Hatred bursting out in the world's most peaceful country

The racist, Islamophobic terrorist attack carried out yesterday, Friday, on two mosques before the Friday prayer in New Zealand drew attention not only for the people it slaughtered so basely but also for the messages he tried to deliver in a showy manner along with this massacre. The racism of the messages he delivered, their inhuman dimension, and the perverse pleasure, brutality and savagery he displayed while killing people were vying with one another.

There will surely be those who try to understand and portray this attack simply as an isolated incident of a person with serious psychological obsessions or disorders. Indeed, although in the first broadcasts of the BBC the incident was aired live, with all its messages, in a showy manner, a persistent avoidance of using the expression "terrorist attack" was seen.

The very outlets that, at the slightest scrap of information that a similar incident had been carried out by someone of Muslim origin, immediately take refuge in the fable of "Islamic terrorism" in their broadcasts showed enormous resistance to using the expression "terror attack" even in the face of this incident.

Of course, although the criminals used Christian-Crusader terminology from beginning to end in their actions, we never accept seeing or expressing the incident as "Christian terrorism."

On the contrary, we have to repeat what we always say. Terror has no religion. A person who truly believes in Islam, Christianity or Judaism does not and cannot defend taking the life of any defenseless person who is performing his worship.

Even a Jew cannot defend slaughtering people without leaving Judaism. What Israel does today is, above all, the slaughter of Judaism, which preaches the commandment "thou shalt not kill" as an indispensable commandment. That is why we say that criticizing Israel and criticizing Judaism are not the same thing.

The vile massacre carried out in the mosque attack in New Zealand, particularly by using Christian messages, may have been specially planned precisely by racist, Islamophobic elements who want to incite the Muslim world against the Christian world and thus start a religious war they dream of, with a hate discourse that would be fed mutually. That is why Muslims, who have understandably fallen into great anger especially in the face of this attack, need to be more careful.

It is very clear that committing such a hateful crime, displaying hatred so openly in the name of a religious group and giving such explicit messages, will bring no benefit to that religion. In that case these messages may also be pointing to the very target toward which hatred will be directed. Just as, because the real target of the DAEŞ terror is Islam and Muslims, we understand more easily today that DAEŞ is definitely an anti-Islam organization and that its actions are attacks against Islam. The language and technique of this attack and the language and technique of the DAEŞ attacks are very close to each other. With one difference: this attack is a little more technical and more showy.

Of course this is a possibility and not a definite explanation. Ultimately hatred has no rationality, and every possibility may exist. Unfortunately, the world today is not sufficiently aware of the seriousness of hate crimes committed especially against Muslims, and there is still no serious measure that will protect Muslims against these hate crimes. We are all together witnessing Western politicians opening very wide room every day to the kind of discourse these killers use. Generations are growing up in an atmosphere in which these hate discourses are incited, and despite all its modernity and its claims of multiculturalism, Europe is sinking day by day into a complete racist-hate spiral because of these irresponsible politicians.

It is very clear that the racist attack in New Zealand is not isolated but a very well worked-out, planned attack. It is impossible that the killer did not receive support both in carrying out this incident and in the process of having this incident announced to the world as he wanted. That he carries out the moment of the massacre with the simplicity and ease of a computer game conveys, without any concealment, the message that slaughtering Muslims is now as simple and easy as playing a game.

An Islamic hatred incited against Muslims by politicians themselves is raising somewhere a mass that will carry out this kind of attack and that can do anything at any moment. The place chosen for the massacre is New Zealand, known as the most peaceful country in the world. It is at the same time a country of immigrants, that is, one of the safest harbors to which people who face unbearable problems all over the world take refuge in order to build a new life. By being an immigrant-receiving country, it is a country that has been able to offer an ideal field of application for the environment called multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is in Muslim history and civilizations already so customary and ordinary a situation that it need not be dwelt upon. Yet for the Western world, which began experiencing multiculturalism only in the last century, the occurrence of such an incident even within this most perfect example of application has a separate meaning. It is as if, however pluralist the culture may be, it says "there is no place in it for Muslims."

This attack is therefore, on the one hand, a criminal act of terror aimed at the lives of 50 innocent people, on the one hand a hate attack directed at Muslims, and on the other hand in fact an attack aimed at the foundation of all the values the West has accumulated in the modern age.

To the extent that politicians continue to feed the ideological Islamophobic environment that prepares the ground for this attack, it will have the effect of a "suicide attack of the West."