Terrorists Have No Caste, Creed or Religion?
One of the most common responses we hear when a terrorist attack takes place is that the attackers and their organizations are just criminals and that they do not represent any religion or caste or creed. A similar sentiment was echoed by the President of the BJP Nitin Gadkari who spoke with reporters yesterday in New Delhi (India).
He said that “It is unfortunate that we identify people involved with certain terrorist activities according to their religious affiliations”. He went to add “god fearing Hindu will not kill an innocent Muslim and similarly, a god fearing Muslim will not kill an innocent Hindu, and if he is doing so, then he is a terrorist who does not belong to any religion”. So if a religious person commits a terrorist act then he/she becomes an atheist! Since most skeptics would not want a former terrorist in their camp should society create a new category for these “formerly religious” terrorists?
If a terrorist is not driven by caste, creed (faith or doctrine) or religion then what are they driven by? In recent history there are a few terrorist acts that have been committed due to financial reasons and others that were motivated because of territorial disputes. But for the most part the modern day terrorist is a faith based terrorist.
As a skeptic myself I am not making fun of religion or those who are deeply religious. I am mature enough to understand that atheists and their likes have committed serious criminal acts in the past. Millions of innocent human beings lost their lives under godless communist regimes including that of Stalin, Lenin and Mao. China, one of the last communist nations on earth continues to deny basic human rights to almost 1.5 billion Chinese. But nobody said that Stalin, Lenin or Mao were not communists!!
When we make a statement that a god fearing person will not kill or harm an individual from another religion then we are making a very basic assumption which might not be correct. We are assuming that religion left to its own devices is peaceful in nature. But the Holy Scriptures, teachings and traditions of major religions and the practices of its followers present and past shows that religion itself has always had an ambivalent attitude towards violence.
It then comes down to the individual choice of the believer as to which path he/she wants to follow within their own religion. There is a peaceful path that you can follow and a less tolerant and more violent path as well. But I do not think that the follower of one path can say that the other person is any more or any less religious.
Meanwhile quickly distancing ourselves from violent acts committed by religious individuals by claiming that a terrorist does not belong to any religion serves no real purpose. It only gives those who are religious (but not violent) a false sense of comfort about their own faith and religion.
Related posts:
- Is Nidal Malik Hasan’s Religion Important?
- My Caste is Human
- American Official: Muslims in India are Not Terrorists
- Lord Krishna and Caste System in India
- Is Shiv Sena a Threat to India?
Category: Culture & Religion
I think religion is the reason for most problems in this world!
It is the case today Nalini. But I am not sure whether this was always the case in the past or will be in the future!!
well i believe…..it’s not about someone religion that they are committing crimes…..it’s some people….who promote it to a be religious activity…….that it would do good to someone…….painting everyone with the same brush because of ther religion isn’t the best thing………
Just like religion promotes peace it also promotes violence. The terrorist who commits terrible crimes believes that he/she has the religious sanction to do so. They can quote from their religious scripture be it the Bible, Koran or the Vedas to prove their point.