Separating Islam From Terrorism

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In, is now available.


Barack Obama has removed all mention of Islam from the National Security Strategy document, which during the Bush Administration said: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” Obama apparently agrees with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who said Monday: “Islam and terrorism cannot be mentioned together, because they are contradictory to each other.”

Erdogan, incidentally, also famously said this about “moderate Islam”: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” And that statement itself demonstrates one of the key fallacies of the Obama Administration’s stance that Islam has nothing to do with, uh, Islamic terrorism.

Now that the idea that Islam and terrorism have anything to do with one another has been relegated to the dustbin of history, it’s worth asking why anyone got this idea in the first place. Was it sheer bigotry? Racism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who once praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!…There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 15,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.

But a recent conference of Islamic scholars in Mardin, Turkey, has given apparent intellectual heft to the Obama/Erdogan contention. Discussing a fourteenth-century fatwa by the Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya, a favorite of contemporary Islamic jihadists, the scholars declared: “anyone who seeks support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his interpretation and has misapplied the revealed texts.”

That sounds great. It is unequivocal. But what it is unequivocal about is the use of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa to justify killing Muslims or non-Muslims. It unequivocally declares that illegitimate. It does not declare illegitimate the killing of Muslims or non-Muslims itself.

I am not saying that these scholars did not mean to condemn the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Islam. Maybe they did. But they did not do so by condemning the use of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa, for there are plenty of other Islamic sources that justify the killing of unbelievers.

The scholars issued what they called the “New Mardin Declaration,” saying: “Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa concerning Mardin can under no circumstances be appropriated and used as evidence for leveling the charge of kufr (unbelief) against fellow Muslims, waging revolt against rulers, deeming their lives and property freely accessible to Muslims, terrorizing those who enjoy safety and security, acting treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace.”

Here again, the focus is very narrow: the New Mardin Declaration seems to discuss only Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa, not the larger question of the Islamic justification for these things outside of that fatwa. But in any case, the part of the Declaration quoted above offers no comfort to unbelievers concerned about being targeted by jihadists. It is only concerned that Muslims do not declare other Muslims to be unbelievers — which is indeed a favorite practice of Salafis in general — and that they do not revolt against rulers (which is probably a slap to Al-Qaeda for waging jihad against the House of Saud, etc.).

It does also rule out “acting treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace,” but leaves unclear what exactly might constitute this treachery. This may forbid Muslims in West to commit violent jihad attacks against non-Muslims in their adoptive countries, but it remains unclear whether Muslims in Western countries would be “acting treacherously” by working in non-violent ways to impose elements of Sharia. Would CAIR’s efforts to smear and defame anti-jihadists, and intimidate Americans into being afraid to report suspicious activity by Muslims, constitute “acting treacherously”? Would efforts to secure special privileges for Muslims in workplaces, schools, and public places like airports constitute “acting treacherously”?

The New Declaration said that the distinction in Islamic theology between the dar al-harb, the house of war, and the dar al-Islam, house of Islam, as outmoded, “based on ijtihad (juristic reasoning) that was necessitated by the circumstances of the Muslim world, then and the nature of the international relations prevalent at that time.” The Declaration said that in the modern age, circumstances “had changed with international treaties and nation states.”

That’s reasonable, but it raises another question: if circumstances change again, might all this “reform” be out the window? Is the New Mardin Declaration a matter of an evolved understanding of core principles — i.e., a genuine reform — or is it simply a temporary expedient?

On jihad, the New Declaration stated: “Muslim scholars, throughout the ages, have always stressed and emphasized that the jihad that is considered the pinnacle of the religion of Islam, is not of one type, but of many, and actually fighting in the Path of God is only one type. The validation, authorization, and implementation of this particular type of Jihad is sanctioned by the Shariah to only those who lead the community (actual heads of states).

Great. There are many types of jihad. But there is no rejection of the supremacist character of jihad — i.e., its goal to impose Sharia upon non-Muslims polities. All this is saying is that there are many ways to do that. And that “this particular type of Jihad” — i.e., not all types — is the province of the state to sanction. Thus Osama bin Laden, who couches his jihad as defensive, which he must do since he recognizes that the office of caliph, the only person authorized in Sunni Islam to declare offensive jihad, is vacant, would find nothing in the New Mardin Declaration that would stop him. Defensive jihad in traditional Islamic theology does not need the sanction of the state, but becomes the obligation of every individual Muslim as soon as an Islamic land is attacked.

