Muslim + Terrorist = Muslim Terrorist

Sunday, February 25, 2007
Muslim + Terrorist = Muslim Terrorist
Muslim + Terrorist = Muslim Terrorist

If you listen carefully to the rhetoric that circulates among Muslim communities, you may be treated to some remarkably idiotic comments. Over my next few columns, it is my intent to describe and analyze some of these comments in the hope that dissecting them may expose their idiocy.
First up: “There is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist, because a ‘Muslim’ is someone who is ‘at peace,’ so how can such a person be a terrorist?” This is a classic example of the type of self-appeasing commentary that many Muslims love to bandy about. As a generally isolationist community in the West, Muslims often speak only to themselves, with no reference for or intention to speak to the outside world. (Another example of such utter cultural unawareness is the constant use of abbreviations such as SWT and PBUH in Muslim literature in English, as if all readers should just magically know what they mean!)
Acting as if they’ve achieved a decisive victory, these Muslims then assume that the case is closed. There you have it, folks, there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” because such a thing is evidently a linguistic impossibility. As for that guy called “Abdullah” who was just on TV quoting the Qur’an and calling for chopping people’s heads off … uh … well … he’s just an invention of the Zionist-controlled media … yeah, that’s it!
To be fair, Muslims are understandably disturbed by the coupling of the word Muslim with the dirtiest word in the English language today: terrorist. However, this disturbance does not alter the objective reality one iota. The “Muslim terrorist” is as fair and accurate a term as any to describe those individuals who commit acts of vigilante violence against civilians in the name of Islam. They are Muslims — perhaps not in a linguistic sense, because they certainly do not appear to be people who are in a state of peace and submission — but certainly in a technical sense from the standpoint of the theology and law of the religion of Islam. At worst, one might argue that Muslims, who advocate vigilante violence against civilians (read: terrorism) and claim that it is justified by the teachings and scriptures of Islam, have embraced a dangerous heresy. Even so, they would simply be heretical Muslims, yet Muslims nonetheless. They enjoy the rights accorded any other Muslim under Islamic law, yet they stand condemned in the eyes of God for their sin (just like any other sinful human being).
Another obvious reason why the notion that “there can be no such thing as a Muslim terrorist” fails logically is that this argument is tantamount to saying that there can be no such thing as a “Muslim murderer,” or a “Muslim rapist,” or a “Muslim thief.” Again, objective reality and history bear out the fact that such individuals can and do exist. Yet such ridiculous notions are born out of the essentializing views of ideologues who prefer the delusion that being a Muslim somehow makes one a perfect member of a chosen people rather than accept the reality that Muslims are human beings like everyone else, facing the same human challenges, and often suffering from the same human weaknesses. By the idiot’s logic, once the Caliphate is wondrously re-established, there will be no need for prisons and a criminal justice system in the new Islamic Republic, since Muslims are not sinful, much less criminal — remember, they are “at peace,” so why would they commit a crime!? The great irony here, of course, is the fact that if a Caliph existed today, he would probably round up all the Muslim terrorists and have them publicly executed as a deterrent to wannabe vigilante “freedom fighters.”
A related complaint often heard in Muslim quarters is: “Why doesn’t the media ever use the terms ‘Jewish terror’ or ‘Christian terrorists’? It only speaks of ‘Islamic terror’ and ‘Muslim terrorists.’ The media is biased!” This sentiment was extremely popular, for example, when the infamous serial killer was arrested last week in the Mumbai and it was revealed that He is Hindu. “Why wasn’t he described as a ‘Hindu terrorist’?!” Muslims incredulously whined.
