I agree, it would indeed be fallacious to criticize the ideology of half a billion people based on the ideology of a few hundred. But that's not an accurate characterization of the point I was making, which was:
The "actions of a few hundred" suicide bombers, as well as the alarming support for those actions among Muslims, certainly speaks to the dangers of following the ravings of an ancient, superstitious, conquest-bent fanatical tribe.
You ask: 'If they are the same ideology then why don't we have half a billion suicide bombers?' That's like asking why only 10% of people taking the same drug get the side effect of headaches. Or, you could ask why not all white supremacists engage in terrorist acts. Nevertheless, white supremacy is an ideology that is unnecessary (being baseless in fact) and dangerous (with its call for whites to dominate other races).
Similarly, adulation for the Quran and the hadith (or the Bible, etc.) has predictable effects on the behavior of that sizable proportion of people who take each word deadly seriously.
Consider, as one of many many examples, the case of the
Red Mosque siege in Pakistan--little girls eager to become martyrs for God. The fact that the contents of the Quran and hadith are significantly responsible for their behavior is made clear by a simple thought experiment: imagine if everything were exactly the same, except the text which formed the basis of the school's ideology was, say,
The Humanist Manifesto and its Aspirations. Or if their #1 figurehead was Ghandi instead of Muhammad. And so on.
And then there is the even larger percentage of the population who wouldn't commit those acts themselves, but who nevertheless support them. I don't recall the percentage of Muslims in Great Britain, Turkey, Pakistan, etc. who think suicide bombing is "sometimes justified", but it is not encouraging.
All this is not to say that Islam is incompatible with tolerance, equality, separation of church and state, etc. That would indeed be an ignorant view, given the existence of many tolerant, reasonable Muslims. However, if we want to teach our children about tolerance, equality, separation of church and state, love and compassion, and so on, this could be accomplished without them memorizing one single line from the Quran or the hadith. On the other hand, any text which rants and raves about the depravity of nonbelievers, and the righteousness of the struggle against them and the everlasting fire which awaits them, is bound to inspire violence and intolerance.
Just compare the divinely-inspired, unalterable, superstitious list of insults and threats leveled at nonbelievers in
Sura 2 VS. the clarity and sanity of the revisable Humanist Manifesto. Is it likely that any school for humanist little girls will end up like the Red Mosque? Will humanists like me ever be overwhelmed and frustrated by the number of terrorists--none of whom are "really" humanists--who make videos of themselves quoting the Humanist Manifesto, then go blow themselves up on a crowded bus?
I am not some bigot who thinks that you should be kicked off of an airplane simply for reciting the Quran. Of course, people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe, and practice whatever they want to practice. But in our
conversational discourse, we ought not shrink from criticizing lines like:
As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey’s end! (Sura 2.126)
The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. (Sura 2.254)
Pardon us, absolve us and have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk. (Sura 2.286)
...and many, many others; or, any ideology which holds lines such as these as especially instructive or illuminating, among all human literature in history.
Fair enough, but see above. ^
