Muslim intellectuals, activists condemn Paris beheading; demand abolition of apostasy and blasphemy

[stvdv]

Hmm. Isn't it?

The Muslims from the article made that quite clear

Anand stated: “We are here to condemn in unequivocal terms, no ifs and buts

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And when leaders, like the ones in below youtube stop saying the sick opposite, only then, the needed Charlie Hebdo cartoons won't be needed

I'm glad at least here in the West we don't do that anymore. I'd much rather just make friendly jabs at the English over the past than go to war against them.

Both Islamist fundamentalism and Islamophobia are problematic and dangerous. And both should be condemned.

An issue with that is it has become way too easy to be labeled an "Islamaphobe." Even practicing Muslims from the Middle East who fled to the West in fear of their lives have been labeled as Islamophobic for criticizing the very things that made them afraid enough to leave their homes. Sam Harris, he does acknowledge this difference between those criticizing the attacks and those carrying them out. He gets labeled an Islamaphobe. Bill Maher, he too does emphasis these differences, he has the sort of Muslims condemning such attacks on his show often, he regularly gets labeled an Islamaphobe for discussing issues with extremist Muslims and acknowledging that they are Muslim and motivated by what they learn in their religion.
And then of course there is the hypocrisy that with Christianity such things are appropriate, condoned, and it's year round open season to put forth shoddy research and conclusions against them. It's OK to expect Christians to be intolerant because intolerance is found throughout their holy book. But to point out the same applies to Muslim extremists, that they too have a holy book that condones their unholy ways, suddenly that makes someone an Islamaphobe. That needs to stop.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I'm glad at least here in the West we don't do that anymore. I'd much rather just make friendly jabs at the English over the past than go to war against them.

An issue with that is it has become way too easy to be labeled an "Islamaphobe." Even practicing Muslims from the Middle East who fled to the West in fear of their lives have been labeled as Islamophobic for criticizing the very things that made them afraid enough to leave their homes. Sam Harris, he does acknowledge this difference between those criticizing the attacks and those carrying them out. He gets labeled an Islamaphobe. Bill Maher, he too does emphasis these differences, he has the sort of Muslims condemning such attacks on his show often, he regularly gets labeled an Islamaphobe for discussing issues with extremist Muslims and acknowledging that they are Muslim and motivated by what they learn in their religion.
And then of course there is the hypocrisy that with Christianity such things are appropriate, condoned, and it's year round open season to put forth shoddy research and conclusions against them. It's OK to expect Christians to be intolerant because intolerance is found throughout their holy book. But to point out the same applies to Muslim extremists, that they too have a holy book that condones their unholy ways, suddenly that makes someone an Islamaphobe. That needs to stop.

Anti-Semite I think is thrown around really loosely and fast. Most people are "Islamaphobes" or whatever, even if they don't admit it, because Most people are not Muslims, Most people (including Muslims) hate terrorists and terrorism and consider them irritating, and also don't like the Saudi Arabian regime mainly, and Shia don't like the Sunnis too much and Sunni really don't like the Shia, so that makes most people overall Islamaphobes one way or another, they dislike variations of people self-identifying as Muslims (if that is all it takes to be an Islamaphobe), and if taken really literally, as a fear, they also fear terrorists, radicals, etc, even Muslims fear Muslim wackjobs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most people (including Muslims) hate terrorists and terrorism and consider them irritating, and also don't like the Saudi Arabian regime mainly, and Shia don't like the Sunnis too much and Sunni really don't like the Shia, so that makes most people overall Islamaphobes one way or another, they dislike variations of people self-identifying as Muslims (if that is all it takes to be an Islamaphobe), and if taken really literally, as a fear, they also fear terrorists, radicals, etc, even Muslims fear Muslim wackjobs.

A phobia is irrational. It is perfectly rational, and sane even, to be opposed to numerous aspects of Sharia law; to be opposed to the laws in Saudi Arabia and their state-sponsorship of militant terrorist groups; or to be opposed to seeing those repressive ways creep here, because even places like Tunisia and Tajikistan have banned the burka due to it's ties to extremism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We have seen this script before. A crazy Muslim does something crazy and attacks people, everyone sane (including Muslims) condemns the attack, and then we see a segment of society who want to spread the idea that these attacks are representative of Islam or Muslims as a whole.

