The Dilemma of Islamic Terrorism

[pr126]

The recent massacres in Paris of the staff of Charlie Hebdo and the Jews in a kosher supermarket, and the increasing incidences of butchering young people coming out of pubs have made more people concerned about the rise of terrorism. Tens of thousands have come out to demonstrate.



Since the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon in 2001, there have been close to 25,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, all of which were perpetrated in the name of Islam. That is about 5 terrorist attacks every day. So far two million people have been killed and a similar number are maimed and injured. These attacks are becoming more frequent. Yet something is not changing.



    Immediately after the attack, the president or the prime minister of the country in which the attack has taken place goes on TV and declares that this attack had nothing to do with Islam.

    Right after that the chief of police announces that he has taken all the measures to protect Muslims from any imaginary backlash and nonexistent reprisal.

    In the evening of the same day the mainstream media interviews an imam or a Muslim spokesperson who emphasizes that Islam does not condone violence.

    We are then told that extremists exist in all religions and reminded that some thirty years ago a few Christians killed a few abortionist murderers of unborn babies.

    Then the pundits are called to pontificate that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is not in what the terrorist themselves say, and nothing to do with the Quran (that in hundreds of verses calls on the believers to kill the unbelievers), but in the injustice done to Muslims in other parts of the world, such as in Abu Ghraib prison and particularly in Palestine where half a century ago Israelis defeated the Arab invaders who had vowed to drown them in the sea.

    A few days after that the police and the politicians of the victim country hold meetings with the leaders of the Muslim community where they conclude that more money should be given to the “moderate Muslims” to persuade the “radicals” to not take their religion seriously.

    The experts also conclude that emblems like Christmas and Christmas trees hurt the religious sentiment of Muslims and they should be removed from public institutions, shopping malls and schools, while at the same time Muslims should be given some concessions, like not requiring them to wash their hands before performing operation on patients, designating a room and Islamic toilets for them in public institutions, and allow them to apply for driving license without requiring them to show their face.

    Also, in the spirit of integration and community cohesion, everyone should be forced to eat halal meat, which involves extra cruelty to the animals, without their knowledge, whether they want it or not.

This tune is replayed every time there is a terrorist attack. The narrative never changes, despite the unequivocal assertion of the terrorists themselves who make it clear they are motivated by the teachings and examples of their prophet and his promise of virgins. Methinks, the record of history is broken. How else can we explain that after a repetition of 25,000 times one would not question the validity of this narrative?

More here 

[Munch]

Somethings going to break eventually in this, and its going to come from either the people themselves, or the politicians

[pr126]

Somethings going to break eventually in this, and its going to come from either the people themselves, or the politicians

Not from the politicians.

[SGOS]

More here 
Then the pundits are called to pontificate that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is not in what the terrorist themselves say, and nothing to do with the Quran (that in hundreds of verses calls on the believers to kill the unbelievers), but in the injustice done to Muslims in other parts of the world

^ This

[pr126]

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (from the same article)


The first category is that of good Muslims. By good I mean true believersâ€"those who follow the teachings of their prophet, the Quran and the Sunnah to the letter, who try to emulate him in every way and are strict and pious Muslims. Since the teachings and the examples of Muhammad are full of violence and terror, the more one follows and emulates him the more radical one becomes. Muhammad raided and butchered people merely because they were not his followers. The good Muslims do the same. All the bombings and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims are replicas of Muhammad’s raids, or ghazwa, as he called them. Taking women as sex slaves, which the Islamic State and Boko Haram practice was also practiced by Muhammad and he sanctioned it in the Quran (33:50; 23: 1-6; 70:30; 4:24; 66:1-2). He ordered the assassination of his critics stoning the adulterers, chopping the hands of thieves and killing the apostates. So, the terrorists are actually good Muslims.


The second category is of bad Muslims. These are those who don’t practice their religion and are often ignorant of it. They may pray or chant the Quran, but have no clue of its content. They read it for thawab (reward) without understanding it. These Muslims are ordinary people we all know. Like everybody else, some are good and some are not so good. Some of them are friendly, but they see themselves as superior, by virtue of their faith, and of “higher morals.”


