When Is a Religion Responsible for the Acts of Its Followers?

Acts of violence in the name of Islam evoke two seemingly opposing responses. One takes these acts as an inevitable outcome of Islam, linked almost causally to the teaching of the Quran. The other tries to defend Islam against these charges and aims to demonstrate that any reference to the Quran is an abuse and misinterpretation of the text. Who is to be believed? What is the relationship between the teachings of a religion and the actions of its followers? What is the relationship between the text and the act? When, if ever, a religion, in this case Islam, can be credited with the acts, good or bad, of its followers?

Answering these questions requires exploration of the idea of a religious tradition, the nature of scriptures and the ways they are interpreted. Due to the limitation of space, the discussion below will focus on the tendency to blame Islam for the morally reprehensible acts committed in its name. The underlying conceptual point however is applicable equally to the opposite trend of crediting Islam for the morally praise worthy acts of individuals.

Both these positions share two assumptions which are ultimately unsustainable. First, that there is a set of clear, durable and fixed doctrines and teachings in the sacred texts of Islam. Second, that people's actions are a direct outcome of such teachings. In other words, the underlying claim is that Muslims do what they are told in the Quran which in turn is transparent and unambiguous.

It is easy to see why these assumptions seem credible. Discourse of the extremist movements is replete with references to the Quranic verses (for example chapter nine titled Tauba) and biography of the Prophet (for example treatment of Jewish tribes in Medina) to justify quest for Islamic dominance through violence as well as to rationalise acts such as beheading. Similarly, it can be argued that the inspiration for the creation of caliphate is rooted in a particular interpretation of some Quranic verses (such as 24:55). Finally, it is not difficult to find Quranic support for the harsh attitude towards those who the extremists come to regard as non-Muslims.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/farid-panjwani/religion-extremism_b_6252572.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I've talked about this before, but I think people find inspiration or justification in their religion for things they were going to do anyway, out of a deeper set of personal values that would probably persist regardless of religious belief or in the absence of it.

In other words, people doing bad things will often point to their religion as a justification for it, while people doing good things will often point at their religion as inspiration (maybe in an attempt to convert people).

So bin Laden would still have been bin Laden even if he'd been a conservative Southern Baptist, and Mother Theresa would still have been Mother Theresa even if she'd lost her faith ... which, by the way, is basically how she lived the last 50 years of her life.

To me, it's pretty simple -- if some people do bad things and other people do good things in the name of the same religion, it's not the religion -- it's the person.

Ben, did you know that before she died she was being investigated, she could not account for a large amount of money that disappeared.

nicko wrote:Ben,   did you know that before she died she was being investigated, she could not account for a large amount of money that disappeared.

I did not! Just read the Wikipedia page on criticisms of her, it's pretty interesting stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

Teresa's links to the Duvaliers, her accepting of money from fraudsters, her opposition to any form of birth control and the fact she was happy to keep the poor in poverty than give them real substantial help is well argued (and completely unchallenged) by Hitchen's in 'The Missionary Position'. A great book if you ever get a chance to read it.