At some late yesterday hour, and while I was revisiting the InstaBlogs Society, I happened to stumble upon an article that I should have called it a lesser article instead—not to condescend its author simply because I do not know him—but due to its humble, and rather inquisitional character, presented by a shallow yet a fair question of “why terrorists are produced?”. I rushed to answer that question rapidly but then I stopped, expanding the ground of my answer as I read some of the comments—I was pleased afterwards, realizing that I was on the verge of making a fool out of myself giving in to that seizure of stupid haste.

Perhaps it was merely by coincidence— or may it be, by that aura of bad luck abounded around some authors heads in their character of commentators— that I happen to attain some wisdom.

I saw— as in every earthly debate— the first person who ventures to answer, and those who with passive minds agree with him, and those with their so-called self-proclaimed independence refuse almost every theory put in a place. Also there was a salesman who claims to quote “chapters” from Quran as living proofs to convince us that terrorism is an islamic product, whereas there are no chapters in the Quran actually, there are books or “Suar”— singular “Sura”— let us say this for a starts. In addition to this, taking few words from a Quranic Verses with a blinding ignorance of the timeline, the nature of the previous verse, and the reason behind it, is by no means a good way of quoting the Quran.

Many of you might be wondering why I called him a salesman, and I will explain why. I called him a salesman simply because while pasting some loosely false information, he could not help but to call himself a historian the same way salesmen call themselves experts while the only word that sums up a delicate description of their true nature is the word “liars”, and in their most profound status they can represent some unpleasant kind of “imitators”. I have also particularly mentioned him because his comment has reminded me of an answer a german friend once gave me when I asked her to identify the terrorist—there she said, “a terrorist is a Muslim who kills the innocents thinking that by doing this he will be awarded with seventy— or seventy two— virgins in heaven.”— So on a regular basis, a terrorist is a Muslim, and on a regular basis this is absurd.

I will not discuss the concept of islamic heaven now, instead I will shortly note that the true nature of heaven was a subject of several hot debates between Muslem Scholars. Nevertheless, it is worthy enough to mention that convicting any religion means to convict your own— simply because all religions requires blind faith, and even if you were atheist it will not differ that much— simply because atheism itself has become a sort of a godless religion nowadays.

Before skipping to the core of the crisis we must acknowledge that terrorism is not a newfound concept that was strange to the dictionary of humanity—it’s not healthy to say so— for real, terrorism was a core factor in every war man has waged since the dawn of civilization. This passage is declared to us by “Thucydides”—a real historian this time— recording the terror produced by the Peloponnesian War:

“Though many lay unburied, birds and beasts would not touch them, or died after tasting them. … The bodies of dying men lay one upon another, and half-dead creatures reeled about the streets and gathered round all the fountains in their longing for water. The sacred places also in which they had quartered themselves were full of corpses of persons that had died there...”

That was the result of only a single terrorizing battle taking place in the western cradle of wisdom, and this took a place more than thousand years before the birth of Islam. What I am saying is that terrorism has nothing to do with religion itself, but it has everything to do with the misinterpretations of religion, and the misinterpretations of these previous misinterpretations as the original and the cardinal form of the convicted religion. Let me mention yet an another critical point that is of no lesser importance; whoever the reader of some ancient religious text should look to it as an ancient source of knowledge. This requires him to have a fair portion of the knowledge concerning the original language of this text—it is plain, for instance, that the english version of the Quran is merely a mirror that reflects the single and the narrow view of its interpreters. In addition to this, one must also attain at least a respectful view of the words and expression that was common during the era in which the text was written— clearly this is indispensable because most of languages have experienced a major development from what it used to be, hence some words that used to mean something may mean something else now, may it be a simple transformation from a wide range of interrelated meanings to a strict range of a single meaning or two— this proves the innocence of religious texts, especially after acknowledging that the most part of distortion laid upon these texts has taken a place after their exodus from their birth place. This problematic issue can be comprehended clearly after realizing that most of the Islamic groups consist of a majority of none-arabs.

Now to reform the splinters of our tainted history, we should first admit that before religion, before politics, and even prior to the first emanation of the first level of consciousness, there was man, and man killed another man in the name of some glittering concepts like justice, freedom, civilization, religion— while in truth he kills for his own ego even if he was only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. I am asking you not to snare the wrong interpretation of my words—I am not against the ego, I am against the erasing of other egos, and the reaction based upon the dissolving of these egos into the mere processing of one’s first impression. This is why Nero ordered to savagely slay hundreds of Christians, and this is why the Pope preached for a holy crusade against Muslims, and this is why Radical Muslims are against everything that is different—may it be Islamic or of any other religion. Rome as a global idea did not require Nero to kill her own children, and Christ who asked his followers to turn the other cheek during his life, did not asked for a war after his death, and Muhammad who once forgave his enemies giving them freedom, did not order his followers to kill the innocents. Therefore it’s not because the Quran represents the whole and only truth, Radical Muslems kill other people, it’s only because they believe so while simultaneously thinking that they cannot be wrong.

Clearly the world is on countdown, with each side fighting the other relentlessly and with every possible way, with such kind of historians who copy-and-paste so hard in order to convince what they perceive as an ignorant audience, with those analysts and their wall-hanged-master degrees in political science drifting away from producing a regularly convincible truth by speaking so narrowly— with all these unfortunate facts intertwining with one another, assiduously creating an unbalance that would constitute an escalating probability of a global disaster, still there is a room for a simple question— if fighting relentlessly and or preaching about fighting relentlessly is a universally critical choice, why not fighting relentlessly against something else ? Poverty for instance ?