Plato, you still don't get it.

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Mar 1, 2007 at 20:14

Plato, you still simply don't get it.

First, Muslims are indeed mandated by their religion to lie to infidels. Reference this:

"Eminent Islamic scholar Imam Ghazali wrote:

" When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible " (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745).

He is basing his fatwa on the words and examples of the Prophet himself.

In one hadith we read that the prophet calls upon his followers to assassinate Ka'b ibn Ashraf, the chief of a Jewish tribe who was wary of Muhammad and tells them it is okay to tell a lie to deceive him. Bukhari, Volume 5, #369"

I'd have to dig up further references.

But again, you miss the point. Polls, rules, laws, whatever...it's all meaningless to Muslims. Look at what they do. Look at how they are. Look at the BIG PICTURE instead of obsessing about microscopic aberrations within their demographic.

Muslims are notorious, compulsive liars, and I have indeed verified that with my own eyes and ears. They prove it in international situations every day. So polling them is always with the understanding that they have a compulsion to lie and indeed are taught that it is proper to lie if it advances their cause.

Typically, you also fail to get inside the mind of the enemy and understand what they're thinking. For example, looking at the poll you referenced...

When Americans are asked that question ("is bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians justified"), they're generally thinking about a war situation. In other words, if we go to war with Iran, is is justified to bomb cities even if we're targetting civilians as we did in Dresden in WWII?

When you ask Muslims the same question, they visualize it in their mind as an unprovoked attack on Islam. They're not thinking of it as "is it ok to bomb others" but rather as "is it ok for others to bomb us".

In other words, when Americans are asked whether it is justified, they think of the question in terms of being the aggressor. When Muslims are asked, they think of it in terms of being the victim. So of course more of them will be disapproving!

Furthermore, while polls can be helpful, they cannot substitute for using our eyes to see reality. For example, the article states:

"Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists."

No kidding. Why would they not? If anything, it simply shows that many people in America and Europe are in denial. Over 90% of all terrorism is committed by Muslim terror groups, and over 90% of all terrorist groups are Islamic. So the fact that only half of them associate Islam with terror means half of them are in denial.

The article does a disservice by referring to the number of violent Muslims as a "tiny minority" and we know that is untrue.

The poll itself (and the entire article) is a propaganda piece aimed at making Islam more palatable. Aside from painting Muslims as more peaceful (which reality shows is an absurd falsehood), it also spews the typical propaganda of Islam being hijacked by a small handful of radicals, which is also absurd to anyone who can clearly see reality and is not in denial. Furthermore, the article goes on to warp perception by indicating that even Muslims in Indonesia and Pakistan who strongly support Bin Laden are still generally suppportive of American aid to their countries. Again, no s***! Like they're going to turn down all that money we throw at them for free? The so-called Palestinians take out aid money with vigor and joy, then use it to purchase terror weapons. That doesn't say anything good about Muslims, as the article tries to claim. All it shows is that they are not so stupid as to deny the money we throw at them despite hating our guts.

The article and poll are also dishonest and deceptive, when it says:

"In truth, the common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. "

Wrong. Christianity and Judaism are not fighting to form a worldwide slave state under its boots. Christianity and Judaism are not conducting wars of genocide. Christianity and Judaism are not working to suppress religious freedom, equal rights for women, education, free speech, etc. Christianity and Judaism are not flying airplanes into skyscrapers or blowing themselves up in suicide/homicide bombings aimed at innocent, unarmed women and children. Christianity and Judaism are not rioting, arsoning, murdering, and destroying in response to criticial analysis of their beliefs or due to cartoons parodying their religion. Christianity and Judaism are not at war with every other religious belief on the planet, Christianity and Judaism are not destroying sacred monuments and sites of other religions in an orgy of destructive hatred, Christianity and Judaism are not forming racist countries that exclude entire races of people and all other religions.

I can go on and on. The only thing that has all those faults in common is ISLAM. So yes, Islam is indeed the common enemy. They are literally at war with everyone, including themselves.

The article also disparages America (and the author should be deported for treason) by claiming that Muslims reject terror more than Americans. That's beyond idiotic. If that's the case, why then are Americans committing about 0% of terrorism while Muslims commit over 90% of it? Utter crap is the article is.

Beyond that, we need to once again look at polls done in Jordan, Egypt, etc. We see 70% - 90% of them endorsing violence. When asked whether violence against civilians was justified when it comes to protecting Islam, the percentages were very high in the Muslim countries polled. Again, I believe it was 88% in Jordan. But once again...what are the Muslims thinking when asked that? To them, criticizing Islam is an attack on Islam. Giving aid to our allies (Israel) is an attack on Islam. Publishing a cartoon about Mohammed is an attack on Islam. These people are barbarians. Anything that is not subservient to and in praise of Islam is considered an attack on Islam. It's not as if when asked that question they were thinking of it in terms of being at war with another country.

See Plato, you simply don't understand either Muslims or Arabs, hence you cannot comment intelligently on the matter.

Furthermore, the Muslims in America once again fail to prove their peaceful intent. There is an Secular Islam Summit coming on May 5th in Florida. It's being billed as a "historic", major summit to help promote peaceful thinking in Islam. There's going to be the usual handful of speakers who are supposedly experts on the subject. I called the organizer to find out how many people they expected to attend (ie the general public). He said less than 300. This is in a state that has at least 13,000 Muslims, and if we add in the 3 bordering states there are 40,000 Muslims living in the area.

Even if all 300 (I suspect there will be far fewer) expected to attend were Muslims (which they obviously will not be), we're still talking about a fraction of a percent of the Muslims in the area attending. Going by past events, perhaps 10% of those in attendance will be Muslims, which means 30 out of 13,000 in Florida or 30 out of 40,000 in the three-state area. That's only 0.075% to 0.2% of Muslims (in the area) who are bothering to take the time to reform their religion. That would constitute only 0.0015% of all Muslims in America or a few ten-thousanths of one percent. If they can travel across the world on a pilgramage to Mecca, I think they can travel across the state to attend a summit.

Finally, you wrote:

"The article I posted was just an indicator."

The article was a misguided propaganda piece and was inaccurate and failed to dig beneath the mentality of those who participated in order to clarify why those numbers appeared. Their conclusions also fly in the face of reality and historical fact. It's meaningless.

"If it was wrong even by a wide margin still it would go to show your figure of .0001% Muslims as peaceful as a wild guess rather than any scientific estimate."

Again, that's not a wild guess on my part. I am showing the percentage of Muslims who engage in opportunities to reform their religion. You cannot refute that my numbers are wrong, because the numbers stand the mathematical test.

See Plato, unlike you and Michel, I am not afraid to face the truth, to deal with reality (unpleasant though it may be). I do not cower from reality and search in vain for tidbits of propaganda in a misguided attempt to innoculate myself from reality or to help my indulge in a delusional belief. That's what you're doing. You're obsessing with finding clues, proofs, evidence of a belief that you choose to believe, even though that belief has no grounding in reality. You'd be better served trying to prove that Santa Clause exists. At least that would do nothing to undermine our safety, security, and freedom and would bring smiles to the faces of children instead of terror.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".