Must Read Articles
“We Are Fighting Terrorists, But We Are Also Terrorists?”
The biggest misconception about Islam, given unfairly by stereotyping and public image by media. Many political dictators and officials or extremist groups use the name of Islam as a strategy to garner followers and attention (just like Hitler) when many of their practices go against the true basis of Islam. The media has also portrayed Islam as a cult or a club where if you join you become a terrorist and that is now part of your agenda. Whereas Islam is a religion which promotes peace and harmony, abolishes killing of innocents and destruction of humanity.
It is unfortunate that Islam, the religion of peace, hope, harmony, goodwill and brotherhood had been badly tarnished by the perpetrators of various terrorists acts and barbarism as seen on September 11, 2001.
Although muslims are the most oppressed people but still we blame on them . Countries like afghanistan , Iraq,Syria,Palestine, Tunisia ,Sudan etc were invaded by USA,Russia,France etc. and are still facing problems from outer terrorism groups
Every time an act of terror or shooting occurs, Muslims closely watch the news with extreme trepidation praying that the suspect is not Muslim. This is not because these terrorists are likely to be Muslim but rather because in the instances where they happen to be, we see amplified mass media coverage and extreme unjustified hatred towards Muslims
the word “terrorist” not being used when the suspect in a terrorist attack is a non-Muslim. I am tired of the “mentally disabled” excuse being recycled when the suspect in a terrorist attack is a Caucasian.
1. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI,
94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to
2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist
suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim.
According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism
in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard
about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? For the same exact
reasons that we cannot blame the entire religion of Judaism or
Christianity for the violent actions of those carrying out crimes under
the names of these religions, we have absolutely no justifiable grounds
to blame Muslims for terrorism.
2. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in Europe: There
have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past
five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were
Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.
3. Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970.
Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd
assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists
would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things
into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.
4. If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are peacemakers: The
same statistical assumptions being used to falsely portray Muslims as
violent people can be used more accurately to portray Muslims as
peaceful people. If all Muslims are terrorists because a single digit
percentage of terrorists happen to be Muslim, then all Muslims are
peacemakers because 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims.
5. If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of
Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this
study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian
non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed
this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their
couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter
of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”.
When
a drunk driver causes a car accident, we never blame the car
manufacturer for the violent actions of that driver. This is because we
understand that we cannot blame an entire car company that produces
millions of safe vehicles just because one of their cars was hijacked by
a reckless person who used it to cause harm. So what right do we have
to blame an entire religion of over 1.6 Billion peaceful people because
of the actions of a relatively insignificant few?.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hate cannot drive out hate, only
love can do that”. We cannot allow the disparity in media coverage to
blind us from the facts and turn us into hateful people, we are smarter
than that.(Omar Alnatour)
Between
2004-2013, the UK suffered 400 terrorist attacks, mostly in Northern
Ireland, and almost all of them were non-lethal. The US suffered 131
attacks, fewer than 20 of which were lethal. France suffered 47 attacks.
But in Iraq, there were 12,000 attacks and 8,000 of them were lethal.
Erin
Miller says there is another reason why she would advise against
focusing on the religious affiliation of victims, quite apart from the
fact that reliable data is hard to find.
"It's
tempting for many people to try and turn it into almost a scorecard,
trying to figure out which religious groups are more violent than
others, and boil it down to this grossly oversimplified keeping of
score, like it's a football game," she says.
This is a mistake, she argues. Most terrorist attacks are rooted in geopolitics,
The
reason is that most of the raw data comes from news reports, and these
often don't mention the religion of the victims. In about 50% of cases
the GTD doesn't even know who carried out the attack.
Miller
does point out, though, that between 2004 and 2013 about half of all
terrorist attacks, and 60% of fatalities due to terrorist attacks, took
place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - all of which have a mostly
Muslim population.
