Cross-posted at Montclair SocioBlog.
A picture – or a graph without data – is like anecdotal evidence. It can be very persuasive, but unless it’s based on systematic evidence, it’s just misleading. Case in point:
The FBI is teaching its counter-terrorism agents that Islam is an inherently violent religion. So are the followers of Islam. Not just the extremists and radicals, but the mainstream.
There may not be a ‘radical’ threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology… The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream.
Wired got hold of the training materials. The Times has more coverage, including a section of the report that describes Muhammad as “a cult leader for a small inner circle.” (How small? Twelve perhaps?) He also “employed torture to extract information.”*
An FBI PowerPoint slide has a “graph” to support its assertions.
The graph, really just a drawing, claims to show that followers of the Torah and the Bible have gotten progressively less violent since 1400 BC, while followers of the Koran flatline starting around 620 AD and remain just as violent as ever.
Unfortunately, the creators of the chart do not say how they operationalized “violent” and “non-violent.” But since the title of the presentation is “Militancy Considerations,” it might have something to do with military, para-military, and quasi-military violence. When it comes to quantities of death, destruction, and injury, these overwhelm other types of violence.
I must confess that my knowledge of history is sadly wanting, and I was educated before liberals imposed all this global, multicultural nonsense on schools, so I know nothing about wars that might have happened among Muslims during the period in question. What I was taught was that the really big wars, the important wars, the wars that killed the most people, were mostly affairs among followers of the Bible. Some of these were so big that they were called “World Wars” even though followers of the Qur’an had very low levels of participation. Some of these wars lasted quite a long time – thirty years, a hundred years. I was also taught that the in the important violence that did involve Muslims – i.e., the Crusades** – it was the followers of the Bible who were doing most of the killing.
Perhaps those with a more knowledge of Muslim militant violence can provide the data.
—————————
* To be fair, the FBI seems to have been innocent of any of the torture that took place during the Bush years. That was all done by the military and the CIA – and by the non-Christian governments to which the Bush administration outsourced the work.
** Followers of the Bible crusading to “take back our city” from a Muslim-led regime may have familiar overtones.
Comments 33
Anonymous — September 21, 2011
Sarcasm aside, the Crusades can't really be summed up as "Christians doing most of the killing." They were pretty equal opportunity slaughter-fests, with some good, and a lot of bad, on both sides (which, coincidentally, weren't exactly religiously homogeneous, either).
Not really pertinent to your larger (and very important) point, but people always bring up the Crusades as "bad violent Christians," or "bad violent Muslims," and they were a lot more involved and complex than that. Personal nitpick.
Yrro Simyarin — September 21, 2011
I get your point that this training manual is *horrendously* wrong. Neither the graph of the christian religion nor the graph of Islam make any historical or scientific sense. But you are correct - you don't know history. So perhaps you shouldn't comment snarkily on it.
Here's a fun chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
Throwing the crusades back in these idiots' faces may *feel* good, but it doesn't actually say much.
Alastair Roberts — September 21, 2011
A key issue within both the FBI teaching and the post above is the tacit assumption of the association between 'religion' and violence. What should be recognized is that the notion of 'bad' religious violence is one of the greatest legitimating narratives of 'good' secular violence, and has been for centuries. Characterizing the religious violence of past wars such as the Crusades or the Thirty Years War as bad is the founding narrative of the secular state, and the justification for much of its forms of violence. Not just past Western pre-secular wars, but the characterization of the conflicts of non-Western societies as 'religious' - hence 'bad' - is a way that we justify our military involvement and intervention in various situations and differentiate between our violence and that of the bad other.
Nah — September 21, 2011
So baby Jesus was the most violent Christian ever?
Larrycharleswilson — September 21, 2011
History can help us understand how we got here, but it can't say anything about how we should go forward.
David — September 21, 2011
Rachel Maddow had some good coverage of this last week. maddow.msnbc.com
Cocojams Jambalayah — September 21, 2011
What "global multi-cultural nonsense" is this poster referring to? The curriculum of most USA public schools I'm aware of (as a news reader/watcher & as a former substitute teacher) still appear to be very much centered around White Western-European & White American history & cultures.
Anonymous — September 21, 2011
As someone who deals with data nearly everyday that image above has to be the most ridiculous and insulting excuse for a graph I have ever seen. It does not display data, but someone's opinion. What is so frightening is that this is not a chart created or promoted by Glenn Beck or some talking head but is from the FBI, who I would have thought would at least be providing accurate and scientifically based data to agents. It seems that this was only used in a presentation once and was removed from teaching materials, but it is strange that this would even pass "go".
Seriously? — September 22, 2011
I can't believe this - this is a joke right? This is a joke?! This is ridiculous - I feel like I as a layman should not be able to draw a chart the FBI is using... If this is true - the FBI is really insulting itself by allowing it.
Blix — September 22, 2011
Most people involved in the crusades weren't true Christians, but were rather knights that were fighting against the persecution and oppression that occurred when Islam first gained strength. The crusades were a bloody mess and were blasphemous toward Jesus' name. Christians today are still held responsible for something completely terrible.
Ruth — September 22, 2011
Im just sitting here quietly spluttering. What on EARTH is this?! This has to be a joke. It has to be. The FBI couldnt be this ridiculous could they? Religions arent violent, people are violent and sometimes they use religion as a justification. And to say that Islam is inherently more violent than say Christianity (which despite its strong pacifist and anti-violence teachings has been used to justify a lot of wars) is just simply ridiculous. There isnt even any explanation on this. No wonder many muslims have given up on trying to convince americans that they are not violent if the FBI puts out this kind of thing.
Sarah — September 22, 2011
If I were in that FBI training class, I would laugh so hard. I'm sure they'd hit me with a ruler or something, but I'd do it anyway. This is probably why I'm not good FBI material.
Fuzzy — September 22, 2011
Granting the historical perspective of the Crusades, and the actual reading of the Koran, there are still more "islamic" persons professing religious justification for their violence than other religions. Whether they are truly "islamic" or not, they are claiming the name and the religion, we aren't just randomly assigning them that name.
Christianity purports to despise wealth. Are we therefore defining all those wealthy people who call themselves christian as other than that? Nope, we give them the descriptor that they themselves choose.
Sanasral — September 22, 2011
As far as I can Tell this graph is offensive to absolutely everything that ever said "I" and graced this green planet. To classify any religion as being consistently anything or having Inherent traits whatever it may be is a misrepresentation and a lie with a agenda. Religions have no cohesiveness. to even call something a religion is a catch-all word that really means a dynamic set of belief's that people, the world-wide, practice in remarkably diverse ways, but identify with each other on a base symbology.
As far as this chart is concerned it is a piece of propaganda that tells more about the agenda of our nations leading institutions and their myths than it does anything about religion.
Inciting Islamophobia is a cash-industry in the united states by very moneyed individuals and organizations.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/islamophobia.html
As for history: terrible things have always happened and that is the only consistency.
The real violence in this article has been committed by the FBI in their outlandish bigotry and provocation of essentialist myths.
Anna Geletka — September 22, 2011
I can prove my statements about violence in Islam with this picture I just drew*. It's PROOF!
*No data was collected, consulted, or harmed in the marking of this picture.
Deviantproxy — October 10, 2011
well its about time the religion of peace is far from peaceful they kill children by the dozens with hopes of wounding a few soldiers. I am finally glad the reality is hitting home.
cheap bras — January 29, 2012
Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!