Expert: Saudis have radicalized 80% of US mosques

I’m glad the Jerusalem Post is noting this, but it is a bit late. I have only been saying this publicly for about three and a half years, and it has only been six years since Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified the same thing before a State Department Open Forum.

Mainstream US Muslim organizations are heavily influenced by Saudi-funded extremists, according to Yehudit Barsky, an expert on terrorism at the American Jewish Committee.

Worse still, Barsky told The Jerusalem Post last week, these “extremist organizations continue to claim the mantle of leadership” over American Islam.

The power of the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam in the United States was created with generous Saudi financing of American Muslim communities over the past few decades. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence,” Barsky said.

Before the 1970s, she explained, “Muslim immigrants who came to the United States would build a store-front mosque somewhere. Then, since the 1970s, the Saudis have been approaching these mosques and telling them it wasn’t proper for the glory of Islam to build such small mosques.”

For many Muslims, it seemed the Saudis were offering a free mosque. However, Barsky believes for each mosque they invested in, the Saudis sent along their own imam (teacher-cleric).

“These [immigrants] were not interested in this [Wahhabi] ideology, and suddenly they have a Saudi imam coming in and telling them they’re not praying properly and not practicing Shari’a [Islamic law] properly.” This Saudi strategy was being carried out “all over the world, from America to Bangladesh,” with the Saudis investing $70-80 billion in the endeavor over three decades.

Al-Arian jury reaches verdicts on two defendants, deadlocked on others
D.C. Watson: Islam: The Religion of...
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    If a mosque preaches sedition ( these 80% do)

    the imams must be penalized and at least deported

    the mosque bulldozed.

    Wake up America. The military cant do everything.

  2. says

    “this is all about oil, the iraq war is about oil, why else would you sleep with your enemy?…”
    — from a posting above

    Stupidity is an even more powerful force than Cupidity.

  3. says

    With all those petrodollars flowing left and right, one wonders how much the West these Wahabbists actually own. “The guy with all the gold makes the rules.” Could it be that one day we will wake up to face the fact that we have become dispossesed because of the stupidity and cupidity of our elite?

  4. says

    It is time that the U.S. and the world community get much tougher with Saudi Arabia. The most repressive form of Islam in the world is found in Saudi Arabia. It’s name is Whabbism. This rotten form of Islam controls virtually every aspect of life in Saudi Arabia.

    The least tolerant socity towards non-Muslims is found in Saudi Arabia. The majority of terrorists during 9-11 were SAUDIS.

    Christians and Jews aren’t welcome in Saudi Arabia. The cult of Islam has its epicenter in Saudi Arabia. There is no tolerance for other religions. None. Sadly, the Saudis have lots of money to spread the plague of Whabbism around the globe.

    It is time to be tough with the Saudis. If the Saudis are not held accountable for their repressive ways, the spread of Whabbism will proliferate throughout the world. No more sleeping with the dysfuntional bedfellow that is Saudi Arabia.

  5. says

    My own guess is that the current administration’s position on Arabia is having to decide between bad and worse, not right or wrong. I believe their position is that this “middle-road” approach to enemy Arabia is in the short-term US interest, since any other approach to the enemy Arabia would end up empowering those who seek to depose Saud, and put Osama Bin Laden in his place with Arabia as a true and open Islamist enemy without any pretending in control of a large portion of the world’s oil supplies.

    What is the difference between Arabia being an open enemy and being a nation who is secretly against you? Perhaps it is nothing more than buying time. However, the concept of Bin Laden controlling Arabia’s oil wealth, army, weapons for global attacks must disconcert some in the administration. In relative terms for all of the danger the enemy Arabia currently presents, it does not have an Arabian leader Bin Laden with Arabian Wahhabists flying jets with missiles bombing cities today, which perhaps he would if Saud was deposed, as I suspect the administration fears.

    I think to assume that the administration is utterly ignorant of the enemy Arabia’s threat really underestimates their staff, whether you like the administration or not. The question of how to deal with it is another matter altogether, especially with the globally linked economy.