And the New Mardin Declaration goes on to say just that:

This is because such a decision of war is a political decision with major repercussions and consequences. Hence, it is not for a Muslim individual or Muslim group to announce and declare war, or engage in combative jihad, whimsically and on their own. This restriction is vital for preventing much evil from occurring, and for truly upholding Islamic religious texts relevant to this matter.

The basis of the legitimacy of jihad is that it is either to repel/resist aggression: “Fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah likes not the transgressors.” (Qur’an, 2:190), or to aid those who are weak and oppressed: “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?” (Qur’an, 4:75), or in defense of the freedom of worshiping: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; – and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.” (Qur’an, 22:39). It is not legitimate to declare war because of differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war.”

Osama has quoted Qur’an 22:39 in his communiques. He is waging defensive jihad, not “war because of differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war.” The problem is that with unbelief itself constituting aggression for some Islamic authorities, and given the Qur’anic command to fight unbelievers until “religion is all for Allah” (8:39), it is cold comfort to unbelievers, and no restraint for jihadists, to remind them that they should only be fighting aggression.

There is here no simple and straightforward declaration that Muslims should not fight non-Muslims and attempt to subjugate them under Sharia. And that is still the problem. Obama and Erdogan and the rest are demanding that Islam be separated from terrorism, and yet the conceptual apparatus establishing a peaceful Islam has never been presented. We are all supposed to take it on faith. But the stakes are too high for that.

  • portuguesamericano

    Sorry, Justin, you are absolutely wrong. The Bible has some violent verses, but they are all in the Old Testament and applied only in a designated time and place. The New Testament is the Gospel of Christ and teaches only peace and love and brotherhood for all mankind.

    On the other hand, the Qu'ran is rife with commandments to hate Infidels, slay the unbelievers wherever they are to be found, convert the Kuffar by coercion or force them to pay the jizya and submit as subservient dhimmis, or be killed.

    Every Muslim is required to do his part to make sure that Islam and sharia law is imposed on every land, until all the earth is for Allah.

    No other religion teaches hatred for unbelievers and has the unrelenting goal of imposing its totalitarian system on mankind.

  • portuguesamericano

    Justin

    I neglected to mention that Islam employs the principle of abrogation to confuse the Infidels; for instance, Muslims are fond of quoting the verses from the Qu'ran stating that there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qu'ranic verse–"There shall be no compulsion in religion." (2:256). But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about "no compulsion in religion" has been canceled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, "compulsion in religion" for Muslims, and for non-Muslims impacted by them.

    You are engaging in the Muslim art of "taqiyya", or deception…

  • 9-11 Infidel

    Nope. You're dead wrong. The Bible commands "Thou Shalt not murder" To love your enemies, to good to those who persecute you. The Bible's Golden Rule does not exist in Islam. It is commanded of all Islamists to conduct jihad (quitaal) until "the only religion left is Allah's religion. Ishaq:324 "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"
    You have studied neither the Bible nor the Muslim Trilogy, nor the companion of Sharia – The Reliance of the Traveler. Come back when you have a clue.

  • Courtnye’

    there you go again justin, not the brightest cookie are you. There were no christians in the old test. that was way before christ came, and christians….I know,,i read it, apparently you didn’t. you should only comment on things you know about!!

  • abdullahmikail

    You are ignorant of the truth, yet pretend to scholarship in it. You are in the same boat as the author…hypocrite.

    All references you people drive your pens with are made in error, period. This person's example was spot on to how you do it, and you even gave what you attack others with as the "standard apologist" response.

  • Justin

    Actually, you are absolutely wrong. Here's a few NT quotes:

    "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

    I am sure you will invoke context to explain these apparent belligerent verses. But hypocrites like Spencer think context doesn't apply to Quran interpretation.

  • Justin

    Wrong again. Islam does not command forced conversion.

    "There is no coercion in religion." (2:256)

    Prophet Muhammad taught, like Jesus, to love your neighbor. He said: "None of you believes until he loves for his neighbor what he loves for himself." (Sahih Bukhari)

    You obviously never really read the Bible or the Quran.

  • Justin

    I had a feeling that canard would pop up. Whenever you refute Islamophobes with the Quran, they always seem to invoke "abrogation." (In this way, both Muslims and Islamophobes get to cherry pick verses to suit their whims).

    It should be noted that major Islamic scholars strongly restricted the application of Abrogation. An authoritative text on that is the Itqan of Suyuti, in which he mentioned 20 verses were abrogated (not including the peace verses). He even made a poem about it to teach Muslims. Shah Wali Allah, a famous Muslim scholar in India, thinks only 5 verses were abrogated (again, not including the peace verses).