Again, Muslims would love to innocently wonder where this alleged bias comes from instead of taking an objective look at reality. So I shall spell it out for you: The difference between acts of vigilante violence against civilians (in recent memory) that have been carried out by individuals who are Muslims versus those from other religions is the way in which the individuals claim to be inspired, influenced, and shaped by their respective religions. The terrorist who is a Muslim is not just a terrorist who happens to be a Muslim. On the contrary, he gets up in front of a camera and releases a grainy Internet video in which he dresses himself up in the language and garb of the Islamic religion. He quotes from Muslim scriptures and observes all forms of outward religiosity. He claims that his violent operations against Americans, Zionists, infidels, are not sanctioned by Islamic law, but rather are required by it, and that he is carrying out the will of Allah and serving the honor of Islam’s holy prophet, etc. Compare your standard terrorist from any other religious group; he is a terrorist who happens to be Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or whatever, but he doesn’t claim to be inspired, influenced, and shaped by his religion, much less that he is serving his religion’s aims by committing acts of violence. In recent memory, it is virtually impossible to find the moral or religious equivalent of a Muslim terrorist from any other faith group. Mumbai Serial killer would probably be the first to admit that his sadistic acts of terror on innocent people were in utter contravention of Hindu teachings. That’s the difference.
None of this is to say that the media is blameless. Certainly, the mainstream commercial media has played a huge role in creating and reinforcing the stereotype of the “Muslim terrorist.” Sadly, it seems some young Muslims around the world (including, now, even in the UK) are all too willing to succumb to such stereotypes by modeling themselves after them, thereby raising the very valid question: Which came first, the stereotype or the reality?
Next up: “I believe in the fundamentals of Islam; therefore, I am a fundamentalist.” Somebody please give this person a dictionary.
SWT stands for the Arabic words “Subhanahu Wa Ta`ala,” which mean, roughly, “Glorified and Exalted is He!” and is appended after each mention of the divine name, Allah. PBUH stands for “Peace Be Upon Him,” which is an honorific phrase included after each mention of the Prophet Muhammad’s name.
Admittedly, a good case could be made that the Ku Klux Klan, as well as Hitler’s Nazi philosophy were heavily inspired by Biblical teachings, and of course there are the historical realities of the Inquisition and the Crusades. As for acts of state terrorism carried out, for example, by the Israeli military, these are done for obvious and explicit political objectives and are not claimed by Israel to be in furtherance of religious aims of Judaism (in spite of the nexus claimed by some Zionists between Jewish teachings and the state of Israel). Similarly, the BJP in India, which is closely associated with the Hindutva movement, could be blamed for ideological and identity politics-based acts of terror. However, we are principally concerned here with our contemporary context, particularly the post-9/11 era, during which time the term “Muslim terrorist” has gained undeniable currency and lacks any meaningful counterpart in other faiths. And besides, even if the media began using the terms “Christian terrorist,” “Jewish terrorist,” and “Hindu terrorist,” would that make Muslim terrorists any less terrorist?

6:55:51 PM
Posted By Mohammed Irshad Hussain Comments (1) Society
Comments
K.Venugopal Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:42:23 PM
One thing not realized by most non-Muslims is that Islam, apart from all other religions, has a political goal - as different from a spiritual goal of other religions. By political goal I mean forming the government to rule the world with Shariat as the constitution. All other religions only attempt to guide individuals or congregations towards individual salvation. Therefore, it would be more correct to describe Islam as an ideology rather than a religion. The Church, had hoped to rule the world, but that was only an institutional ambition and not a goal taught by Christianity. Hinduism, on the other hand, has always separated religion and state - a truly secular situation. Therefore it is this inalienable goal of Islam - that of world political domination - that has always made the spread of Islam a blood drenched one and Muslim communities always prone to be led by political dictatorships. Secularism is impossible with Islam, so also democracy. There is of course a spiritual element that has become almost imperceptibly enmeshed with Islam and that is Sufism. If Islam is not to be treated more and more as an ideology rather than a religion, Muslims at large have to discover Sufism.

Irshad4u Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:55:12 PM
“This day have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Quran 5:3)“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him.” (Quran 3:85)
Irshad4u Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:05:04 PM
Each person is born in a circumstance which is not of his own choosing. The religion of his family or the ideology of the state is thrust upon him from the very beginning of his existence in this world. By the time he reaches his teens, he is usually fully brain-washed into believing that the beliefs of his particular society are the correct beliefs that everyone should have. However, when some people mature and are exposed to other belief-systems, they begin to question the validity of their own beliefs. The seekers of truth often reach a point of confusion upon realizing that each and every religion, sect, ideology and philosophy claims to be the one and only correct way for man. Indeed, they all encourage people to do good. So, which one is right? They cannot all be right, since each claims all others are wrong. Then how does the seeker of truth choose the right way?
Irshad4u Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:26:25 PM
The first thing that one should know and clearly understand about Islam, is what the word “Islam” itself means. The Arabic word “Islam” means the submission or surrender of one’s will to the only true God, known in Arabic as “Allah”. One who submits his will to God is termed in Arabic a “Muslim”. The religion of Islam is not named after a person or a people, nor was it decided by a later generation of man, as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ, Buddhism after Gautama Buddha, Confucianism after Confucius, Marxism after Karl Marx, Judaism after the tribe of Judah and Hinduism after the Hindus. Islam (submission to the will of God) is the religion which was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of God, and it was the religion of all the prophets sent by Allah to mankind. Further, its name was chosen by God Himself, and clearly mentioned in the final scripture which He revealed to man.

K.Venugopal Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:44:03 PM
Dear Irshad4u,I have the following queries:1. When Allah said, “This day I have perfected your religion for you” it implies that Allah had not perfected the religion of all the earlier prophets. Or does “for you” mean only the people of Mohammad’s generation? Particularly since Allah spoke the Arabic of Mohammad’s generation? 2. And when Allah said, “. . . and have chosen for you Islam as your religion”, isn’t that what he should have said to Adam rather than to Mohammad many thousands of years down the line?3. Do you have any clue as to what could be Allah’s problem in accepting a religion other than Islam? If He is going to be disturbed thereby, then, since billions of people have lived without accepting Islam, is Allah going to be one hell of a disturbed person?4. Why should there be “submission or surrender of one’s will to the only true God, known in Arabic as Allah”? What would Allah gain by it? What would we gain by it? Only something after death? Are we to have such desires that transcends life when spirituality is all about not having desires at all?

Irshad4u Monday, February 26, 2007 1:45:41 PM
. The Pastor may be knowing - It’s the Book of New testament…It’s the Book of Acts. The enemies of Christians, nick named the follower of Christ, as Christian. Its an abuse given to them… which is held on today. But the Holy Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 52, that… Jesus Christ was a Muslim. Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 67, he was not a Jew or a Christian but he was a Muslim. So what law Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) brought… the basic message, is the same… Believing one God, don’t do idol worship, same the superficiality. So that human race, when it reached a certain level, Allah (SWT)… God Almighty, thought it fit, that they can receive the final message. After this no other Messenger will come, no other law will come… and todays law, is the most practical law.
Irshad4u Monday, February 26, 2007 1:46:10 PM
The Pastor may be knowing - It’s the Book of New testament…It’s the Book of Acts. The enemies of Christians, nick named the follower of Christ, as Christian. Its an abuse given to them… which is held on today. But the Holy Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 52, that… Jesus Christ was a Muslim. Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 67, he was not a Jew or a Christian but he was a Muslim. So what law Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) brought… the basic message, is the same… Believing one God, don’t do idol worship, same the superficiality.
Irshad4u Monday, February 26, 2007 1:46:47 PM
in the Book of Acts. The Pastor may be knowing - It’s the Book of New testament…It’s the Book of Acts. The enemies of Christians, nick named the follower of Christ, as Christian. Its an abuse given to them… which is held on today. But the Holy Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 52, that… Jesus Christ was a Muslim.
Irshad4u Monday, February 26, 2007 1:56:22 PM
the Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 49, that… Isa Ale-Salam, was sent as a messenger to the Bani Israel… to the children of Israel. Jesus Christ (pbuh) says in the Gospel of Mathews, Ch. No. 10, V. No. 5 to 6, he tells his twelve disciples… Go ye, not in the way of gentiles. Who were the Gentiles? - the Non-Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christians. Jesus Christ (pbuh) said… Go ye not in to the way of gentiles… enter ye not in to the city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus Christ (pbuh) says, in the Gospel of Mathews Ch. No. 15, V. No. 24, I have not been sent, but to the lost sheep of Israel. That means… Jesus Christ (pbuh), came only for the Jews - not for the other humanity. Who says that? - Jesus Christ (pbuh) says that - its mentioned in the Bible.
Irshad4u Monday, February 26, 2007 2:01:10 PM
in the Book of Acts. The Pastor may be knowing - It’s the Book of New testament…It’s the Book of Acts. The enemies of Christians, nick named the follower of Christ, as Christian. Its an abuse given to them… which is held on today. But the Holy Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 52, that… Jesus Christ was a Muslim.