    I am guessing that the administration’s approach to try to “democratize” Shiite countries, like the predominantly secularized Shiite Iraq is an attempt to build a counterweight to the growth of Islamist extremism among Sunnis. Thus far, what has happened is a number of Sunni extremist and other Islamist terrorists have been killing Shiites throughout Iraq. Certainly, it has to some degree, turned some Shiites against Islamist Extremist terrorist tactics. Whether it will be enough is a different question.

    However, despite what type of mess Iraq is, one can only imagine the radicalization of global Muslims if US had invaded Arabia instead with gunfights in Mecca and Medina. My guess is that the current administration has been looking to delay this, and is hoping to build more stability in other parts of Middle East, for the day when the House of Saud inevitably falls.

    Of course, if all these suppositions were the case, then you would expect there would be a “Manhattan Project” on energy indepedence as well, as opposed to half-hearted support behind hybrids, and long term studies on hydrogen. But I don’t have all the facts either. It could be that getting energy independence too quickly (although most of us would want this yesterday) could then have a domino effect in other global economic issues beyond oil.

    Finding the right approach to taking the battle to Jihadists is indeed a tricky, difficult, and complex issue. Again, most of us like to think of doing things based on “right” and “wrong”. Reality rarely provides such easy options in global issues, and unfortunately, the toughest decisions are often between “bad” and “worse”.

    I pray that our government can find the wisdom to determine the best things to do to fight Jihad, since I don’t know anyone can truly be sure of what is only the “right” thing to do.

  6. says

    Eighty percent sounds about right to me. That’s about the percentage of our campuses that have been radicalized by the Moonbat Left.

    They work hand in hand, for now, but only till the Islamists take over…

  7. says

    Lord Lucan – “find alternative fuel”

    I doubt that’s as easy to do as it is to say.. how many sources of power have been discovered lately?

    “drill in anwar, off the coast of florida”

    Our demand for oil surpassed our production 30 years ago.. anwar and the like will only produce a small percentage to what we need..

    “bio fuel up our vehicles”

    Not that easy, either.. ethanol is a net energy loser, and everyone would need to buy a new car..

    But as to your overall ‘point’, I fail to see how us finding an alternative to oil, is going to change what Mohammed said, and Islam demands.

  8. says

    What I find interesting is the ease of acceptance, within the Islamic community, of the authority of Saudi-funded mosques.

    Let’s do a thought experiment.

    If the Queen of England went on a spending spree and built cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland so that 80% of all churches and cathedrals were Anglican, how many Irish would attend?

    Or consider the reverse. If the Pope built churches in Alabama so that 80% of all churches were Catholic, would the pews be filled?

    But wait! Those Wahhabi extremists are heretics, fanatics, and hijackers – all shunned by the average Muslim …

  9. says

    funny how the republicans are all involved in running oil corporations…

    And Michael Moore is one of their beneficiaries.

    My wife and I wouldn’t mind an electric car… except the truly Good ones are worth in excess of 250,000 dollars (for the Batteries!). When fuel cells can be bought over the counter, we’ll be in good shape.

  10. says

    Mass transit needs to be subsidized. It does not have to “pay for itself.” This is an idiotic idea. The retirement of Mr. Gunn, who headed Amtrak, a retirement that was not exactly voluntarily, is one indication of the stupidity of the Administration’s transportation policy. Railroads should be brought back, encouraged, paid for without hesitation. The real cost of automobiles and highways is much higher — given that the transaction is not merely an economic one, but a geopolitical one, that supplies the wherewithal for the Saudis to pay for the Jihad — not the Jihad of combat or qital, but the Jihad of Da’wa and demographic conquest, by paying for all of those mosqes and madrasas all over the world that help to encourage Muslims within Dar al-Islam, and to further encourage them to realize their duties as Muslims — duties which spell permanent trouble and huge expense for the Infidels.

    The Administration seems not to have grasped that the Alaskan oil is only a blip, that an entire way of life — including what many people have been taught to derive their “happiness” or their “pursuit of happinees” from — needs to be modified. And the Free Market, so-called, is not the final authority on anything. If the Free Market needs to be disrupted by a large tax on gasoline, disrupt it. If the Free Market needs to be disrupted by state subsidies to all manner of public transportation, disrupt it. A fanatical insistence upon “not tampering” with the Free Market, even though the tax code itself, not to mention government spending, interferes with that famous “Free Market” every single day, in ten thousand ways.

