.... Then came the seemingly reasonable calls, which always seem to accompany such atrocities, for Muslims to condemn the attack. While this demand may sound inoffensive, it implies that all Muslims, not just extremists, are implicated or secretly agree with all attacks undertaken by people in the name of religion anywhere in the world, unless we explicitly state otherwise.
It is easy to assume that terrorism works only if demands are met: if a magazine is closed down, if political changes are made. But terrorism also feeds itself by exploiting our society’s fears and fissures.
Outright Islamophobic attacks and the subtler but relentless questioning of the loyalty of Muslims create feelings of alienation that are all too easy for extremist organisations to use for their gain. In the rush to show terrorists they can’t win, solidarity and unity should not be trampled underfoot.
[TOP RATED COMMENT 835 votes] You are quite correct. This is not a clash of civilisations; it's a clash between a civilisation and something which is not a civilisation.
[SECOND 761] Sadly the intense desire of some to deny a clash of cultures is leading to a bigger problem
Moderating these arguments just hides the problem
We MUST discuss the differences in these cultures
Debate is always best
[THIRD 673] There is a clash of civilisations.
Many have been self-delusional, or tried to deny it. How much longer?
[FOURTH 622] Indeed, if we hadn't been so horrid, we literally forced them to do this, the gunmem are the real victims, etc.
[FIFTH 582] "Less violent but still divisive was the way the attack was depicted as a battle between Islam and freedom of speech"
It is that very battle.
And it's one certain elements of the left like the Graun would have us lose.
[SIXTH 561] I hope this will be the turning point at which we all start standing together to defend Enlightenment values and stop trying to appease the fundamentalists.
[SEVENTH 544] Most of what you have written before is rubbish and I wasn't disappointed at this. It's about time The Guardian admits it simply has got it wrong on militant Islam, immigration and race.
[EIGHTH 527] "I suspect the purpose of this attack was at least in part to provoke a backlash, thus in turn driving alienated Muslim youth into the hands of extremists."
No. The purpose is to prevent criticism of Islam. It works, as this article illustrates.
[NINTH 516] "Less violent but still divisive was the way the attack was depicted as a battle between Islam and freedom of speech"
No doubt about it, that's what this is.
The important distinction now is to separate Islam (the idea) from Muslims (the people). People deserve respect, whatever they believe. Ideas do not. Islam can't be ring-fenced from mockery, and right now that's more important to remember than ever. Otherwise these deaths are for nothing. [7 Jan. Guardian Cif, Homa Khaleeli, 589 comments] Read more
