Secular Liberal Politicians and the media often disparage critics of government security & foreign policy, as ‘justifying terrorism’ because they point to it the cause of violence against their states. While it is obvious that no terrorism is ever or can ever be justified, but pointing to the causes of terrorism is not the same as justifying it. If so, then you might as well arrest all criminologists!.

Instead, secular politicians & media pundits want everyone to blame terrorism only on ‘religious interpretations’, but they do not realise one rather ironic fact, the founder of Secular Liberalism – their own ‘prophet’ no less – blamed anti-state violence only on Oppression, and not religion – which he viewed as a disingenuous argument frequently used to ignore or deflect blame from oppressive policies.

John Locke said (in the his ‘Letter on toleration’):

‘If men enter into seditious conspiracies, it is not religion inspires them to it in their meetings, but their sufferings and oppressions that make them willing to ease themselves. Just and moderate governments are everywhere quiet, everywhere safe; but oppression raises ferments and makes men STRUGGLE [Jihad?] to cast off an uneasy and tyrannical yoke. I know that seditions are very frequently raised upon pretence of religion, but it is as true that for religion subjects are frequently ill treated and live miserably. Believe me, the stirs that are made proceed not from any peculiar temper of this or that Church or religious society, but from the common disposition of all mankind, who when they groan under any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks. Suppose this business of religion were let alone, and that there were some other distinction made between men and men upon account of their different complexions, shapes, and features, so that those who have black hair (for example) or grey eyes should not enjoy the same privileges as other citizens; that they should not be permitted either to buy or sell, or live by their callings; that parents should not have the government and education of their own children; that all should either be excluded from the benefit of the laws, or meet with partial judges; can it be doubted but these persons, thus distinguished from others by the colour of their hair and eyes, and united together by one common persecution, would be as dangerous to the magistrate [i.e. government] as any others that had associated themselves merely upon the account of religion? Some enter into company for trade and profit, others for want of business have their clubs for claret. Neighbourhood joins some and religion others. But there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions, and that is oppression’

To all those politicians and media pundits who revel in the pastime of blaming the Muslim community for its interpretations of Islam as being the cause of Terrorism, and who like to accuse anyone who explains terrorism as being caused by oppression, as having the same mindset as ‘terrorists and Jihadists’, I have one simple question: Is the key intellectual founder of your political ideology, John Locke, a Terrorist or a Jihadist too?