Islam 'will never support terror or violence'

This is great news, now who do we look for when it comes to the responcibility for some 8,000 terrorist attacks over the last several years all over the planet?

Maybe this is a couple of places?

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4315

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm

Dubai: The Islamic Personality of the year 2005 said Islam has never and will never be a religion of terror or violence because it preserves the individual's human rights and dignity.
I am so relieved! Now we don't have to worry anymore..unless someone starts reading the qur'an and hadith.
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”
Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

"Islam will never support terror violence or terror"....when the cow jumps over them moon.

(p.s.--this man knows he can neither speak for Islam nor control the actions of other Muslims and the collective actions of Islamic societies across the globe. So it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference what he says on the issue. But the statement makes HIM look good, which I'm sure he knows).

I gotta be frank here, open my heart and admit that I broke down in tears when I read his pronouncement. Tears of relief and of self-shame.

Now that we know that everything's gonna be alright, can they please abridge the Holy Koran to not include this ayat which always skeert me so bad:

"We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve..."
-- Koran 3.151

I've got a lot of apologies to make. See ya later, I'm gonna go track down ia786 and KingTolerance and similar ilk and be a stand up guy and confess that it turns out I had these Moslems all wrong.

Holy jumpin jehhosephat !

Can one of these dudes be wrong ?

"Islam has never and will never be a religion of terror or violence because it preserves the individual's human rights and dignity."

Suuuure. As long as you're a man. Oh, and muslim too...

I guess the loophole vis a vis Jews and individual human rights and dignity are that as far as Al-Sudais and others like him are concerned, Jews, being sons of apes and pigs are automatically excluded.

I have to admit that this was one of the funniest posts I ever read in this site. Someone should send this to the White House.

Isn't this part of the scheme? As Westerners we sit in utter disbelief listening to these vermin deny this or deny that --

Sometimes even at this site, we take up with the deceivers and obfuscators, and vainly engage in arguments with these dissemblers, as if they will finally say 'Wow -- now that you point out all the glaring holes in my inane arguments -- YOU'RE RIGHT! -- it IS Islam which causes all of the horrors in every country where it rears its ugly head ... my bad! ..."

Has that happened once at this site? Has it ever happened ANYWHERE in the Muslim world?

Ain't gonna happen, Daniel Pipes... Ain't gonna happen "Condi..." Ain't gonna happen, Irshad Mangy... Ain't gonna happen, Stephen Schwartz...

So which side are you guys on? You're either with us or agin us...

footnote: (Stephen Schwartz -- he just fell out of the frying pan into the fire -- went from being a malevolent marxist to a malevolent dissembling "sufi" -- never was with us -- NEVER EVER... as for those others, I'm starting to have my doubts about 'em...)

In what version of reality do these people live? It is so surreal as to defy explanation -- beyond the usual psychiatric definitions.

One of them wrote me today, complaining of my take on Egypt's treatment of the Copts. Normally I ignore emails like that, but this one was so far out there that I posted it and fisked the darn thing...

These people are not here with us in the same century.

You Do It Too and Besides, You Can't Spell

(the title of the post partly refers to the commenter taking exception to my use of the word "Koran" rather than his preferred "Qu'ran."

The proper reply is "get a life" but of course I wasn't that nice. I suggested therapy instead.

This 'honor', presented in the 'moderate' Dubai, among apparently 'moderate' Muslims, who seem to be completely behind this man and what he stands for, which includes, 'building mosques throughout the world', is proof, once again, that Islam is generally a hateful, irrational cult-ideology.

Nobody cares about this man's horrific anti-Semitism, broadcasted before two million Muslims just a year ago. (And we all know what that means in the Jihad for 'Palestine', a part of the global Jihad for the rest of the world.) No, he is the 'personality of the year', let's call him, 'Mr. Qur'an'. And like the Qur'an he spouts racism, brutality, genocide (Infidel genocide, that is) one moment, and moderation, obdience, peace, compassion the next. And there are no contradictions here in the minds of those who honor him. Mr. Qur'an just speaks the truth, a genuine guy.

These kinds of ridiculous, and frightening, events always evoke for me Ali Sina's analysis of Islam as a cult whose followers suffer from the mental disease of being brainwashed by the Qur'an, Sunnah and the examples of a psychotic Prophet, the supreme moral example; hatred, violence, the denial of humanity, irrationality flow blindly from the disease and cannot be acknowledged. Fellow cult members piece it all together in irrational mental patchwork, organized around supposed divine doctrine and examples. Talk of compassion one moment, towards Muslims, of course, heads lopped off the next, Infidel heads, that is. And it all makes perfect sense to 'Mr. Qur'an', just as it should.

