all religions are equally violent. Some never were, others changed centuries ago, one, very conspicuously, has not.

  •' Aravis Tarkheena says:

    Don’t feed the very obvious troll. (Whenever you see the “struck a nerve!” and “stay classy” type of stuff, you know you’re talking to someone who is just trying to stir things up.)

  •' James Stagg says:

    Next thing you know, the author will be explaining how the Catholic Church is not responsible for all the gay priests let loose on young men and boys!

  •' netprophet says:

    Define “extreme” please.

  •' says:

    It wasn’t religion
    Religion is how man interacts with or relates to God
    The lunacy that current practitioners of Islam have adopted has nothing to do with their relationship with God, but rather with their own tormented souls and their need to express themselves in murder, mayhem, and general disorder

  •' netprophet says:

    Reason comes from revelation friend. Reason without revelation manifested in the 20th century – Staln, Hitler, Lenin, etc.

  •' netprophet says:

    This article is so ridiculously naive that is beyond ludicrous. The author neglects the widespread persecution by Islamic groups throughout the world – hundreds if not thousands of Christians being murdered by ISIS, The Fort Hood shooting in Texas, the recent be-headings in Syria, the Islamic man in Brooklyn who murdered his wife for making a vegetarian dinner, Answar Muhammed, the AZ man who says Islamic law allows him to murder his wife, the Islamic man who murdered his wife in CT (hushed up by the press) after she filed for divorce, the trade center bombing of 1993, 911, the Islamic who beheaded two Coptic Christian converts in Beuna Vista, NJ, the Mumbai bombings, a Mulsim man walking into a church in Ashtabula Ohio and murdering his won christian father while praising Allah, the Madrid bombings and dozens and dozens more incidents right here in the US by Islamic terrorists, and unreported by the media. Al Queda, Isis, Hezbola, Wahhabists, and other Islamic groups are training people to be suicide bombers and to kill innocent people woridwide. No other religious group is doing that. None. Zippo. The other non-Islamic murders cited such as Newtown are merely used to try to make a false and failed argument.

  •' Whirlwinder says:

    Mark, you conflate Islamic terrorism which is ongoing, constant and worldwide, with two or three attacks by deranged individuals. I do not buy your theory. Islam has been creating terror and engaged in jihad for some 1,400 years. You can throw in a Hitler, Stalin, and a Mao (all non-Muslim) and their killing sprees do not come close to that of Islam. Who is your target audience with this essay?

  • Who are you asking? I used the word “extremist” to echo the post I was responding to and used it according to the dictionary meanings, such as, “exceeding the bounds of moderation”, “farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost” “of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average”, etc. What unusual usage did you imagine?

  • Beheading is no more cruel than execution by electrocution or injection. Also, extra judicial executions by drone attack as cruel as beheadings, and certainly cruel to the people, mostly innocent civilians, who are maimed in the attacks.

  •' Madame George says:

    “Religion doesn’t cause the violence, it is the excuse for it.”

    What a patently false and absurd claim. When the underlying principles on which your religious faith is based is filled with violence, bigotry, and hatred, it’s all too easy to see how religion can, and does, cause violence in the world. The author seems more inclined to blame such attacks on the weather before he would ever lay any blame on religion.

  •' EqualTime says:

    Again, false equivalency, IMHO. I certainly regret any innocent lives lost, but Greg, are you equating beheading for the crime of homosexuality with death by electrocution or injection for felony murder after due process of law – while not perfect, is currently the best the US can do? I would like to think that our country does the best it can to minimize civilian casualties in drone strikes. I’m sure mistakes are made, and I’m sure we’d like to stop all drone strikes once we deem the threat to be mitigated. I know there are many who believe that drones are unjustifiable under any circumstances. I am not one of them.

  •' DKeane123 says:

    Yep, gave up on trying to have an intelligent conversation.

  •' pennyroyal says:

    you forget the hundreds killed in Nigeria….
    funny how we ignore violence done to Africans

  •' pennyroyal says:

    religion IS the problem, foot, trunk, branch, and leaf. Read Darrel Ray’s The God Virus.

  • Nobody mentioned homosexuality. But since you bring up the causes for executions, Michael Brown was killed for staling tobacco and Eric Garner for selling tobacco. So don’t tell me about “due process of law,” either on the streets or in the American courts that are anything but fair and the poor are the ones on death row. Dreams and fantasies of American justice are just for the people who are on the top of the heap of the money pile. It is not just a “mistake” when you target civilians with certain knowledge that innocent people will be killed in the attacks. Anyone who believes the drones are killing civilians “by mistake” is someone who has not been paying attention and thinks Congress is not bought off by the corporate lords of finance and military-weapons manufacturing. .

  •' EqualTime says:

    It must be very distressing to have your world view. I accept that the drone program balances civilian deaths with taking out key targets – say the publisher of Inspire, which seeks to promote attacks on the US with pressure cooker bombs like the one used in Boston. One might think by now that civilians know who the high value targets are, and might seek to distance themselves from them. Michael Brown was NOT killed for stealing tobacco -he was killed while resisting, probably assaulting, a police officer. Eric Garner’s death, IMHO, should have resulted in a prosecution. I think Special Prosecutors, with no other relation to the police dept, should investigate police conduct, and we should require body cameras. Who do you think is being beheaded in Iran and Saudi Arabia which is the equivalent of our execution? Are the “crimes” irrevelant to the punishment?

  •' GregAbdul says:

    Thank you Mr. Mark. Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility, but if you could just get white people to calm down from their raving fear of the savages coming to get them, we could all easily see this is about exactly what you are saying. It is chronic antisocial, criminal behavior, but a blow in any religious war. Well I guess in the cool light of day, we can see it as a blow against Islam and a blow for those who can’t think who seek to deprive Muslims of our First Amendment rights. Let’s say, there are not religions that teach outright hatred, but like the Nation of Islam, there are groups that teach separation and that believers are to disrespect those and see as less those who do not believe. I have seen Hindu’s do it. Maybe they were violating their faith, but I don’t know many non Indian Hindus that I can easily say their mandate is to be inclusive. I point out these two examples to contrast them with true Islam. Muslims are on every country on the face of the earth. Everyone is welcome to join, which is exactly how Muslims end up competing with Christians and it’s what causes these negative publicity campaigns against Muslims where much of the talk is made up. If I want to stop someone from insulting me or what I hold dear (and we do hold our Prophet as the most dear thing of all) then the last thing I would do is kill someone who insults him. How does killing actually gain respect? In a violent, third word way, where intimidation reigns over freedom, such thinking happens, but for those of us with the ability and freedom to actually read and follow the text, we know our Prophet was insulted while he walked the earth and murder was never his response. It is a sin for a Muslim to insult the Prophet, because it is an act of disbelief. It violates basic Islamic doctrine to murder someone who does not believe, for committing an act of disbelief. Should I kill everyone in the world who eats pork? Should I kill every Christian in the world? A greater insult to me as a Muslim is anyone worshiping anything other than the God of Abraham, but like all good religion, my faith tells me to pull people to the truth and the respect of what I hold dear through love, compassion and acts of kindness. This thing where there are a set of people who hate the West and want to kill over it is really really really not about anything in our sacred texts, but it’s a great distraction when the other side has absolutely no taste for the debate about the idea of worshiping a man.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you mean you don’t have access to Webster’s?

  •' GregAbdul says:

    and people actually like you? You do NOT know what you are talking about….you got this stupid wrong stuff you are saying from….which mosque or Muslim leader who lives near you told you this? You got it from your summations of the news? Boy! “Duh” is right…but you need to point it at yourself for being an internet expert…WHO HAS NEVER SET FOOT IN A MOSUQE.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    don’t feed the trolls!

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you must be soon cool because your name is GREG!

  •' GregAbdul says:

    if two men rape your wife twice…does it matter that one did it claiming religion and the other does not? There is crime and bad done everyday in the world. we should remove the causes. In such a context, the one who murders or rapes never truly does it “for religious purposes.”

  •' GregAbdul says:

    once they commit obvious and clear crimes, they lose claims about the legitimacy of their interpretation of their religion.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    “dey all ober da place…”

    White obsession that someone is after en masse….when no one is.

  •' Brian says:

    Unfortunately, this article misses the point, Islam is very much a foundational motivation for these sorts of actions. And while I’d love to explain my rational, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist/ intellectual, can definitely represent my claim much better:

  •' GregAbdul says:

    Harris is a religious expert? How is he more of a religious scholar than David Duke?

  •' Polybius7 says:

    Mark says:

    These lone wolf events are different from other instances in recent years where organized radical groups with religion as part of their ideology, such ISIS or the Christian militia, have plotted attacks and recruited participants to be involved in them. In the lone wolf cases, religious ideas, when they appeared at all, were more of an excuse than a reason for the violence.

