Why Terrorists Own Islam
Posted by Sitemaster on June 16, 2007
Reader and commentator Stefcho has asked us to publish the following article:
Moderate Muslims are faced by a dilemma. One the one hand they consider themselves Muslims, but on the other they are faced with the Qur’an – the highest authority in Islam - which justifies intolerance towards other religions and war against non-believers. For example, Islamists often quote the following verse of the Qur’an:
- God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers in return for the Garden (Heaven) - they fight in Holy war: they kill and are killed - this is the true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an.” Qur’an 9:111
Now moderates say that such verses are historic and no longer apply. But notice that they do not reject such verses outright. In fact, unlike Westerners, Islamists know very well that moderate Muslims cannot, and will not, be seen to reject or “cherry-pick” any part of the Qur’an. Why? Because the Qur’an is believed by all Muslims to be the direct, unmediated words dictated from Allah to Muhammad. The Qur’an, and the violent example of the Prophet Muhammad himself, leave moderate Muslims powerless to counter extremism. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. For example, a moderate Muslim might want to accept the notion that all religions should be treated equally. Unfortunately, they cannot because the Qur’an states that:
- It is He (Allah) who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to show that it is above all other religions, however much the idolaters may hate this. Qur’an 9:38
And, if a Muslim rejects any part of the Qur’an then they open themselves to being condemned as non-believers. For, as the Qur’an states:
- … those who desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messenger and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between this and that. These are truly unbelievers, and we have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement. Qur’an 4:150
And if that is not clear enough…
- … believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in a part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so, save ignominy in the life of the world, and will be consigned to the most grievous doom in the next. Qur’an 2:85
For a Muslim, there is nothing worse than being a non-believer; for such people are consigned to hell for eternity. Furthermore, their own family is likely to reject them:
- Believers, do not take your fathers and brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith: those of you who do so are doing wrong. Qur’an 9:23
Hence, when Islamic terrorists quote freely from the Qur’an, the only solution for moderate Muslims is silence (or denying there is a problem). They cannot reject any of the violence, intolerant or barbaric verses of the Qur’an, since doing so opens them to claims of heresy. And this is why, where Islam is concerned, Islamists speak with the authority of the Qur’an, whilst moderates are consigned to nervously avoiding a plethora of verbal landmines they wish were not there.
My final point is this. Wherever there is Islam, there is the potential for intolerance and violence justified by religion. Even if, as in modern, there are more moderates than fanatics – the potential for using Islam to justify violence will always be present. Islam cannot compromise - which is why it should be banned.
This chap has certainly understood the problem. Banning Islam is, unfortunately, impossible. But it must be moderated to comply with modernity and our laws must not be changed merely to accomodate it. Getting Islam into the twenty first century will not be easy and will be opposed by those who cannot distance themselves from fundamentalist ideals. It is Islam that must change. Not the western world.
Our thanks to Stefcho for his input.
June 17, 2007 at 3:16 pm
All jihad (armed or not) promotes Islam at the expense of the culture it is embedded into. You cannot reform Islam. Islam IS jihad and all jihad is a negation of western culture.
There is Islamic culture and there is Western; only one can prevail. This decision lies with our governments.
Stefcho.
June 22, 2007 at 9:42 am
I agree that we can not reform Islam; neither can the so called moderate Muslims. The Qur’an expressly forbids it! I have documented this fact here:
http://www.geocities.com/crusadersarmory/downloads/CanIslambeReformed.pdf
June 23, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Stefcho writes: There is Islamic culture and there is Western; only one can prevail. This decision lies with our governments.
If our governments are retreating before a 5% minority group (Muslims), what happens when that minority reaches 25% or, God forbid, 50%? Muslim immigration must be stopped if we wish to preserve any semblance of Western civilisation. The decision that lies with our governments is to either end mass immigration or prepare their citizens for dhimmitude.
June 24, 2007 at 9:50 pm
In every religion, as in any large group of people who adhere to a similar ideology, one can find extremists, it’s just a fact of social science. How to deal with those extremists is not often as obvious.
In particular, with the problem of Islamist extremists, there is no need to ban the religion. Aside from the fact of such an act being the epitome of discrimination, it would violate the US Constitution, the EU Convention on Human Rights (hope I got that name correct) and the UN requirements of freedom of religion.
Despite the media’s deliberate lack of reporting about mainstream Muslim leaders who condemn terrorism, violence, militant jihad, and suicide bombing, these leaders continue to do so. Political leaders, religious leaders, imams, mullahs, sheiks, authors, philosophers, teachers, columnists, Muslim leaders from every possible strata have issued thousands upon thousands of condemnations and fatwas against the twisted theology of bin Laden, against terrorism, violence, suicide, suicide bombing, militant jihad, etc. They have explained, in detail, how these violate the Qur’an and the Hadiths, and how verses are being taken out of context, how some are mistranslated, some are completely made up, misapplied under required conditions that no longer exist, even by quoting legal judgements of 1,200 years ago that have long been superceded.
You can easily find a massive compilation of these condemnations at http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com
June 27, 2007 at 2:07 pm
http://aval31.free.fr/
June 27, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Rev Jim Sutter says: “In every religion, as in any large group of people who adhere to a similar ideology, one can find extremists, it’s just a fact of social science.”
Sorry, that’s facile. Islam is the only religion where ALL of its adherents have something to say about non-adherents.
Muslims, moderate or extreme, distain democratic principles. Jihad (armed or not) serves to promote Islam and Muslims at the expense of non-Muslims. So there IS no moderation - there is only replacement.
Islam replaces “decadent” democracy with religious-based theocratic principles and the notion that Islam is superior, not equal, to any other religon. This is what makes Islam dangerous to democracy. I am quite sure our armed services can deal with terrorism - what we can’t deal with is demographic suicide and Islamization of European culture.
June 28, 2007 at 11:21 am
Another great reason to ban Islam…
See this link
June 30, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I dont see why islam shouldnt be banned.
After all , Nazism is banned in Germany for good reason.
If we come down hard on islam, shutting down mosques and expelling muslims back to Dar Al Islam, they wont want to come here to do their jihad attacks against us. we would have to push this initiative by invading Saudi Arabia, and levelling Mecca and Medina. and throughout we would use all of the resources of the CIA/Mossad/MI5 to hunt down and kill every Imam possible.
Of course, in the modern world the above paragraph is unthinkable to our modern “enlightened” western minds. but then again, we faced another suicide cult in the form of Japan in WW2 - and we ended up nuking them.
How many people on our side need to die first before we end up doing what i said in the second paragraph? I would estimate about 10 million in a jihadist nuke. Thats our choice - we could go after them now, and prevent 10 million deaths. unfortunately, I know and you know that just wont happen. And the jihadi nuke is almost a certainty by the year 2020.
July 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Don’t put too much stock is what the phony “rev’ says, you see the man has delusions. This was confirmed by the senior pastor of a church he was once associated with. Sutter has never been ordained (unless you count ULC) has no degrees (the seminary he claims to have attended is really King’s Word *Bible School* not King’s Word Seminary, it’s a non-accredited Bible school that only gives out certificates. Sutter has been publicly exposed as a SEAL impostor.
“Rev.” Sutter is a *very* ill man and believes his lies toughly. You can’t talk a person out of their delusions, you have to medicate them.
We don’t know the man so we cannot be judges here. We will allow this comment to stand for now, but we do not wish it to become the reason for a slanging match or a personal arguement at the expense of our bandwidth or mailbox! Sitemaster.
July 2, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Wise words Mister Scruff.
Islam probably won’t be banned, but it should be. The alternative is Islam slowly sucking the life out of Europe, USA and other democracies - “until all religion is for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39).
