Mark Steel: “Norway’s Christians didn’t have to apologise for Anders Breivik, and it’s the same for Muslims now”
Published:
January 9, 2015 at 8:43pm
Read Mark Steel’s column in The Independent (London). The same piece is syndicated in The Belfast Telegraph.
The trouble is, too many people think in terms of “Muslims” rather than “people who are Muslim”.
One point six billion people the world over, living in diverse countries, are seen as a homogenous mass who think and behave identically and who are all responsible for each other.
The people of Malta are not identified with the people of Chile on the basis that they are “all Roman Catholics”.
What has Michelle Muscat – just to pull a name out of a hat – have to do with some teenage boy selling drugs in a Brazilian favela, just because they are both Roman Catholics?
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/mark-steel/charlie-hebdo-norways-christians-didnt-have-to-apologise-for-anders-breivik-and-its-the-same-for-muslims-now-30893847.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-how-exactly-would-we-like-muslims-to-condemn-these-attacks-9966176.html
That’s easy – they both come from the sticks.
Attaque fahxi? Non! Je suis Charlie!
The difference between Muslims and other faiths is that nowadays only followers of the Koran carry out atrocities in the name of their faith. It is only Muslims who quote their faith to commit murder.
And they don’t only do it for power but they do it because they believe that it is what is expected of them. Yes, in recent history there was one Christian who commited murder but the numbers are simply incomparable.
[Daphne – You had best explain that: one Christian who committed murder?]
And this is the reason why many people put all Muslims in the same bag. Because too many people commit atrocities in the name of the faith of Islam.
Personally I can identify between a Muslim and a terrorist. I don’t put all Muslims in the same bag. But I believe that the leaders of the faith are not doing enough to control the surge of violence.
Maybe this violence is serving the faith well? After all the numbers of Muslims all over the world is on the increase notwithstanding the atrocities commited in the name of Allah.
Jewish Defense League?
Did anyone ever apologise for setting fire to The Times of Malta offices whilst people inside were potentially trapped?
Michelle Muscat only pulls out her rosary beads and presses her hands together in mock prayer in front of the Pope to impress the locals.
And her husband had declared in his CV (somewhere on the web) that he was ‘brought up in a Roman Catholic family’, not that he specifically follows that faith, to impress the liberal boys in Brussels.
Mark Steel’s parallel is false and incongruous.
Breivik went on a shooting spree for some far-right ideology, some odd political belief – fascist or otherwise.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo was done in the name of Allah, in revenge for a perceived “blasphemy”; whether that was simply a pretext or not, we will never know.
At the end of the day both acts of terror are evil. One is done in the name of religion and the other was done for the sake of some political belief.
Drawing parallels between the two simply blurs the fact that France is in a situation where due to their laissez-faire, incompetence or disorganisation are letting terror cells flourish and have nothing to combat this with.
It is not unrealistic that in 20 years’ time France will be the first country in the EU with a Muslim majority. And then what?
Yes, not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course not.
But let us face it, would I be wrong in believing that most terrorist acts in mainland Europe are done in the name of Islam? Sure, not all Muslims are terrorists but are most terrorists Muslim?
It is logical then to assume that in the same way secret services profile people for screening on various parameters, we as civilised westerners inadvertently screen people around us in the same way.
It is natural. It is instinctive. We could be wrong in the process but we would be definitely happy to live with that wrong rather than risk terrorist attacks.
To be honest, I am not sure if I am being blasphemous here, but I simply want to share some thoughts.
I am very confused in my emotions and thoughts on the issues arising from the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Je suis Charlie Hebdo.
RIP
The Vatican is ‘the Catholic Church’. But who decides who the Muslims are?
Does the Vatican endorse Angelik? Yet he and his followers claim to be the most devout Catholics.
I would rest my case, but this futile debate will continue.
Trust a Brit to panic.
It is true that there are 1.6 billion Muslims with no one central figure, but several authoritative and respected ones, but it is irrelevant. The main thing is not what a religion’s fundamental doctrine is, but how literally it’s adherents take it. Otherwise we should also take Christianity and Judaism to task for similar reasons.
Unlike Christianity and Judaism, who have their own sins to pay for (mostly in the past, with the exception of child rape and the hindrance of the battle against HIV), 100’s of millions of Muslims approve of those terrorist’s actions and do not condemn them or will partly condemn them and then go on to cite ‘provocation’.
Again, it is not the dogma we must judge directly, but Muslims approach to that dogma. And unfortunately they fail that test.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
John Doe, dix points
May I just add that the peaceful majority are irrelevant when you have a minority who are being trained to die as martyrs, as instructed in their book.
Thank you.
Breivik did not act on behalf of Christianity. He did it out of right-wing ideology.