    This week’s tragedy may be a case in point. Though at least one of the brothers may at one time had ties to the Yemeni al Qaeda, there is no evidence that they were sent by some higher authority in the organization to commit this crime.

    And Al Queda in Yemen says:

    The leadership of AQAP “chose the target, laid the plan and financed the operation,” Mr. Ansi said in the 11-minute video, adding that AQAP “claim responsibility for this operation as vengeance for the Messenger of Allah,” referring to the Prophet Muhammad.

    Mark, it looks like you are not only wrong but blindly committed to being wrong.

    You should rethink your agenda.

  • “distressing to have your world view” That is a very interesting and curious turn of phrase. I fail to see how “my world view” is the determining factor. Is it not distressing to you that the USA bombs a wedding party and kills people who are celebrating the happiest days of their lives? What kind of world view would a person have who says this is not distressing?

  •' EqualTime says:

    Of course its regrettable and tragic when any innocents lose their lives, wedding party (recently, not by US forces but during an Afghan/Taliban conflict or in 2008 attributable to US forces) or not. Full Stop. It is a tragedy. Such things happen in war zones and during police actions with the intensity of our efforts to take out our declared enemies. Recall why we are in Afghanistan – when bin Laden, operating under the protection of the Afghan Taliban government, struck us on 9/11. That was distressing too. In the meantime, we have done what we could to give Afghanistan a chance to establish a peaceful government – at a cost of billions and thousands of lives, including one of my acquaintances. I wish them well, but am glad that they are on the way to being on their own.

  •' Amy Archie says:

    Are you so PC that you can’t see reality anymore? There people were Al Queda. One of the attacks targeted a Jewish grocery. And you are saying this wasn’t religiously motivated?

  •' Amy Archie says:

    It’s true that Nigeria should also be publicized more. The crazy religious fanatic jihadis kill people all over the planet.

  •' Amy Archie says:

    Islam has jihad written in its scriptures. Of course this was representative of islam

  • GMG248 says:

    Thank you Mark for such reasoned comments. In this culture we display a great deal of consternation when confronted by the complexities of reality. The ire in many of the comments below reflect the simplistic double standard that many fellow Christians employ when speaking about “religiously inspired or justified” violence. The practice of blaming all for the acts of the few is illogical but attractive to those who can only think one-dimensionally or have an agenda to forward. The failure to “connect all the dots” by admitting and addressing the contributions of institutionalized violence is purely intended to absolve one’s self from personal responsibility. Thank you for reminding us that Christianity has its terrorists too if we are to fairly employ the logic that associates all criminal’s actions with the perpetrator’s formal religious affiliation.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    The author of this piece, I am sure does not believe in torture, but the reasoning here is surely tortured to the point of resembling an apologists just trying too hard. All the other acts, that are pointed out, of violence are not encouraged, requested nor celebrated by large organizations proclaiming a religious motivation.

    Yes the individuals may be acting out because of many motivations and twisted reasoning but they are “tools of the trade” for a cultural, religious and extremist RELIGIOUS based and driven ideology and dogma. All the “explaining” and obfuscation does change the fact that there is a substrata on Islam, a very big one at that, that is determined to forcibly rule over others and convert them or kill them. The question I would posit is; Why do many people just refuse to believe what these radical killers state very directly and without nuance. The radicals are not requesting defense nor understanding but individuals like this author feel the need to excuse and “explain” that which is obvious. The rest of us GET IT! NOT ALL MUSLIMS NOR EVEN A LARGE PART OF THEM CONDONE RADICAL VIOLENT JIHARD!!!

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    There are many, many EXTREME groups and religions in this world. Almost all of them do not kill and attack others on the scale and organized military fashion currently used by Islamic radicals. Extreme does not include the word violent in Webster’s.

    Mormon’s might be considered extreme based on their views of drinking coffee and other beverages. All religions seem extreme in the view of most secular individuals. It is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Most beholders consider ISIS extreme.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Guess they are not journalists or Western citizens. Two hundred African lives don’t count for much in Western media or government. No million person marches protesting the slaughter of African lives.

    But then again they were not kicking sand in the faces of murderous radicals in the name of freedom of speech. The individuals murdered in Africa were just living their lives as best as they could. Actual innocent people killed for no overarching great principal of Western Democracy. Do they count in the eyes of anyone????

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Michael Brown was killed for attacking the police officer who was not even in the process of arresting him just asked a question or gave him a direction. His felony of forcibly taking the property of the store owner was just incidental to the incident. Garner died as a result of his struggle with police and his very poor health. NO ONE foresaw his death nor did anyone want him seriously injured or for him to die. He died an hour later in a hospital being treated NOT for anything to do with being choked but because of overexertion while struggling with over reacting police officers.

    Your take on these incidents portrays them in the worst light possible and seems a metaphor for your POV on society in general. You see all sorts of nuances and criminal activity in the daily activities of American society but some how see incidents that fit your narrative in stark either/or terms. ALL aspects of American life are bad until you review and approve them. How can you in even bring yourself to live in America when there are so many other great, fair and wonderful places in this world you could reside???

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Not to defend the officers in the Garner death but at best they acted negligent in not “doing” something immediately when he said he could not breath. His actual restraining was not criminal (even a choke hold is NOT illegal) No batons, punches or kicks were used nor was he seemly abused when handcuffed.

    A trial would have brought many things to light and MIGHT have resulted in a conviction of the supervisor, and some of the officers assisting in the arrest. Given the intent and actual actions of the officers at the scene, the size of Garner and his extensive criminal record mitigated by his poor health and the actual cause of death my guess is a jury might NOT have convicted any single officer as having been individually responsible for his death. But you can never predict what a jury will do so maybe a trial would have been best. Legal professionals and the G.J. did not see it that way, Not as open shut as demonstrators would have us think.

    BTW the officer did not actually choke Mr. Garner but had his arm up around the side of his neck and across his upper chest. No neck or windpipe damage was discovered by the ME. His distress was brought on by chest compression and the position of his body after being cuffed. Medical attention was called ASAP and he died later at or on the way to the hospital. Again maybe negligent but no intent to injure or hurt Mr. Garner.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Was the firebombing of Dresden during WWII an act of charity. Civilian deaths were not even considered in our fight for survival against Nazi Germany. Japan was hit with two nuclear bombs with little or NO thought to civilians. Both countries put together did not do the damage to an American city that 9/11 caused.

    Allied generals and political persons would have been tried as war criminals if Germany or Japan had won WW II. So just what criteria do we use when castigating anyone about deaths during war. Are only the winners morally pure.

    So why the new morality and hand wringing? Are the civilians who actually support and aid the radicals now considered Red Cross workers? Innocents is a relative term thats meaning is muddled during any war.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Tell us how you would deal with secularists who would ban ALL religion and make its practice unlawful? Your religion might bring you personal peace but radical versions of religion and many religions bring death and destruction to the door of many people.

    Politics the religion of secularists is as or even more destructive then religion. Maybe humans have the seeds of destruction within their DNA and all the education and civilization in the world cannot cure this basic biologically driven characteristic.

    Intelligence is a two edged sword in that it gives us “civilized” life but also the ability to magnify our worst traits on a massive scale.

  •' PieRatz says:

    Move along…this is not the Scotsman you are looking for…..

  • It’s getting hard to keep up with all these Koran-inspired atrocities that have nothing to do with Islam.

  •' EqualTime says:

    It think it’s generally acknowledged that the firebombing of Dresden was questionably unnecessary. I am certain that the Japanese civilian victims of our Atomic Bombs were absolutely considered, but balanced against the need to bring Japan to unconditional surrender vs. requiring an invasion (I understand there are many, many alternative arguments about demonstrating the bomb to the Soviets, and frankly, ending the war before the Soviets invaded Japan, to avoid a Berlin like division of the island. ) War is certainly hell, and it is infinitely regrettable that we humans continue to make war in 2015.

  •' movgp0 says:

    well, it comes down to statistics. in the individual case it is (statistically) irrelevant. but when people who are religious are 10 times more likely to rape than atheists, than it does matter in the big sheme of things.

  •' Eric says:

    Thanks for demonstrating why we need religious studies, even though you know nothing about religious studies.

  •' RCPreader says:

    “Religion doesn’t cause the violence, it is the excuse for it.”

    So why does almost all the violence in the world today involve Islam?

    Is Boko Haram a “lone wolf”???

    Are the governments of states like Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc., where people are sentenced to death for leaving Islam, blaspheming it, committing adultery (if you’re a woman), being homosexual, etc., lone wolves?

    When hundreds, probably thousands of imams around the world preach violence and hate, does that have nothing to do with religion?

    When the Hadith boasts of Mohammed cutting the heads off of 400 Jews, and commands his followers to do so also, is that irrelevant?

    Come on.

    Re Anders Breivik, he explicitly identified himself as “not religious.”

