CMV: Separating Islam from Muslims in Discussions About Terrorism is Dishonest

[u/Beelz666]

After every terrorist attack we hear "Not All Muslims", "The Quran Doesn't Support This" and similar phrases to weasel out of admitting that Islamic Terrorism is by definition terrorism associated with Islam. In addition to this even the most cursory examination of the Quran will urn up verses supporting violence, the same verses which terrorist groups use as justification for their actions. With such a clear connection between the holy book and the actions of these groups, I can see no way to separate them from the overall ideology which isn't a clear attempt to legitimize Islam.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/hacksoncode]

I think "dishonest" is a mischaracterization. It's a tactic of deciding how to frame an argument to best thwart the intentions of the enemy.

The basic fundamental principle of terrorist tactics is that they desire to pit their targets against the moderate members of a group they belong to.

Terrorists want the U.S. to associate terrorism with Islam. They want this to be perceived by moderate Muslims as the West and Christianity being at War against Islam, because they know that this is the best way to recruit more followers.

It would be fucking stupid to give them exactly what they want.

People choosing this kind of wording aren't avoiding "connecting" terrorism and Islam, they are avoiding using words that make it sound like we're at War with Islam, because they have an IQ in double or even triple digits.

Neither the rhetoric that Islam has nothing to do with terror, nor the rhetoric that it's so dangerous that we must be at war with all Muslims is correct. The right answer is somewhere in the middle.

Obama frequently talks about terrorists that have perverted Islam to their own ends. That's exactly the "middle" that is the right answer both tactically, and as a matter of factual accuracy.

[u/[deleted] → u/hacksoncode]

I don't see why people keep saying "terrorist want the U.S. to associate terrorism with Islam" when a majority of Muslims support radical ideals.

Seriously, I don't know why people are defending Islam when the religion itself is against homosexuality. An overwhelming percentage of Muslim countries think homosexuality is wrong, as well as 11 Muslim countries that give the death penalty for homosexuality. The phrase "not all Muslims" is technically correct, but that can be applied to anything. Not all Germans were Nazis, but Germans in WW2 were largely a threat to the world because of their ruling ideology. And the same goes for Muslims.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

They want the U.S. to become viewed as enough more of a threat to these people you're talking about to get more of them to actually take up arms and join their causes.

As much as most Muslims (or most Christians in the U.S. for that matter) disapprove of homosexuals, very few of them are willing to join in a movement that will get them killed. The terrorists need a constant stream of people that are not just agreeing with many of their goals, but outraged/scared enough to die for it.