    So if it interferes, and it does, and for decades has built up a world made safe for OPEC, undo that — go into reverse, do everything possible to tamper with the market, so as to make the world unsafe for OPEC, so that its revenues may diminish. If this means spending a few hundred billion dollars on solar, wind, and nuclear energy, fine. That’s a better use than continuing to feed it to the expensive tarbaby of Iraq.

  11. says

    In an otherwise cogent post, jeffreyimm above makes the same error that all apologists for this Administration make when trying to understand (explain/rationalize/excuse) GWB’s approach to the Saudis. A false choice is always presented between, on the one hand, going to war against the House of Saud with its attendant economic and strategic risks and, on the other hand, maintaining the status quo. But the status quo consists of absolutely absurd political and economic benefits bestowed to the Saudis which only serve to reward and strengthen them as the primary patrons and financiers of Da’wa and Jihad. Robert has documented many of these patently ridiculous concessions which include:

    Facilitating Saudi entry into the WTO, even as they maintain a boycott against Israel (in violation of WTO rules);

    Approving over 10,000 visas for Saudi students to attend school in the US (some of the 9/11 hijackers were here on student visas);

    Suspending Congressionally-mandated sanctions against SA for their perennial human rights offenses;

    Providing US financial assistance to SA for their efforts in fighting Islamic terror(!);

    Accommodating and propitiating to CAIR (the chief propaganda arm of Wahhabi Islam in America);

    Failing utterly to curb the introduction and dissemination of Saudi-funded hate materials in the mosques noted in this thread.

    While one may argue that the Bush WH is appropriately circumspect about going to war in Saudi Arabia lest bin Laden and his cronies take power or threaten the oil fields, there is absolutely no rational argument for enriching and emboldening the Saudis further and thus, perpetuating the global Jihad.

  12. says

    “and you tell me that the iraq war isnt about oil!!!”

    No, I didn’t.

    I told you that your alternatives to oil are not going to change what Islam says.

    I told you that your alternatives to oil are not effecient enough to replace oil.

    as for biodiesels, that’s just simple math..

    http://www.energybulletin.net/3288.html

    Road transport in the UK consumes 37.6m tonnes of petroleum products a year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country is rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of rapeseed produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport fuel.

    To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the UK. Even the EU’s more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland.

    The only viable plan is to use less.

  13. says

    Shameless anti-oil plug:
    Since work is three miles away for me, I drive one of these on most days:
    http://www.ebladez.com/ptv/products/xtr_comp2.cfm

    It’s sidewalk surfing and it beats the cost of a segway anyday. Hot swappable batteries so one pack is always charged either at home or at the office fully charged.

    It’s getting pretty cold where I am (which increases motor torque) so I also wear thicker gear.

    Earphone for my cell to talk to family on the way to work or open ear headphones for the Ipod and the ride to work is a blast!

    I’ve spent a whole $15.70 on gasoline in the past two months from a non-saudi origin gas station. Can’t build a mosque with my level of business. Go hybrid, go electric and support efforts for fuel cell technology and tell Islamic Oil Inc. not to let door hit them in the ass on their way out.

  14. says

    Boys and girls (boys & girls):

    There is no ‘rotten’ form of islam. There is only ‘islam’ – and it is rotten at the core.

    Any attempt to distinguish between the varieties of islam, good or bad muslims, plays into enemy hands. If we had attempted to distinguish between good or bad Japanese, or Germans, in WWII – we would have lost the war. (or, we would still be fighting)

    We need to outlaw islam as incompatible with our form of government, deport any resident muslims (revoking citizenship where required), and bulldoze those disgusting mosques. Well, all the mosques are ugly – so, just bulldoze them all.

  15. says

    Its not just mosques. The muslim students associations, at colleges and universities across the USA and abroad, are also part of the saudi web:

    http://www.meforum.org/article/603

    Or read the MSA national website. Their
    about/history page states: “Did you know that MSA National was the precursor of ISNA [islamic society of North America], ICNA, MAYA, IMA, AMSS, AMSE, MYNA, Islamic
    Book Service, and the North American Islamic Trust?”, many of which organizations are saudi-wahhabi propaganda fronts.