Do
Western states and their leaders use terms such as ‘terrorism’
accurately and consistently when confronting violence against their
citizenry, and are they sufficiently sincere in evaluating their own
actions? Surely not! Public political speech tends to conflate the
evaluation of conflicting causes – their justness or injustice - with
the legitimacy of the means adopted by either side for attaining their
respective ends. The rhetoric employed by state leaders is often
deliberately imprecise and inaccurate, blurring morally relevant
distinctions at least inadvertently, and often scenically. None of these
truisms however, yield the conclusion that the condemnation of
terrorism and talk of waging war thereon are forms of Western
hypochracy.
the
NCTC’s own data belies its predetermined conclusions: the threat of
terrorism to the average American is virtually non-existent. In the
entire year of 2011, exactly zero civilians in the U.S. were killed by terrorism. In fact, not a single civilian in the U.S. has been killed by Islamic terrorism since 9/11,
well over a decade ago. Put another way: more Americans are killed
from being crushed to death by their television sets than by terrorism, a
realization that should put “the persistent threat” of terrorism into
some much-needed perspective.The same is the case across the pond: Europol has released yearly terrorism reports since 2006. Going through these, one cannot find a single civilian in Europe who has been killed by Islamic terrorism.
(It should be noted, however, that the as of yet unreleased 2012
report will no doubt reflect the Toulouse shootings, which resulted in
the death of four civilians.) Indeed, the truth is that less than 1% of terrorism in Europe is done by Muslims.In other words, the threat of Islamic terrorism in the Western world is very minimal. It
has been grossly exaggerated in order to justify the multiple wars
being waged in Muslim majority countries. The charge is led by
anti-Muslim ideologues, but the overarching premise–that Islamic
terrorism is a great threat to Western civilization (even an existential threat to it)–is accepted by virtually all segments of American society.
Not
only do Muslims inflict zero civilian deaths in America and Europe,
they bear the brunt of terrorism in the Middle East and South Asia.
The 2011 NCTC report found that the vast majority of deaths from religious terrorism were in fact Muslims. The report reads:
• In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.• Muslim majority countries bore the greatest number of attacks involving 10 or more deaths, with Afghanistan sustaining the highest number (47), followed by Iraq (44), Pakistan (37), Somalia (28), and Nigeria (12).• Afghans also suffered the largest number of fatalities overall with 3,245 deaths, followed by Iraqis (2,958), Pakistanis (2,038), Somalis (1,013), and Nigerians (590).
it is U.S. military intervention in the region that is most responsible for creating the problem of terrorism.
This
becomes very clear if we look at the three countries that have reported
the highest number of terrorism-related fatalities (according to NCTC
data): Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These three countries alone
accounted for 64% of terrorism-related fatalities in 2005, 74% in 2006, 77% in 2007, 59% in 2008, 61% in 2009, 66% in 2010, and 68% in 2011
In the year before the Iraq War (from 3/19/2002 to 3/19/2003), there were only 13 terrorist attacks and 14 terrorism-related deaths in Iraq. In the year after the Iraq War (from 3/20/2003 to 3/20/2004), there were 225 terrorist attacks and 1,074 terrorism-related deaths. In other words, the U.S. invasion of Iraq resulted in an over 1600% increase in terrorist attacks and an over 7500% increase in terrorism-related deaths in just one year.
At the height of the Iraq War, there were 3,968 terrorist attacks, resulting in 9,497 deaths–which amounts to an over 30,000% increase in terrorist incidents and over 67,000% increase in terrorism-related deaths as compared to pre-war years.Using the data from RDWTI, we find that in the year just prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, there were only three terrorist attacks in the country, resulting in eight fatalities. By 2008, the number of terrorist attacks had jumped to 450 and the number of terrorism-related deaths to 1,228. In other words, the U.S. War in Afghanistan resulted in a 15,000% increase in both terrorism related incidents and deaths.
The
U.S.-led War in Afghanistan has created a worsening terrorism problem
for Pakistan as well. There are many complex reasons for this spike in
violence within Pakistan (which are beyond the scope of this article),
but all are ultimately rooted in America’s War on Terror. Using the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, we find that there was an over 650% increase in terrorism-related fatalities in Pakistan as a result of America’s war (568 deaths in 2008 as compared to 73 in 2000).
