Six years after the attack on the twin towers, Islam is percieved as the most dangerous religion on our planet. This misconception stems directly from the War on terror.
On September 11th, 2001 much of the western world turned against Islam as they never had before. In the years that followed 911, the world witnessed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; events that have helped turn parts of the Muslim world against the western world.
The War on Terror has pitted peaceful followers of Islam against the Islamic jihad. Fear-based reporting and the spreading of stereotypes has served to increase religious tensions, while little has been done to stabilize the world. Instead, reality has been distorted and the world’s second most popular religion has been demonized.
Before the destruction of the twin towers by Islamic fundamentalists, Islam was a religion that many people never gave a second thought to and knew little about. After the attacks, those same people immediately viewed Islam as an aggressive, confrontational and dangerous religion. Terrorism is now seen as one of the greatest perceived threats to the modern world.
Far from helping people to understand that Islam is an essentially peaceful religion, the media has fuelled anti-Islam sentiment and Muslims all over the world are unfairly feared and hated.
The War on Terror means that now, when people think of the Middle East, they think danger. It is much more than that. The heart of Islam is a country which includes oil-rich seabeds and the historical delicacies of Babylon.
But that has been forgotton. Now it is an area linked with weapons of mass destruction, dictatorial tyranny and Muslim insurgents. Now also with a possible nuclear threat in the shape of Iran, The War on Terror has produced instability and frictions as the different factions fight each other as well as the “invading” forces.
At the centre of it all, Islam is unfairly taking the blame for a minority of its population behaving distinctly irreligiously.
The copyright of the article The War on Terror in Religion & War is owned by Ben Hughes. Permission to republish The War on Terror must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Mar 10, 2007 6:11 AM
Ben Hughes
:
Has George Bush done enough to convince the rest of the world that Guantanamo Bay is acting in all of our bets interests? I've got the feeling the time's come for the media to start asking questions again. It's been so long and so much time has passed that the story has died down. But is this really the right thing to do with terror suspects, or should this have been sorted out a long time ago? And how much of this is a war on terror and how much is a war on Islam? The last few years have done so much to widen the gap between Muslims and the rest of the world, it's difficult to see how we'll be brought back together again. Let us know what you think.
Mar 30, 2007 3:14 PM
Ben Hughes
:
I think you're right when you say that we need more positive Muslim role models - but isn't it just that fanatacism and terror sells stories at the moment? I feel that religious people are just people at the end of the day. Religions still have people in them who are wrong, commit crimes, commit sins, are paedophiles and make mistakes, but it's how the religions deal with them that matters. It's also how those people stick to the religion as well. Atheism apart, God knows our hearts and knows if we repent whether or not we say it out loud and shout it from the rooftops. It may not be about doubting the religions themselves but not trusting everyone quite as much. As long as it doesn't turn society into a bunch of pessimistic neurotics!
Mar 31, 2007 4:52 PM
Smorg
:
Here. Here... The media sell what they think the audience will hog on. ;o) Unfortunately, we Homo sapiens often find it hard to not rubberneck at a gory accident.
I think we are pretty much in agreement that it's the human propagating what his/her interpretation of what god say that should be scruntinized before trusting. I've met some pagans of late (didn't know what they were about until a week ago... now suddenly there seem to be so many pagans!!).
Have no problem with their own personal experience or revelation, either.. Would have problem if they start going around saying that their personal revelation is god's own word and everyone else is to be subjected to that whether they share their religion or not.
Incidently... somehow there is a notion among many Christians I've chatted with that the <i>'moral decline'</i> of late (I'm not sure there has been one, history is full of claims of moral decline and pending armageddon) is the result of the rise of godless science. But then.... it has never been the objective of science to boost people's morality. That's the job religions claim... and the religions have been active in all the years of this supposed <i>moral decline</i>. I wonder why is it that some religions (Christianity in particular) like to bash science so much. Or maybe I shouldn't say <i>bash</i>, but they sure like to pit their religion against what science is finding. Any thought on that?
Apr 2, 2007 5:14 PM
Ben Hughes
:
It's my (humble) opinion that religions dislike science because it claims to be right and have proof that everything else (i.e. religion) is wrong. Scientific proof seems so black and white and has taken over from the faith aspect of religion, so that if we can't see anything then it must be false. What many people fail to realise is that science is based a lot on theories which suppose things to be true. It may well be that the universe is so perfect in its natural state that we can suppose that God has created it, but science will tell us we are wrong because of other evidence. And everything seems to come back to evidence which can change with technology and time, whereas religion is constant. Does this answer the question or not? I've gone on a bit of ramble here, but I suppose I'm trying to say that both sides are trying to assert their authority: science does it with hard (or as near as it can be) evidence, which is what people are now looking for; and religion does it with faith. And I suppose this move away from religion has moved people away from the moral guidance of God and the moral codes of that religion, so people blame the rise of science for immorality. How much of this is really due to science and how much is due to human selfishness and greed I don't know. Any thoughts?
Apr 3, 2007 5:44 PM
Smorg
:
Hiya, Well... I think there's a misconception in the general public of what a scientific theory is and what it isn't. And a scientist who can't see the shades of gray isn't a good scientist at all, because there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. We deal with probablity. We can say what degree of confidence we have in a certain concept.
The higher the degree of confidence is obtained via redundant testing of the concept against real evidence. Each 'pass' gives the concept higher confidence... and only after many, many years of testings against real events do a scientific concept (hypothesis) attain the label '<i>theory</i>'. So a scientific theory isn't just something anyone thought up like the secular use of the word implies. So comparing a well tested scientific theories that have stood the tests all the years since its original conception and have continuously been modified to better fit what reality is with a secular version of a 'theory' is like comparing apples with oranges, I think.
I have also heard the constancy of a religious dogma being touted as a virtue quite a lot. But I don't really see that that's a good virtue. Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent whatever it is one's been practicing. And if one's been practicing a bad habit, then surely making a bad habit permanent isn't a good thing.
That's the great thing about science that religions should learn from, imo. Scientists can and do acknowledge their being wrong about things all the time. If that isn't so then the technology we enjoy today that stemmed from the increase in knowledge that only happen when old theories are modified to fit the reality better. Not when they refuse to budge regardless of prevailing evidence. Darwin's original theory of evolution is almost unrecognizable now from what it was when it was first presented. We have learnt a lot since and we only continue to learn by changing the theories/hypotheses to better fit new and improved evidence. And that only happens when we dare to doubt <i>established theories</i>.
And regardless of what <i>some</i> IDers or creationists have been saying, the scientific scruntiny of its own theories (including evolution) is on-going. It has never stopped, because we still don't know all there is to know yet. The virtue of science is in being secure enough to know that we don't know and so must keep finding out. Rather than to pretend to know by faith in a certain non-scientific book and st
Apr 8, 2007 9:24 AM
Ben Hughes
:
Hi Maybe the idea of absolutism is wrong both ways - in religion and in science - as we can learn from both of them. They can both teach and contribute to morality and society. I think that part of it (as I think you say) is that too many people try to push their point of view down the throat of others. We have a choice of how to live our lives and while there isn't anything wrong by telling others how we live, there's a difference between informing and overloading. We need to have enough information to make an informed decision, but enough space to be able to make that decision.
P.S. Thanks for the contributions. It's nice to know that at least one person is interested.
