Posted on 07/28/2006 10:51:00 AM PDT by sergey1973
State publishes list of groups it regards as terrorist organization, fails to include Hamas or Hizbullah. Official says movements do not represent threat to Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
On Islam and its Jihadist ideology, I would recomment the following books.
"Islamic Imperialism: A History", by Efraim Karsh
"Politically Incorrect guide to Islam [and the Crusades]", by Robert Spencer
"Islam Unveiled", by Robert Spencer
"The Legacy of Jihad", By Andrew Bostom.
Basically, Islam since its inception was an imperialist religion bent on the world domination. Muhammad in his farewell address proclaimed: "I was ordered to fight all men till they say there is no God but Allah".
Similar statements were issued by Saladin, Khomeini, etc.
Islamic Jihad long predates communism although communists and Islamists found common causes fighting against Western Civilization.
However, whenever Islamists come to power in a particular country, Communists are often among the first to be hanged, like after the Islamic revolution in Iran.
==I did criticized Russian govm't approach to Chechen conflict for needlessly brutalizing locals and I stand by those comments, but I have 0 sympathy to any Jihadists, including Chechen ones.
Let's not forget the apartment bombings Putin et al perpetrated against their own people and then blamed on the Chechens. Personally, I don't trust anything that goes on in Russia or Chechnya. I think the following from KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn is worth considering re: Chechnya. There are no doubt genuine terrorists in Chechnya. Problem is, the Putin cabal (and their cohorts) have to be listed among them. Notice that Golitsyn predicts that the events in Chechnya would presage a leadership change in Russia--GGG
MEMO TO CIA FROM KGB DEFECTOR, ANATOLY GOLITSYN, 1 FEBRUARY 1995 (Taken from his book, Perestroika Deception, Edward Harle Limited, 1998, ISBN 1-899798-03-X, pp 224-225).
Excerpt:
THE EVENTS IN CHECHNYA EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF RUSSIAN STRATEGY
The events in Chechnya, like the events of August 1991 and October 1993, have been deliberately staged largely for Western consumption by the Kremlin strategists in the pursuit of their objectives. One indication of this is the timing of the events. Chechnya declared its independence from Russian in 1991. Yet for three years the Russians did not react, other than ineffectually. Why did they do so only at the end of 1994?
Independence for Chechnya is a wholly artificial concept. Although my own sympathies are for the Chechens, their territory has no direct access to the outside world
The Chechens lost half their numbers in exile under Stalin. By 1994 50% of the population of Chechnya were ethnic Russians. Russians control the pipeline to Noverossiisk, giving them powerful leverage in the area. Given these circumstances the idea of a serious Chechen independence struggle is a non-starter.
Equally artificial is the Russian choice of method for dealing with Chechen aspirations. The Yeltsin Government inherited over 70 years worth of Soviet experience of dealing politically and militarily with nationalist opposition in the Republics. Yet it chose to wield an enormous military sledgehammer to crack a small nut in Chechnya, when the only rational way to handle the situation would have been the path of negotiation leading to a peaceful settlement as in the case of Tatarstan.
In earlier Memoranda I suggested that the confrontation between Yeltsin and his then Vice-President Rutskoi and the parliamentary Speaker Khasbulatova confrontation which culminated in the televised bombardment of the White House in Moscow [a new kind of Reichstag Fire: see page 163] was contrived by the strategists with Rutskoi and Khasbulatov playing the role of provocateurs. The release and amnesty granted to Rutskoi and Khasbulatov after a ludicrously truncated period of imprisonment was consistent with their having played such a provocative role.
Frequent press mentions during December 1994, in the Chechnyan context, of Khasbulatov, himself a Chechen, provided a possible pointer to provocation there: he could well have played a role behind the scenes as an advisor to the Chechen Fighters. Another pointer to the likelihood of provocation ins Dzhokhar Dudayevs own background. Like Shevardnadze in Georgia and Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Dudayev is a former Communist. He is also a former Soviet Air Force General.
The conduct of the Chechnyan operation raises a number of questions. For instance: why, given the vast military and secret police experience at their disposal, did the Russians choose to dispatch in to Chechnya in the first place, inexperienced young Soviet army draftees who put up a poor performance in front of Western television cameras? Why were the Russian special forces who, for example, captured General Pal Maleter during the Hungarian upheaval of 1956, too inept to capture any of the Chechen leaders? How did the Chechen Fighters come to be so well armed? Why did the army and Ministry of the Interior troops not take immediate action to surround the city of Grozny and cut off the one route which remained available for the movement of Chechen Fighters and supplies in and out of the city centre?
Why, with their huge preponderance of firepower, did it take the Russians so long to capture the Presidential Palace, the symbolic centre of Chechen resistance? Why, before the Palace fell, were its Chechen defenders, according to their own accounts, allowed to leave, taking their Russian prisoners with them, so that they were free to continue the struggle elsewhere? Why was the bombardment of buildings in the centre of Grozny conducted with what Chancellor Kohl described as senseless madness? And why, as the Chechen fighters took to the hills, was a local guerrilla leader willing to receive a Western journalist in his own home in a mountain village without disguise, providing his full name and a history of his family? [The New York Times, 20 January 1995].
I am skeptical about much of the Western press and television coverage of Chechnya. In the first place, coverage was restricted by various factors. For example, Western access to Russian troops engaged in the operation was severely limited according to John Dancey, the NBC News correspondent in Moscow, speaking on the Donahue-Pozner Program on 12 January 1995. The bombardment itself was a powerful disincentive to intrusive journalism, and reporters obviously cannot be blamed for their inability to provide a coherent account of the fighting which took place in the centre of Grozny.
The important general point is the Western press and TV representatives reported the events as Westerners observing what they took to be a real conflict in a free society. It is not their fault that they were not briefed concerning the possibilities of provocation along Communist lines. Hence they were not looking for evidence of mock confrontations, faked casualties of planted information. The prominent Western reporters themselves, though courageous, appeared young and lacking in experience as war correspondents.
Nevertheless, some revealing items surfaced in the coverage. For example, the New York Times reported on 15 January that some of the least serious of the Chechen fighters would parade before the cameras at the Minutka traffic circle. That report prompted questions as to how many serious Chechen fighters were actually involved in action against Russian troops. Another report insisted that the last Western reporters had left the area of the Presidential Palace, where the murderous fighting was concentrated and that Chechen fighters were no longer able to move easily to the south of the city in order to brief journalists about what was happening. It seems therefore that there were no Western eyewitnesses of the final battle for the Palace, and that much of the evidence on the fighting was derived from Chechen fighters, whose reliability the reporters were no position to assess.
Two Western reporters were killed during these events. Though these deaths were reported as accidental, the fact is that the Russians would have no compunction about eliminating Western journalists if they thought they might be liable to expose their provocation. It was no coincidence that 40 Russian rockets were targeted at, and hit, Minutka Circlewhich up to that moment had been favoured for meetings between journalists and fighters. Almost certainly, Russian officers who told journalists that they had arrived in Grozny without maps were briefed to tell this tall story. A Russian General who was shown on television going through photographs taken by reporters, said the pictures they had taken were useful because they helped him to assess what was going on in Grozny. In all likelihood, he was checking to make sure that the photographs taken by the reporters conveyed the images the Russian wanted conveyed for international public consumption.
The spectacular and continuous bombardment of buildings in the centre of Grozny, many of them probably empty, struck me as deliberately designed to monopolise television cameras, replicating in many ways the Reichstag Fire bombardment of the White House in Moscow in October 1993.
Inevitably, the detonation of so much high explosive was accompanied by casualties. But the actual number of casualties was probably limited by the departure of many inhabitants of the centre of Grozny before the bombardment started in earnest. As early as 7 January 1995, the Red Cross reported that 350,000 people had fled from the fighting, a figure equivalent to over 80% of the population of Grozny. It would be interesting to know to what extent the authorities encouraged or arranged the evacuation of central Grozny before the bombardment began.
Verification of casualty number is the most difficult problem. According to Dudayev, cited in The New York Times of 12 January, 18,000 Chechens had already died, a figure which the reporter said seems exaggerated. Casualty figures for the Russian army quoted in The New York Times of 17 January varied from 400 to 800 killed. Again there is no knowing whether these figures were exaggerated or minimized. The Russian authorities are reported to have delayed the admission of European observers interested in verifying numbers. Even if they were eventually to arrive on the scene, such observers would be unlikely to be able to check the numbers allegedly buried in mass graves. Total casualties will probably never be known with any certainty. From the Kremlin strategists point of view, casualties are inevitable during this kind of operation and a necessary price to pay of the attainment of defined strategic objectives.
I have no sympathy toward Putin regime, but the fact is that Chechen insurgents are ideological brothers of Al-Qaida, Hamas and others is certain. Basayev, before meeting Allah, was continuously referring to Allah and Jihad in his interviews. So ideologically they are brothers in the common struggle against infidels. Infidels are often stupid and use Jihadists in struggle with other Infidels, but in the end the Infidels are weakening themselves by doing so.
Well--I wouldn't wonder into conspiracy theory. The leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini called USSR and USA as great "Satanic Superpowers". The Soviet Embassy was besieged alongside American one in the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution .
Jihadist and Communist interests once in a while overlap, but fundamentally it's two quite different (albeit both totalitarian) ideologies.
==Jihadist and Communist interests once in a while overlap, but fundamentally it's two quite different (albeit both totalitarian) ideologies.
It was the Soviet Union and the Communist PLO that put Khomeini in power. If you recall, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with Iran's blessing. Here is a quote from "The Roots of Islamic Terror" posted above (I think it is debatable as to whether or not the Soviets were caught off guard by the Iranian Revolution, but everything else is spot on IMO):
Thought you guys might be interested in this thread--GGG
One last (and very important) point. Russia and Red China are using Iran for the exact same purposes as before the so-called "collapse" of Communism.
"Having found Islam on their own as adults, many fundamentalists are ignorant of their own history and traditions"
As far as Jihad is concerned, fundamentalists know their traditions perfectly well. Koran, Sunnah and other Islamic holy books are full of verses like "Slay infidels wherever you find them" and other proclamations of permanent war against Infidels until the world is under Islamic rule.
You won't find analogous proclamations in the Bible. Bible commands ancient Israelis to take the land of Canaan and drive its pagan inhabitants out, but Canaan is a limited geographic territory. There is no proclamations in the Old Testament (or Torah) to wage permanent war on infidels around the world in perpetuity.
Christians are commanded to seek converts around the world by peaceful means. Certainly Christian powers throughout centuries did converted their populations to Christianity at swordpoint and waged ruthless wars on each other. However, there was no justifications for that behavior in the Bible. Koran, in contrast, is full of justifications for murdering, enslaving or discriminating against Infidels.'
So in this case, the Islamic fundamentalists are right on target. They maybe ignorant of other traditions, but as far as Jihad is concerned, they are faithful followers of Muhammad.
I'd recommend the following articles on Islam and Jihad by Andrew Bostom.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23128
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22461
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22141
Thanks for the links. I will check them out--GGG
I think Daniel Pipes (as good scholar as he is) also misreads Islam.
Muhammad himself was a ruthless warrior bringing Islam to Arabian Penninsula by sword. He is responsible for the destructions of the Jewish Communities in Medina and other places. His successors, like Timur Tamerlane, Saladin, Sultan Mehmet, etc. are well known for their ruthless plunder and systematic destruction of infidels. If Al-Qaida, Hamas, etc. violate Koran on the rules of warfare, than the founder of Islam is violator too. It's a misconception that modern day Islamic terrorists hijacked Islam. They are in fact following the precepts of Koran, Sunna and Hadith, so Daniel Pipes is clearly wrong here.
The catch is who decides who is innocent and who is not. For Jihadists, all "infidels" (non-Muslim) are guilty till they convert to Islam, submit to Islamic rule to live as Dhimmi (to live as "protected" discriminated minority in Islamic country payment of special taxes on non-Muslims, prohibition to worship publicly your religion, etc.).
Again, too many Western Scholars did not study Islamic theology and history hard enough to see that Traditional Islam is the source of terrorism and they were duped by Islamic propaganda that Traditional Islam is "Religion of Peace", etc. Nothing can be further from the truth and 1400 year history of Islam shows plenty of examples of those.
Here is a good post on FR summarizing 1400 of Islamic Jihad. I posted the last section here. Islamic Terrorism Is it a New Threat?
The bottom-line is that Islamic terrorism that we see today is not a new phenomenon. It has occurred continuously since the 7th century institution of the Islamic faith. The only difference is that throughout the Islamic history, the onus of terrorizing the non-Muslims were undertaken by the Islamic states. The ferocity, destruction and violation have been of much greater scales in the Islamic rulers devastating attack of innocent infidel territories and out-posts, slaughtering both military and civilian population (mainly men) in tens of thousands, enslaving their children and women in great multitude and destroying their religious institutions and forcing them to conversion. The present scourge of terrorist atrocity is virtually negligible as compared to those unleashed by the Islamic rulers on the infidels throughout the Islamic history. Just because the tentacles of Islamic terrorism have reached the Western world it has become such a hype in the last few years post-9/11.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Secular ? Sorry but that's completely untrue. If you read the statement by Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, etc. they are full of references to the Allah, the paradise for suicide bombers who murder infidels, etc. It's hardly resembling anything that Communism offered (like paradise on earth rather than in after-life). And what exactly are the distinctions between yesterday's Jihadist Muslim rulers and today's Islamic terrorists other than weapons ? As far as non-Muslims are concerned, these distinctions are very superficial. The end goal of both is the same--bringing Islamic rule to the world through mass-murder, violence, intimidation, etc.
Here is from the Jihadwatch.org --Robert Spencer Site.
JIHAD IS A CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.
Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."
Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life. Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. By shedding as much light as possible on these matters, we hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.
Here is another good article on Islam by David Wood
Yes, there are many Muslims who are not engaged in Terror and live in peace with infidel neighbors. But the trouble is that they are doing so not because of the teachings of Islam, but by their own choice and hence in the eyes of Jihadists, they are simply bad Muslims.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm
The Two Faces of Islam . . . Still Smiling
My hungry toddler woke me up this morning. After making his breakfast, I turned on my computer and found that London had just been struck by terrorists. As I watched news clips for the next few hours, I noticed that, for many in the West, the terror attacks brought back painful memories of September 11th, 2001. For me it was a little different. My thoughts werent drawn to the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but to an attack on a local mosque that took place shortly thereafter.
Following the 9-11 attacks, a few enraged vandals smashed the windows of the Islamic Center near Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. When the pastor of a nearby church saw the students vandalizing the mosque, he called the police. Later in the day, police and school officials held a meeting to help ease some of the tension. After the meeting, an angry attendee caused a brief panic when he claimed that Islam is a religion of violence and bloodshed, and that the terrorists were only doing what they were commanded to do in the Quran. Several people (including myself) argued against him, confidently assuring the man that Islam is actually a religion of peace.
My beliefs about Islam have changed since then (mostly because Ive studied Islam). Nevertheless, I recently realized why I had been so quick to defend the Muslim religion. Over the years, Ive known several Muslims, and they have all been kind, peaceful individuals. Indeed, despite the popular portrait of Muslims burning flags and desecrating images of George Bush, the majority of Muslims are normal, faithful, peaceful people, going about their daily lives with no intention of blowing up buildings or of burning anyones flag. Many in the West deny this, but they typically do so because they have never so much as talked to a Muslim.
The benevolent nature of these Muslims has a profound psychological effect on Westerners. It causes us to say, "Wait a minute. Islam cant be bad, because Muslims are such nice people. Thus, the terrorists who blow up buildings and subways must be extremists." Once we have convinced ourselves of this, we may even find ourselves defending Islam, as I once did. We know that people are angry at terrorists, and we know that some of these angry people may want to take out their anger on Muslims. So we end up defending Islam in order to protect our Muslim friends. While protecting people is certainly a noble goal, defending Islam is an entirely different story.
If someone were to ask me, "David, do you believe that Islam is a religion of peace?" my answer would not be "Yes" or "No." Rather, my response would be, "First tell me what you mean when you say Islam, for it is a term that is used in different ways." If by "Islam" we mean the religion that is practiced by more than a billion people around the world, I could reasonably answer with a qualified "Yes," because it is a religion of peace for many people (though not for all). But if by "Islam" we mean the religion taught by Muhammad, I would have to respond with a resounding "No."