In
the year 2000, there were a total of 404 terrorist attacks in all of
the Middle East and South Asia. By 2006, this number jumped to 5,738–an increase of more than 1300%! This is what America’s War on Terror has done for terrorism in the Muslim world.
Why
are the Islamophobes so intent on their quixotic attempt to paint Islam
as a political ideology instead of a religion? One reason has to do
with the unwillingness of the Islamophobia Movement to differentiate
between the tactic of terrorism and ideology.
This
conflation of the tactic of terrorism as an inherent manifestation of
certain political ideologies has its roots in the turbulent political
environment of the 1970’s, when terrorism was almost “commonly regarded”
as Left-Wing.
“Terrorism and guerrilla warfare have a history dating back many centuries, quite possibly one that predates the advent of conventional warfare. The study of this history is not an academic exercise; however, a true understanding of the terrorist phenomenon is impossible without at least some knowledge of what has gone before. To give but two examples: during the 1970’s it was common to regard terrorism as mainly, if not exclusively, left wing and revolutionary because the leading terrorist groups at the time in Europe, Latin America, and parts of the Middle East, implemented the terminology of the far left.This focus on one specific trend was based on a profound misjudgment. It assumed that terrorism was an ideology whereas in actual fact it was a strategy used by the extreme right and the far left, by radical nationalist and fanatical religious groups alike.Understanding the history of terrorism on a world wide basis would have obviated such a fatal misreading. In a similar way, suicide attacks have struck many observers in recent years as something totally new and unprecedented, though it is an ancient tactic. In fact terrorists attacks predating the twentieth century were almost all suicidal in nature because with daggers, short range pistols and unstable bombs, the attacker’s prospects of survival were less than brilliant.” (emphasis added) Laqueur, W. (Ed.). (2004)
Terror attacks in Western cities (Manchester, Paris, Brussels, Nice, Barcelona…) allegedly perpetrated by Al Qaeda-ISIS.
* * *
Much
like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an
instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle
East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The
fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing
terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore
history.
The
CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era.
Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side,
the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a
Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political
Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the
Soviet Union.
The
director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General
William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used
terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against
international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers
said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During
the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier,
both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist
ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported
Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the
Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan.
Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest
we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his
organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin
Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a
product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al
Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in
Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of
Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the
Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s
relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair.
Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given
region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department
either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as
American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they
knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The
Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is
certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence
after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist
group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.In
order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so
quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed
roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the
pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root.
America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state
machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration.
The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by
rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that
the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new
U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of
thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were
allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s
were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their
political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and
unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and
created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al
Qaeda in Iraq took root.
There
are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the
government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and
yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War
battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of
arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar
al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these
Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly
brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s
Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq
has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air
strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do
with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies,
Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian
support.
ISIS
is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the
Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The
last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence
in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and
expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you
believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington
is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen
U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons
program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or
imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the
other way around.
America
is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East,
to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home
to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the
unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By
rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr.
Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while
diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is
an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The
so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a
pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two
most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the
Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the
Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s
actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October
2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion
dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have
also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In
fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up
to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan
over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for
Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these
private companies had employees or board members, who either served in,
or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and
Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels
of the military.
In
1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a
strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in
terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can
win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation
and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American
imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on
Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by
people with jets and missiles.(by Garikai Chengu)
SOURCE :
SOURCE :
Arama Sonuçları
It is common knowledge to the scholars of the muslims and their students that ISIS,
Boko Ḥarām, al-Qāʿidah and others are simply another manifestation of
the recurring appearance of this group that was explicitly mentioned by
the Prophet of Islām. Their appearance was prophesized by the Prophet
(peace be upon him) in a large number of traditions and they indeed
appeared less than 30 years after him in 36H, around the year 657CE.