  •' pennyroyal says:

    you are wrong. Garner had asthma. He could only gasp in enough air to say, “I can’t breathe” but not enough to get air into his lungs. he was struggling to live. His heart gave out and he suffocated. No one came to his aid or gave him first aid.
    As for Michael Brown, are you believing the DA who was wrong. The coroner said “it was murder”. Guess you just like to cherry pick your facts.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    no it does not “come down to statistics” (especially ones you make up)…..does it make a difference why someone rapes your wife after they have committed the rape? That is not a question of statistics…does it matter why the rain falls? Does that change in any way the effect of the rain? It is not a question of statistics, but of common sense.

  •' movgp0 says:

    if you want to prevent rape to happen in the future, than it certainly does matter why and how it happened. however, a single incident does not tell you much about the motivation of others who want to do so.

    statistics is merely one of the tools that helps to get insights.

  •' aminahyaquin says:

    You have in your statements here, ascribing learned behaviors to DNA aka genes, expressed the Nazi theory for human dominance, which became a broiling cauldron for genocidal violence against Jews because of their religion and their race and their culture.
    However, though the human body is miraculously dynamic, and biology can change due to all kinds of stressors, there are NO genes for violence. Most all behavior is a combination of nature and nurture, and nature gives POSSIBILITIES that have the capacity to be developed for good or for ill according to the experiences that they have.
    I am in agreement with you about those who are anti-religion secularists, as you term them, if I understand you correctly. Coerced conformity wreaks hell on humans and havoc on cultures.

  • This article is difficult to follow because the author has not made a clear statement. Well, here is that clear statement: attacks like these are not religious, they are political and personal. It does not matter if a group like ISIS or Al Quaida claims credit – in fact it shows that it is more political than religious.

    The shootings in Paris could just as easily been against some other media outlet. They chose a satirical newspaper because it would lend credence to their religious excuse. The fact that they failed to understand that much of the satire was designed to create a different image of Islam than one of radicalism was either unknown to them or they did not care, they just used it as an excuse.

    As the article points out, even if the cartoons were offensive to Muslims in France, with the exception of these terrorists, no other Muslim was involved. The history of the terrorists show that they were angry more at a society that they felt was somehow shorting them of a quality of life that they wanted.

    The point of this essay is that these were NOT religious attacks, but politically motivated by people, who like the groups they claimed they represented and acted on behalf of, who used religion as an excuse for their actions. They acted against the teachings of Islam not kill. They were murderers, pure and simple, and they were acting out of a set of personally perceived societal wrongs, not religious zealotry or purity.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Coroners do not determine if a death was murder. They use the term homicide, meaning died at the hands of another human.

    Police and G.J.’s determine if justified, or if not what was the culpability of the individual causing the death. Just how did YOU determine that the D.A. was wrong? Is that one of your “facts?”

    A legal process decided that there was NOT enough evidence, in the Brown case, of wrong doing to bring the the officer to a full trial by jury. Just what would you have wanted? That the mob and Al Sharpton determine how the legal system resolves ambiguity and culpability in a police shooting? Thanks but no thanks.

    As for the Garner case I would say that the officers MIGHT have been brought to trial but given laws about intent, negligence and the state of mind of the officers it would have been a difficult case to convict on.

    Fixing individual responsibility and convicting –who? The supervisor who could have ordered the poorly trained officers to administer first aid, which might have made it worse. The officers who sat on him? The officer who put his arm around his neck and shoulder? My question would be just which officer would you personally want sent to jail and for doing specifically what???

    Thousands of arrests are made everyday. Very often the arrestee is yelling about how he is being killed, injured and everything else under the sun. Mr. Garner had been arrested over 30 times without incident. Maybe this would have happened on his 36th arrest given his attitude and health problems.

  •' pennyroyal says:

    read further into this interview. You are right the term was homicide. But otherwise you are ill informed. This was the way the State protected the police officer, which was a foregone conclusion from the outset. Makes one think that black lives don’t matter.

  •' David Root says:

    Christianity has “jihad” written in its scriptures, too. What’s your point?

  •' David Root says:

    But the extremist examples you cite are not examples of Islam — these are extremists who pervert the Islamic scriptures, in much the same way the Christian examples I cited have done.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you are not answering me. Your wife is raped twice…does it matter what excuse the rapist gives? That’s yes or no….not “statistics”

    Will it make it better if the rapist is an atheist?

  •' Mr. Moose says:

    The author writes that religion isn’t the cause of violence but it’s the excuse given for acts of violence. Would the Kouachis or Tsarnaevs have committed their murderous acts if the excuse of religion was not available to them (as an excuse)? Maybe. Can the same be said for the 9/11 hijackers? I don’t think so. How about the legions of ISIS members? At some point the excuse and the reason are one in the same. Religion isn’t the sole source of violence in the world but that doesn’t mean we should let it off the hook either. I’m hard-pressed to imagine something good and moral and productive that could only come from religion but it’s easy to think of instances when otherwise good people do terrible things under the persuasion of the sacred.

  •' J Subz says:

    “Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
    but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”

    Don’t pretend it’s not about Islam. The whole religion is rooted in violence and hatred. These terrorists are carrying out the commands of their prophet to letter.

  •' J Subz says:

    Please show me where Jesus says to behead those who aren’t christians. If you can’t do that, then don’t try to yoke genuinely peaceful religions with evil, violent, and hateful ones.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Grand Juries were instituted to PROTECT the citizens of the country from being brought to trial by the authorities without the consent of other citizens, the people sitting on the G.J. The State is prohibited from trying citizens without the consent of the G.J. Sometimes the G.J.’s “runaway” and indict or fail to indict someone the prosecutor wants to try. Prosecutors will very often NOT even bring charges because they can’t get the evidence to present to a G.J. and a failure to indict after many presentations might get them “unelected.”

    Can it be manipulated – YES. In this high profile case I doubt that 12 dishonest citizens could be found who would totally disregard the law or Michael Brown’s families right to justice.

    In Florida the G.J. system was bypassed in favor of a “show” trial to placate the demonstrators and political panders. The State was made to appear as a vengeance motivated organization rather then one seeking justice. Verdict not even close.

    Get rid of Grand Juries of citizens and the State might have free reign bringing to trial political protesters, minor criminals, business people who they find objectionable and political office holders from the other Party. BTW many Police Officers are tried and jailed every year.

  •' movgp0 says:

    sure it does matter. it’s a crime that cannot be undone, so the important thing is to prevent it in the future (ie. a lifelong sentence), and make him pay with all that he has for the therapy. (compensation)

    its also important to understand the motivation, because only when you know about the possible causes, jou are able to change the world in a way that reduces the number of people who are motivated to rape someone (by statisfying their needs in a more productive way) and make it harder for the rest to act on whatever motivation they have. (prevention)

    if you are for vengeance, you might want to consider prison rape or stoning or whatever. but the problem with venegance instead of prevention is that the world does not get better when you do so. it only statisfies your ego, but does not prevent any wdwomen to get raped again. my wife would have to continue to live in fear that it might happen again. and that is a very bad thing.

  •' pennyroyal says:

    again, I think you are ill informed. This grand jury was given limited, biased testimony and some jurors are now protesting the decision they had to make. The DA was incompetent and totally biased in this case. He had a poor record and seems to have done everything in his power to ensure this outcome.

    Your second point also needs further info. Many states have done away with grand juries, as has England where GJs were founded. They can be suborned and European courts don’t use them either.

    BTW Police officers get away with major assaults and even murder every years. I am a firm believer in the goodness and integrity of most police officers but even you would have to admit, I think, that there are police departments that need to educate and insist on higher standards from their officers. Mr. Garner, in the video was taunted before being taken down. There was a history there between those cops and the deceased. His death didn’t need to happen. Mistakes were made all along the way.

    Please, let’s find some common ground. I think we don’t want to see black men dying unnecessarily and in disproportionate numbers.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    it matters because your wife uterus will be less ruptured and ruined because???…..I am not following you. I think you just have this thing where you can’t stand admitting obvious fact. that damage done is not mitigated at all by the motive. The only question is intention and most of us have never seen an unintentional rape caused by religion. Have you? Don’t bother replying. You obviously don’t like simple truth. Sort of like Archie Bunker aren’t we?

  •' EqualTime says:

    Nor are pedophiles among religious institutions great examples of those faiths either, but the higher authorities in those orders were and are in the best position to mitigate future threats. And on a scale, the recent history and trend of Criminality in the name of Islam far outweighs criminal acts associated with other religions, wouldn’t you agree?

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you do realize you are babbling racist nonsense don’t you?

  •' GregAbdul says:

    where is your degree that makes you an expert on “the underlying principles” of Islam? Medina University? Al Ahzar? Or did you study the tv and now you are an expert…WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN SET FOOT IN A MOSQUE????