Morality in Islam has nothing to do with what others understand by this word. Morality for women is to cover their hair lest it arouse sexual feelings in men. For men, it is not to shake hands with Muslim women lest it arouse them sexually, or not to masturbate, etc. Morality in Islam is primarily about genitals and their use. For example, while having sex out of marriage is considered immoral, stoning people caught in such act is not immoral. While looking at bare arms and legs of Muslim women is considered immoral, raping non-Muslim women is not immoral. Homosexuality is immoral, but pedophilia is not.


These Muslims migrate to the west to better their lives, but they segregate themselves, form isolated communities and warn their children to not learn the ways of unbelievers or take them as friends unless they intent to convert them to Islam. They give huge amounts of money to charity. But Islamic charity has nothing to do with charity. All that money goes to build mosques, print Islamic materials and promote Islam. If any of that is spent for the needy, it is to enlist them for jihad or support the families of the suicide bombers. The bad Muslims are the lifeline of Islam and the breeding ground for good Muslims. All Muslim terrorists, unless they are converts, are born in and emerge from this group. Without the moral and financial support of the bad Muslims Islam will cease to exist.



Then we have the ugly Muslims. As we learned the good Muslims are not good at all, and the bad ones are not really bad people, the ugly Muslims actually look beautiful. Islam is a world down the rabbit hole. Nothing is what it is because everything is what it is not. The ugly Muslims are clean-shaven, handsome or attractive, eloquent, articulate, and highly intelligent, just the kind of people you want to hang around with. They are journalists, professors, regular guests and contributors to mainstream media. They know what to say to gain your approval and your applause. They are charming. Their words are reassuring and their faces are familiar. You like them and trust them. So why do I call them ugly? Because they lie! Their job is to deceive you and to make you believe that the “real Islam” poses no threat to you. These wolves in sheep clothing are the most dangerous group. Deception is deadlier than terror. Do you fear more a ferocious animal that you can see or a deadly virus that you can’t? The enemy within is a lot more dangerous.

Unlike the bad Muslims the ugly ones are not ignorant of their religion. They know of Muhammad’s raids, rapes, assassinations, genocides, tortures, beheadings, but they deny them, twist the facts and defend him. They accuse the good Muslims of having hijacked their religion of peace when they know they lie. They claim to be reformers when they know that Islam cannot be reformed. Islam is what it is. To reform Islam one has to change the Quran. Over 70% of it must be scrapped, and the other 30% is just sheer nonsense.

These self-styled reformers don’t want to change the Quran. They just want Muslims to practice it less. In theory it works. Even the deadliest poison in small doses is not lethal. But how can they convince all Muslims to not take their holy book seriously? This project is doomed from the start. This is either naiveté and wishful thinking, or a ruse to deceive the non-Muslims, to give them false hope so they can buy more time for Islam to take over the world, which is the goal of every Muslim, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Every Muslim falls within these three categories. Just as virtually all colors are combinations of the three primary colors, elements of the three categories of Muslims exist in all of them.

[Jmpty]

You do know that the organization you are quoting is designated as a hate group by the SPLC, right? Why am I not surprised?

[pr126]

I don't care about the hate site called SPLC.
Thanks for the useless info.

Why am I not surprised?

That would be the hard left, Marxist education.
You may not be the "Freethinker" you think you are.

[stromboli]

Percentage of Muslims supporting Sharia Law

https://believervsnonbelievers.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/percentage-of-muslims-supporting-sharia-law/


                                                                                   

“If you harbor any doubts about what percentage Muslims believe sharia, note this data. 36%/310.5 million nontrivial.” â€" Michael Shermer

[Jmpty]

From the Pew survey that these stats came from. I've read the actual survey. They sampled 38,000 Muslims, not 873 million.

"At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing
for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan, for
example, three-quarters of Muslims say that non-Muslims are very free to practice their
religion, and fully 96% of those who share this assessment say it is “a good thing.” Yet 84% of
Pakistani Muslims favor enshrining sharia as official law. These seemingly divergent views are
possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan â€" as in many other countries â€"
think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. Moreover, Muslims around the globe have
differing understandings of what sharia means in practice."

[Hakurei Reimu]

They sampled 38,000 Muslims, not 873 million.

If they properly sampled, that should be enough.