I find the idea of Europe becoming more and more Islamic unacceptable. It will either be resolved peacefully or (probably more likely) by civil war - as Mark Steyn thinks. We cannot live together (in large numbers), so what is the alternative?
July 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm
The blogosphere has finally wised up to what a fraud the phony “rev” Sutter is.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017000.php
http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/search?q=Sutter
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188605.php
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/07/05/censorship-of-jihadwatch/#comments
http://foehammer.net/2007/07/kooky-jim-sutter-good-news-on-spreadi
July 11, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Why can’t we ban islam?
July 12, 2007 at 4:05 pm
John Light: “Why we can’t ban islam ?” — Because our “infidel” politicians felt it was the type of ideology we needed for the benefit of Europe:
- “Unbelievers are worst than the vilest beasts” (8-22)
- “We will cast terror into the hearts of the infidels” (3-151)
- “Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them” (2-191)
- “Smite the unbelievers above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them (8-12)
And I could quote a few dozen more of these.
July 12, 2007 at 7:46 pm
We can ban Islam, so long as we do it fairly soon. People think we can’t because the situation “does not justify” banning it. At the moment people simply don’t believe they’re being Islamized.
But the Muslim population rises, and our culture decays. We are heading towards being Islamic nations under Islamic rulers. When the Muslim population reaches around 30-40% people will wake up - THEN they will start wishing they had banned Islam. But by this time, it will be too late.
Just look at your TV - Islamization is all around you, and growing stronger each day.
July 23, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Many in the West need to wake up and be aware that there are many of these killers and destroyers who will not be deterred by moderation and will behead those who practice or accept moderation. Terrorists control moderates. That is their job. They will exhort all muslims to join their cause and few will refuse when the call comes. THEY know the fate that awaits them if they refuse.
Western people have become led and are accustomed to pampered lifestyles which distances them from realities, but reality will come. They must think the consequences through before automatically assuming that wanting to live in peace will bring peace with this type of mentality. It is much better to seriously consider this issue now. Some time later may be too late.
We should also consider that it is not the Islamists who are bringing this threat into our societies and forcing us to adapt to Muslim insensibilities. Leftist leadership is accomplishing that in the guise of multiculturalism and political correctness.
———
On another subject, Sutter is a misinformation and disinformation spreader who seeks to spread confusion. The below is copied from another websites comments:
From Augean Stables, islam v. judge….
The “rev” Sutter is a liar. He has claimed to have earned four Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star, and one Navy Cross.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021008231206/members.aol.com/revjimsutter/revjim.html
He has also claimed to have 26 years in counter terrorism.
(26 years counter terrorism claim)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=24692&commentID=771865
‘Rev Jim’s Profile’ (updated Dec 23, 2006) says he is 51.
http://360.yahoo.com/profile-bGBi9z8jfrADVqQ0RCB09HgCSkU-
Now reads what he wrote about himself sept 1995 bit.listserv.ada-law this doesn’t match this up with his claims of being in the navy for 26 years. Unless of course he was *disabled* while in the Navy.
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/081543910a49a240?hl=en&
“Most of you know I am quite ill, with cancer, Stage 4 congestive heart failure, chronic hypoxemia, asthma, sleep apnea, diabetes, incomplete SCI at
It is taking a very long time to bounce back from my last heart attack, in August.”
T-12, spinal arthritis, uncoordinated parastalsys, and a brain tumor. I am
not expected to make it to the end of this year. At first I said “Yeah, I’m too young and handsome to die”, but now I’m not so sure that I’m so young anymore. :>
This page especially funny look at what he claims to be a picture of himself
http://web.archive.org/web/20030628225716/http://members.aol.com/revjimsutter/jimspics.html
But one look in Sutter’s AOL image folder we see the real picture of Sutter called “me years ago”
http://members.aol.com/revjimsutter/images/me%20years%20ago.jpg
It’s good match with the one on his yahoo profile today
BTW he paid for his ordination from The Universal Life Church but at one time he made the claim that he was a Catholic minister.
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/98eeaf68912e2cf5?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/f53de9ea3d33ae5e?hl=en&
Modesto, CA is ULC headquarters and Bishop Kirby Hensley is a ULC bishop
Sutter is not capable to telling the truth about what he had for lunch”
August 9, 2007 at 8:29 am
ϫ
ϫ
August 11, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I would hope that your organization would publicize
and/or perhaps even make available the books of
Oriana Fallaci, a tremendously courageous Italian journalist and author who spoke out forcefully against the Islamists and their easy invasion and occupation of Europe which is ongoing as we speak.
Criticized in France and elsewhere, this tough as steel woman was nearly murdered and left for dead in 1968 by Mexican police, fought against the Fascists as a partisan in World War 2 and is famed for her interviews.
Despite strong objections to her political incorrectness, she risked all to put forth her condemnation of those who would meekly and weakly be bullied by strident theocrats whose goal would seem to be to send us all back to the 9th century and bring about a world where public hangings and stonings of women are commonplace, opposing religious beliefs harshly oppressed and the tentacles of control gradually enmesh every aspect of culture, law and government.
It seems to be that several hundred years of European history (and British, and American and Japanese and Chinese and many others) were all about stopping and defeating this kind of fascism, this concentration of power into the hands of self-appointed moralists empowered to rule with greater absolutism than any king.
I would conclude by repeating a stern warning, to those who might plan to control ANY country by whatever means, the motto of an old American revolutionary war flag which pictured a snake and had the words:
“DON’T TREAD ON ME”
Citizen Jimserac
August 30, 2007 at 10:42 pm
As a Scot whose local regiment The Black Watch are fighting (and dying)in Afghanistan on supposed NATO led operations,I would suggest that if continental Europeans were really interested in upholding democratic principles then they should maybe start to put pressure on their own governments to increase their countries commitments to NATO operations in Afghanistan.
While I understand and sympathise with the German position there are other large European countries who`se contributions are nothing short of disgraceful(Cowards?Appeasers?)you decide.I have relatives who gave their lives near Arras 1918 and Normandy 1944 and fear they were given in vain.Refusal to fight resulted in being shot at dawn!.
The next deployment of the Black watch will see Scottish soldiers making up 25% of the British armys fighting forces in southern Afghanistan,This from a country of 5 million people! or less than 10% of the UK population.
Certain European countries are led by gutless appeasing cowards with short memories,TALK IS CHEAP.Nemo me impune lacessit.God bless the Black Watch.
September 2, 2007 at 3:28 am
The deeds of fascism in the last century hangs over any such people with our ideas today. People taking these very practical and logical thoughts of self-preservation are branded as neo-nazis. The way forward for our views is to make every effort to keep the history of WWII in the past, not ignore it, but to avoid bringing it up as much. The more Fascism is brought up and invoked and talked about in our current times, the easier and more likely it is for mindless brain-washed society to label people like us a right wing extremists
September 10, 2007 at 6:11 pm
It has nothing to do with racism if I not want that Islam is gonna rule our continent!
Like a politician already said in our parlament;
If you delete all the aggressive contentpages out of the koran,there are only a few pages left as thick as the Donald Duck! Who is gonna give me guarantee that there is no terrorist under that islamic dress when i am in a shop?
Why hass the Islamic world so much poornes and hate and no development in their area’s?
I believe because they are hanging all day around in these mosque’s with praying and thats why they stay behind with their development!
September 12, 2007 at 3:09 am
The biggest mistake is to consider Islam a religion. Islam is not a religion is an ultimate political and social system drawn to takeover all aspects of the society where it lies on. So just consider it as political party and remove ALL religion protection of it.
I use to say “As an Agnostic I’m unaware of what religion is or is not right, but I’m certain Islam is wrong”.
March 6, 2008 at 12:22 am
If you ban Islam, you ban the freedoms god placed on this earth for people to choose their path. All lead to salvation in one form or another.