  •' dspl says:

    Please show me where Mohamed says to behead those who aren’t muslims.

  •' pennyroyal says:

    it doesn’t take “12 dishonest citizens” to derail a grand jury. All it takes is an entrenched system of (mis)justice set on protecting bad cops. That’s what happened. Jurors were met by an officer that had heard every bit of evidence prior to the hearing. He and his lawyers could concoct a plausible defense. It was a highly flawed GJ hearing.
    All you say in favor of GJs may be true but why then are states, and England where they were GJs were instituted centuries ago, no longer using them. I think we have the same goal, to have fair and open proceedings but we disagree on what is really going on nationally with how GJs are seen as ineffective or even detrimental.

  •' PsiCop says:

    Pardon me, but it’s impossible to tease the religion out of this event. The killers reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” and “the prophet has been avenged.” These are both religious expressions. Religion must have been part of the killers’ motives. To say anything else is laughable and beneath contempt.

    As for the idea they acted solely on their own without the help of anyone else … how, precisely, did two supposedly down-and-out Muslims in the slums of France get their hands on automatic or semi-automatic weapons? Either they were given the weapons directly or they were given a bunch of money to get them. They can’t have worked alone.

    Re: “It is not right, of course, to blame Christianity for the acts of angry young men who are Christian, even when they claim to be defending the Christian community. Similarly, Islam is not responsible for angry Muslims.”

    I’m not sure that really works in every case. There’ve been occasions when extremists are known as such to others around them. Sometimes those folks purposely look the other way, where they’re concerned, or else they’re intimidated and fear doing anything to or about them. The Eric Rudolph example is a good one: While he was on the lam, he almost certainly had help from others who sympathized with him. After he was caught, one resident of the area he’d lurked in didn’t seem to have been bothered to find out he’d been there (“He hadn’t ever hurt anyone around here”).

    To use another example in the Muslim world, cleric Anjem Choudary is known to be a radical Islamist preacher, who more than once has declared that Islamist violence is justifiable. He’s been at this for years, but still hasn’t lost his clerical credentials (whatever those might be) and still has his mosque in London. Why is that? If in fact Choudary were just “the lunatic fringe,” wouldn’t the peaceful Muslim majority long ago have shut his operation down? Why is he still openly declaring that cartoons are “an act of war”? How could that be possible?

    I can understand the desire not to blame a whole population for the acts of a few. It’s all very noble. But if in fact an extremist is known to people, and if they do go on to commit atrocities, is it really accurate to say those around them played no role in that? I don’t care if we’re talking about Christians, or Muslims, or Jews. I don’t even care if we’re talking about something other than religious groups. What matters is that people are responsible for what they know, and should be held accountable for that knowledge, should it turn out they could have prevented atrocities, but chose not to.

  •' EqualTime says:

    No, actually. How so? Who do you think is in the best position to mitigate this threat? Or do you not think there is a threat worse addressing?

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    Who wrote this article, Obama?

    Perhaps you missed the Muslim group that took credit.

    Perhaps you missed Muslim financial support.

    Perhaps you missed the terrorist claim about a cartoon.

    Perhaps you missed that momments after killing 17, they were yelling alluah akbar.



    April 18, 1983 – The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing, Beirut, Lebanon by the Islamic Jihad Organization. 63 dead, 120 injured.[1]

    December 12, 1983 – 1983 Kuwait bombings. The 90-minute coordinated attack of six key foreign and Kuwaiti installations including two embassies, the airport, and the country’s main petro-chemical plant, was more notable for the damage it might have caused than what was actually destroyed. What might have been “the worst terrorist episode of the twentieth century in the Middle East,” succeeding in killing only 6 people because of the bombs’ faulty rigging.[2]

    July 7, 1989 – Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack, near Kiryat Yearim. 16 dead.[3]


    Osama bin Laden (1957–2011) was the founder of Al-Qaeda, the jihadist organization responsible for many high profile attacks, including the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.

    The 1998 United States embassy bombing in Nairobi where 214 people were killed including 12 Americans, 4000 others were wounded.

    February 26, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, in New York City. 6 killed.[4]

    March 12, 1993 – Serial blasts in Mumbai kill 257 people.

    July 2, 1993 – Sivas Massacre, Arson attack at a gathering in Sivas killing 35 intellectuals from Turkey, most of whom were Alevis.

    December 24, 1994 – Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group of Algeria and another terrorist. 7 killed including 4 hijackers.[5]

    June 25, 1996 – Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.[6]

    November 17, 1997 – Luxor massacre, 6 armed Islamic terrorists attacked tourists at the Luxor ruins. 62 killed, 26 injured.[7]

    February 14, 1998 – A total of 58 people were killed and over 200 injured in 12 bomb attacks in 11 places, in the city of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

    August 7, 1998 – 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead, 4000+ injured.[8]


    The north face of Two World Trade Center (south tower) immediately after being struck by United Airlines Flight 175

    Hasib Hussain, who detonated the bus bomb in Tavistock Square in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, is captured on CCTV leaving

    October 12, 2000 – Attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden. 17 American sailors were killed, 39 injured.[9]

    December 22, 2000 – Attack on Red Fort in Delhi.

    December 24, 2000 – Christmas Eve 2000 Indonesia bombings of churches in eight cities, 18 killed.[10]

    September 11, 2001 – 4 planes hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers: two planes crashed into World Trade Center and one into the The Pentagon. Nearly 3000 dead.[11]

    October 1, 2001 – Attack on the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly.

    December 13, 2001 – Suicide attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organizations Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba, aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. 7 dead, 12 injured.[12]

    March 30, 2002 – Attack on the Raghunath temple

    October 12, 2002 – 2002 Bali bombings in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people and injuring 240.[13]

    November 24, 2001 – Attack on the Raghunath temple

    January 22, 2002 – Attack on an American cultural centre in Kolkata

    May 14, 2002 – three terrorists attacked a tourist bus near the town of Kaluchak in the Indian state Jammu and Kashmir .

    July 13, 2002 – Militants kill 29 Hindu labourers in Qasim Nagar on the outskirts of Jammu in Jammu and Kashmir.

    September 24, 2002 – Akshardham Temple attack

    August 25, 2003 – Twin car bombings killed 54, and injured 244 people in Mumbai.

    August 5, 2003 – 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta, Indonesia; suicide bomber detonated a car bomb outside the JW Marriott Jakarta lobby, killing 12 and injuring 150

    November 15–20, 2003 – 2003 Istanbul bombings, killed 57 people and wounded 700.

    March 11, 2004 – Madrid train bombings, killed 191 people and wounded 1,800.[14][15]

    September 1, 2004 – Beslan school hostage crisis, approximately 344 civilians including 186 children killed.[16][17]

    September 9, 2004 – 2004 Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia; suicide bomber exploded a one-tonne car bomb, which was packed into a small Daihatsu delivery van, outside the Australian embassy at Kuningan District, South Jakarta killing 9 and injuring over 150

    November 2, 2004 – The murder of Theo van Gogh by Amsterdam-born jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri.[18]

    July 5, 2005 – Attack on the Hindu Ram temple in Ayodhya, India. 6 dead.

    July 7, 2005 – Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.

    July 23, 2005 – Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.

    October 1, 2005 – 2005 Bali bombings in Jimbaran & Kuta, Bali, Indonesia; a series of bombings kills at least 20 and injures over 100.

    October 29, 2005 – 2005 Delhi bombings, India. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus.[19]

    November 9, 2005 – 2005 Amman bombings. a series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in Amman, Jordan. Over 60 killed and 115 injured.[20][21] Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved.[22]

    March 7, 2006 – A series of bombings occurred across the Hindu holy city of Varanasi killing at least 28 people and injuring 101 others.

    April 30, 2006 – 2006 Doda massacre: Thirty-five Hindus killed by terrorists in Doda district in Jammu and Kashmir.

    July 11, 2006 – 2006 Mumbai train bombings: Seven bomb blasts over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai. 209 killed and over 700 injured.[23]

    May 13, 2007 – Jaipur bombings

    June 30, 2007 – 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, 5 injured.

    August 14, 2007 – Qahtaniya bombings. Dour suicide vehicle bombings in two predominantly Yazidi towns in northern Iraq. 796 killed, 1,562 wounded.[24]

    July 26, 2008 – 2008 Ahmedabad bombings. 56 dead, over 200 injured.[25][26]

    September 13, 2008 – Bombing series in Delhi, India. Pakistani extremist groups plant bombs at several places including India Gate, out of which the ones at Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Greater Kailash explode leaving around 30 people dead and 130 injured, followed by another attack two weeks later at the congested Mehrauli area, leaving 3 people dead.

    September 27, 2008 – 27 September 2008 Delhi blast: An explosion in Mehrauli’s Electronic market called Sarai, killed 3 and injured 23 others.

