"It would not be fair if it was criticized as a problem with Islam," Mr. Magid said. "You can have violence among the people of religion, but that does not mean the religion endorses that."
Just ignore the shouts of "Allahu Akbar" when they commit these acts of violence, kufr.
Wait. It gets better.
Imam Hameed Asghar of the Dar-ul Huda mosque in Springfield said Muslims around the world know "that to attack or kill or harm any peaceful person or citizen, regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim, is not permissible."It would be gut-bustingly funny if he didn't mean it. It's a clear sign of the self-deception, and actual deception, which is central to the Muslim worldview.
"It's absolutely wrong," Mr. Asghar said. "Why it's happening, we don't understand that at all."
Thorazine, stat, IV push.
Quick, drag in all other religions.
Mr. Magid said the intra-Islamic violence is bad for all religions. "It makes people think that religion is a social problem. It's just another reason for people to believe that religion is not good for peace," he said.
Whatever, Magid. Your religion is sick and there are no signs of it getting better. I'd suggest pulling the plug.
UPDATE: Combating the Islamist Threat
Maybe we should name the enemy? The 'war on terrorism' adds nothing to the discussion. I believe it makes the enemy sound nebulous and confuses the debate with issues like civil wars or the IRA. Terrorism is but a means to an end. It's time to discuss the end: Islamic domination of the world.
The reality here is that these Islamist groups are waging a civilizational battle to transform the Middle East and do so with help from legitimate political figures and nations. One such group is the Jamaat-i-Islami, a renowned fundamentalist group with ties to terrorism that was formed through the leadership and teaching of Maulana Abul Al Maududi and is prominent in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Another group allied to the fundamentalist cause is the Muslim Brotherhood, which was formed by Hassan Al-Banna. The Brotherhood is mainly prominent in Arab countries; however, the Islamist movements frequently share ideas and use each other’s works to consolidate their ideology. The first Jihad in Afghanistan, for instance, was a major factor in the blending and co-operation of Islamist designs.
The JI and the Muslim Brotherhood have been vocal in spreading Shari’a law and in their rejection of all western ideologies and institutions. They have stated that they want to defeat western liberalism and secularization, which they see as the greatest threat to the Muslim world. But every time these groups have managed to gain power in countries like Afghanistan and Sudan, their anti-Americanism is accompanied with the abuse of human rights and the promotion of hatred and intolerance.
When looking at Islamist politics, therefore, western commentator and journalists cannot accept the model employed by European governments to steer movements like the Irish republican movement and Basque separatist movement from political violence. Negotiating with terrorist groups or labeling militants “reformers” only serves to legitimize the Islamist movement and give it a stronger political infrastructure. Instead, we must connect the Islamist movement to its proxy terrorist groups as one would Sinn Fein to the IRA or Battisuna to ETA. Islamic scholars and Middle Eastern experts have scoffed at this type of thinking as simplistic, but in this, they only protect Islamism’s ideology of hate and totalitarianism and nurture its growth.