Why religion won't really matter

Most of what we consider the global terrorism is associated with Islamic activity. It wouldn't be inhuman or unjust to think that Islamic violence is a problem. Even if we don't want to admit that for whatever reasons there are good reasons to think that there are enough that are acting against Islamic fundamentalist probably in more violent ways. Given that, I don't really see the point why we come back to this discussion of whose religion is more peaceful than the other. The problem is way beyond that discussion now. As far as history goes, forced conversions all over the world had a lot of bloodshed involved. The reason I mention it is because it was about bloodshed and greed for power, and not glory and salvation. When you are in a war, why would you let your religion weaken you. Even the respected Hindu Brahmin parshuram (who you think won't eat meat) is believed to have cleared all Kshatriyas (warriors) from this earth not once but twice (a puranic story). So, there goes our hero of this religion of peace and harmony. One could go on talking about the goddesses of retribution and destruction but that is hardly the point I am trying to make. As for Islam, you all are aware that there is an official procedure that Islamic forces followed moving Eastwards (on directions from God the Almighty Himself). Give the tribe a dawa (show them the glory of God, with the kind of fanfare that missionaries do these days) and if they don't accept Islam, fight them till they all die (rape women if you like, but that was strictly optional). There were hundreds of tribes (small ones) that were erased out of memory because they refused to accept Islam - this is no propaganda but known history, which no Islamic historian would deny. The point is that there are heroes with swords and guns you can honor, no matter which religion you are. Thus, if Hindus in India are peaceful and Muslims aren't then its not because of their respective religions but because of the way they have responded to changing times. Modern day Hinduism doesn't really mean a lot, its about selecting your heroes freely and comfortably; aspiring to make a lot of money (worshipping it rather). Needless to say, this has gone down very well with the changing times. Religion means a lot more to devout Muslims, or devout Catholics. So the problem really is that of social conditions, and social choices rather than of religious texts. Why can't we thus, refrain from discussing religion when talking about terrorism? What is really the point in showing what part of religious texts encourage people to kill infidels, when we know that those who commit crimes don't need religious scriptures to perpetrate the crimes anyways?

One possible reason that I think is presented hereforth. If I were a historian (like I thought I would become once) it would have been real important to me to find out how religious texts influence a society. I could have too, derived pleasure from conjecturing that certain modern day practices are mere repititions of some ancient historic event. I could have for example, liked to consider that Muslim women are veiled only because Mohd. once doubted his younger wives, or that Hindu oppression of low-caste shudras is actually some sort of racial strife. It is fun to do so but I am afraid it is of no more use than in coffee table conversations. The point (deriving a from a bit from cultural anthropolgy rather than history) is that the way a society reacts to, remembers or sometimes creates its history is a statement of its own consciousness. It is erroneous to reverse this argument (If I am allowed to be a bit more scientific, it is a chaotic system because people influence other people and yet get influenced by others). Religious texts too, esp because of their historic nature in Abrahmic religions, should be seen as statements of a society's consciousness (and like I said, not in a strictly irreversible and opposite way). That is to say, it is the people who assign weight to their texts and not just the other way. For example, Bible won't mean a lot to many Westerners, so wouldn't grih-sutras to most Hindus, but Al-koran does mean a lot to many of the Muslims. In defence of the scriptures, Abrahmic religious texts refer to the times of Egyptian decline (fall of an evil empire), the great exodus of Jewish people (discovering new arenas), their returning home, the fall of Constantine (another one)and the re-establishment of religion and faith (the primal utopia). The respective societies more or less do think in these terms, despite all the apparent problems that exist in these texts. Bible could be used to justify slavery and Islam could be, to justify rape and murder; still, neither of them can be formulated as reasons for such crimes, even from a totally rational, if not ethical, perspective.