You go, girl! Well said, Dymphna... Your site rocks.

Does stoning count as violence.?.

from Seattle Times today..

"Afghan women's magazine editor Ali Mohaqiq Nasab was sentenced to two years in jail yesterday after he was convicted of blasphemy for publishing anti-Islamic articles, including one challenging a belief that Muslims who convert to other religions should be stoned to death."

I think we took these comments out of context...
You see, islam is only violent if you are a jew, who oppresses muslims...or, a christian who is a crusader who oppresses muslims...or, if you are a hindu who oppresses muslims and occupies muslim land...or, if you live in a country who happened to support wars which oppress muslims...or, if you are Sunni and I'm a shite, or if you are a shite, and I'm a Sunni; if you are a copt, forget about it, and if you are a kurd, well then Sunnis and Shites both want to behead you....
But other than that Islam is a totally peaceful religion!!!!
Well, unless you are a woman who feels entitled to her own clitoris. Or, you feel that honor killing isn't justified. Or, you believe in the separation of Mosque and state, or you want some degree of reformation in your religion.
Heres a game I play. Take the NY TImes (a LIBERAL daily) and count the episodes of peaceful Islam. I'm serious -- just pick it up every day for about a week and count, yes really count all the stories about Islam. And group these stories into 2 categories : One, stories that demonstrate a peaceful Islam and two, stories that make you want to deport muslims en masse.
Anyone wanna take bets???

To bad Islam is not monolithic

templar..same with the Seattle Times..
e.g. The riot at the coptic church was reported
but no mention of the attack on the nun..and the riot was caused by the DVD..(justified)

Actually it's more insidious than that, Otter -- when the MSM covers a story like this and says the violence was caused by the DVD -- you're left with no perpetrator whatsoever -- A DVD caused it all -- sure wasn't the local Imam calling this verminous crowd out during prayers!

otterfisher,
The Times also reported the coptic story, but it mentioned that the christians had made a movie about a young lad who had converted to Islam from christianity and became disillusioned (I guess thats the DVD you mention). Can you believe the nerve of those christians? To criticise Islam?!! Of course that provoked outrage of muslims.... The tone of the NY times was almost like
"what did those chrisitians expect? they are lucky they weren't beheaded." Honestly, the whole thing is mind-boggling, isn't it? As if these muslims aren't capable of any emotions other than outrage and anger and desperation.

o/t
Bush to Abu Mazen: The Palestinians Must Start Helping Themselves

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

October 21, 2005, 10:00 PM (GMT+02:00)

Smiles, yes; state, no


"The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did not get much chance to lay down his usual list of demands and gripes in his talks at the White House with US president George W. Bush Thursday, Oct. 20. Instead, in contrast to the jovial mood of their joint news conference, Bush crushed his visitor’s hopes of a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future. “Not during my term,” the president declared firmly, according to DEBKAfile’s Exclusive sources Washington.

Abu Mazen is described as coming out of the meeting pale and shaken, with nothing to show for his Washington trip. Most of their 45-minute conversation was one-sided. Bush scarcely let Abu Mazen get a word in edgeways, cutting him short several times."

Is G.W. waking?

more..
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=1100

Too bad Muslims spend more time and energy trying to convince non-Muslims that "Islam" is a "religion" of "peace" rather than go after those who quote unquote "hijack" the "religion" - not to mention pursuing "radicals" or "insurgents" like the rest of the world is doing.

It's all about deception isn't it?

'Adherents of militant Islam account for some 15-20 percent of the Muslim world, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on the subject. This means that more than 150 million people are part of the problem. To make matters worse, they hide among the moderates. They don't wear uniforms and rarely identify themselves.' http://www.meforum.org/article/168

JSLA & Templar see latest at DW..death threats on Coptic pope..

Well, the taqiyyah has been doing a stellar job in selling the infidels the RoP mantra, so why ditch it? Al-Sudais is all too predictable. But what's truly priceless about this story is that it demonstrates the extent, to which the taqiyyah is employed among Muslims of all levels, from an ordinary believer to the most revered of the sheikhs. Now, having, said that, why doesn't CBC make a documentary about this continuously recurring discrepancy between what Muslims tell us and what they really think. They've made a 'documentary' on HAMAS' 'resistance' against 'occupation', so why not finally show the viewers what's REALLY happening? Or is it 'not up to the standards of journalistic integrity', as al-Reuters put it?