    The verse 2:256 is not abrogated, the majority of scholars throughout history have not believed it was abrogated. For this reason, Muslims historically did not force conversion and the evidence for that is the continued existence of Christian and other non-Muslim communities in Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, etc. etc. This is in stark constrast to European Middle Age Crusader Christianity, which in fact did force conversion to Christianity.

    Your comment neglects the wealth of Muslim scholarship and historical reality.

  • portuguesamericano

    Justin

    The prophet Muhammad said the following:

    8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshiping others besides Allah) and and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshiping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

    8:57. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e., the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

    9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the last day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    9:33. It is He (Allah) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

    The Qu'ran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims is unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, westerners will continue to misread the Qu'ran and misdiagnose Islam as a "religion of peace."

    We all see through taqiyya!

  • Justin

    The Quran also says:

    "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." (8:61)

    You know nothing about what Muslim scholars have said about abrogation. It is just your excuse to conveniently dismiss the clear Quranic verses on peaceful coexistence. Oh, and your invocation of taqiyya is also an excuse to dismiss any Muslim who champions peaceful coexistence.

    I think it is very sad to see Islamophobes invoke concepts they know absolutely nothing about.

  • abdullahmikail

    Keep up the good struggle…

    Portugeseamericano, just as Spencer, are both purposefully avoiding the truth…put anything into its proper context and it shows how little they both know…publishing dollars and the political status quo is what drives people like them…willfully ignorant, purposefully obfuscating…rascals.

  • portuguesamericano

    Justin

    Sorry, but the Christian and Jewish communities in Muslim lands live as dhimmis and the Coptic Christians in Egypt are constantly harassed (remember the slaughter of Christian farmers' pigs by the government on the pretext of their being infected by H1N1 (swine flu)?

    In Gaza and the West bank the Christians and Jews live in fear and dhimmitude.

    In Iran non-Muslims live in fear and dhimmitude.

    In sub-Saharan Africa the Muslims have been slaughtering Christians and Animists.

    In Jordan the Christians live in fear and dhimmitude.

    Muslim "scholarship" is an oxymoron! History tells a much different story than your "Muslim is a religion of peace" fantasizing!

  • portuguesamericano

    What are we Kuffar to believe about the fruits of Islam? The proclamations of the apologists for Islam or our lying eyes?

    This may be off the point, but why do no Muslim countries produce top-ranked scientists, artists, poets, writers, engineers, Nobel-Prize winners (Oh, I forgot that terrorist Yasser Arafat!)

    I wonder if it has something to do with the suffocating attitudes induced by the teachings of Islam (Inshallah fatalism, the denigration of reason) (the totality of truth is contained in the Qu'ran and Hadiths), the limitation of education for women in the Muslim world, etc.

    It is interesting-more books are translated from other languages into Spanish every year than into Arabic over the centuries!

    (Two of the most popular translations in Muslim countries are Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", that fabrication done under the auspices of Czarist Russia.

    Oh, of course, I am aware of the alleged Muslim "age of enlightenment" wherein Muslim scholars translated Greek texts into Arabic, and where Muslim rulers in Spain and the Middle East allowed dhimmi scholars to pursue learning, but in more modern times Muslim countries have been abjectly bereft of serious scholarship in anything but Islamic studies.

  • Justin

    I'm not going to pretend there aren't issues with non-Muslim minorities. But you are exaggerating and only repeating buzz words (dhimmitude). Dhimmi literally means "protected person." How did it become a perjorative term?

    Note that at the time when Europe denied basic rights to all non-Christians or unorthodox Christians, the Muslims gave basic rights to non-Muslims (i.e. religious freedom, protection), some of them even serving in the Muslims' administration. Even Muslims lived under the Christian king of Abysinia and served in his army. This, despite the unrelenting and irrational hostility most Christians have historically had towards all Muslims.

    I don't know what imaginary history you are talking about.

  • Justin

    There are a number of untruths in this post:

    1) Islam has always had rational movements (i.e. Ashari, Mutazilah, etc.). The Quran praises those who "reflect" (fikr) and "reason" (aql).

    2) As for women, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, and Pakistan have all had women Prime Ministers. Has there ever been a women President of the US?

    3) Who brought the Protocols and Mein Kampf to the Middle East? Christian European anti-semites.

    4) Even fundamentalist Saudi Arabia is opening up a new university devoted to science and technology, so your claim that Muslim countries only study Islam is again totally untrue.

    5) Mohamed El Baradei, a Muslim, won the Noble Peace Prize in 2005.

    Just like an anti-Semite, you are sooo certain you know Islam is pure evil yet you don't seem to know very much about the Muslim world!

  • Martin K.

    "Peace" means that one doesn't fight against ISLAM! This means one has either *surrendered* to Islam, or accepted the second-class citizen status!

    A example of how MUSLIMS integrate into western society.

    9 years ago, I could walk down the street and find spezial food shops ("Würstel-Buden") small sausage shops run by one or two persons where one would get Pork-meat and other stuff.

    TODAY NINE out of 10 of them have switched to ISLAMIC only food, ELIMINATING the old AUSTRIAN traditional food! And why? Because a religion only for dummies demands that a live animal is slaughtered slitting its throat while reciting a Quran verse! But worse of it, because pork is forbidden (unclean) the shop can't sell both variants of food! In fact I liked that islamic food too, but since it REPLACES my OWN TRADITIONAL food, I stopped buying it. The shopkeepers could make much MORE money if they could cater to ALL tastes, but a stupid religion forbids it! And this is ENRICHING our culture? GIMME A BREAK! Hell no it's REPLACING age-old culture with another. So play your silly game, but you can' t fool me.

  • Martin K.

    to your point 3:
    It is utterly IRRELEVANT who brought the books there, the POINT SHOULD BE:
    Who the hell is buying it today? Who is poising their own mind today with this GARBAGE? MUSLIMS! Thanks a lot Dude, you are hilarious!

  • portuguesamericano

    Christians did not bring Mein Kampf to the Muslim world. It was the pagan Nazis. The so-called "Christians" who presented the "Protocols" were not living their religion. Funny how the Muslims gladly accepted these two books, though; they fit right in with their beliefs that the Jews were evil destroyers, and apes and pigs. (The "Palestinian" children have that taught to them in school and in childrens' TV programs).

    As has been noted previously, Hitler found that some of his most ardent supporters were Arabs, and they helped him with his "final solution to the Jewish problem."

    Many Nazis, after WWII, ended up in the Arab states.

  • Democracy First

    They've had woman because of their tribal affiliation. Moreover, as Turkey turns Islamist – that is, adheres to Islamic scripture, custom and teaching, women are losing influence. That is telling.

  • Justin

    I take umbrage with predatorial European white fascists taking advantage of a colonized people by indoctrinating them with fascist propaganda. Hamas learned its bigotry from the West.

  • portuguesamericano

    Dhimmitude does mean "protection"; however, the dhimmi must not dress as a Muslim, must not be over a Muslim, he cannot carry a weapon, he must pay the jizya with groveling submission, churches cannot be constructed or repaired in a Muslim country, dhimmis are not allowed to proselyte, dhimmis must not openly display religious books or symbols–the list goes on and on. The "protection" of dhimmihood is provisional, subject to the whims of the ruling Muslims.

    The hostility that Christians have had against Muslims derives from long centuries of persecution by marauding Muslim armies and the imperative of Islam to subdue or kill all those who refuse to convert to Islam. See the death and destruction being visited on the Southern Nigerian Christians and animists by the Muslims, and the violence towards Christians in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iran. The life and safety of the dhimmi in any Muslim country is problematic. They have to tiptoe carefully so as not to rile the Umma.

  • Justin

    Actually, Islam does teach the golden rule. Prophet Muhammad said, "None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." [Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 2, #12] The famous scholar Nawawi explained that the word "brother" means all humankind.

    If this is really about upholding the golden rule, then you should be happy to know Muslims believe in the golden rule, and have issued this proclamation of peace between Islam and Christianity:
    http://www.acommonword.com

  • Justin

    So it seems you are more angry about food. And you are correct that Muslims have a right to self-defense, as do all people according to International Law, but I don't see how that is incriminating to Islam. Nothing in Islam infringes on your right to eat whatever food you want. We eat halal because we want to praise and thank God for giving us food.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

    Your takiya isn't fooling anyone. Mahound broke all 10 Commandments. 6 of them on one day alone. He was nothing but a fraud.

  • Martin K.

    Lemme see: The “kooran” is the “final word of a deity. It is a “clear/plain book”

    NQ

    O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Now has come to you Our

    Messenger (Muhammad SAW) explaining to you much of that which you used

    to hide from the Scripture and passing over (i.e. leaving out without

    explaining) much. Indeed, there has come to you from Allâh a light (Prophet

    Muhammad SAW ) and a plain Book (this Qur'ân).

    PK
    O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you,

    expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in the Scripture, and

    forgiving much. now hath come unto you light from Allah and plain Scripture,

    SH
    O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you making clear

    to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much;

    indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;

    And yet you need many special sciences to decipher and explain the “clear/pain” book?
    So think about this for a while: If the “kooooran” is the final word of your stonedgod allah, when and how did all the scholars come up with the “science” and “insights” to “explain” the kooran?
    But again no need to reply, since you have a much more important task, bring your erring brothers of faith back to the true “peaceful” religion. Maybe then Muslims in Indonesia will not attack Christianity or close their places of worship.

    “http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Bogor:-Islamic-extremists-stronger-than-the-Supreme-Court,-Protestant-church-closed-18139.html”

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

    But then he'd have nothing at all to say!

  • Democracy First

    You ignore the long imperialist march of Islam, beginning with mohammed, and you ignore a principle theme of the koran and hadith and Sura, and you ignore principle Islamic theologians. As is widely understood, the peaceful verses were abrogated by the violent ones to follow.

    The bottom line is that to pick up the notion that Islam is inherently peaceful is to let down your guard. It is to put western sensibility to be nice, understanding, tolerant ahead of the evidence before you, past and present. It is to prject your western values onto another civilization.

    Only when Islamic nations live and let live, allow women genuine rights, allow minorities to live in peace and practise their faith without hindrance, and on and on, can we perhaps agree with Muslim moderates that their faith is one of peace. Until then, it is unwise, even suicidal, to overlook all the evidence to the contrary.

  • Martin K.

    Look Dude, it is not only food, one can't go to a public swimming pool, if muslim girls are there, and they demand to leave, because they requested the pool to be closed for male users. Never mind the fact that even if only woman are there, they use the silly burkinni. A woman friend of mine a “naturist” (those people who enjoy outdoor life in the nude) made the big joke to take off her swimmsuit on such a “only woman afternoon” They got angry in a hurry at her.

    It's the removing of crucifixes in public buildings, banning a figure called “Nikolaus” visiting children in Kindergarden on the 6.of December giving them presents. Banning Pork meat in Schools/Kindergarten. Banning “Christmas-plays” (Nativity Scenes) in Schools, because some muslim kids (who know NOTHING about their religion) could be offended! It's about elderly people being forced off the sidewalk because muslim youth “claim” this as their property. Its about young woman threatened to forfeit their seats in public buses, because a muslim youth wants to sit, while a “kaffir whore” should stand. You know, a “kaffir whore” is ANY woman who doesn't wear a islamic veil. Its sexually attacking “kaffir whores” just because they look sexy!

    It's about REMOVING the Bible from Hotel-rooms because if there is no “koooran” a Muslim could get offended. Hey whats wrong with the Bible after all you Muslims claim that it was revealed by the same god? Want more? It's about teenagers chasing other children from public playgrounds because the muslims claim it to be theirs ONLY! It's about a Church in Vienna being vandalized by muslims thugs and the churchgoers being threatened. So don't you talk to me about the religion of peace. But you know what? Why don't you convince YOUR OWN Brothers in faith, to stop killing others, and really show THEM THE RELIGION OF PEACE. If you have done that then only maybe then have you a right trying to convert people to your religion. You have your work cut out for you,. You don't need to reply, because to convince your own brothers of faith that suicide-killing is wrong is much more difficult. Heck there was a 600 page fatwa against Suicide-killings published, and still people are being killed. So better get going and SHOW THEM THEIR errors of their ways. Good luck to you from the bottom of my heart. :-)

  • Martin K.

    I'm deeply offended by Islam trying to force its religion and culture on others!

    No the Hamas people can read the islamic writings in its original language, if killing Jews wouldn't be in there, (Koooran Hadith) it would not matter if the WEST advocates killing Jews. No Muslims don't need inspiration for this from the outside. Hey Dude Osama Bin Laden is fluent in Arabic! So don't blame the West, for something Muslims are more then capable to to achive on their own! But you know what? Why don't you convince YOUR OWN Brothers in faith, to stop killing others, and really show THEM THE RELIGION OF PEACE. If you have done that then only maybe then have you a right trying to convert people to your religion. You have your work cut out for you,. You don't need to reply, because to convince your own brothers of faith that suicide-killing is wrong is much more difficult. Heck there was a 600 page fatwa against Suicide-killings published, and still people are being killed. So better get going and SHOW THEM THEIR errors of their ways. Good luck to you from the bottom of my heart. :-)