"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -- Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR, quoted in this article in a statement he insists he did not say
No one needs to consider who heard what or when here, though it is good that the reporter, unintimidated, sticks by her guns.
One only needs a brain and a knowledge, just a bit, of Islam. Is there anything in that remark that would not be said by any Believer in the world who took his Islam seriously? Are not Muslims taught that Islam is superior to all other faiths, and that Islam must dominate, and Muslims rule? Are Muslims not taught that the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, is the only law that matters, and that the assorted laws of the assorted Infidel countries within which they have been allowed to settle need be obeyed only if they do not contradict the Shari'a, or Holy Law of Islam? And are not all too many Muslims taught to believe, by Qur'an and Sunnah, that they have a duty to participate, actively or passively, collectively or individually, in Jihad, the Jihad to spread Islam, to remove barriers of any kind to its spread and eventual dominance, and to work for the day when everywhere in the world, Islam dominates and Muslims rule? Is there a single thing in the quote from Ahmad that is not perfectly orthodox Islamic doctrine?
Maybe he didn’t say it, as he insists –- but his not saying it is more amazing than if he had said it. The only really amazing thing would be if he were not to deny having said it, given the new awareness and the growing understanding of Islam among the Infidels.
Would he think it? Why not? Would say it, to certain audiences? Why not? Would he, then, deny to Infidels that he had said it? Why not?
How could it be otherwise? How could any True Believer in Islam think that Islam could conceivably accept another faith as "equal" to it? How could any True Believer in Islam in this country conceivably not wish to make the Qur'an, the uncreated and immutable work of God, the highest authority in the land, instead of some text written by mere mortals -- that so-called Constitution that the local Infidels make such a fuss about? How could any True Believer in Islam think that the product of mere men, and what's more mere non-Muslim men, could conceivably ever be an authority superior to the Qur'an?
That would not make sense. That would not be right. So what would be so surprising about the possibility that these are indeed the views of Mr. Ahmad? What would be so surprising about the possibility that these are the views of Douglas Ibrahim Hooper, and of every single member of CAIR? What, in those stated views, is not central to Islam, not taught by Islam, not naturally a result of the tenets of Islam?
Why, nothing at all. It's standard Islam.
The question is this: why would Ahmad and CAIR continue to deny his making a statement that merely repeats orthodox Muslim beliefs? For remember: the reporter heard him and wrote about it at the time, and her story stood unrefuted at the time, and she stands by it today. Why does he, and CAIR, insist that he did not make such a statement? What do they find so dangerous about our realizing that there are traditional, orthodox, true-believing Muslims in the United States?
That is the question. It's a question for the government. For the FBI and the CIA. And for all of us, who do not think we should enlarge the presence or power of those who would undo the Constitution and replace it, if they could, with the Shari'a. We can compare the American Constitution, and the more than 200 years of the American republic's existence under that Constitution, with the Shari'a, and the 1350 years of Muslims (and non-Muslims too) under it. And in particular, we can compare the guarantees for individual rights that are to be found in the Constitution, and the limits put on the exercise of power, with the observable effects of the Shari'a in those places where, in recent times, it has been most closely adhered to -- as in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Pakistan. Take a look. Compare. Contrast. Would you like to invite into this country more people who certainly do believe what Mr. Ahmad insists he does not believe -- that they are not here to permanently endure our Constitution, our political and legal institutions, but will work in every way to ensure that eventually Islam dominates (for Islam is "not here to be the equal of any other religion") and Muslims rule, and the Holy Law of Islam prevails?
And working in every way toward this goal includes, of course, denying that one is in every way working toward that goal, or that such a goal even exists. That's okay. That sort of lying is religiously sanctioned, because it is being done to promote Islam.
Hold the damned phone!
A mOslem who can't recall someone.something from an event a year or so ago they were at...but they don't forget some event that happened (complete with obsessive mania) hundreds of years ago with somehow super-intricate detail, that they weren't even present at????????????????
LMAO...am I the only one with alarm bells going off all over the place?
Just an observation.
:-)
Nice article. Why is so much of effort spent by organizations like CAIR defending faith? Why not much effort is spent on aggressively pursuing people supposedly having hijacked peaceful religion?
