July 16, 2005


Charukesi writes about a disturbing trend emerging in Flickr where members are tagging picture of the London Bombings with the words 'Muslim', 'Arab' or 'Islam'.

One reader asks:

Why should not Islamic terrorism pictures be labeled Islam? Is it possible to alter reality by denial? From now on, should mayhem caused by people who follow Islam – and act according to the dictares of Islam – be labeled "Martian" violence?
Dilip D'Souza has answers:

Did you, or anyone, refer to Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahome outrage as "Christian terrorism"? What about the earlier terrorism that London was so used to, from the IRA? Was that "Catholic terrorism"? What about the Spanish inquisition, do we call it the "Christian inquisition"? How about the LTTE in Sri Lanka, are they "Hindu terrorists"; or the Sinhala leaders in that country who have spouted venom and instigated violence against Tamils for years, are they "Buddhist thugs"? Slaughter in Gujarat in 2002, was that "Hindu terrorism"?
I would like to quote this to the people who tag religion to all explanations:

There's no reason to bring religion into it. I think we ought to have as great a regard for religion as we can, so as to keep it out of as many things as possible.
- Sean O'Casey 1884-1964, Irish Dramatist
Update: There is an interesting discussion going on in Sepia Mutiny on the issue of confusions of the browns as the backlash is happening to Desis indiscriminately.

Related reading: What does a Muslim look like anyway?

Tags: , , ,


Post a Comment