I suppose it isn't. Any critique of Islam isn't.

-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org

"Is G.W. waking?"
-- posted by otterfisher

That would be too good to be true, otter.

Dubya was probably preoccupied with the upcoming indictments of his White House staff. With State and CIA acrawl with Arabists, how likely can it be that he's been made aware of Abbas' open treachery over the past month.

Ariel Sharon, SHAME on you!

Quoting Pipes: "Adherents of militant Islam ... to make matters worse, they hide among the moderates"

It's not just that they hide among the moderates; it's that the moderate population itself is diverse, ranging from types who are not moderate by modern Western standards and who passively countenance many of the goals of the militant Muslims, all the way to more mutely passive enablers of a cultural atmosphere in which more overtly extremist types can (with varying degrees of safety) network, plot, and run their terrible errands.

The so-called moderate Muslim population can also include large numbers of Muslims who actively, through peripherally, support the more overt extremists -- through providing safe haven in houses or apartments or hovels, to looking the other way when they know where the extremists are hanging out, to acting as couriers for messages, to acting as money launderers, to raising their children to become extremists, etc.

Finally, that so-called moderate Muslim population includes larges swathes of Muslims whose belief systems help, passively, to nourish a cultural atmosphere of sickness and extremism, even if many of them -- out of sheer cowardice or laziness (sort of like the Peter Ustinov character in Topkapi) -- are not inclined to be extremist themselves.

To all you here at Jihad-Watch.org... Greetings to you all.
I just wish to let all who listen know that I am not anti-muslim, nor am I pro-muslim. In signing up to this site, I wish to simply view the opinions of those who frequent it, and to investigate their way of thinking on the matter of Islam and Jihad.
Therefore, if I post a comment that some of you may not agree with, do not take offense to it, as it does not nessesarily reflect my own opinion of the matter in question, nor does it attack your own opinion. I am here as an observer, who occasionaly enjoys to debate about key issues in order to learn more of it, both in terms of fact and opinion.
As I am currently researching terrorism and its roots, I expect to visit this site often to see the perspctive of the argument present here. For other veiws, I shall venture elsewhere.

Pax Vobiscum.

It reminds me of the man who comes home early and finds his wife in bed with his best friend.

"Really honey, it's not what you think!"

Moreover, it's like the classic Ingrid Bergman movie Gaslight.

Welcome aboard, Just_Crusade? You will find that we all respect your right to not express an opinion, or that even if you do, its not your own opinion. We do not discriminate, just like Moslems do not discriminate whom they kill when they explode in public. I think its the madness we are opposed to...a sort of "infidelophobia".

Islam 'will never support terror or violence'...

as long as you do not attempt to thwart the faithful from carrying out Mohammeds instructions.

Is there a secret awards ceremony as well?

Surely Osama must have won something this year?

"The message of Islam and Muslims is modesty, fairness, security, stability, sympathy, harmony and kindness," said Dr Shaikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, the veteran Quran reader and imam of the Holy Mosque in Makkah.

"& if you don't accept that I'll cut your head off & enslave your women & children".

Muslims cannot reform, even if they wanted to...they believe totally in what Mohammad says that Allah said, so there is no way that they will reform to our way of thinking, the Quran says we must reform to their ways.. and if we don't, they will one day slaughter us until we submit,, no one can change that... that is like telling a bird to not fly... If it is in the Quran, then there is no way that things can be changed. The only way is to totally destroy Islam and I hope it never comes to that, but they intend to totally destroy us, so one day it will be that we will be forced to go to war, simply because our governmentsare to stupid to stop it before it gets that far... and because of the stupidity of our leaders, Islam might just win...
They complain that we are discriminating against them because we want to stop the Muslim women wearing the Burka, well they know the rules as we do if we go to their countries,, the burka could hide weapons. They treat us as though we are out right horrible, but it is their own who have caused us to fear and distrust them so why do they complain when we want to protect us and the good Muslims....and why dont they complain about what their own are doing to cause this discrimination. There is only one reason that they dont complain,, and that is that they agree with what is going on...

I just had to say a bit more sorry... the Muslims say that the jews are sons of apes, and pigs,,, well when they rape these sons of apes and pigs, what does it make the offspring from these rapes, and what does it make Muslim men who have sex with what they say are animals... Oh sorry I believe that they do anyway... they have wives, slave girls and concubines to relieve themselves with, to use like a toilet, and they are so uncontrolled that they have to use animals as well... shame that they cannot control themselves...they are so lacking in self control, that their poor women have to completely cover their faces so as they will not stir a man sexually...

