Why the Morocco Declaration on Christianity is not as good as it sounds

The folks at Christianity Today are falling all over themselves explaining how great the recent Morocco Declaration on Christian rights is. This should give you an idea:

In particular, the declaration references the charter’s “principles of constitutional contractual citizenship” and “freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law,” in regards to Muslims and non-Muslims.

I'm just not convinced. The declaration needs to explicitly claim that Christians who at one time in the past were Muslims are also included and should be afforded the same legal rights as folks born in Christian families.

And plus, Morocco doesn't even have an indigenous Christian population, aside from a couple hundred converts from Islam, and those have mostly been hounded and persecuted until they left the country.

I hope I'm worn to be so cynical about this, but we saw this back in the time of the Ottoman Empire with the hat-i humayun. At that time (1850's) Protestant missionaries were overjoyed because they thought these lofty statements about rights meant that Muslims could legally convert to Christianity. But nope. 

So...very nice words. But in the end, dust in the wind. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see that this is much more than a pretty piece of PR fluff which will enable the sheeple of Europe and North America to keep repeating to themselves 'religion of peace, religion of peace...' while their neighbors continue to be killed and their daughters raped.

Former Muslims United (USA)

I was aware that various councils or groups for ex-Muslims existed in Belgium and the UK and some other countries in Europe, but behold, there is one in the USA as well. On their Mission Statement page they list, among other things, the following goals:

1. Develop a legal framework for and ensure the civil rights of American individuals and organizations to provide sanctuary for former Muslims without being subject to legal penalties or threats.

5. Educate the American public, especially politicians and those in the U.S. legal system, of Islamic law’s encouragement of extra-judicial enforcement or vigilante street justice against apostates who are subjected to serious death threats in America and from abroad.  Denial is a common reaction by many Muslim leaders to those who warn about clear-cut laws in all Islamic legal schools of Sharia.  As a matter of fact, Islamic law states that it is permissible to lie to non-Muslims to accomplish a Sharia-sanctioned objective.  Thus, since killing apostates is a Sharia-sanctioned objective, misleading Western publics is permissible and practiced regularly.  This point must be clear to the public in order to understand the extent of the threat and the disingenuousness of the public response by Muslim advocates of Sharia.

God bless them in their efforts! Learn more about them HERE.

Taqiyya: "We are permitted to lie"

I have posted items on taqiyya before several times. And now we have this:

(IsraelNN.com) Hamas leaders spoke to the Arabic language Ash-Sharq il-Awsat newspaper recently and explained that as Muslims, they are allowed to lie. In an interview printed on Thursday, senior Hamas terrorists explained, “A Muslim is permitted to say things that oppose his beliefs in order to prevent damages or to be saved from death.”

This approach, known in Arabic as “taqiyya,” was behind several Hamas leaders’ recent public expression of support for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, they explained. Senior Hamas terrorists in Samaria, who were recently released from jail, publicly expressed disapproval with the Hamas takeover of Gaza and said they supported the PA forces. The sources quoted in Ash-Sharq il-Awsat explained that the Samarian terrorists’ announcement was not a sign of dissent within Hamas ranks, but rather a permitted use of “taqiyya” to deceive Abbas and avoid prison sentences.

Taqiyya, not lying

Al Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 857:

Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba:

That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

Muhammad: "War is Deceit"

From the the hadiith of Al Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

Family Violence is un-Islamic

CALGARY - An imam from Alberta was planning to go on a weekend hunger strike to bring attention to domestic violence and how it is completely against the teachings of Islam.

Any violence involving families is "absolutely un-Islamic," Syed Soharwardy of the Calgary Islamic Centre said Friday.

"We should not be using religion as a scapegoat to justify what we need. We should resolve our disputes based on reasoning, logic (and) cool-mindedness."

The imam's comments came after the death earlier this month of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez of Mississauga, Ont., who reportedly had a long-standing dispute with her family over her apparent reluctance to wear the traditional Muslim headscarf, the hijab.

Her father, who has not yet entered a plea, has been charged with her murder.

From HERE.

Israel on the coming ME arms race

OK, here's what's going to happen: Iran will get nuclear weapons because the US has neither the money nor the will to take them on militarily. Europe is useless to be honest, and all that "diplomacy" is just a nice way to shuttle diplomats back and forth between expensive countries for useless obfuscation and a good dose of taqiyya (the Islamic doctrine where by Muslims can or must lie to infidels).

Once Iran gets the nuke, all the other countries in the ME which are Arab (Iran is Persian) and Sunni (Iran is Shi'a) will want/need nukes. The West won't be able to complain about it because they'll say, well, you didn't stop Iran, so why can't we have them too?

Here is an Israeli cabinet minister on the repercussions of that scenario:

Egyptian and Saudi Arabian intentions to begin or revive their nuclear programs in the face of Iran's continued race toward nuclear power present an "apocalyptic scenario" for Israel as well as for the rest of the world, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

Lieberman's remarks came a week after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced a decision to restart his country's nuclear program. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had begun operating 3,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium.