    November 26, 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 166 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India’s financial capital, Mumbai. The government of India blamed Pakistan based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and stated that the terrorists killed/caught were citizens of Pakistan, a claim which the Pakistani government first refused but then accepted when given proof. Ajmal Kasab, one of the terrorists, was caught alive.[27][28]

    June 1, 2009 – 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting by Abdulhakim Muhajid Muhammad. 1 killed and 1 injured

    June 18, 2009 – 2009 Beledweyne bombing by Al-Shabaab. 35 dead.

    July 17, 2009 – 2009 Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta, Indonesia; suicide bombers hit the Marriott and 5 minutes later the Ritz-Carlton. 9 killed and 53 injured

    November 5, 2009 – Fort Hood shooting, at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas. 13 dead, 33 injured.


    March 29, 2010 – Moscow Metro bombings. 40 dead, 102 injured. Caucasus Emirate claimed responsibility[29]

    May 28, 2010 – Attacks on Ahmadi Mosques Lahore, Pakistan. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed attacks on two mosques simultaneously belonging to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, killing nearly 100 and injuring many others.[30]

    December 7, 2010 – 2010 Varanasi bombing, India. 2 dead, 37 injured.

    December 10, 2010 – 2010 Stockholm bombing, Sweden. killing the bomber and injuring two people.

    January 21, 2011 – Domodedovo International Airport bombing. 37 killed, 173 wounded[31]

    March 2, 2011 – 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting, Frankfurt, Germany. 2 dead, 2 injured.

    July 18, 2011 – 2011 Hotan attack, Hotan, China. A group of 18 young Uyghur men who opposed the local government’s campaign against the full-face Islamic veil perpetrated a series of coordinated bomb and knife attacks and occupied a police station on Nuerbage Street, killing two security guards and taking eight hostages. The attackers yelled religious slogans, including ones associated with Jihadism, 4 killed, 4 wounded.

    July 30, 2011 – A series of knife and bomb attacks occurred in Kashgar, China. Uyghur men hijacked a truck, killed its driver and drove into a crowd of pedestrians. They then got out of the vehicle and attacked pedestrians with knifes. On July 31, a chain of two explosions started a fire in a restaurant, 15 killed, 42 wounded.

    December 25, 2011 – Christmas Day bombings were bomb blasts and shootings at churches in Madalla, Jos, Gadaka, and Damaturu. Over 41 people are reported dead.[32]

    5 January 2012 Iraq bombings, Baghdad and Nasiriyah, Iraq by Islamic State of Iraq. 73 dead, 149 injured.

    February 14, 2012 – A series of explosions occurred in Bangkok, Thailand, 5 wounded.

    23 February 2012 Iraq attacks, Baghdad, Iraq by Islamic State of Iraq. 83 dead, 250+ injured.

    20 March 2012 Iraq attacks, Baghdad and at least 9 other cities, Iraq. 52 dead, ~ 250 injured.

    March 20, 2012 – Toulouse and Montauban shootings in France. 7 dead, 5 injured.

    May 3, 2012 – Makhachkala attack. 14 dead, including 2 suicide bombers, 130 wounded[33]

    July 18, 2012 – 2012 Burgas bus bombing – 7 dead, including the suicide bomber and 32 injured at Burgas Airport, Burgas, Bulgaria.

    September 11, 2012 – 2012 Benghazi attack on the U.S. Consulate. 4 dead, 11 injured.

    February 21, 2013. – 2013 Hyderabad blasts, two bomb blasts killed 16 people and injured 119.

    April 15, 2013. – Boston Marathon bombings. Two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnev, planted two bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The blast killed 3 and injured 183 others.[34]

    May 11, 2013 – Reyhanlı bombings, killed 52 people and wounded 140.

    May 22, 2013 – Two men with cleavers kill British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich.[35][36]

    September 21, 2013 – Westgate shopping mall attack, 67 killed, 175 wounded.[37][38][39]

    September 22, 2013 – Peshawar church attack, 80-83 killed, 250 wounded.

    September 29, 2013. – Gujba college massacre. 44 students killed by Boko Haram

    October 28, 2013 – A 4×4 vehicle crashed into a crowd and burst into flames in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, 5 killed, 38 wounded.

    February 14, 2014. – Borno Massacre at least 200 killed by Boko Haram[40]

    March 1, 2014 – A group of 8 individuals attacked civilians at Kunming Railway Station, 28 dead, 143 wounded.

    April 30, 2014 – Two assailants attacked passengers and detonated explosives at the Ürümqi railway station, 3 dead, 79 wounded.

    May 20, 2014. – Jos bombings at least 118 killed and over 56 injured[41]

    May 22, 2014 – Two SUVs which carried 5 assailants were driven into a street market in Ürümqi and up to a dozen explosives were thrown at shoppers through the windows of the SUVs. The cars then crashed into shoppers and collided into each other and exploded, 39 dead, 90+ wounded.

    May 24, 2014. – Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. Gunman opened fire at the Jewish Museum in Brussels killing 4 people.

    August, 2014. – Islamic State fighters massacred some 700 people, mostly men, of the Shu’aytat tribe in Deir ez-Zor Governorate.[42]

    September 23, 2014. – 2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings. Numan Haider, an Afghan Australian stabbed two counter terrorism officers in Melbourne, Australia. He was then shot dead.[43]

    October 5, 2014 – 2014 Grozny bombing. 5 officers and the suicide bomber, were killed, while 12 others were wounded.[44]

    October 20, 2014 – 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack. Lone attacker used his car to run over two Canadian soldiers. 1 killed, 1 injured

    October 22, 2014 – 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Lone attacker shot a soldier at a war memorial and attacked Parliament. 1 killed, 3 injured[45]

    October 23, 2014. – Zale H. Thomson, also known as Zaim Farouq Abdul-Malik, attacked four New York policemen in the subway with a hatchet, severely injuring one in the back of the head and injuring another policeman in the arm before being shot to death by the remaining officers, who also shot a bystander.[46]

    November 28, 2014. – Kano bombing. Around 120 people were killed and another 260 injured.[47][48][49][50]

    December 4, 2014. – 2014 Grozny clashes. 26 total dead, including 14 policemen, 11 Jihadist from Caucasus Emirate, 1 civilian[51]

    December 15, 2014. – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. 2 dead, 4 injured.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]

    December 16, 2014. – 2014 Peshawar school attack. Over 140 people dead, including at least 132 children.[61]

    December 16, 2014. – Two suicide car bombers rammed their vehicles into a Shiite rebels’ checkpoint killing 26, including 16 students.[62]

    December 18, 2014. – 2014 Gumsuri kidnappings. Boko Haram insurgents killed 32 people and kidnapped at least 185 women and children.[63]

    December 18, 2014. – Mass grave of 230 Tribesmen killed by Islamic State found in Eastern Syria.[64]

    December 20, 2014 – 2014 Joué-lès-Tours attack. A man yelling Allahu Akbar attacked a police office with a knife. He was killed and 3 police officers were injured

    December 21, 2014 – 2014 Dijon attack. A man yelling Allahu Akbar ran over 11 pedestrians with his vehicle. 11 injured

    December 22, 2014. – Boko Haram insurgents bombed a bus station in the city of Gombe, killing at least twenty people.[65]

    December, 2014. – Islamic State militants execute 150 women Iraqi province of Al-Anbar, some of whom were pregnant at the time, who refuse to marry their fighters.[66]

    December 24, 2014. – A suicide bomber killed 33 people and wounded 55 others in Madaen, about 25 km (15 miles) south of Baghdad.[67]

    December 25, 2014. – Al-Shabaab (militant group) attack in Mogadishu leaves 9 dead.[68]

    December 28, 2014. – Boko Haram attacks village in Cameroon leaving 30 dead.[69]

    January 7, 2015. – At least 12 killed in shooting at office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Paris [70]

    January 8, 2015. – 2015 Baga massacre. Boko Haram attacks town of Baga in northern Nigeria killing at least 200 people. Another 2000 are unaccounted for.[71]

    January 7-9, 2015. – A series of 5 attacks in and around Paris kill 17 people; plus 3 attackers, and leave 22 other people injured.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    The author claims muslims are victims because we call a muslim terrorist attack, a muslim terrorist attack.
    After all we have witnessed in the decades…..
    after all this time,
    Almost two billion …….and what are they doing to stop this?
    A clash of civilizations
    This will get a whole lot worse before the tide turns……if its not too late.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you asked….”magnitude and exuberant approval….” Can you show me who has openly approved of the attack that happened in Paris? You use the word “magnitude” which means it is on a large scale. Now either you are not good with facts, or you are not good with words…or you are another internet scholar in internet world, talking absolutely false nonsense without bothering to touch base with reality. The IRA was not a renegade Catholic group. They were a political movement and they eventually decreased England’s presence in Ireland, which is a good parallel because the guys over there who hate Westerners are like the iRA, they want the colonialists out of their country as well, even though it is couched in a pseudo-religious identity. There is really no such thing as “moderate Muslim.” Is there such a thing as a “moderate” white racist? You don’t know three Muslims to know what we do and don’t deny. Please feel free to use Islamicfinder to visit a mosque and actually leave your couch world so that you can talk about the Muslims you know. In the meantime, like most pseudo scholars who pontificate from your bedroom or your couch, please quit pretending to be an expert on Islam WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN SET FOOT IN A MOSQUE…

    as elvis says…thank you very much!