    Does anyone know of any non-MSA affiliated college muslim organizations?

  16. says

    Ha, this has stirred up lively debate I see.
    No one denies U.S & the West are shameless Oil Whores. IRAQ WAS THE WRONG DAMN COUNTRY TO INVADE! Saudi Arabia with its fat princes and lazy population – French troops, Infidels, had to reclaim Mecca for ’em – oh yes they have the latest hardware bought from U.S WHICH THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO OPERATE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PUSH OVER.
    Once U.S troops controlled Mecca & Medina they would have controlled rest of ignorant,bigoted population – oh yes Jihadis would have come which
    would have been a wonderful opportunity to knock them off at the source of world funded Terrorism.
    The staggeringly wealth of Al Saudi Royals not to mention control of oil flow would have paid for cost of war many times over.
    ACCORDING TO KORAN ‘MIGHT IS RIGHT’ THIS IS WHAT
    MOHAMMED DID AND WHO ARE WE TO ARGUE ABOUT ‘ISLAM’S MOST PERFECT MAN'[TERRORIST]??

  17. says

    jeffreyimm said “…put Osama Bin Laden in his place with Arabia as a true and open Islamist enemy without any pretending in control of a large portion of the world’s oil supplies.”

    You seem to have the perception that this would be a major change from the current situation. Saudi clerics are currently spreading the most virulent forms of Wahabbism throughout the world. Saudi power reaches into the top echelon of the current U.S. government. The Saudi royal family was a very large contributor to the jihadist cause before 9/11, and if the reports are true, they continue to this day. The Saudi man-on-the-street also financially supports the jihadists. Saudis travel to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and kill. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

    But to be fair, you said “…without any pretending…”. We do have the pretending, we should clasp it tightly to our bosom and cherish it.

  18. says

    Iraq was not necessarily the “wrong country to invade.” It was not irrational to think that Saddam Hussein had certain kinds of weapons,and that his regime, or elements within it, or groups believed to be engaged in violent Jihad, might use such weaponry. He had given every sign of attacking every real or perceived enemy both among his immeidate neighbors, and within Iraq itself. The main problem has been the rest of it — the campaign, born of ignorance and wilful innocence, to believe that once Saddam Hussein, the monster-glue that held Iraq together, had been removed, that Iraq could become a “new and improved Iraq” through large injections of American money and good-will, and that the “Iraqis” would, out of the collective enormous relief that all would show at the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the enormous collective gratitude that would be felt toward the American saviors and rebuilders, put their shoulders to the wheel and their hands to the plough and their minds to the task (fill up the page with similiar prefabricated phrases, please), and bring Democracy to Iraq, and Democracy would bring a Stable Nation-State, and that Stable Nation-State in turn would become America’s best friend and a model for other Mulsim states in the area trying, side-by-side with their American friends, to throw off despotism and replace it with a benevolent minority-solicitous democracy which, far from being an unnatural outcome, was perfectly plausible — for had not Bernard Lewis himself, the main authority on which Cheney and acolytes of Lewis in the Pentagon relied, assured us that “democracy” and “Islam,” far from being incompatible, in fact go way back, and can hardly stand to be out of each other’s presence?

    The invasion does not require an apology. It is sticking around beyond the fall of 2003 that takes some explaining to do — and with each day that passes, each day of further misallocation of resources and waste, that becomes more intolerable, less justifiable, less worthy of being forgiven.

  19. says

    Hugh stop beating a dead horse. our way life, democracy and capitalism lives on oil. left the envrinomental wackos walk! if you let oil companies drill off the coast, Anwar, find other ways for energy…we would less dependant of mid east oil.
    btw hybred cars are not that great at gas mileage according to government studies, consumer guide, etc.we can still use oil, and stop being so damm pc,and boot out the arabs!

  20. says

    ‘for had not Bernard Lewis himself…assured us that “democracy” and “Islam,” far from being incompatible, in fact go way back, and can hardly stand to be out of each other’s presence?’

    Oh no, not another Middle-East Expert ™. I’ll bet he has done decades of research, pouring over dusty historical tomes, analysing passages from the Qur’an, etc. Or, at least contributed heavily to certain political action committees.

