Political violence

Has a disaffected Jew blown up a tube train in London or a building in New
York, killing people randomly? Has a West Indian done the same thing? What
about a Pole or a Hindu? The answer is "of course not." But, Muslims have
done this. It cannot be that mere frustration, poverty or alienation is the
cause of this stark difference, since all minority groups share these
problems.
We might agree that only extremists, lacking human feeling and driven by
hatred can do such a thing. Yet, it seems more likely to me that it is in
the nature of their culture and their ideology that we must seek the origin
of this specifically Muslim aberration. All Muslims are not terrorists, but
all terrorists are Muslims (apart from a few nationalists such as ETA and
the former IRA). Further, if we compare Muslim society to other societies,
we see that violence, specifically political violence, is a characteristic
of Muslim societies.
Of course, it's true that most societies have gone thru violent phases.
Certainly, the US had its period of turmoil, Hindus cannot be accused of
being pacifist, and Christians have rarely turned the other cheek. But, by
and large those other societies have gradually evolved a civil code in which
violence is the exception rather than the rule; murders occur, but gangs of
armed men do not go around shooting whomever they please. Yet, this is the
norm in the Palestinian territories and much of the Arab/Muslim world.
There are few Muslim democracies and few governments where rule is not based
on force or suppression. Put in another way, the Muslims are politically
immature, choosing violence as the means to attain their political goals.
But, what is the origin of this violent tendency in Islam? This is
speculation, but some have argued that since Mohammed spread his religion
himself "by the sword," that has been the predominant attitude amongst
Muslims. Note that jihad is a specifically Islamic concept, as is the
clear-cut division of the world into the realm of Islam and the realm of the
infidels . Also, the certitude with which Muslims express their beliefs
tends to support a violent attitude.
Yet, what have these Muslims to offer people at large. Even the socialists,
communists and Maoists who took up arms and killed many civilians in the
name of the revolution, envisaged a paradise at the end of the road. They
may not have been motivated by love of fellow man, but they did have a
program for the betterment of mankind. Every movement has its ideologues,
but what is the point of an ideology if it does not have some social
component for progress and advancement.
In fundamentalist Islam the reverse is the case, they want to return to the
medieval situation of Mohammed the prophet. They want a new universal
Caliphate, modeled on the original one. But, before this can be
accomplished they realize that they must Islamize the West, and to do this
they must undermine and replace all Western governments with Islamic ones.
So they are setting about doing this, at any cost in death and destruction,
so that the survivors (not us) can then eventually enjoy living in 7th
century Arabia. Not many people will buy that, particularly given the
suffering and sheer stupidity it entails. So they cannot achieve their
goals by persuasion but only by violence.