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/misc/PakiComeHome.html
One word:
Taqiyyah
A couple of comments:
(1) There are any number of Muslims in this and other Western countries who don't have ANY desire WHATSOEVER to see that ugly green flag flying over the White House and don't want anything to do with shari'a law. If you pay attention to such things, shari'a law is NEVER voted in, because most Muslims don't want it. It is ALWAYS imposed by a small group of violent, horrific thugs who thrust always the WORST form of extreme shari'a on people who despise living it. As any good professor of Middle Eastern studies will tell you, shari'a as the SOLE law in any land outside Saudi Arabia, was unheard of until the 20th century. Typically there were AT LEAST four forms of law. And most of the time the shari'a implemented was Hanafi figh, the most liberal form. Since 1979 where shari'a law has been implemented by force -- in Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, etc. -- it's been Wahhabi Hanbali shari'a or it's been Taliban (same thing) or it's been Khomenist radical Twelver Shi'a shari'a -- some of the worst forms EVER ON THIS PLANET. And if you think it's so popular, why (to echo Hirsi Ali) are there so many Muslims fleeing to the West to get away from just this very thing. The evening of 9/11 I sat with my 90-year-old Egyptian friend, tired, ancient, beleaguered. He put his head in my lap and he sobbed like a child. This, he said, is what I came to America to get away from.
(2) Indonesia provides an example. Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world and it is the world's most populous Muslim country, with 245 million people who: Muslim 88%, Protestant 5%, Roman Catholic 3%, Hindu 2%, Buddhist 1%, other 1%. Notice that Muslims account for 218 million people. Indonesia's NON-Muslim population is just a little more tha 10% so they could EASILY declared Islam the state religion. Islamists ran in the 2003 elections trying to accomlish just this -- just as they had in the 1940s when Indonesia was writing her constitution. The Indonesians gave the Islamists a RESOUNDING defeat, upholding the Pancasila doctrine that acknowledges the "state religion of Indonesia" to be a synergy of the god-concepts of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism and Protestantism -- considering, as they do, that Catholicism and Protestantism are TWO DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. They refused to proclaim shari'a law. They had the chance. They have the chance over and over again, and they don't do it. So Fitzgerland is WHOLLY WRONG to assert that the majority of Muslims on this planet -- ANY he says -- wants shari'a law. Turkey has Islam as a state religion but outlaws Wahhabism and has just ILLEGALIZED gender-unjust hadith in what is only the beginning of what I expect they will do.
(3) In other similar cases, Malaysia in their 2003 elections did the same thing, routing Mahathir's anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist, Pro Qadawai party, and upholding the similar religious rights tenets of their mid-20th century constitution.
(4) The Bangladeshis are fighting tooth and nail to hold on against bombing attacks from radical Islamists and have appealed to Western governments, including the United States, for material and intelligence support in tracking them down.
(5) The Balkans Muslims have imported anti-Wahhabi teaching materials for their teenagers, to teach them to stay away from the money-flashing Saudi imams.
Are there problems. Oh, you bet. You hear about them on this website every day, and thank God that you do. This website is FANTASTIC for pointing what is going on, an invaluable resource that I check many times a day. But there is more going on than this, and it is NOT true that most Muslims want what Ahmadinejad is aching to give them.
Note also there is a *particular* problem with Wahhabi-dominated mosques in the United STates. There are two countries which have a Wahhabi-majority Islamic population: Saudi Arabia and the United States. Qatar, for instance, just broke with Wahhabism as its state religion, having already watered it down to the point it was weak tea anyhow.
NOW ...
Did this creep Ahmed say what we all think he said? Honey, I'm going with the reporter, because this guy is HAMAS TO THE 6^)(*^&)(* CORE!! HE IS HAMAS. HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN HAMAS. AND THE NUMBER OF CAIR CREEPS IN JAIL NOW ON TERRORISM *** CONVICTIONS *** IS UP OVER A DOZEN. And they are some of the worst.
I got my driver's license in 1962 in South Carolina. Since then I've lived in been in California, Australia, Florida, Washington, Boston, Egypt, England, Spain, Fiji, Tahiti, Mexico, Canada, New Zealand ... and a couple of dozen other places ... and I can still remember the number on the drivers license I got in 1962.
So, no, I don't believe Ahmad. Never. Ever. About anything. He's a bad guy.
AND SOMEBODY OUGHT TO PUT IT TO HIM: WELL, YOU CAN LIE AND DENY IT, BUT I WANT YOU TO TELL RIGHT NOW -- AND TELL THE TRUTH, CREEP, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SEND YOUR ANSWER TO NASRALLAH -- DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT, WANT THE UNITED STATES TO BE AN ISLAMIC COUNTY.
AND I DARE HIM TO SAY NO.
Because he has a lot more to fear from Nasrallah, saying something like that, than he's got to fear from a reporter.
Anything for publicity. First the Minneapolis Six, now this. CAIR needs to be shut down as hostile lobbying group, pure and simple. If that means Iblis Hooper and other American born traitors (oops, I meant "converts") need to go on welfare for lack of work I could live with that (since it's not likely they'd be jailed for treason-heaven forbid!). I don't like people sponging off the system but in their case I might make an exception. At least that way they'll shut the hell up at long last-and that might be worth the sponging.
For IslamforLosers:
CAIR needs to be required to register as the agent of a foreign power.
If I understand the translations of the Koran correctly. The bottom line is, Allah said it was perfectly alright to kill someone in his name?.
If that is so. Then doesnt our Constitution specifically outlaw that from ever being so? Irregardless of the Religious composition of the population.
If that is so. Then where is the ACLU? Should they not be coerced into filing suit to insure Muslim Religious doctrine doesn't enter the legal code, to the discrimination and harm of others?
If the ACLU can remove all forms of Christianity in the public square. Especially Christmas. Then How can they justify defending the Muslims who's goal is to impose their own will.
If my first question I posed is true. Then we are in desperate need of some good sound bite size statements. that many people are capable to use. Short sweat and Blunt.
The type of statement that is true by all angles debated and supported by scripture( if you go that far).
Simple comparisons say,with, Jesus.
I have in mind...
ALLAH, peace be upon us, Commands man to kill in HIS name.
Jesus said.......
I don't recall him ever being quoted on this.
Anyone else know?
If Jesus is considered has having something to offer the Koran. What seems to be the trouble with their understanding of what he said. Let alone following it(at least up to the "Believe in Me" part?)
Or is what Jesus said the "peaceful" part of Islam.
If the desire is to get the message out. you need to win the sound bite war.
The media needs to be put in the position to prove the points wrong. Not you defending that the points are right.
How do Muslims get around Jesus being a Jew anyway? Is that why they love the Jews so much?
Mr. Sinclair, interesting post. You make a compelling case that many Muslims are actually fighting against the more extreme Islamic elements. And that's a sign of hope given the global nature of our conflict with Islam. Would these more "moderate" Muslims help us, the Christian West, fight against those radical elements or will they, ultimately, side with Islam. I have traveled extensively through Bosnia, Turkey, the West Bank, and Egypt and met many Muslims I liked very much and who I felt were people who want what we have. But, I also feel that if these Muslims were forced to make a choice between siding with the Christian West or with Islamic extremists they would side with Islam. What do you think?
I was there and distinclty heard him say "Santa sucks and Christians are the offspring of goats and swine, with monkeys as surrogates." Then he went on to pee on the bible, spit on it, while holding up pictures of Saddam and saying we are about to execute the most peaceful person on earth. Then he insulted all our mothers, while dancing around and farting in our general direction. It's true- I swear, Capt. Jamil heussien can back me up on this. (I'm practicing to be a CBS/AP news correspondent)http://sacredscoop.com
Sinclar and Gordo:
One of the constant themes that Hugh presses in his articles is that Muslims should be allowed, by cutting off foreign aid and mass immigration to the west, to deal with their own problems. This is a position I find most compelling. I think you are both right; most Muslims want personal freedoms and a better life, and can be quite reasonable and charming. At the same time, their "circle the wagons" instinct will lead them to side with the devil they know, and Islamists' media manipulation, not to mention the actual terrible consequences of American and Israeli actions, necessary though they may be, serve to strengthen this instinct. The less we have to do with them, the better. The more dissatisfied people who are trapped in Dar ul Islam, the better. The more they have to stare their fractiousness and failure in the face. Islam is weak, its failure is manifest, and all it needs is a few good hard kicks, but delivered from the inside.
"Qatar, for instance, just broke with Wahhabism as its state religion, having already watered it down to the point it was weak tea anyhow."
Is this the same Qatar whose main official English-language paper published this past October this sermon filled with hatred and intolerance for non-Muslims? If that's "watered down", then I'd hate to see Islam straight. But it's not watered down: it's scrupulously referenced with the Qur'an.
Here's the text:
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=113897&version=1&template_id=47&parent_id=27
Quijybo
I would be happy to see Muslims contained to their own lands. But for that to happen two things need to occur. First, we need to become independent from their oil. Second, we need to stop allowing them to immigrate to the West. We can do the second quite easily, it only requires political will. The former requires a true commitment on each of our parts to transform our way of life. The technology is there, the will is not (I'm in the bio-fuels business). As long as we have the oil-boys in power (Bush, Baker, etc) it ain't going to happen because of their relationships with the so-called moderate Arab states like our great friends, the Saudis.
Okay kids, the Taliban Rules of Conduct are out!
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/12/12/story_12-12-2006_pg1_2
Note Rule #19:
Now I wonder what incidents prompted Taliban to issue that kind of edict?
remote control
i read the article you linked and its pretty typical stuff in Arab countries. I remember having breakfast in Cairo several months ago, being served by a courteous Egyptian in his galyybayah, when he handed me, at my request, the main English language Egyptian paper (he spoke English well). The lead editorial was a screed against Jews using all the hateful language (dirty, swine, etc etc). As the waiter came back I held the article up to him and asked him what he thought. All of a sudden he forgot how to speak English (I got the Arab shrug and smile and a fresh cuppa). Later on that day I was sitting around the pool and across the street from the hotel an Imam started preaching Jihad through the loudspeaker to a large and angry crowd. I actually like Egypt and will return, but I have no doubt where their loyalties lie. Its better that Muslims live in Muslim countries and not bring their hate into our world. As long as a westerner spends some money and maintains relations with Arabs while visiting he will be fine and have an interesting experience. I wouldn't, however, recommend that women travel alone as I do and one must always be vigilant.
The technology is there, the will is not (I'm in the bio-fuels business). As long as we have the oil-boys in power (Bush, Baker, etc) it ain't going to happen because of their relationships with the so-called moderate Arab states like our great friends, the Saudis.
Posted by: gordo
interesting.. Can you tell us which of the present crop of potential candidates for 2008 would best represent the interests of those who wish to achieve independence from oil?
I'd like your honest assessment and maybe with facts even better. Dhimmicrat or Repubelican. Doesn't matter. I'm not dogmatic. As this administration has proven, party affiliation is meaningless anyway. Patriotism has been sold down the river.
Who can give us a new start?
germaninamerica
I don't know yet if there is a political leader who will lead the transformation to our new economy. The one guy who has been out front has been Al Gore, but I can't stomach the guy to be honest with you, and his policies overall, in my view, would be ruinous for this country. My hope is that John McCain will take this issue on. If its framed as a national security issue rather than just an environmental issue (global warming) then maybe we have a chance. But the oil lobby is very powerful and has politicians on both sides of the aisle in its pocket. The Saudis will help by keeping oil prices under $80/barrel. The lie is that Americans will have to squeeze into mini-coopers. We have the technology to fuel our way of life and make that fuel here in our own country (and I don't mean from corn - which is just a subsidy to the farm lobby). It depends on who has the balls to step up and take on these powerful interests.
Off Topic.
Glenn Beck ( Who has just lost a Ton of respect from me ) has Declared that ISLAM is NOT Evil. It is a Peaceful Religion that has been HIJACKED. (Rolls Eyes)
He believes that it is not the Teachings of Islam but a Few 10 % ers who are actually EVIL and have Hijacked it. He obviously does not know anything about Muhammad or his Teachings.
And to think i believed he knew the Score.
Score another one for Chicken shit Political Correctness.
(applause )
p.s
Boy will he be proven wrong!
I'm glad to see some skepticism about this claim of Qatar 'westernizing'. Some months ago, I was chatting with a friend whose daughter and family live in Qatar. In Hindu families, when a child is born and a few months old, the first time it is fed solid food, there is a religious ceremony performed to mark the occasion (a ceremony analogous, although not similar to baptism). When her baby was ready for this, they had to perform it behind closed doors and in secret, lest the fact that they were practicing a non-Islamic faith be found out.
So much for the country that National Geographic created a big hoopla about, and a lot of the Right Wing media celebrated in the run-up to the Iraq war, for agreeing to be the new fwb for Centcom in the region, replacing KSA.
I think all this verbosity over a quote that may or may not have happened is silly. In the years since this even, what have Ahmad, Awad, and friends said publicly? Have they repudiated this belief? "We do not support an agenda to establish a Caliphate as the government in America; we consider any such ambition misguided and speak against it" or have they reinforced it? "We plan to take specific goal-oriented steps toward the establishment of a Caliphate in America, which by our current timeline should be accomplished in 10-20 years" (The quotes, by the way, are fictional, for discussion purposes.)
I think neither. These guys have spent years dancing around on podia avoiding like the dickens saying anything outright on this rather critical issue -- though they (and apparently Fitzgerald) will waste forests of virtual trees writing about what wasn't said, or what might have been said, or what might not have been said...
It's time to pin these guys down. Are they gunning for a Caliphate in America (Canada?) For the institution of Sharia Law? What is the ultimate goal -- what would they consider the ideal state of affairs in this regard?
If they claim not to be gunning for the Caliphate, how about a sound bite in which they soundly repudiate the idea? Let's get them off the fence, one way or another; I'll be happy.
These guys are always wanting to be on TV and making appearances with big personalities. We need a JihadWatchite at each event, asking these pointed questions and not being satisfied with anything short of direct, unambiguous assertions. There are a lot of questions I'd like to hear answered.
For example, why does CAIR not have a listing at give.org, the Better-Business Bureau affiliate that rates charities according to 20 financial accountability standards? Where do they file their annual auditor's reports? Do they support, or repudiate group X, where X = Hamas, Al Qaeda, PIJ, Hezbolly, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. etc. Please comment (for the cameras, on national TV) on such and such a statement made by this or that radical "Moderate" imam (I want their official take on Hilaly, for one). I've got a bunch more but probably it's better not to publish a list, it's better to let them answer unprepared, and either make something up or answer honestly.
Let's forget about the inuendo and third-party stories, and pin these guys down to undeniable statements of position. Or statements of fact that are easily verifiable.
Also, with the cooperation of some media dogs, maybe if we can get CAIR to say that Hamas is a terrorist organization we could help give them some free publicity. Yep, make a big international fuss about it... headlines like "MAJOR ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING AMERICAN MUSLIMS REPUDIATES AND CONDEMNS HAMAS AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION; CALLS FOR MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE TO WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT"...make a loud enough noise about it so that Hamas and their supporters around the world hear about it. I know it sounds like a dumb idea to give CAIR that kind of credibility, but I'm not so sure they really want to be spokespersons for this kind of message to overseas terrorists and the Islamic masses that support them...They'd rather make us think that's where they stand with their phony Fatwa. I'd rather ask them to put up or shut up.
I think it's an experiment worth trying...
I wonder how Osama would respond if blazing headlines condemning Al Qaeda by name, on behalf of the Umma across the continent of North America condemns the group in no uncertain terms? Can they take the heat? Can anyone say "murtad"?
Sorry, it's late here.
does not surprise me in the least that he would choose to lie about what he said after all cair seems to want to keep us in the dark about Islam's intentions until its too late, after all their prophet said it was okay to lie to the stratagem when Muslims are weaker than the infidels so that they can gain strength until they are strong enough to defeat infidels.
"The question is this: why would Ahmad and CAIR continue to deny his making a statement that merely repeats orthodox Muslim beliefs"?
Because "war is deception" as per Mohammad. This question literally begs the question in a dance of circular reasoning around the "war is deception" tune player.
There is no doubt-question that this belief-system, contrary to the hallucinatory "mosaic" peddlers, fundamentally differs from all other major belief-systems on the matter of deception-hypocrisy. For example, Jesus condemned all deception as coming from the "evil one". Mohammad recommended deception and was literally Jesus' wolf among sheep, a killer of Jews and the architect of an Arab machine of exploitation and murder from India to the Pyrenees. It is built on deception and produces that poisonous fruit.
All belief-systems are not equal. The very fact that this belief-system in any way condones deception makes it unique among belief-systems. I agree with Jesus that deception and hypocrisy are loathsome.
Hugh-
If you read the Gospels there is no doubt that Jesus rooted evil in deception. The sinful nature of mankind was not the main issue with Jesus. He clearly said that the author of deception-hypocrisy is the "evil one" and calls him the father of lies.