  21. says

    Dear Hugh
    Have great respect for your Posts but your defense of ‘invasion of Iraq’ seems lukewarm.
    You will realise U.S is not only bogged down in Iraq it still may be required to fight Iran &
    Syria. Meanwhile its arch enemy [behind the smiles of Bander Bush & co] Saudia Arabia continues raking in the oil loot, funding huge mosques everywhere, propagating its vile Wahhabi
    message,funding terrorists & their families, with
    supply lines virtually intact. There is also strong probability of having to fight the Saudis
    at some stage as Global Jihad escalates.

  22. says

    Lulu said “Hugh stop beating a dead horse.”

    If the “Iraq is the Light Unto the Muslim Nations” horse is not dead, it surely is the lamest one in the corral.

  23. says

    The truth is most of our oil comes from South America. To say that the Iraq war is all about oil is to play into the hands of Saddam’s propoganda. Does anyone remember 19 U.N. resolutions? Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, his wars on Kuwait and Iran? What does a dictator have to do these days to inflame the left? Saddam was a renegade Stalinist who needed to be disposed of, period.

  24. says

    Biodiesel is a pet subject of mine , but I’m certainly no “eviromentalist wacko”. I was against the Kyoto treaty, am suspicious of global warming, and have no problem with drilling ANWR. However, having grown up in Southern Calif., I am no fan of smog; and hate the idea of sending one American dollar to the House of Saud. Besides, it’s just plain foolish to ignore possible diversification of an already stressed energy supply. The constant instability of the Middle East is actually the least of reasons to move away from oil. Even if the Western oil demand from Muslim nations was zero, they would still hate us for being the Second Israel, The Great Satan, Infidels or whatever.

  25. says

    Get your facts straight, Lord L. ‘Twas not we who armed him- which is why, when Soddam’s troops bravely turned their tail and fled, they were running away in POS Russian tanks. And only Michael Moore-ite kooks buy the line that we gave or sold him WMD. His own homegrown talent provided those.

    This war (the whole war, not just Iraq) has nothing to do with oil. Period. Except for the fact that petrodollars fund the terrorists. This war is about the Jihadi’s determination to (1) destroy Israel and (2) enslave the rest of us. That’s all there is to it.

    I can’t be too hard on the House of Saud. If they were to be replaced by a poular Saudi government- then God help us! Really they supply a buffer between us and their insanely radical subjects- and do on occasion provide us with bases, intel, and torturers.

  26. says

    Americans are too soft to fight Islam.

    Almost the entire left would vote to “respect” Islam by including a voluntary sharia law in the US system for purposes of “inclusion.”

    It’s called political correctness.

    That’s half the country.

    Half of the rest of the country – the deluded “right wing” that has been infected by the idea that “moderate” Islam exists would vote right along with them.

    Once the muslims figure out they don’t have to bomb and murder their way to power here and that there is an open door, watch out.

    Too many on the right chide those of us trying to warn everyone that Islam shouldn’t be hijacked by a few muslims. Fine. How do we keep a billion muslims from hijacking Islam from the 37 peaceful muslims? Hmm might only be 36 now.

    To believe in Islam a little is to believe it all. Islam cannot ever and will not ever “share” room with American secularism. But us American sheep will fall for the lies of the politically correct, will fall for the taqiyyah of CAIR, and fall for the media spin that blames the Islamic troubles on the “right wing” of America.

    At least us damned Americans will be able to brag on our tombstones that we were “tolerant.”

  27. says

    Nuclear Energy: France is 70% nuclear and we could have been too if it wasn’t for the objections of the Democrats and environmentalists.

    But keep in mind, oil is still ESSENTIAL as only 30% is for fuel. The rest is for the manufacturing process and it is a long list of product that are derive from such.

    Canada is our main source of oil then Venezuela and the Middle East is on the bottom of the list.

  28. says

    Lord Lucan > said arms supplied during the Iraq -Iran War.

    After that War France and Germany were the chief suppliers of arms to Saddam and intelligence intercepts prove that Russian technicians were still assisting Saddam in the current War in Iraq.

