Human beings naturally reject acts of violence and terrorism

Any human being who has a minimum of empathy for his fellow human beings cannot but feel a visceral rejection for unjustified, unnecessary and out-of-context violent actions.
This is the case with the violent events that are constantly occurring around the world; from Paris, Brussels or the United States to Pakistan, Syria, Nigeria, Burma, Israel or anywhere else where they occur.
To pretend that the individual has to constantly justify himself and has to express his rejection of every violent, terrorist, or any other perverse action, such as corruption, is to assume that the individual accepts the validity of these actions by default, and that he only rejects them once he expresses it unequivocally and in each situation.
The natural disposition of the human being in harmony with his circumstances, both internal and external, let us remember what Ortega y Gasset said ‘I am me, and my circumstances’, is one of rejection and condemnation, regardless of their beliefs or ideologies.
This is because human beings feel empathy for their fellow human beings and imagining themselves in a similar situation horrifies them.
The Prophet Muhammad said: “You will not believe until you want for your brother what you want for yourself.”
Who, in their right mind, could want such a thing for themselves, their family, or loved ones?
When the human being is trapped by rigid ideologies, decontextualized and unrelated to the here and now, that is, when he enters a state of nihilism, he can be manipulated so that, contrary to his natural disposition, he carries out actions that go against his nature of cooperation with other human beings.
Nihilism has been described by Nietzsche as ‘the transformation of all values’.
And Heidegger said that: “When everything pushes towards nothingness, nihilism reigns.”
The problem today is that, as Heidegger also said: “The highest values have been devalued.”
And when there are no real values, that is, when the natural circle of empathy between human beings is broken, which leads the individual to act in a noble way since he knows that the best for the group is the best for himself, the human being devoid of guidance acts impulsively driven by preconceived ideas of how things should be.
And things are not, they are done.
This is something that has happened throughout history on numerous occasions.
‘isms‘, indicators of ideologies, take precedence in a person, or group of people, over the natural empathy of human beings with their fellow human beings and the ability to resolve conflicts through free and direct communication between human beings.
For example, in the years following 1789, the different governments of France, after the French Revolution, carried out real massacres in the name of democracy and equality against all those who opposed these ideas.
Hundreds of thousands of people died under the pretext of establishing a democratic and egalitarian society.
Does this mean that these two principles, democracy and equality, are in themselves wrong or violent? No, what it means is that when an individual or group appropriates a concept, whether it is an idea, religion, belief, or any other way by which human beings understand the world and their place in it, and uses it to defend their particular interests, i.e., turns it into an ‘ism‘, when it does not fit his interests, then he distorts it to justify his actions.
Or look at the communist attacks that took place in Europe after the Second World War.
Communist principles may be just as lofty, a priori, as democratic capitalist principles, but when these principles are used to carry out a political agenda they can give rise to these actions.
One more example, in Burma Buddhist monks lead a campaign of extermination against Muslims, something that is happening right now, as you read this, does it mean then that Buddhism promotes this type of violent and terrorist actions?
This is the case with what is happening today with Islam.
One or more minority groups, relative to the global Muslim population, use Islamic principles taken out of context or distorted to justify their actions.
They have created an ideology and idealism that, by its nature and manifestation, is outside of Islam.
Indonesia has more than three hundred million Muslims, in fact it is the country with the most Muslims in the world, have we ever heard of any kind of terrorism or violent action in the name of Islam coming from there?
No, never.
By contrast, almost all of the acts of terrorism or violence that occur in which Islam is mentioned can be traced to two groups, either Al Qaeda or ISIS, or any of its subsidiaries elsewhere.
Yes, there are more, for example Boko Haram, but they almost never act outside their local spheres (this does not mean that their actions are justified, but since they do not reach the West they do not receive the same attention).
Any framework of thought that the human being develops is a powerful double-edged sword that can drive its followers to the most altruistic actions, or, when manipulated and distorted these principles, they can be used by a small group to manipulate the minds of the weakest to fulfill certain interests.
This occurs when ideology and idealism are disconnected from the circumstances of place and time.
That is, when nihilism reigns.
What this means is that to blame Islam for the terrorist or violent actions of a group whose interests are purely political, territorial or material domination, and which have dislocated its understanding of the thought and manifestation of Islam from the historical place and time in which we live, is wrong. but because of what the majority says and does and the effect it has on society.
In this case, the majority acting in a radically opposed way to terrorism and violence is overwhelming, and historical examples of societies in which Islam was established show us advanced and civilized societies where all its inhabitants lived in harmony regardless of their belief; for example, Al Andalus or the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until 1918. If we add to this that the principles that are deduced from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the two primary sources from which Islamic teachings are taken) are contrary to these unjustified violent actions, then we must conclude that Islam cannot be blamed for such actions and we must look elsewhere for the causes.