Sorry, just focusing on one part of your post, but I did read it all.
Is there a suggestion the guy was 'crazy'?

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry, just focusing on one part of your post, but I did read it all.
Is there a suggestion the guy was 'crazy'?

I would say anyone who beheads an innocent stranger in cold blood is some version of deeply mentally ill.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would say anyone who beheads an innocent stranger in cold blood is some version of deeply mentally ill.

A lot of us would like to imagine that. As far as the research I've looked at, though, incidences of mental illness amongst terrorists are not really more common than amongst the general population.

This particular person could have been mentally ill (although I haven't see anything to that effect). But ultimately many people capable of doing these crimes are 'bad, not mad'.

It's a slight hobby horse of mine, but mental illness gets stigmatized a lot around violence and crime. It really doesn't hold up.

There are lots of resources available, here's a quick link to an article addressing this, but you can get as deep on this as you want to.

Is terrorism based on mental illness?

 

[Left Coast]

A lot of us would like to imagine that. As far as the research I've looked at, though, incidences of mental illness amongst terrorists are not really more common than amongst the general population.

This particular person could have been mentally ill (although I haven't see anything to that effect). But ultimately many people capable of doing these crimes are 'bad, not mad'.

It's a slight hobby horse of mine, but mental illness gets stigmatized a lot around violence and crime. It really doesn't hold up.

There are lots of resources available, here's a quick link to an article addressing this, but you can get as deep on this as you want to.

Is terrorism based on mental illness?

Fascinating, thank you. The full text of the study the article references is only available in Dutch, so I can't read it completely. I wonder how they defined terrorist there. Two things strike me: 1) the article notes that the study found a stronger link between mental illness and lone wolf terrorists vs. groups, and 2) I don't think all terrorists commit the kind of direct, gruesome, hands-on murder that this guy did. Pushing a button to detonate a bomb, for example, seems psychologically different than literally taking a knife and cutting a person's head off.

I also find it interesting that these guys are almost always...guys, and young guys. Precisely the time when psychopathy often flowers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would say anyone who beheads an innocent stranger in cold blood is some version of deeply mentally ill.

Nah. Most Nazis were rational, sane people (including those doing the killing). Most terrorists are rational, sane people. It's possible he is mentally ill, but it's also likely he the fits the description of an average terrorist. And mental illness is basically an easy scapegoat and explanation for something much more complex (sort of like gun violence).

 

[Left Coast]

Nah. Most Nazis were rational, sane people. Most terrorists are rational, sane people. It's possible he is mentally ill, but it's also likely he the fits the description of an average terrorist. And mental illness basically is basically an easy scapegoat and explanation for something come complex (sort of like gun violence).

Most Nazis did not cut people's heads off. Most Nazis were not even soldiers, and never saw a battlefield, let alone a death camp. This gentlemen acted alone, rather than in obedience to an order as soldiers do.

Situations like this are nearly always more complex than any one reason might fully explain. But to imagine that a lone person capable of walking up to an innocent stranger and cutting their head off is not suffering some mental issues I think seems highly implausible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most Nazis did not cut people's heads off. Most Nazis were not even soldiers, and never saw a battlefield, let alone a death camp. This gentlemen acted alone, rather than in obedience to an order as soldiers do.

Situations like this are nearly always more complex than any one reason might fully explain. But to imagine that a lone person capable of walking up to an innocent stranger and cutting their head off is not suffering some mental issues I think seems highly implausible.

The Nazis who were killing Jews, they tended to be sane people. We'd like to believe it was mental illness behind the gas chambers, but it wasn't. Even Nazis shooting Jews to death, they were typically sane and rational people.
Inside the Terrorist Mind

Studies of members of the RAF in Germany, the IRA in Ireland and Hezbollah in Lebanon, among others, however, have yielded no evidence that terrorists are mentally ill.