However, minus the deception-hypocrisy wolves among us, all that are left are sheep. Dumb sheep. God help us?
A final word re this. It is interesting, and not well known, that both Hitler and Himmler admired Islam and thought it was very compatible with Nazi ideology. Both Hitler and Himmler loathed Christianity and Hitler called the Christian belief-system "the Jewish Christ creed with its pity ethics". I think Hitler and Himmler had an insight on this matter. Even devils speak truth sometimes.
CAIR--why should we care?
Their slime is piled high and deep. Debbie Schlussel has tracked this group for quite a while--here is from her site archives:
Both Oliver “Buck” Revell and Steve Pomerantz, former FBI Directors of Counterterrorism, call CAIR, a HAMAS front-group. CAIR got its original seed money and executive director, Nihad Awad, from another group (Islamic Association for Palestine) that was started with $490,000 from the personal bank account of HAMAS political director Moussa Abu Marzook. CAIR now gets significant funding from Saudi Arabia.
CAIR Chief Awad, an avowed HAMAS supporter, compared Hezbollah—the terrorist group that murdered over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians--to Patrick Henry and the founding fathers. After the 9/11 attacks, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper refused to specifically denounce Bin Laden. CAIR designated the conviction of the “Blind Cleric,” Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as a hate-crime. Its spokesman, Hooper, and Board Chairman, Omar Ahmad, support transforming the United States into a Muslim theocratic state.
I’ve written a great deal about CAIR and it’s scary relationship with President Bush.
there is more there to digest if you check it out
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/columns/column101104.shtml
Also on CAIR see Daniel Pipes:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394
There is enough damning evidence to shut these traitors down--if anyone from our government "cairs" to check.
So the bottom line is--this cal for islam to dominate the USA is just a minor sin of CAIR in comparison to their larger pro-jihadi PR program.
Concerned Canadian
Yep Glenn Beck completely caved in last nite. It was sickening. Who got to him?????
Who got to him?
The network he's on is CNN (we affectionately call the commie news network)...that should be a no-brainer.
"let's do the math. Ten percent of one billion three hundred million is still 100 hundred million, 300 hundred thousand..."
Whatever percentage is posited to quantify this "tiny minority" -- whether it's 1%, 5%, 10%, whatever -- the assimilation of that quantified data has to factor in certain qualities also. The qualities pertain not only to the data itself, but also to the assumption underlying the quantification:
Qualities re the data:
1) this posited tiny minority is not pinpointably located in one area -- it is widely dispersed not only throughout the so-called "Muslim world" but also throughout much of the remaining world, including within the West
2) this posited tiny minority is also relatively indistinguishable -- physically as well as oftentimes, in ostensible terms, ideologically -- from surrounding populations of supposedly moderate harmless Muslims
3) the vast majority of the populations of supposedly moderate harmless Muslims that surround this tiny minority of extremist Muslims have not distanced themselves from that tiny minority with sufficient clarity and forthrightness, leaving us Infidels to wonder, reasonably, about where their true allegiances lie -- in fact, spokespersons from among the vast majority of the populations of supposedly moderate harmless Muslims either issue ambiguous statements of loophole-ridden "condemnations" or spend most of their time worrying about fictitious "backlashes" and "Islamophobia"
4) As Robert Spencer and a few other brave intelligent souls have pointed out, the ideology motivating that "tiny minority" stems directly and authoritatively from traditional mainstream Islamic holy texts as well as mainstream Islamic history & tradition -- making the supposedly non-extremist Muslims today apparently going against the grain of their own texts and traditon: are we Infidels supposed to swallow the strange factoid that the majority of Muslims today do not follow their own holy texts and tradition?
Qualities re the quantification:
1) the assumption of a particular percentage -- whether 1%, 5% or 10% or whatever -- is never actually documented with proof, it is just assumed, because it follows the PC Multiculturalist Template, by which it is simply assumed as a given that the vast majority of Muslims must be harmless nice people and Islam itself can never be blamed for extremism
2) the assumption of a particular percentage to account for that "tiny minority of extremists" is also predicated upon the PC given that Islamic extremism must be a peripheral phenomenon caused by political/economic factors (usually ultimately caused by the evil and/or corrupt West), and never connected with Islam itself.