Irshad4u Monday, February 26, 2007 2:01:33 PM
Qur'an says in Surah Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, V. No. 67, he was not a Jew or a Christian but he was a Muslim. So what law Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) brought… the basic message, is the same… Believing one God, don’t do idol worship, same the superficiality. So that human race, when it reached a certain level, Allah (SWT)… God Almighty, thought it fit, that they can receive the final message. After this no other Messenger will come, no other law will come… and todays law, is the most practical law.
K.Venugopal Monday, February 26, 2007 10:57:41 PM
Dear Irshad4u, Don't you want to answer my questions? Instead you say Jesus Christ was a Muslim. I wonder what the Christians would have to say to that!

Irshad4u Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:33:26 PM
Try to read again again and Inshallaha you will find your answers and try to understand them. Inshallaha Allaha will guide you. Ameen
Irshad4u Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:04:23 PM
Dear Down the line All the prohets which came earlier to Mohammed(PBUH) were muslims and they have brought the same message as that of Mohammed(PBUH)but it is was for certain period of time but Mohammed (PBUH) has brought the message for whole world
Infidel Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:39:35 PM
Dear Venu,Don't expect any answer from any muslim. All the answers are in quran.LOLWhatever crap quran says is the only truth. It says "Earth is flat", "Jews were turned into Apes and Pigs", "Sperms come from between backbone and ribs" and many more miraclous facts. So close your mind and believe what quran says.LOLIf it says Christ was muslim, believe it. Don't use your brain. Don't question that how can same god give two totally opposite messages to two persons.Christ always preached LOVE AND PEACE, while MO preached and practiced HATE AND INTOLERANCE, still they are messengers of the same god, don't think that. Moreover, Christ was only for a time being and MO is for all the times, all the places and all people. Now, You should seriously consider a 6 years old child for marriage to be bonked at 9, then only allah will forgive you (as you followed MO, the perfect exemplar). Allah is most merciful and all knowing. LOL
Infidel Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:05:35 PM
Venu, If we read life and teaching of christ and MO, it becomes very clear that christ was god's messenger (a real prophet) and MO was a messenger of SATAN (a fake prophet, prophesized in hinduism as asur[devil] and as fake prophet in bible).You can find all the best human qualities in christ and all the worst devil characteristics in MO. Still christ was muslim and MO is the best among all prophets. What a joke.LOLVenu, Don't even try to open the closed mind set of muslims. They will be furious and may harm you.Beware. LOL.Our great muslim ajmal wrote that even earth and sun are muslim (see the level and impact of indoctrination) though he accepted that MO was a pedophile, but these ,uslims will always follow that pedo MO.
Infidel Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:08:04 PM
When I say, read life and teaching of christ, don't read quran for that. Quranic Christ and actual christ are totally different intities. Quran even says Mary is a part of trinity. No wonder, MO was illiterate. So forget about what quran says and get some good literature.
Irshad4u Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:22:08 PM
Mr. Infidel you love only to hate others and I think this what your religion says. May Allaha Guide you to the right path
Infidel Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:58:21 PM
Dear Irshad, It's islam who teaches to hate non believers, not any other major relgion. Show me1) a single verse in quran saying "love nonbelievers unconditionally"2)any other major religion saying to hate muslimsWhere as Islam preaches to hate christians, jews, pagan and all idolators. Can you deny this? NO, you cannot.What we infidels are trying to show you people is that you have been fooled for 1400 years by teaching of pedophile MO. We are not against muslims as human beings but we certainly are against 7th century barbaric cult "islam" which is a threat to the civilised world.You can see that many of your brothers on this blogsphere were enlightened by the truth and they saw the evil in islam. A pedophile cannot be a prophet of a true god, but certainly be of a satan. Don't you realise that? Do you get aroused by seeing a 6 years old girl? (I don't think so). If YES, you are a true follower of pedo MO. But if NO, why you are following a pedophile, who ruined ayesha's childhood just to satisfy his lust?Ask yourself Irshad, is your conscious is so dead that you can not accept the obvious truth? Wake up Irshad, it's never too late.