Even suicide bombers are sane in most respects. After interviewing some 250 members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza from 1996 to 1999, United Nations worker and journalist Nasra Hassan reported that none of these young would-be bombers struck her as depressive or despondent. They always discussed the attacks matter-of-factly and were motivated by deep religious feelings and the conviction that what they were doing was right.

An expert committee on the psychological causes of terrorism concluded in 2005 that individual psychopathology was insufficient to explain terrorism. In fact, terrorist leaders typically screen out such people from their organizations because their instability makes them dangerous. Instead many researchers now believe that, far from being lunatics, terrorists rationally calculate the costs and benefits of their actions. In this "rational choice" theory of terrorism, violence and the perpetration of fear make up an optimal strategy for achieving political and religious objectives.

 

[Left Coast]

An issue with that is it has become way too easy to be labeled an "Islamaphobe." Even practicing Muslims from the Middle East who fled to the West in fear of their lives have been labeled as Islamophobic for criticizing the very things that made them afraid enough to leave their homes. Sam Harris, he does acknowledge this difference between those criticizing the attacks and those carrying them out. He gets labeled an Islamaphobe. Bill Maher, he too does emphasis these differences, he has the sort of Muslims condemning such attacks on his show often, he regularly gets labeled an Islamaphobe for discussing issues with extremist Muslims and acknowledging that they are Muslim and motivated by what they learn in their religion.

Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith written in 2004, literally rationalized dropping a preemptive nuclear bomb on an Islamist country with a nuclear weapon, because Muslims are allegedly so insane that they forego even the most basic level of interest in their own self-preservation.

Elsewhere he has rationalized torture of alleged terrorists.

He has referred to Islam as "the mother lode of bad ideas." (Pre-emptive nuclear strikes don't make the cut, I guess.)

While I can agree that the term "Islamophobe" can be thrown around too loosely, Sam Harris is a textbook example of someone who clearly has an irrational bias against Islam.

And then of course there is the hypocrisy that with Christianity such things are appropriate, condoned, and it's year round open season to put forth shoddy research and conclusions against them. It's OK to expect Christians to be intolerant because intolerance is found throughout their holy book. But to point out the same applies to Muslim extremists, that they too have a holy book that condones their unholy ways, suddenly that makes someone an Islamaphobe. That needs to stop.

No doubt, there are extremely problematic passages in the Qur'an, as with the Bible. Both should receive ample scrutiny, in my view.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most Nazis did not cut people's heads off. Most Nazis were not even soldiers, and never saw a battlefield, let alone a death camp. This gentlemen acted alone, rather than in obedience to an order as soldiers do.

Situations like this are nearly always more complex than any one reason might fully explain. But to imagine that a lone person capable of walking up to an innocent stranger and cutting their head off is not suffering some mental issues I think seems highly implausible.

Or, just remember. The monsters are really in the closets because they're hiding from humans.

 

[Left Coast]

The Nazis who were killing Jews, they tended to be sane people. We'd like to believe it was mental illness behind the gas chambers, but it wasn't. Even Nazis shooting Jews to death, they were typically sane and rational people.
Inside the Terrorist Mind

Indeed, human obedience to authority enables them psychologically to rationalize doing some extremely disturbing and harmful things. The Milgram experiments are another classic example.

That's different, I think, than lone wolf attackers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Fascinating, thank you. The full text of the study the article references is only available in Dutch, so I can't read it completely. I wonder how they defined terrorist there. Two things strike me: 1) the article notes that the study found a stronger link between mental illness and lone wolf terrorists vs. groups, and 2) I don't think all terrorists commit the kind of direct, gruesome, hands-on murder that this guy did. Pushing a button to detonate a bomb, for example, seems psychologically different than literally taking a knife and cutting a person's head off.

I also find it interesting that these guys are almost always...guys, and young guys. Precisely the time when psychopathy often flowers.

I don't want to take things on a tangent, but I'm happy to cover this in as much detail as you like. Both psychology and terror are hobbies. I mean...studying them, not conducting them.
(I once boarded a plane with my nose buried deep in a book called 'Why Terrorism Works', much to the horror of my wife...)

