“There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”

You may recognise the above quote by Turkish wannabe caliph Tayyip Erdogan.

Caliph Erdogan

 Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Terror and Warfare?  (INN)

Because its their religious obligation. And Muslims take their religious obligations seriously.(sheik)

Ideological and religious warfare are forms of the same jihad. Islamic jihadists aim to use people who do not look Middle Eastern to commit atrocities on soft targets in the US in order for them to blend in with the majority. Is Boston the first?
Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in the book, Gandhi: The Power of Pacifism, by Catherine Clement, as follows:

While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.

(Singapore’s former PM Lee Kwan Yew drew the same conclusion: Lee Kuan Yew: Muslim integration in Singapore is failing…—and copped a lot of flack for it/sheik)

Gandhi, a Hindu, was referring to the experience during his lifetime in the Indian sub-continent, but the growth of Wahhabism and the current resurgence in Islamic triumphalism since Gandhi’s death in January 1948 now poses an increasingly existential threat to the West, to Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as to Hindus, Buddhists, Bahai and members of other faiths or of no faith.

The question repeatedly posed by the talking heads on the TV networks and cable television is how and why so many Muslims, young and old, living in the West and enjoying all the material and educational benefits bestowed upon them, are committing hideous acts of terror and perpetrating atrocities upon innocent civilians, even against their very own neighbors.

The Times Square bombing attempt on May 1, 2010 by Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad and the 2009 Fort Hood massacre of unarmed members of the military by Major Nidal Hasan (still described by the problematic U.S. administration as “workplace violence”) are well-known. So too is the attempt at terrorism by a Somali immigrant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who had come to America at the age of five with his family as a refugee from the hell that is Somalia, and who attempted to kill thousands during a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.

But until the Chechen Muslim Tsanaev brothers succeeded in their massacre at the Boston Marathon, most terror attacks had been thwarted since the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon by the 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, in which 3,000 people were murdered. This time, however, the Muslim miscreants succeeded.

It was the baleful President Carter who undercut the shah of Iran, an autocrat who jailed and restricted the jihadists and Islamic groups and who was a supporter and ally of America. Just like President Obama, who equally undercut Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the subsequent vacuum was quickly and gleefully filled by Islamic fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood respectively who imposed sharia law and raised the banner of Islamic supremacy.

With the shah’s fall came the Ayatollah Khomeini from his exile in France, and almost immediately Carter’s foolish act resulted in a seemingly endless and humiliating imprisonment of American Embassy staff in Tehran. Since then Iran has fed the flames of Islamic terror around the globe, arming and funding terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezb’allah.

Ayatollah Khomeini preached violence to ultimately conquer “the land of the infidel.” By that he meant Israel, Christian European states and Britain, the United States, and the entire non-Muslim world. His followers throughout the Muslim and Arab world have all endorsed the legitimacy of jihad against what they call the “enemies of Islam.”

Islamic martyrdom operations — specifically blowing up soft targets like spectators at sporting events — are their guarantees to paradise even if the victims are children.

So the answer to those talking heads in the media who endlessly ask why so many Muslims commit such atrocities can be seen both in Koranic passages and in, for instance, the sickening hate indoctrination found in the government-controlled Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts.

Here are some of the grisly passages from the Koran:

“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191

“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123

“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5

“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85

“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”… Koran 9:30

“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33

“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19

“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65

“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28

“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12

“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60

And here are some examples of the Palestinian broadcasts that sow hate among children as young as three years of age, spawning yet another generation of terrorists and destroying hope of any true and lasting peace with the embattled State of Israel.

For example, the children’s show, The Best Home, included a scene in which a young girl recited a poem filled with messages of hate and other libels demonizing Jews. The poem made the vile and fantastic assertion that Jews, “Allah’s enemies, the sons of pigs,” defiled the Quran and Jerusalem, “murdered children,” “cut off their limbs,” and “raped the women in the city squares.” (Exactly what Muslims do, regularly, they accuse others of doing. That’s called projection.)

This message of vitriol — aimed at the future generation of Palestinians — not only serves to foster hatred and violence, but undermines the very essence of coexistence and peace. It poisons the minds of innocent young children instead of promoting respect for one another, which is a cornerstone for true peace. The irony is that these grotesque and deceitful charges are exactly what is routinely found perpetrated by the regimes within so many Muslim and Arab states.

In our politically correct world, members of the media and commentators often seek to distance Islam from so many acts of horrific violence, using terms of alleged distinction such as “radical Islam” or “moderate Islam” and so on. But let us reflect on the words of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan, the close friend of Iran’s genocidal president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In reply to the terms “moderate and radical Islam,” which was apparently quoted to him by a Western journalist, ErdoÄŸan said: “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.”

Certainly, attempting to constantly give, as liberals do, a free pass to Islamic abuses; to play down its violent ambitions of world conquest; to ignore the evident threat to Judeo-Christian civilization from sharia law and imposed dhimmitude merely encourages the violent tendencies of the followers of what has been called “an ideology wrapped in a religion.”

It has been an aim of Islamic terrorists and jihadists to use people who do not look Arab or Middle Eastern to commit atrocities on soft targets in the U.S in order for them to blend in better with the majority population. This could be the first wave of such terror.

The two Chechen brothers thus almost certainly embraced the hatred towards non-Muslims which proliferate in Islamic texts, in the fiery sermons of Imams, on Islamic websites, and in Islamic social media. And they are not alone.

reprinted with the author’s permission from the American Thinker

Victor Sharpe

Victor Sharpe is a prolific freelance writer with many published articles in leading national and international conservative websites and magazines. Born and educated in England, he has been a broadcaster and has authored several books including a collection of short stories under the title The Blue Hour. His three-volume set of in-depth studies on the threats from resurgent Islam to Israel, the West and to Judeo-Christian civilization is titled, Politicide: The Attempted Murder of the Jewish State. www.amazon.com

One thought on ““There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.””

  1. Revolt in Turkey

    Erdogan’s Grip on Power Is Rapidly Weakening

    By Özlem Gezer, Maximilian Popp and Oliver Trenkamp

    For a decade, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has had a tight grip on power. But it suddenly looks to be weakening. Thousands have taken to the streets across the country and the threats to Erdogan’s rule are many. His reaction has revealed him to be hopelessly disconnected.

    The rooftops of Istanbul can be seen in the background and next to them is a gigantic image of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey’s powerful prime minister is watching over the city — and is also monitoring the work of the political party he controls. At least that seems to be the message of the image, which can be found in a conference room at the headquarters of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP).

    These days, though, Istanbul is producing images that carry a distinctly different meaning — images of violent protests against the vagaries of Erdogan’s rule. And it is beginning to look as though the prime minister, the most powerful leader Turkey has seen since the days of modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, might be losing control.

    As recently as mid-May, Erdogan boasted during an appearance at the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. of the $29 billion airport his government was planning to build in Istanbul. “Turkey no longer talks about the world,” he said. “The world talks about Turkey.”

    Just two weeks later, he appears to have been right — just not quite in the way he had anticipated. The world is looking at Turkey and speaking of the violence with which Turkish police are assaulting demonstrators at dozens of marches across the country. Increasingly, Erdogan is looking like an autocratic ruler whose people are no longer willing to tolerate him.

    For years, Erdogan seemed untouchable and, at least until the recent demonstrations began, was the most popular politician in the country. He entered office amid pledges to reform the country and introduce even more democratic freedoms. In his gruff dealings with foreign powers, he gave Turkey a new kind of confidence. He broke the grip on power held by the country’s old elite, he kick-started the economy and he calmed the conflict with the country’s Kurdish minority.

    But one thing got lost in the shuffle: Democracy. Success made Erdogan even more power-hungry, thin-skinned and susceptible to criticism. Indeed, he began governing in the same autocratic style for which he had bitterly criticized his predecessors. And now, he is faced with significant dangers to his power from several quarters.