My goodness who does this Dr Shaikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais think he is fooling,, either he has not read his own Quran, or he has been in seclusion for all of his life...
No that isn't it, he thinks we are all fools and he might be right the way our governments are placating Muslims.... There is great discrimination in the favour of muslims, no other religion gets this sort of attention...
How is he going to explain their hatred for anyone not Muslim especially the Jews...

Dr Shaikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, says "The message of Islam and Muslims is modesty, fairness, security, stability, sympathy, harmony and kindness," he then turns round to the person giving the award, "Are there any infidels around?" He nods yes, so he whispers "but only for those that accept the call of Islam!"

Dear Friend Just_Crusade?:

Islam does NOT permit standing on the sidelines as you seem to believe. We'd all LIKE to think it does; however history in the Middle East, much of Africa, Asia, and Europe clearly proves otherwise. We may not be interested in Islam--unfortunately Islam is interested in US.

There is a key passage in Islam's sacrosanct book --the Qur'an-- that reads as follows "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the infidels everywhere they are found, besiege them, capture them, set every strategem of war upon them, tax them if they convert." Now while some experts will claim that I am taking this out of context, this has no practical bearing upon the matter. Islam is doing what this passage commands--ruthlessly.

Islam has taken it upon itself to rid the world of all things non-Islamic ('kaffir' or infidel, etc)--and replace them with a pure, Islamicized planet. Violence is not only seen as legitimate in Islam, it is actually MANDATORY!! Most likely that which has been deemed non_islamic by the Islamic powers that be will include YOU somewhere down the line and plans are being drawn up in Malaysia, Chechnya, Iran, Egypt, or any of hundreds of Islamic hellholes across the planet, to get rid of wherever it is YOU are from. Jews are not and never have been their only target.

You think this is an exaggeration?

You think this is paranoid?

You think this a one-sided 'crusade'?

You think this is unfair to Muslims?

You don't think Islam is a crusade in and of itself?

Islam is the most violent and pervasive crusade the world has ever known. And encase you didn't know (and from your use of the term "crusade" it looks as though you believe the Crusades to have been instigated by the western world indicating your knowledge of Islam and its impact on the world is extremely limited) Islam has started wars in many areas of the world centuries ago that are STILL raging to this day...the Balkans, southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the horn of Africa to name but a few such places.

JIHADWATCH and its posters in my view consist mostly of DEFENDERS and not 'Crusaders'.

I STRONGLY recommend a book by Serge Trifkovic "THE SWORD OF THE PROPHET"--to my knowledge this book covers the roots of Islamic terrorism as well if not better than anything else in publication currently.

Dear Pythagoras (nice name, by the way),

First of all, the comment about my name; I am still drawing conclusions from my studies of the crusades, and am still unsure of who first intiated it, who was responsible for it, etc. Hence the question mark: by it I do not mean that I think they were unjust, simply because I am of neutral mind of it for now. Also, I assure you that I have studied the crusades extensively (the first crusade moreso than the others) and have a good idea about the attitudes of the Latins, Greeks and Muslims of the time. Also, I have no wish to label the posters of Jihad-Watch as "crusaders" - that term conjures many different interpretations, from both Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics (like me) among others.

Secondly, the comment about "standing on the sideline" - I am well aware that many Muslims look down upon this attitude,but I hold little concern for that. My only oposition is evil, in whatever form it may appear. If Muslims disrespect me, they may do so, but I will defend myself against any attack.

Lastly, your other comments about Islam as a whole - I do not nessesarily agree with them, but they have proven rather interesting to me. It occured to me to use the age-old "Qua-ran miss-interpreted" argument, but I can only suppose that I shall be shot down in flames for it. Nonetheless, do you know of any websites with more information regarding the topics you brought up?

Pax Tescum, Pythagoras.

As a distant relative of monkeys I take partikler offense at Muzlumz usin this kinda term, and meanin' it as some kinda insult.. What gives with them A-Rabs?

"I am still drawing conclusions from my studies of the crusades, and am still unsure of who first intiated it, who was responsible for it, etc."
-- posted by Just_Crusade?

Here's a hint: The Moslem Governor of North Africa sent a large cavalry of Arabs and Berbers across the Strait of Gibraltar in 711 AD. King Rodrigo sent an army to repel the Jihadist attack, and lost. By 714, the Jihadists had taken most of the Iberian peninsula by force (rapes, killings, plundering, forced conversion, the works).