  •' EqualTime says:

    Thanks for the dialogue. Here’s an article about some (not hundreds of millions) supporting the attacks I don’t feel the need to enter a mosque any more than I need to ask you to join me in a workout. I believe one should not be judged on what they believe, but on how what one believes causes them to act. You are aware that Boko Haram has recently killed 2,000 in Baga? How does that rate on your “magnitude” scale? You choose to blog too. What do you think of Saudi Arabia’s flogging Badawi to near death for his blogged views? I am providing you with facts, and you respond that I am racist. That is one way of addressing this issue. My sense is that it will take more than that to bring peace to this divide.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    Eq….you do realize I just told you that you have zero real world experience with Muslims and your reply was to send me a link?

    Are you really that dense? I do need to exercise and so do you. That’s simple medical fact. How does your denial of my need to exercise serve as proof that you get to pontificate on complex subject of which you have never actually been anywhere near in your life? I don’t need to exercise with you so that is a logical step to you being an expert of the French, who has never been to France?

  •' GregAbdul says:

    YOU HAVE NEVER SET FOOT IN A MOSQUE. For those of us not stuck in computer world, that means you are an extremely not bright person shooting off your mouth when you try to teach anyone about “the magnitude” of Muslim response in the world….maybe you mean virtual world…you know AS the real one?

    You are ignorant about Islam and Muslims. Please don’t be insulting on top of it. Your link only confirms my first point. Like you don’t have the decency to get off your couch and come talk face to face with Muslims….don’t be the coward who hides behind screen name to spread your particularly ignorant take on that which you have NEVER studied.

  •' EqualTime says:

    I can’t see where I’ve claimed to be an expert on anything. I have asked you several times who, in your opinion if you are willing to share, is in the best position to reduce the possibility of criminals seeking to kill or injure others in the name of Allah arising from Muslim/Islamic communities, and how that might occur. And, in the alternative, if you think there is no need, because of minimal risk, I’d be interested in that opinion too.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you are here telling me about Islam and Muslims….if you practice medicine without a license, no one waits for you to officially call yourself a doctor before they call you a quack. Okay…are you now admitting that you are totally ignorant when it comes to Islam and Muslims? My answer to you, no matter your questions about Islam and Muslims will always be the same. Use Islamicfinder and visit your local mosque, put on your drawers and your pants, clean yourself, get off your couch and go into the real world and talk to Muslims. You don’t know where anyone “arises from.” You know what can be broadcast into your home and you are making ignorant leaps from that programming.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    dude, I try to be patient, but basically…you are a liar..Fitnah does NOT mean disbelief. Not even close…you should be ashamed…somehow you got a hold of a computer and access to the internet and now have decided to lie on a major world religion as a way to entertain yourself. God don’t like ugly!

  •' GregAbdul says:

    the french are having a racist reaction to their newly swelling immigrant population. these boys decided to go on a killing spree in revenge. this is social, not religious. you don’t know anything about Islam other than the hate-site nonsense you post. Please quit trying to tell people about Islam when you have absolutely no actual school learning about our faith. your ignorance is not a license nor a valid excuse for your hate prejudice and racism.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    “the prophet has been avenged” is a religious expression? this board is like a sea of ignorance…I guess if you repeat ignorance long enough…..well, we who believe say a lie is a lie is a lie and no amount of repeating it makes it true.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    your hypothetical is irrelavant. the question is one of a valid excuse. No religion is a reason or an excuse for mass murder. When you insist on dragging religion in as a reason, you are doing nothing more and nothing less than venting your racist feelings. This is an evil that needs to be condemned. As we remember MLK, you need to see that you are on the wrong side. You love your prejudice more than the ideas that MLK died for. You have a blanket racist label and you INSIST… just got to have your prejudice as a way to explain what happens in the world when it is really prejudice like yours that is the catalyst for most of the bad that happens in the world. You are mixing cause and effect. Don’t be a bigot. Be a part of the solution.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    when a white non Muslim man kills over a hundred people, it’s “not religious.”

    and that’s not classic racism? When it’s one of you and your faith OF COURSE it is NEVER your group that is defective?

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    Do any of the Muslim terrorist attacks listed have factual errors?
    Are Muslims not actively trying to put the world under racist, sexist, homophobe, deadly, sharia law?
    Do you side with terrorists, and sharia law?

  •' PsiCop says:

    Re: “‘the prophet has been avenged’ is a religious expression?”

    Why would you have a problem with that? Do you seriously contend that “prophets” are not “religious” figures? If so, how and why do they have nothing to do with religion? If “prophets” and “prophecy” aren’t “religious,” what are they? Do tell. This cynical, ignorant, insolent agnostic godless heathen is dying to understand how “prophets” can’t possibly be “religious.”

    Re: “I guess if you repeat ignorance long enough…..well, we who believe say a lie is a lie is a lie and no amount of repeating it makes it true.”

    Associating “prophets” with “religion” is something you consider “ignorant”? If so, it sure looks as though “ignorance” is your problem, not mine.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    a religious expression is an expression that belongs to a religion. This is not a Muslim expression. Nothing in our teachings tell us to avenge the prophet….a Muslim expression for example is “imitate the Prophet.” you are repeating the guessed at and wrong expression (never set foot in a mosque to know what a Muslims says). It comes from the ignorance of an internet scholar.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you write three questions. The first is irrelevant or racist..take your pick. Muslim terrorist act is redundant since the media only refers to mass murders by Muslims as “terrorist acts.” Mass murder is not a religious act.

    Muslims are almost 1/5 of the world’s population. so you are jumping from a few criminal acts to a massive generalization and racism that incriminates a huge part of the world, I wish you would use your mind. You can’t lock up two billion people. Your prejudice is bigger than all the jails in the world, so you need to narrow down your prejudice a bit.

    You are an internet scholar. who does not know two poops about Islam. I side with Sharia law. Now one day, when your prejudice stops making you so cozy with your ignorance, you can go to mosque and find out what Sharia actaully is instead of parroting hate sites. Please quit being an internet KKK. Go into the real world and reach across and embrace difference. Islam is growing in the West and all this white hostility is not going to stop it. Get on the right side of History. MLK is not with bigots. an anti Muslim bigot is still only a bigot and the internet and a screen name does not make it right.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    You have no issue with terrorists in your ranks.
    You have no issue with brutal regimes
    You talk of bigotry, yet state you agree with sharia law.
    You agree with sharia law…..the antI-freedom, homophobIC, women mutilating murderous, totalitarian, hating set of horrendous ideas, set by a group of insecure little men.
    I have no issue with what Islam is supposed to be.
    I have every issue with sharia law.
    sharia law is prejudice, as you are.
    I have every issue with almost two billion people silent……silent when murdering bands of evil haters try to take over the world. Two billion people silent, and you who has a problem with me instead of the real hate…is very loud
    My mind is in freedom.
    Sharia law is everything against freedom, and human existence.
    Clean your house, not my mind.
    If you don’t like it, I don’t care anymore. I gave the benefit of the doubt for many years. Now with Obama as the weakest president in generations, isis, and sharia law is expanding.
    You say it will expand here. Over my dead body.
    BRING IT ON. !!!!! LETS SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    Wait…What? Am I missing something here? Are you stating you understand the killings because they were angry over German protesting?


    You stated:

    “these boys decided to go on a killing spree in revenge.”

  •' J Subz says:

    Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

    There are plenty more like this. 140 in fact. About 60% of the Koran is dedicated to telling muslims how to handle non-muslims

  •' EqualTime says:

    I think I find my answer in your refusal to answer. Time is our most precious resource. When the next homegrown or lone wolf attack occurs, we will all wish we’d used our time better. That includes this dialogue. All the best to you my friend. I hope your denial and deflection works out for you.

  •' J Subz says:

    Woulm you like a different verse then? How about this?

    Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

    Your religion is rooted in violence. Don’t try to deny it. There are plenty more verses like this (140), and I can juet keep spitting them out.

  •' PsiCop says:

    Re: “Nothing in our teachings tell us to avenge the prophet …”

    Obviously there are at least a couple Muslims who disagree with you.

    Re: “you are repeating the guessed at and wrong expression (never set foot in a mosque to know what a Muslims says).”