    The biggest danger facing the Turkish premier is his own high-handedness. Though he said on Monday that he understood the message being sent by the protesters, there is little evidence that is true. Indeed, his response thus far has shown the degree to which he has become distanced from realities in his country. With hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, Erdogan has opted for confrontation rather than de-escalation. On Monday morning, he threatened that he would be unable to keep the 50 percent of Turks who voted for him from taking to the streets themselves. Critics see the comment as nothing less than a threat of civil war.

    He said that he won’t allow “a handful of plunderers” to dictate policy. He also branded the marches as being ideological and said that they have been “manipulated by the opposition.” Twitter, he said, is the “greatest threat to the society.” Such sentiments are reminiscent of those Arab dictators who were overthrown in the Arab Spring of 2011.

    Erdogan has recently shown a complete inability to gauge the anger of the country’s Kemalists. He recently offended the secular followers of Atatürk with comments regarding a law aiming to reduce the consumption of alcohol. During a party meeting, Erdogan painted a rhetorical picture of an alcoholic populace: He spoke of police who continually find empty bottles in people’s cars, of husbands who beat their wives and of fathers who are a poor influence due to their consumption of beer.

    Most pointedly, however, he asked if Turkey wanted to follow a law passed by two drunks or the law of God. Since then, the country has been filled with speculation as to who Erdogan may have been referring to. Many believe it was an attack on Atatürk and his Prime Minister Ismet Inönü, who were in office when the ban on alcohol in the country was lifted in 1926. Furthermore, Atatürk is rumored to have died from cirrhosis of the liver. As such, Erdogan’s comments are seen as an attack on a national hero.

    But it isn’t just the Kemalists who are now venting their rage at the Turkish prime minister. Demonstrations have been reported in more than 40 cities, and they are drawing more than students and intellectuals. Families with children, women in headscarves, men in suits, hipsters in sneakers, pharmacists, tea-house proprietors — all are taking to the streets to register their displeasure.

    Thus far, no opposition party has sought to claim the protests as its own. There have been no party flags, no party slogans and no prominent party functionaries to be seen. Kemalists and communists have demonstrated side-by-side with liberals and secularists. Simply calling them all “marauders and extremists,” as Erdogan has sought to do, will not be enough.

    Another threat may also be lurking. In Istanbul, people have begun whispering that the military is distributing gasmasks — but to the demonstrators rather than to the police. The message is clear: The military supports the protests.

    The story is certainly consistent with the Turkish military’s traditional role in society. The generals have long seen themselves as protectors of Atatürk’s legacy and as protectors of a secular Turkey. Indeed, the military has staged three putsches in its history to guarantee Kemalist values: in 1960, in 1971 and again in 1980.

    Erdogan, to be sure, has done his best to reduce the military’s power. He has removed some officers and had others locked away, convicted of conspiracy. It is difficult to predict how the military might now react to the protests. But Erdogan certainly cannot rely on them remaining in their barracks.

    Even within his own party, the AKP, Erdogan’s rule has become contentious. Turkish President Abdullah Gül, likewise of the AKP, has been careful to distance himself from Erdogan’s comments over the weekend that citizens should express their opinions at the ballot box. Gül responded that “democracy doesn’t just mean casting a ballot.”

    Turkish law prohibits Erdogan from running for another term. In response, however, he appears to be leaning toward the model followed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Erdogan is currently seeking to increase the powers of the Turkish presidency, preparatory to taking over the position himself in 2014. Not everyone in the AKP is behind the plan and speculation of an internal power struggle is rife.

    On Monday morning, after a weekend full of some of the most intense protests Turkey has seen, Erdogan spoke yet again, saying he suspects that “foreign powers” are behind the demonstrations and that Turkish intelligence is investigating. “It is not possible to reveal their names, but we will have meetings with their heads,” Erdogan said, according to the English version of the Turkish daily Hürriyet. The strategy is transparent: The prime minister is doing all he can to portray the protests as an attack on Turkey.

    Erdogan is hoping that will be enough to keep the situation under control for now. This week he embarks on a trip through North Africa. And, after a visit to Morocco, the Turkish premier is scheduled to visit Tunisia — where not so long ago, the people rose up against their autocratic ruler.

Comments are closed.