But just some quick hits for now.
1) Yep. Which makes sense, particular in a modern context. Terrorism has 'evolved' from cell structures to devolved network hierarchies. Long story short, some of the actions taken by individuals in the name of Al Qaeda (for example) involve people who never had contact with Al Qaeda. For the terrorist organization it's a way to drive action in foreign shores with very limited investment, and very little security risk. The downside is they have no control over the actions, and can't co-ordinate them. You see similar network hierarchies in place with organizations like BLM, incidentally. In any case, if someone was schizophrenic (for example) it would be far more challenging to have the operate within a more traditional cell structure, with it's need for secrecy and controlled communication, than it would be to simply put out a more general call to action. The same terrorist who would have been excluded from an organization as a risk is now useful as a lone wolf, sowing disorder or making people feel like an organization has global reach.

2) True. But it's not mental illness that drives that behaviour, to the best of my understanding. It has more to do with extreme levels of self-righteousness and symbolism, along with an element of pragmatism (ie. what is actually practical).
I'm not suggesting people with mental illness can't do these things, by any means (which I think you understand). Just that the spread of actual mental illness in these extremist groups is not really much different to amongst the general populace (in broad-brush terms).
In the case of Aboulakh Anzorov, he wasn't armed with a firearm (only a pellet pistol) so there might have been an element of pragmatism, to a point. But ISIS (who his half-sister was associated with) has used beheading videos more than once as a way to denounce 'infidels', and due partly to some particularly literal translations they make of certain Quranic verses. Just on the last point it's worth noting I'm not suggesting they killed because they are Muslims. Just that the method of killing by these literalists is influenced by their interpretation, much as crucifixion might be used by them.

3) They are often young guys, yes. That is a very interesting topic, actually, but let me just add a little colour around the edges here. Like any 'army', the young men are often the most expendable, and are used to take direct action. Older men commonly have more to lose, or have more skills (developed over time) and so are used in an orgnizational sense. So too, they often have more of a history, and are watched more closely. Someone like Aboulakh Anzorov was legally a child until recently, and doesn't have a long history, flagging him on watch lists. So sometimes what we see is the lone wolf who can escape proactive detection.
There is also a simple truth that young men appear to be more simple to radicalize, and have a higher propensity for violence in general terms, quite apart from considering terrorism. How much of that is nurture, and how much nature is anyone's guess, really, but it seems pretty clear that this exists (in a general sense).

However, in reading about the IRA, it was interesting the role women played in terms of sustaining the organization over the long hall. They did fight on the front lines on occasion, but there was a traditionalism to the Provincials at least that generally reduced them to support roles in terms of active service. But it was often the women who allowed men to endure long prison stays, or provided general support, etc. Whether they are the ones literally beheading people is one thing, but whether they support such actions is a different story.

This is somewhat interesting : Female terrorists – a surprisingly timeless phenomenon

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith

I've read it. I find no real reason to discredit it based on my own past with Evangelical Fundamentalism.

literally rationalized dropping a preemptive nuclear bomb on an Islamist country with a nuclear weapon, because Muslims are allegedly so insane that they forego even the most basic level of interest in their own self-preservation.

I can't recall that. And it would go much of the other things he has said, and I doubt Nawaz would have written a book with him if he endorsed such an idea. In fact, he doesn't support it.
Response to Controversy | Sam Harris

The journalist Chris Hedges has repeatedly claimed (in print, in public lectures, on the radio, and on television) that I advocate a nuclear first-strike against the Muslim world. His remarks, which have been recycled continually in interviews and blog posts, generally take the following form:
I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world.

Here's what he said, which definitely has a much more clear emphasis on the need for this to be very dire and no other options.

There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

He has referred to Islam as "the mother lode of bad ideas."

It does give justifications for doing a lot of killing. As we see going on. Like justifying the killing of French people because of past wrongs and today's wrongs that include depicting Muhammad.

Elsewhere he has rationalized torture of alleged terrorists.

That's doesn't make someone a Islamaphobe for supporting torture.