Led by the religious leader Tariq ibn-Ziyad, the Moslems crossed over the Pyrenees into Aquitaine, where they were repelled the Duke Eudo, a Frank.

But, with a constant flow of crazed Moslems pouring into what is thow Spain to reinforce the Jihadist Army, Moslem religious leader Abd ar-Rahman led an army to invade and sack Bourdeaux.

From there they proceed to Poitiers (now called Tours), not far from what is now Paris. There, they were defeated by Charles Martel in 732 AD.

Edward Gibbon, the British historian who wrote "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," revered by many as the most eminent of all historians, observed that if weren't for Martel, we'd all be reading Arabic and going to Mosques.

But stupidly, Martel did not slaughter ibn-Ziyad's Moslem army, but instead let them cross back over the Pyrenees, whence they held Spain for eight centuries.

The Moslems rulers there forced conversion or Dhimmitude on its infidel subjects until a coalition of Christian kings finally forced the Moslems, and Islam, back over the Strait in 1492, a very auspitious year.

In other words, the Crusades were preceded by and in reaction to 400 years of contant attack and threat by zealots seeking to propagate the Religion of Peace.

The Crusades were also in reaction to the genocide of Christians throughout Byzantine and int the Holy Land in particular, the seizure of Jerusalem being the last straw.

**************

So then, how is even possible that you'd wonder whether the Crusades were just?

You didn't watch that somnoprop movie Kingdom of Heaven, did you?

Chaz MarteL 732;

I have not seen Kingdom of Heaven, and when I do, I know to not count on it for historical accuracy. I know how much Hollywood distorts history...

In response to the information you posted, I have heard of the Muslim invasion and its repulsion by Charles the Hammer 300 miles from Paris.
However, you mention that the seizure of Jerusalem was the "last straw"... I was of the opinion that the Muslims held Jerusalem for over four hundred years before the official proclamation of the first crusade by Urban II in November, 1095... hardly a fresh wound, I think.

Also, I question your veiw of the Muslim activities in the empire of Byzantium. From what I have read ("The First Crusade" by Thomas Asbridge is a reliable source) Muslim activity in modern-day Turkey was more minor irritation, less all-out war; the Pope's main motive was surely not the defense of the Greeks, as the relations between eastern and western Europe were somewhat soured.
Also, could you please explain the degree of co-operation that was present between the Christians, Muslims and Jews in Spain? And if there was a genocide of Christians in the Holy Land, why were pilgrims allowed safe passage up until the growth of the Seljuq turks in the mid tenth century?

But like I said earlier, I am not here to judge. I am here to learn all sides of the story.

Pax Tescum.

Just_Crusade?,

I personally do not claim expertise concerning the history of the crusades, but I do notice that your comment in response to Chaz MarteL 732 is somewhat misleading.

Pope Urban II did instigate the first crusade in response to a request by the Byzantine Emperor Alexis I Comnenus for assistance against the Turks. Muslim activity was not just minor irritation. Of course, that Pope's motives may have been more complicated than only assistance to a fellow Christian.

Further the issue of safe passage for Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land was significant, as you yourself point out, yet gloss over, in your comment.

How many books about the First Crusade have you read, beside the one you mention by Asbridge? My guess is none, but perhaps I am wrong.

The degree of "cooperation" existing in Spain was dhimmitude. Look it up. If you are truly interested in learning perspectives different from your own, The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam, by Bat Ye'or might be a good place to start.

del;

Thank you for the suggestion to research Dhimmi, it sounds somewhat intriuging.

Also, I do assure you that I have examined many sources concerning the crusade, the book by Asbridge is simply one of my favoured.

As for the Pope's motives, they were more complex than simple military aid, it's true - this is especially evident when one bears in mind the relations between the Christians of Eastern and Western Europe. It is oft suggested that aiding Basilus Alexius may even have been a guise for other motives, but it is more likely that the Urban II may even have been attempting to rally Europe's major powers under his banner of "Armed Pilgrimage" - a concept researched by one of his predessessors, Gregory the VII.

As for the issue of safe passage, I do believe them to be of high importance in terms of the relations of the time. Could you please explain to me how they have been 'glossed-over'?

Many thanks,

Pax Tescum, del.

I think Islam doesnot support terror or violence. i also think that if you understand this religion very well you will be sure that Islam never supports terror