    I have no idea whether these guys learned their version of Islam in a mosque or not. Nor do I care. I only care what they did. And they reportedly did it while making religious statements.

    Re: “It comes from the ignorance of an internet scholar.”

    … responding to an article that claimed the Kouachi brothers acted alone (when in fact this this not possible, they definitely had help) and to a commenter who refuses to admit the possibility of a religious motive (which was made evident by the killers’ own statements).

  •' GregAbdul says:

    as soon as you complete your degree at Medina University, you get back with me. The KKK says you are a racist white person with no chance of ever accepting those who are not white and Christian…You clearly give evidence that they know a lot more about you than you are willing to admit.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you find your answer in the bed sores on your butt created by your unwillingness to leave your couch.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    yes…my guess is you miss a lot.

  •' PsiCop says:

    Re: “as soon as you complete your degree at Medina University, you get back with me.”

    I don’t need to go to Medina University to know there are Muslims in the world who are furious about depictions of their prophet. Have a look at these:

    Don’t tell me Islam doesn’t forbid depictions of its prophet. Tell all those Muslims who didn’t go to Medina University and didn’t get the memo.

    Re: “The KKK says you are a racist white person with no chance of ever accepting those who are not white and Christian.”

    Ah. So I’m a “racist white Christian,” eh? How do you know this? I’m actually an agnostic, if you care to know, and don’t think much better of Christianity than I do of Islam, to be honest. But you just go right ahead and slander me. Please. Continue. If that’s all you’ve got, then you’ve lost already and are just a sore loser.

    Re: “You clearly give evidence that they know a lot more about you than you are willing to admit.”

    … says the person who’s unaware that Muslims around the world are rioting, pillaging, burning, maiming and killing over cartoons they have said are forbidden by Islam. Yeah, just keep providing evidence of your own ignorance, then whine and bellyache that I didn’t go to Medina University. What a laugh.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.
    Therefore, for you, slaughtering innocent people is perfectly fine because you feel so…because after Muslims try making sharia law in france, people protest…….and this is enough for you, and your kind to go around murdering people.
    You tell me I know nothing of islam, then you state how you agree with murdering people in the name of religion.
    But its “the religion of peace”
    With a billion people like you?
    Their will be world war three.

  •' EqualTime says:

    Nice comeback. You’re just too intelligent for me to debate. You clearly win. Good luck on your next conquest. Allah Akhbar!

  •' DKeane123 says:

    Actually I didn’t forget, the number of incidents is just getting too long. Of course the response will be that the ideas of Islam have nothing to do with this violence and that is is because of racism/imperialism/capitalism…pick your favorite apologist excuse for violent religious ideals being put into action.

  •' Mr. Moose says:

    Against which race have I spoken antagonistically?

  •' GregAbdul says:

    your racism is scattershot…basically anyone not swearing themselves to white culture is your target. Well you are not bashing Japanese or hating them. Your racism is you see a non white religion and without thinking, you have put yourself on a crusade against anything not Western white Christian. MLK was the best Christian of the modern era. He NEVER went around ranting about non Christians and in fact, he died fighting whites who are behaving the way you are here. I know, “Musilm is not a race.” Your reaction is racist. Muslim equals not white as cultural language in America. Please stand with MLK and quit the racism. You should sit and think and then treat people the way King asked. Clearly you are not imitating MLK or Jesus or the best ideas of America here. I know you say you are anti religious, but in modern America, you are sort of the new version of the old rule. An intolerant atheist in 2015 is basically the good old protestant white racist of 50 years ago. Their core was intolerance of anyone not like them, not Jesus. If your core is tolerance then you are not racist. Are you a tolerant white American man who does not mind that in America, people have a God given right to be different? In this culture, when you are not, the opposite is often white racism.

  •' GuestReply says:

    It is obvious that you have yet to read Quran. Have you read the Book of Joshua, at least?

  •' J Subz says:

    I have, otherwise I would not have posted that verse. Muhammad was a false prophet, a murderer, a thief, a paedophile, and an extremely evil and immoral man. His writings allow people to see this, and yet people like you prefer to bury your head in the sand and repeat that infantile mantra of “you have not read Quran” or “You don’t know true Islam”.

  •' ToadieJay says:

    “Science is my religion”- Timothy McVeigh. Look it up.

  •' fiona64 says:

    Please show me where Jesus says to behead those who aren’t christians

    First of all, Jesus was Jewish. Christianity was developed by Saul of Tarsus, not Jesus.

    Second, you’ll have to look awfully hard to find a place in the Qu’ran where it says that Christians are to be beheaded. Why? Because Jesus is a prophet of Islam.

    Educate yourself.

  •' fiona64 says:

    Stop trying to excuse your co-religionists.

  •' fiona64 says:

    You have no idea what jihad means, do you?

  •' Mr. Moose says:

    Interesting. You’ve certainly covered a lot of ground here. Please allow me to circle back to my original question and make sure I understand what you are saying. Feel free to correct me if I’m in error.

    From my original post, you inferred that I am a racist person based not on disparaging remarks I made towards any one race but rather my use of Tsarnev, Kouachi and ISIS in my examples.

    Thanks in advance for the clarification.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    you didn’t answer my question. Religion is sometimes just clothes and not the heart. The heart of this is, are you a tolerant person? Or does everyone have to be an atheist like you?

  •' Mr. Moose says:

    My apologies. I see your question above regarding tolerance but the “atheist” question is new. To the latter, I never said I was an atheist.

    To the former, would you mind sharpening your definition of “tolerant”? I think we can agree that everyone has things that they will or will not tolerate.

    In fairness, I’ve now addressed two of your questions. I’d like to try and focus on one perception at a time. If you would, please help me understand how you came to define me as a racist? Maybe if you provide your definition of ‘racist’, that might help clarify your position for me.

    Again, I’m sorry for not understanding the origins of your points immediately offhand but as I said, you covered a lot of ground in your reply.


  •' GregAbdul says:

    you didn’t answer me. you speak english, so you know what the word tolerant means, in the context of which we are speaking. I think your dodging means no. You are behind a screen name…is that enough cover for you? Why must you still hide? It’s okay…you can say you are intolerant. No one is going to punish you for it. This is America after all. Sorry, you said you don’t like religion, so I thought you really meant that you don’t like any religion. Don’t hide and keep asking me questions. I respond to you with no problem. But that you are scared to be open about your heart, online behind a screen name, is not a good commentary on you as a person. Are you tolerant or not? Please don’t pretend you don’t know what the word means….I mean…FIRST AMENDMENT TOLERANT. You know, that little thing were the Framers of the Constitution said that my prayers are my private business between me and God and no offense for any reasonable outside person not engaged in my private prayers?

  •' EqualTime says:

    Really? That’s your response? You want to put the rantings of 40 nutjob Baptists, horrific as their words are, on a scale with ISIL and AQ?

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people..

  •' GregAbdul says:

    have you noticed that you are ranting into an internet comments section? sort of like yelling into a mirror….you see your angry talk and it inspires you doesn’t it?

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    SO THEN… do agree with the murdering of 17.
    We are done now. Thanks for clarifying.

  •' fiona64 says:

    You don’t know the first thing about Islam, do you? Back away from the Faux news.

  •' EqualTime says:

    Please educate me. Start with the justification of flogging the Saudi blogger.

  •' fiona64 says:

    Since I do not know what incident you are referring to, I am afraid you will have to provide me a citation.

    However, you may start your education here:

  •' Mr. Moose says:

    Thanks for the quick reply, Greg. I feel that we’re making good progress and appreciate your patience with me.

    Regarding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, it’s something I admire and respect. However, the purpose of that amendment is to limit the law making of Congress so that it doesn’t infringe upon a set of liberties. You’re probably thinking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (based off the 14th Amendment) that protects individuals from religious discrimination among other things.

    That said, if your prayers are private, no one else would be aware of them and therefore a second party’s tolerance is really moot so I’m not sure “tolerant” is the word you’re looking for.

    Circling back to your original inference of racism, I’d like to understand that more. Would you please consider providing me with your definition of racism?

    Thanks again!

  •' fiona64 says:

    death by electrocution or injection for felony murder after due process of law

    Oh, sweetie. Do you really think it’s that simple? I really do suggest that you educate yourself. A good many people were exonerated *posthumously* after execution. Here would be a good place to start.

  •' fiona64 says:

    Nope. Michael Brown was killed for being black in public. No more, no less. He was never proven to have stolen *anything,* and he resembled the suspect in the robbery only insofar as he was a black male.

    Garner was not under arrest when he was choked to death, and was not committing a crime. Even if he had been selling loosies at that exact moment, it’s a ticketable offense, not a felony.

    Your take on these incidents demonstrates a level of bigotry that should disturb any thinking person.