  29. says

    The above post reveals a reason or two why I cannot get enthusiastic about waging an intercivilizational war or carrying out mass expulsions–much as I agree that the Kingdom of Sa’udi Arabia is reprehensible, would like to see OBL executed, and think Islam a poor excuse for a religion. Sheikh Kabbani is only one of a number of Muslim clergy, scholars, and laity who have been kvetching about Sa’udi-financed radicalization. I also understand that Kabbani was an important collaborator with Steve Emerson in the latter’s investigations of Islamofascist terror; and as one who has offered a few olive branches to the Jews and others.

  30. says

    Lucan. Its a hoot to hear you spout.

    You’re a raving Mooriac! Do you daily break bread with Peanut Jimmie ?

    Thanks for the comic relief.

    About energy:
    After the oil – the future (and a darned promising one) is nuclear, and the West will likely lead (if we beat the Islamists).

    Bless you all for being fighters.

  31. says

    Lucan, I care not who gave Saddam anything..

    I don’t blame gun manufacturers when somebody gets shot, I don’t blame tobacco companies when someone gets cancer, I don’t blame bartenders when somebody drives drunk, and I don’t blame McDonalds when somebody gets fat..

    Saddam was responsible for his actions, not Rumsfeld.

  32. says

    Hugh, W is a politician like everybody else in DC. I don’t buy this messianic fervor that is ascribed to him for one moment. This is not to say he’s wrong, but he’s not a zealot. I think what you will see is a gradual drawing down of our troop strength after the election. 5-10 thousand per month(at first) with further increases as ’06 unwinds. We are in a perfect situation in a way. We tell our flunkie hired gun of the day . . . Alawi, or Chalabi or name-your-Western Educated silk-suited ‘Shia’ to say, “thank you America . . . you can step down now as we stand up. In return this brave ‘arab’ will get his wish of wish . . . a home in Virginia, a million in cash, and stat placement in the witness relocation program. At this point, he can’t say anything contrary(er. honest) as the ‘election’ is days away, but once the election occurs . . . we’ll then we did our ‘duty’-and then some-and Bush can honestly claim, this was never about the oil, but about his belief that all men are equal and yearn for freedom. It will be a nice sound bite. They’ll even have some Kurds invited to throw beads at the departing Americans . . . and this will be genuine(from the Kurds perspective at least). I can see no reason for staying in Iraq once the elections are over. Our boys deserve to come home. This will serve to unite our country again. Then, we can sit back and watch the whole situation unravel, protecting the Kurds and offering solace(and maybe greencards)to the remnents of the Christian community which will be caught in the middle.

  33. says

    Havoc: There is no ‘rotten’ form of islam. There is only ‘islam’ – and it is rotten at the core.

    Any attempt to distinguish between the varieties of islam, good or bad muslims, plays into enemy hands. If we had attempted to distinguish between good or bad Japanese, or Germans, in WWII – we would have lost the war. (or, we would still be fighting)

    I don’t disagree at all with what you wrote here. I was certainly not attempting to defend Islam when I wrote about Whabbism ” This rotten form of Islam controls virtually every aspect of life in Saudi Arabia.”

    I believe as you do that Islam itself is absolutely rotten to the core. I was just attempting to distinguish Whabbism from the other forms of Islam as being the absolute worst. My point here is that Whabbism is the most rotten fruit among a rotten religion.

  34. says

    The Saudi Wahhabis support all kind of mosque building, islamic schools, islam teachers, Coran printing and, you name it, anything that may spread islam.
    Think that out of every dollar in the coffers of the Saudis, a great proportion goes to fund the expansion of islam.
    Reducing the amount of gasoline consumed, will inevitably result in less money for them.
    One good way to start is to use cars that consume less gas:

    Stop driving SUVs.

  35. says

    The bright side is…, well there isn’t a bright side… But at least they’ve kept their mits off the remaining 20%, if these statistics are to be believed. So that means, of the 1.8 – 2.2 million Muslims residing in America, that we have less to fear than we otherwise might from about 360,000 – 500,000 of them. That’s a comfort! As for the remaining 1.5 million or so, well if we just keep repeating that “Islam is a religion of Peace” and that it’s only a tiny minority of perverters of the “faith”, well then it’s all gonna be just fine…