Because this faction was intended as a trial and tribulation for Muslims in
various times and ages, the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke
extensively about them, their traits, activities and their great danger
upon Islām and the Muslims.
The traditions in this regard are well-known and famous and have come
through large-scale transmission right from the dawn of Islām. In this
treatise we look at the historical events behind the emergence of this
group and its subversive, destructive activities.
The
terrorists are a few thousand criminals (less than 0.01% of the Muslim
population). They act in secret, in a shadowy underworld that is more
like the Mafia than a public organization that holds meetings and takes
minutes. Asking Muslims to list how they are fighting Al-Qaeda is like
asking a pizza store owner what he is doing to destroy the Mafia.
Extremism
exists in all cultures and religions, and some of the most brutal
extremist acts have been perpetrated by atheist regimes, the classic
example being Enver Hoxa’s Albania which officially made atheism state
policy and many people were hanged for praying. Pol Pot is another
example.
As
in other religions, religious zealotry has existed among Muslims, yet
it rarely resulted in mass violence. The only example that I can think
of where extremists took up arms and succeeded is when Ibn Saud and his
tribesmen took over what is now Saudi Arabia. But the House of Saud has
also been friendly with the West, and the strict monotheists (“wahabis”)
have never wanted to invade or take over other nations or to spread
Islam by force outside of their own region. Saudis do finance Islamic
projects to propagate Islam but that is through peaceful means.
After
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA working with Pakistani
intelligence ISI and funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states,
started the “Jihadi” movement in the border areas of Pakistan. Jihadi
textbooks were prepared at the University of Nebraska and distributed in
the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan by the ISI. Religious
extremists were used as “useful idiots” to get the Soviets out. It
worked.
Hardly any Arab or Muslim believes that the US or Britain is fighting
for ‘their’ freedom. They are the ones they need freedom from! To
achieve their goal of having political and economic independence from
the West, some Muslims have proposed uniting Muslims in some form or
another, so that they would have the strength to stand up to Western
imperialism. (Al-Qaida, by the way, never took that position). That was a
mistake on the part of Arabs/ Muslims because Jewish lobbies
immediately used the bogey of “global Jihad” for the establishment of a
Caliphate to make a case that that is the root cause of terrorism-a
demand that can never be met. The core political issues i.e., freedom
for Palestinians and presence of US/British troops in the Middle East
was then either ignored or quickly dismissed to perpetuate this myth.( via contreversialislam )
Muslims
fight these monsters by publicly denouncing them, leading lives as
law-abiding citizens, helping their communities, and trying to educate
people about the loving and harmonious values of true Islam.
"Islam is a 1,400-years old religion. It cannot be equated and judged by the few events and attacks, carried out because of political or geo-strategic interests. As a religion, Islam teaches humanity, tolerance, and mutual respect,"
"Islam is a 1,400-years old religion. It cannot be equated and judged by the few events and attacks, carried out because of political or geo-strategic interests. As a religion, Islam teaches humanity, tolerance, and mutual respect,"
The
Muslim World League is an international non-governmental Islamic
organisation, which was founded in 1962 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia following
a resolution of the General Islamic Conference. The MWL has observer
status in United Nations’s ICOSOC and is also a member of UNICEF. The
charter of the organisation includes uniting the ranks of Muslims,
removing divisive forces in Muslim communities, supporting charitable
initiatives, refuting regionalism or racism and rejecting pretences of
ancient as well as contemporary ‘Jahilliah’. The organisation strives to
propagate principles and tenets of Islam while refuting false
allegations against it.
Christian terrorism - Wikipedia
Hinduism and Terror - by Paul Marshall - Hudson Institute
Terrorists You Don't Hear About In The Media – Discover The Truth
The more than 100 million deaths that communism caused ...
War Crimes
Terrorism
9/11: The biggest lie in history! - Answering Christianity
Terrorism - Wikipedia
List of terrorist incidents - Wikipedia
Controversial Issues - Mission Islam
refuting arguments against muslims
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder