:
|
While they are clearly not the same as those who do not want to kill everybody, it does no good to deny that they were Muslims. They were. Mohammed Atta and the others (as well as the growing number of Islamist killers and plotters native to the west) represent a real and burgeoning development within Islam, an actualization of one of Islam's possibilities, an indigenous transnational movement of apocalyptic violence that has brought misery to Muslim societies, and to us, and it is not Islamophobic to say so. Quite the contrary: it is to side with Muslims who are struggling against the same poison as we are.
Apologetic definitions of Islam will not avail anybody in this struggle. Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam is a religion of peace and of war, most if not all religions have these tendencies and potentials within them. In 2001, America was not attacked by Islam. Or Jainism, or Seventh-Day Adventism. But it was attack by a handful of Muslims.
|
I'm not denying they are Muslims; I just don't like to refer to them as Muslims because any loyal and committed Muslim would NOT force their beliefs onto others. The same goes for Christians and Jews. Even though terrorists may follow a certain religion; they are clearly going against what they are taught, therefore I consider them separate from that religion.
Religions may be consisted of both peace and war; but as a follower of that religion, you should be striving for only peace. Thats my view any way.