In one section of the book (pp. 192−199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may be not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. This is not the same as saying that they should be legal (Crimes such as trespassing and theft may sometimes be ethically necessary, though everyone has an interest in keeping them illegal).

No doubt, there are extremely problematic passages in the Qur'an, as with the Bible. Both should receive ample scrutiny, in my view.

Hence the "mother load of bad ideas" comment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's different, I think, than lone wolf attackers.

That doesn't excuse that mental illness just has not really been found to be a significant factor. It doesn't take a Ted Bundy to be a killer.

 

[Left Coast]

I've read it. I find no real reason to discredit it based on my own past with Evangelical Fundamentalism.

I can't recall that. And it would go much of the other things he has said, and I doubt Nawaz would have written a book with him if he endorsed such an idea. In fact, he doesn't support it.
Response to Controversy | Sam Harris

Here's what he said, which definitely has a much more clear emphasis on the need for this to be very dire and no other options.

What he actually said, and what you read in his later "clarification," are manifestly at odds. His "thought experiment" in The End of Faith" was made at the height of the "war on terror" when the Bush administration was literally telling us Iraq had WMDs. The notion that his thought experiment was divorced from that live political reality strains all reasonable interpretation to breaking.

Moreover, there is an Islamic regime that has a nuclear weapon now (Pakistan). The Taliban is currently negotiating with the US and the Afghan government for peace. The notion that Islamic fundamentalists have no interest in self-preservation is simply at odds with the historical and political reality on the ground.

It does give justifications for doing a lot of killing. As we see going on. Like justifying the killing of French people because of past wrongs and today's wrongs that include depicting Muhammad.

And as we see, it can be interpreted that way, or it can be interpreted another way. Since the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent, and condemn these attacks when they happen, that suggests that the narrative that this is just "Islam's fault" ks too simplistic.

That's doesn't make someone a Islamaphobe for supporting torture.

Who is it that you think we actually tortured at black sites during the Bush administration? Hint: They were not Wiccans.

Hence the "mother load of bad ideas" comment.

By that logic, of course, its also the motherlode of good ideas, as there is much in Islam to be commended.

Religions the breadth amd depth of Islam are too complex to be reduced to a simple "this is good" or "this is bad."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What he actually said, and what you read in his later "clarification," are manifestly at odds. His "thought experiment" in The End of Faith" was made at the height of the "war on terror" when the Bush administration was literally telling us Iraq had WMDs. The notion that his thought experiment was divorced from that live political reality strains all reasonable interpretation to breaking.

Thought experiments typically are. Like Nozick's "Spock Problem." Or John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" (that one is very far removed from reality). They are used for exploring various topics, including the extremes. And, yes, it is an extreme, but it can happen. It's not that far from reality. If Al-Qaeda were about to launch one, and a pre-emptive strike the only option to stop it, I don't see why that option shouldn't be pursued. That is what he wrote about. I even linked his exact words. The absolute worst case scenario.

Moreover, there is an Islamic regime that has a nuclear weapon now (Pakistan). The Taliban is currently negotiating with the US and the Afghan government for peace. The notion that Islamic fundamentalists have no interest in self-preservation is simply at odds with the historical and political reality on the ground.

He didn't claim they have no interest in it. He pointed out that many have embraced killing themselves to kill others. Many more have risked their lives to kill and injure others. That sort of mentality is not as deterred by the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. These are True Believers, with god on their side and eternal paradise as their destination. Evangelical Christianity has a watered down version of it (today, anyways) with their martyrdom complex. Evolution taught in school offends them, and they go to political ends to ensure it's not. They go to political ends to discriminate against LGBT. And no public prayer in school is an attack on them. Happy Holidays is an attack on them. Them not being able to run the show is seen as an attack on them. There is a reason some people call them things like the "Christian Taliban." They too are True Believers. But, here, they don't kill much over it anymore. They just fight to make sure you suffer their hate (Pence is a great example of this).
And, this is now. What if the next ISIS seizes such a weapon?

And as we see, it can be interpreted that way, or it can be interpreted another way. Since the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent, and condemn these attacks when they happen, that suggests that the narrative that this is just "Islam's fault" ks too simplistic.

It's not. These sorts have basically always existed. Such as, most Christians throughout history I assume have never killed anyone. However, the Bible is still rife with examples that justifies the wicked cruelty of their violent and bloodthirsty counterparts. We have no objections in point out the Bible is the source of much prejudice, including racial and LGBT. Few save for apologetics will deny this. But Liberals will not apply the same standards to Islam.
An atheist Muslim on what the left and right get wrong about Islam

"The left is wrong on Islam. The right is wrong on Muslims." — author Ali Rizvi

I will have to search for the articles, but there are real world implications for Liberal and Secular Muslims when their Western liberal and secular counterparts abandon them and dismiss there being issues with the Quran, and these Muslims (who need our support the most out most others in this world) are aware Western Leftists in general will endlessly criticize the same things of Christianity without charges of "Christianophobe."

Who is it that you think we actually tortured at black sites during the Bush administration? Hint: They were not Wiccans.

This has what to do with Harris? That doesn't even address his points of ethical concerns regarding the difference between torture and collateral damage.
Any messages that are anti-Muslim must be read into this.

By that logic, of course, its also the motherlode of good ideas, as there is much in Islam to be commended.

We find people making discoveries, being charitable, mathematics, poetry, architecture, we find humans all over doing this.
We don't find the same with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or "kill them where you find them." People have been taking care of the less fortunate before modern homo sapiens. It's only where you find beliefs in gods appeased by human sacrifice do we find human sacrifice. I don't agree with Harris on statement, as there are many terrible ideas with many of those bad ideas basically being akin to a "victim olympics" to point to which one is worst. But I do think the contributions of religion are highly over emphasized, as most people are generally pro social with no need of strict enforcement, but hate is something that must be learned and doesn't typically arise unless it's taught. Religion is one the great teachers of hatred and divisiveness. Tribalism, nationalism, dogmatic loyalty and obedience, these things have no use guiding a society and yet religion has long served as a source of justification for humanities worst inclinations. We see this throughout the Bible and Quran.
And, it's not surprising but I have learned Harris gets taken out of context a lot to be considered Islamaphobe. I've read his books (even if you don't agree with him they are very well worth reading), but I don't keep up on all that stuff to have seen that before.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And as we see, it can be interpreted that way, or it can be interpreted another way. Since the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent, and condemn these attacks when they happen, that suggests that the narrative that this is just "Islam's fault" ks too simplistic.

I found a good article to read. About this unwillingness of Liberals to criticize Islam.
Getting It Wrong About Islam: Check Your Secular Privilege, Liberal America

Such is the pervasiveness of America’s polarized political discourse on Islam post-9/11. Whatever stances the right-wing espouses, liberals are compelled to advocate for the total opposite. What is lost in between is a crucial discussion on the role of religion in perpetuating injustice and violence in countries governed by Islamic law. As Republicans and Democrats settle their scores, nuance and context take a backseat.
...
Imagine my surprise as a newly free immigrant in the United States, then, when I was accused of reinforcing Islamophobia each time I criticize Islam. I found out the hard way that liberal opinion-makers had coined a term for the likes of me: “native informant.”
...
The same slur is thrown at Egyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy, whose life’s work consists of documenting instances of gender oppression in the Arab world.
....

They would not want their country to have an official religion, as evidenced by their successive lawsuits against public school prayer. They would never compromise on a woman’s right to choose, now that Roe V. Wade is the law of the land. Their very ideological platform is rooted in standing with society’s underdogs: underrepresented ethnic groups, religious minorities, LGBTQs and free thinkers. Yet when Middle Eastern dissidents advocate for the same fundamental rights, liberals would rather not hear it. Why the inconsistency?

Middle Eastern expats eager to advocate for secular societies back home have no choice but to seek freedom of speech. When our liberal allies in America try to silence our plea, they imply that the Middle East does not deserve the same rights they enjoy here. Interpreting our struggles purely from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy is borderline ethnocentric. Surely, that is not the liberal thing to do.