    No love, a white woman

  •' fiona64 says:

    The purpose of the GJ is NOT to exonerate someone (as happened in this case). It is to determine whether there is enough evidence to return a bill of true indictment. The DA spent all of his time presenting exculpatory evidence … that was later proven to be false. But hey, what’s another dead black dude, right?

    And, of course, his body being left on the street for hours wasn’t anything like the “strange fruit” left in lynching trees. Oh, no sirree. /sarc

  •' fiona64 says:

    His actual restraining was not criminal (even a choke hold is NOT illegal)

    Yeah, actually, it was. Lethal force is not the correct level of response to an alleged misdemeanor.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    if you are intolerant of things that are outside of white culture, it doesn’t have to be an exact racial group for your animus to be called racism…at least not in my book. It’s like quibbling over the exact term to give to white intolerance that is 500 years old. Christianity is the white man’s religion. Islam is not. There is no multi million dollar industry dedicated to generating hate against white Christians. White America has exactly such a thing today in America going after Muslims. For me, that’s because of America’s unending racism.

    When I say my prayers are private, I mean they are between me and God and not subject to your approval. I do not mean that I am under some compulsion to go into a closet because the sight of me praying offends you. Private as in, it’s none of your business, even when they are quite public. You get to veto my religious rules when I bring them to government hall and make them law. Not before.

  •' Mr. Moose says:

    My intolerance is directed towards violence – not race or religion. This article stated that religion was the excuse for violence but not the reason and I argued the author is playing a game of semantics and that if a religious doctrine calls for violence, it needs to be called into question. I hold the same disdain for the Crusades as I do the slaughter of French cartoonists. I find the Bible-justified slavery of the South as reprehensible as the kidnapping of Nigerian school girls and the murder of children.

    I don’t hold your pre-judgement of me against you. I’m sure you contend with the challenge of acceptance regularly. That’s what xenophobia does to people whatever the root cause may be. And I agree with you: you may worship as you please as long as it’s excluded from the process of legislation.

    I will, however, draw issue with your claim that Islam excludes anyone, much less “the white man”. My initial exposure to Islam was through the words of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. And I quote, “America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered ‘white’–but the ‘white’ attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.”

    Your divisive vision of your faith calcifies it as solidly as the most strident, white racist. As a convert, has your legitimacy not been questioned by those born into the faith? When your sincerity and legitimacy are called into question, that is divisiveness in action and that is what you do to people with your accusations of racism and “intolerance”. There’s no room for exclusion, intolerance, violence or hatred in any religion. Offense and intolerance are everywhere – you don’t need to seek them out. El-Shabazz was murdered because he embraced Islam and his vision of inclusion, regardless of race, threatened the status quo. But if racism is the status quo then the status quo needs threatening.

    I’ll leave you with this final quote from El-Shabazz in 1964:

    “With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called ‘Christian’ white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster–the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves.

    Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities–he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth–the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to.”

    I wish you peace.

    Mr. Moose

  •' GregAbdul says:

    we need to quit, but thank you for your long reply. In our American democracy, when someone commits rape, we all don’t sit around wringing our hands to figure out what religion make the rapist go out and rape. We jail the guy, take him to court and find out if he actually did the rape. If he did the rape, there is no religious exemption or debate. The rapist is sentence and ordered to pay restitution to his victim. If you have a reason for being a criminal, in American jurisprudence, it really doesn’t matter. There is no Christian or Jewish debate about criminality. Only RACISM would make some think that criminals who happen to be Muslim deserve some special debate about why they are criminals…and the phoney debate happens only to validate prejudice and American white racism against Muslims. The author’s and my point is that there are bad racist socio-economic things going on in France today. They used to sneer at America and how white America treats blacks, yet now that they have a large immigrant population, racism there against the North African immigrants is rampant and open. Young people, when faced with no life prospects, sometimes go mad and turn to radical behavior. This the author’s point. This racism, discrimination and the lack of opportunity and the criminal response to it are not because of religion. They are about religion only in the context of French white intolerance. You have never mentioned your faith. If your faith is you believe in no God, then as a fellow American, I back your right to deny God, even though I thoroughly disagee with you. I don’t think you should be denied the chance to work and make a living. Yet this is history exactly what racist white Westerners have done to outsiders for centuries, in direct contradiction to their basic founding doctrines. I am not “prejudging” you. I am showing you the prejudice you use in going at Muslims. I did not say my faith has no business in legislation. I said you have a right to oppose me when I try to make my faith legislation. We regulate and criminalize some forms of abortion….because of religion. Murder as a crime is first spelled out as a sin in the Bible and the Quran. With legitimate debate, there is good in my faith that can benefit society as legislation. Freedom of religion is an Islamic concept. I never said islam excludes anyone. Maybe you are studying me online now. I am a Malcolm guy. I….sort of know what he says. I am in a not nice way begging white America to quit. MLK was shot dead begging America to quit. Everyone won’t be white Christian name only or atheist. Let people live differently that white American mainstream culture. Islam makes people more open and less racist, but the Saudis are pretty racist so it is not a total panacea. There are universal principles we have to work for as a world community. Smart Muslims work easily with non Muslims and we see our most imprint work there. Of course there are intolerant Muslims, but it’s pretty easy…through our sources to show them they are being idiots and at least drive them back into a closet…for a minute (racist tend not to let go). Thank you for quoting Malcolm to me. This is the time of year I remember him and his great courage. I as you…I plead with you. Malcolm and Martin are my people. King said, judge them by the content of their character. That means you see everyone as an individual and not use racist shorthand to avoid having to look closely at people. The young men in Paris were not Muslims criminalized by Islam. That’s like saying blacks are crime prone. They were people in a hostile dominant society that decided to strike out and lash out and make people pay for their suffering. Please don’t latch on their excuse and use it to justify prejudiced thinking. MLK wanted you to see every human being as individuals and to see unfair treatment against he powerless. To say Islam makes Muslims evil is to deny the work of Marin Luther King…..

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Do you visit reality from time to time?

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Guess Eric Holder’s DOJ is in on the cover-up too. If this P.O. were lynched from a tree in Ferguson maybe smiles would be the order of the day. Just what system would you like. Mob justice? Popular vote by rioters? Maybe everyone should take to the streets with guns and violence when something occurs that they don’t like.

    If there is NOT enough “evidence” to indict just get a mob together and settle it in the street. Exculpatory evidence proven false by who Al Sharpton? Maybe Eric Holder? The State’s Attorney General? You sound like a first year law student. Big words empty head. If the Strange Fruit was white grapes you might like what you see.

  •' fiona64 says:

    I’m sorry; I couldn’t see any point through your racist weasel-words.

    Educate yourself about what the grand jury is *supposed* to do here:

    Oh, and dude? Antonin Scalia, who is far from liberal, was very clear in US V. Williams:

    Quote (emphasis added): It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation
    [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses,
    but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the
    prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see
    also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th
    ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in
    England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been
    thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence

  •' fiona64 says:

    What is it like to be as willfully ignorant as you are? Really, I want to know.

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    You can quote all the law you want. In the State of New York an individual has the ABSOLUTE right to appear before a Grand Jury looking to indict him/her. No attorney present. Many individuals have and saved their own bacon by answering truthfully. The G.J. also has the right to question the individual and the prosecutor can not do anything to stop them. That is for a specific crime.

    When a Grand Jury is used as an investigative tool the individuals do not know there is an investigation until an indictment is returned. They are two different uses of the Grand Jury. Don’t know how it is in Ferguson, MO.

  •' fiona64 says:

    TL;DR … BO doesn’t care what the law says, and thinks it’s okay for cops to shoot black youths with impunity.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people..

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.,.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.,..

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    OK, we therefore must conclude you agree with the murdering of 17 people…?

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:


  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

  •' GregAbdul says:

    who stated that “sharia law is the only way” ???

    I said there is racism showing here….you know, like when your drawers are showing. Now you need to cover it up don’t you? Isn’t that what modern white racists do? You are off script. Name calling me is a nice red herring, but it’s like you are almost to the personal point of not caring if anyone knows you are online doing racist rants.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    ” I side with Sharia law. Now one day, when your prejudice stops making you so cozy with your ignorance, you can go to mosque and find out what Sharia actaully is instead of parroting hate sites. Please quit being an internet KKK.”
    You, and sharia law does not belong in a civil society.
    Get off my planet.

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    Hey pig juice, where do you live?

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:


    ” I side with Sharia law. Now one day, when your prejudice stops making you so cozy with your ignorance, you can go to mosque and find out what Sharia actaully is instead of parroting hate sites. Please quit being an internet KKK.”

  •' Fortified I am Buzzlightyear says:

    ” I side with Sharia law. Now one day, when your prejudice stops making you so cozy with your ignorance, you can go to mosque and find out what Sharia actaully is instead of parroting hate sites. Please quit being an internet KKK.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *