How states and terrorists are killing the image of Islam
I would like to thank Ezra Strauss for his generosity and knowledge for providing this article with research and compelling arguments.
In the wake of the rise of Islamic State, it seems as though yet another group of fanatics has blatantly besieged, killed, and ultimately took the lives of innocent civilians in order to ignite political apprehensions of their power. Subsequently, they have fueled the most fervent bigotry towards a religion in history. The artists of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine well known for its controversial caricatures, had been shot and killed during a terrorist attack which took place last week. The 12 individuals killed were innocent writers and artists who, upon their travels to work, were targeted by the biggest threat to human rights, and global growth and development: religious fanaticism. Mind you, I did not include “Islam” in there, and I will clarify my reasoning shortly.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the notoriously vicious Christopher Hitchens do not lack remarks against Islam in their vast repertoire of anti-Islamic verbal projectiles. Although they more often fuel Islamaphobia instead of coming up with solutions, they do get one thing right: Islamic terrorist groups are a threat not only to their victims, but to the Western ideologies of freedom of speech and the freedom to practice religion. That being said, I believe that Muslims, more than any other group, have been victimized the most in this situation. They are the ones who are caught between the pointed finger of the world – claiming them to be terrorists – and the fundamentalists – who accuse them of siding with the infidels.
I believe that we must remain judicious with our accusations and that, instead of pointing fingers at any group, we should realize that this is not a fight against Islam. Frankly this is not a fight against religion, either. It is a fight against fanaticism. We cannot dwell on the fact that these acts were fuelled by Islamic extremism. What makes this action significant, and the many others that occurred around the world this year, is that we are no longer bound by boarders. We are now facing a global threat – a nemesis to our universal well-being. Religious fanatics and their Western counterparts are now at a state of serious tension. As a global citizen who obeys, lives by, and enjoys the fruits of Western ideology , I am involuntarily labelling myself a target for fanatic groups all over the world. It is for this precise reason that why it is utterly malicious to turn our backs on our fellow Muslim citizens, because they suffer from both sides. As a globalized, modern country, and especially one as accepting and welcoming as Canada, it is crucial that we help one another by any means necessary.
Some fear that this act of terror was a mere result of the disgracing of the Islamic prophet; others, Al-Jazeera especially, have justified it as an act of vengeance towards the violent colonial history of France, while others still have labelled it as the beginning of many more attacks to come in the struggle towards a global Islamic caliphate. Let it be known, there is far more to this attack than what the media has covered.
…there is far more to this attack than what the media has covered.
For nearly four years, France has been supplying arms to Islamist terrorist groups in both Libya and Syria. Apart from the fact that the former country was a blatant violator of the U.N. arms embargo on Libya in 2011, the still standing Free Syrian Army has publicly admitted to their affiliation with Al-Qaeda, and has fought against the Assad regime alongside ISIS and the Al-Nusra front, both of which owe their military success to a generous arms supply chain from the West. Furthermore, several groups backed by the U.S., the CIA to be specific, have joined the Al-Nusra alliance, following their pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, while the CIA-trained “moderate” Syrian rebels have joined ISIS.
Which brings me to conclude the following: what was this attack really about? If the U.S., Britain, and France have been arming these forces since 2011, with the intentions of aiding in the fight against the Assad regime, only to have these groups turn against them – in spite of their known allegiance to Al-Qaeda – then how could the attacks on Charlie Hebdo not have been foreseen? The history of state-sponsored terrorism – the U.S. and the Taliban, Israel and Hamas – looks more like a list of bilateral arms agreements than “political follies.” These countries and their intelligence sources knew what they were doing. The attackers’ intentions will soon surface and, inevitably, so will their association with terrorist organizations.
As Reza Aslan said earlier this week on CNN; “This is the problem … we are using two or three examples to justify a generalization, that’s actually the definition of bigotry.” We either adhere to the ideologies of Western culture, by protecting freedom of speech and not condemning an entire religion, or crumble as individuals at the fault of our own ignorance and hypocrisy.