@termite said in I'm lucky enough:
Unfortunately Islam is dedicated to being the one and only religion, and until you change that inbuilt ideology you will have terrorism. This is very similar to the catholic religion several centuries ago. It is all about power in all cases, and the leaders use the blind faith of the followers to do the dirty work.
The reason for Islamic terrorism isn’t because of this. Most fundy Christians think that Christianity is the ‘One True Religion’ and almost all of them think that if you don’t follow Christ then you will spend the rest of eternity in Hell.
There are many reasons for Islamic Terrorism.
Don’t believe the Hansons and Fannings of this world. They are lying to the Australian people for their own political gain.
Have a read of the ‘Motivations’ section in Wikipedia article here.
The following is from that article.
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, in their book, The Age of Sacred Terror, argue that Islamic terrorist attacks are purely religious. They are seen as “a sacrament … intended to restore to the universe a moral order that had been corrupted by the enemies of Islam.” It is neither political or strategic but an “act of redemption” meant to “humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God”.
One of the Kouachi brothers responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shooting called a French journalist, saying, “We are the defenders of Prophet Mohammed.”
Two studies of the background of Muslim terrorists in Europe—one of the UK and one of France—found little connection between religious piety and terrorism. According to a “restricted” report of hundreds of case studies by the UK domestic counter-intelligence agency MI5,
[f]ar from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
A 2015 “general portrait” by Olivier Roy (see above) of “the conditions and circumstances” under which people living in France become “Islamic radicals” (terrorists or would-be terrorists) found radicalisation was not an “uprising of a Muslim community that is victim to poverty and racism: only young people join, including converts”.
Roy believes terrorism/radicalism is “expressed in religious terms” because most of the radicals have a Muslim background, which makes them open to a process of re-Islamisation (“almost none of them having been pious before entering the process of radicalisation”), and
jihad is “the only cause on the global market”. If you kill in silence, it will be reported by the local newspaper; “if you kill yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’, you are sure to make the national headlines”. Other extreme causes—ultra-left or radical ecology are “too bourgeois and intellectual” for the radicals.
According to Indonesian Islamic leader Yahya Cholil Staquf in a 2017 Time interview, according to classical Islamic tradition, the relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims is one of segregation and enmity. In his view extremism and terrorism are linked with orthodox Islam and that radical Islamic movements are nothing new. He also added that Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism is not linked to Islam.
Donald Holbrook, a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, analyzes a sample of 30 works by jihadist propagandists and finds several passages of the Quran exploited and distorted to suit the objectives of violent jihad. An-Nisa (4:74–75) is quoted most frequently; other popular passages are At-Taubah (9:13–15, 38–39, 111) and Al-Baqarah (2:190–191, 216). Consider Surah 9:5:
But when these months, prohibited (for fighting), are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind.
Holbrook notes they cherry-picked the first part “slay the idolaters” but fail to quote and discuss limiting factors at the end of the ayat, “but if they repent …” This, Holbrook argues, is how violent jihadists are “shamelessly selective in order to serve their propaganda objectives.” Peter Bergen notes that bin Laden cited this verse in 1998 when making a formal declaration of war.
Michael Sells and Jane I. Smith (a Professor of Islamic Studies) write that barring some extremists like al-Qaeda, most Muslims do not interpret Qur’anic verses as promoting warfare today but rather as reflecting historically dated contexts. According to Sells, “[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels.” In his book No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Iranian-American academic Reza Aslan argues that there is an internal battle currently taking place within Islam between individualistic reform ideals and the traditional authority of Muslim clerics similar to that of the 16th-century reformation in Christianity, which was as old as Islam currently is at that period. He writes, “the notion that historical context should play no role in the interpretation of the Koran—that what applied to Muhammad’s community applies to all Muslim communities for all time—is simply an untenable position in every sense.”
Supporters of bin Laden have also pointed to reports according to which the Islamic prophet Muhammad attacked towns at night or with catapults, and argued that he must have condoned incidental harm to noncombatants, since it would have been impossible to distinguish them from combatants during such attacks. These arguments were not widely accepted by Muslims.
The Pakistani theologian Javed Ahmad Ghamidi blames Muslim madrasas that indoctrinate children with Islamic supremacist views, such as that Muslims are legally superior to unbelievers (particularly former Muslims), and that jihad will eventually bring about a single caliphate to rule the world.