At this point my Muslim readers will be saying to themselves, "What does this infidel mean? There is only one Islam, perfectly preserved in the Holy Quran from the time it was given to Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel." However, much like the idea that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, the idea that Islam has only one face is completely false. There has always been a psychological crisis in Islam, and if I were to diagnose it as having a particular mental illness, I would probably argue that it suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. Islam has never been able to decide whether it wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed, unbelieving heads into a giant pyramid. Im sure many would disagree here, but they would be disagreeing with one of the most empirically verifiable facts in the universe. Think about it. One Muslim beheads an innocent woman to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while another group condemns the attack. One Muslim detonates a bomb on a bus filled with passengers, while another Muslim says on the evening news, "Islam is a religion of peace." Each side quotes the Quran to support its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them is following the example set by Muhammad.
The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its founder also suffered from this disorder. I dont mean this to be taken literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that went on in Muhammads head. When Muhammad first began receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.
Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding caravans to support the fledgling religion,[1] and, while Muhammads enemies multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who left the Islamic faith were exterminated. One woman was murdered in the dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad declared that "Two goats wont butt their heads about her."[2] Hundreds of Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and their wives and children were sold into slavery.[3] A blind man who was reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[4] When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for his family by asking, "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of them.[5] (For more on Muhammads violent acts, see "Murdered By Muhammad.")
There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here, but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammads idea of how Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for the woman who was stabbed to death in the midst of her five children? Was it a religion of peace for anyone who dared to speak out against Muhammad? No, it wasnt. When Muhammad finally had a band of dedicated followers who would obey his violent commands without question, Islam was not a religion of peace.
Notice that we have approached this question regarding the nature of Islam using a basic historical analysis. Discussions about Islam typically revolve around certain verses in the Quran, but such discussions are often fruitless. The reason for this is that the Quran is very inconsistent in its approach towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammads own inconsistency. In conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the Quran, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). A critic may reply with a very different passage:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29).
To this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not believe, but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus, according to many Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So whos right? The solution to the debate can be found in a historical examination of Islam. It is true that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows what the early Muslims considered a threat. Anything other than complete submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song lyrics, when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of death.[6]
Hence, the verses in the Quran that teach Muslims to live in peace should be examined within the historical context of Muhammads life, for it is this life that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This historical context also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which ultimately derive from the life of its founder.
For instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the relatively peaceful Muhammad fled Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as they are in America) the message is always "Let us live in peace with one another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then, once Islam has spread throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to "Anyone who stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!"
Oddly enough, this tactic has been remarkably successful for Islam. Despite more than a thousand years of bloodshed, many people are convinced that Muhammad was a gentle, humble man who never harmed anyone, and that Islam teaches its followers to be at peace with everyone who hasnt declared war on them. Then, when someone like Osama bin Laden organizes a group of Muslims in an attack against thousands of innocent people, everyone says that he must be insane, and people around the world rush to defend Islam.
The result is simply amazing. Muslims commit acts of terror in Russia, Spain, America, England, Israel, and countless other countries around the world, and it actually causes certain people to support Islam even more! Think about it. A Muslim blows up a bus, but people dont want other Muslims to be persecuted for it, so they start defending Islam. Legislators are among the most active in this regard. Laws threatening free speech about Islam are popping up everywhere (even in the United States and Great Britain[7]), declaring that statements against Islam will not be tolerated. Indeed, Australia is on the verge of sending pastors to prison for quoting passages of the Quran![8]
Todays terrorist attacks in London, strangely enough, will help Islam grow even stronger. There will be a brief period of outrage against Islam, but once the smoke has cleared (both literally and figuratively), the world will once again rush to defend Islam, and more bills will be passed, "protecting" Muslims from those who would speak out against Muhammads "religion of peace." No matter how violent Islam becomes, as long as people fail to recognize that its two faces are part of the same head (and that both faces are calmly smiling as new laws make Islam untouchable), Muhammads empire of faith will thrive in a world of false tolerance.
Perhaps Osama bin Laden isnt as crazy as everyone thinks, for his plan seems to be working perfectly. His attacks are strengthening Islams position in the world. In a curious way, bin Laden is more dedicated to true Islam than most Muslims are. If Muhammad told Muslims to fight in the name of God and demonstrated his meaning by killing men, women, and children for even minor resistance, what should a dedicated Muslim do? Should devout Muslims live in peace with the infidels around them, or should they follow Muhammads example by murdering the infidels in their beds?[9]
Im very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims arent peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because theyve chosen to do whats right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example set by another great religious leaderone who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!" when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.