Irshad4u Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:40:14 PM
I have posted around 100 articles but in non of them I talk bad of other religions - but I have been seeing you all the guys, that your job is only to blame others I just won’t know when people like you will start to look around and learn Good. I Hope you will try to understand me. May Allaha guide you to the right Path.
Infidel Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:52:47 PM
Dear brother Irshad, I can see the change in your tone. So I'll also reciprocate in same manner. I request you to read calmly and understand what I mean, please.Irshad, I have not read all of your blogs yet, but I believe what you said. FIne. There are two reasons why we critisize Islam.1)There is a compulsion in Islam (DOn't bring some copy-paste saying NO compulsion verse-PLease read my article on that before you proceed). It actually forces to believe that 'ISlam is the only true religion', 'Allah is the only true god', 'quran is the final word of god' and 'MO is the final messenger'.None of these is true. And No other religion teaches hate and voilence to the extent islam does. All other religions reformed to meet changes, but islam stuck in 7th century barbarism.2)There is a serious threat to the civilised world from Islam and its practising muslims.It's duty of a true muslim to convert or kill or subjugate & tax nonmsulims in order to make islam the only religion on the earth.Which makes us critisize islam and make people (both muslims and nonmuslims)aware about danger of islam.There are serious problems in all religions but they are within themselves and are not threat to the civilised world but islam is actually a cult not religion hence is a serious threat.Trust me, I want to help you find the truth about true god and humanity. you people have been deceived for 1400 years and now it's time to wake up and learn the truth. Irshad, see how your brothers here and elsewhere are seeing the truth that islam is false and denouncing it. Please give it a try.
Infidel Thursday, March 1, 2007 7:02:48 PM
Irshad, why we infidels are so confident that quran is word of Mo? Because we saw many errors in it. True god can not make a single error.During my debate and in my blogs and comments here, I have proved time and again those errors, but no muslim brother could answer even a single question asked by me. Why?Because, if they say the truth then it will be proven that quran is from MO, so they decided to keep silent and evade the questions.Take your example, I asked you many things, but you never answered any. Most you did is a copy-paste stuff, which also got rebuttal. The same thing happened to all muslim bloggers here, including muneer, ajmal, TT, Rumple etc. Nobody could give a to the point answer but copy-paste from "authentic (read crap)islamic site". See the post from TT about quran saying "electricity", "Aero plane technology" and "voyager to Moon". By believeing such absurd things, actually you people are showing that you have surrendered your brain and thinking power to your faith. Which is not right. God have given us brain to judge right & wrong and we should check by ourselves that whether we are fooled or not. A single error in quran proves that it is not from god but from MO. I have shown you people many errors in it.Then, what are you waiting for? Irshad, do you think that a 54 years grandpa bonking a child of 9 is noble? NO irshad, no way. It's not even good, rather it is the worst thing, how can it be noble and how can be such a person be prophet of true GOD?Mo actually ruined ayesha's childhood to fulfill his lust. Can't you see this simple thing? Wake up Irshad, read quran and sunnah one more time by yourself, not Dr Naik or mulla's version(while keeping my points in your mind), I am sure you will see many errors in it.May god help you in seeking the truth. Amen
Infidel Thursday, March 1, 2007 7:20:52 PM
Dear irshad,I am not against muslims as human beings but certianly against ideology of islam. There are good and bad people in all religions and all places.There are three types of muslims:1)Intelligent muslims: One who questioned islam, searched by themselves, saw the truth and left islam.2)Innocent muslims: who believe what is being told to them and never questioned. So actually they don't know the actual teachings of islam and hence belive that islam means peace and tolerance, quran is word of god etc. These people can go to category 1 or 3, depends upon input given to them. Most mulsims today falls in this category.3)Cunning muslims: those who knows that islam is evil and still use taqiyya to mislead people (category 2 muslims and nonluslims) to fulfill their wishes. Most of such bigots are very rich and powerfull in muslim society. They get money from Islamic organisations and preach hate & voilence. They are hypocrates and liars, like our politicians. Have you seen any mullah's son or brother going for suicide bombing, leave alone himself becoming "SHAHEED". NO. They look for other innocent muslims for spreading terror in the name of god. They are devils, not priests.Try to understand what i mean and then reply, if necessary.