"If Egypt and Saudi Arabia begin nuclear programs, this can bring an apocalyptic scenario upon us," Lieberman told the Post. "Their intentions should be taken seriously and the declarations being made now are to prepare the world for when they decide to actually do it."

Lieberman also said Pakistan was a major threat to Israel due to the political instability there and the fact that the country had "missiles, nuclear weapons and a proven capability."

How do Sunni Muslims view Shi'a Muslims?

Twelver Shi'a Islam is the predominant form of Shi'a Islam and differs significantly from Sunni Islam. Here is a partial list from Islam Q&A regarding the deficiencies of Twelver Shi'a Islam:

-1-

They exaggerate about their imams, claiming that they are infallible, and they devote many acts of worship to them such as supplication, seeking help, offering sacrifices and tawaaf (circumambulating their tombs). This is major shirk which Allaah tells us will not be forgiven. These acts of shirk are committed by their scholars and common folk alike, without anyone among them objecting to that.

-2-

They say that the Holy Qur’aan has been distorted, and that things have been added and taken away. They have books concerning that which are known to their scholars and many of their common folk, and they even say that believing that the Qur’aan has been distorted is an essential tenet of their beliefs. See the answer to question no. 21500.

-3-

They regard most of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) [companions of the Prophet Muhammad] as kaafirs, and disavow them, and they seek to draw closer to Allaah by cursing and reviling them. They claim that they apostatized after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) except very few (only seven). This is a rejection of the Qur’aan which affirms their virtue, and says that Allaah was pleased with them and chose them to accompany His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). [...]

-5-

They believe in taqiyah (dissimulation) which means showing outwardly something other than what one feels inside. In fact this is lying and hypocrisy and skill in deceiving people. This is not something that they do at times of fear; rather they regard use of taqiyah as a religious duty for minor and major matters, at times of fear and times of safety.

[Some forms of Sunni Islam practice taqiyye as well--Abu Daoud.]

"Islam is Peace": A Rebuttal

By Fitzgerald, from Jihadwatch.org:

...Now let's all imagine that we are Muslims, Believers living in the West. Muslims are not "monolithic," we are told. No. You may come from Pakistan and I from Somalia, and someone is here from Algeria, and someone else from Yemen, and so on. But we all share the same faith, a faith that is a religion, a politics, an economics, a system of artistic censorship, a guide to personal hygiene, a manual of etiquette, a guide to Dealing With Non-Muslims, a clothing manual, a guide to what are the permissible limits of thought and especially of thought about Islam and Muhammad, and so on. It's a Total System. It is unrecognized as such by most Infidels because what they know of as religion, what they think of as religion, is not a Total System.

And while Christianity is the other faith that makes universalist claims, it has not always, and certainly does not now, push those claims incessantly everywhere there are Christians. It does not think it right and proper to use violence against all those who resist the complete domination of Christianity or who choose to leave the faith. It does not regulate every area of life. It does not contain a politics ("it renders unto Caeser what is Caesar's") or a geopolitics. As for other faiths, while in Hinduism and Judaism informed converts are welcome, there is no campaign equivalent to Da'wa, nor is there anything like the Total System or violence of Islam. Islam seeks the uninformed convert, the person who really doesn't know the full story of Islam, but who is inveigled into reciting the Shahada, told he is now a Muslim, and then by slow degrees is taken carefully in hand and made much of by Muslims who watch his every move and guide his every step.

So there you are, a Muslim living in New Jersey or Michigan. What kind of campaign would you offer? Well, you'd carry on such a campaign in your own way, wouldn't you? If Infidels at work, or the parents of your children's schoolmates, are bold enough to ask you about Islam, you would first tell them all about Ramadan, and then about prayers. The very word "prayers" implies, to Christians, that the same kind of prayers to the same kind of deity are being invoked. But the prostrations to a whimsical Allah who interferes with life at every turn are not the same. Everything depends, inshallah, on Allah. The effects of that attitude are many on, for example, Muslim economic performance, or on the ability within Islam to foster the free and skeptical inquiry required not for mere technology, but for the enterprise of pure science, and also for the development of human thought. [...]

Read it all!

"Islam is Peace"

From the BBC, hat tip to Jihadwatch.org:

An advertising campaign promoting British Muslims as integrated citizens who reject extremism has been launched.

Islam is Peace - formed after the bombings in London in July 2005 - has initially placed adverts on the capital's buses and Underground trains.

They show a range of Muslims - including a policewoman, a Scout group and the chef Michael Barry - with the slogan "Proud to be a British Muslim".

Organisers say research shows many Britons associate Islam with terrorism.

Nationwide tour

The group insists that the religion demands that its followers live in peace with their neighbours within non-Muslim societies.

But it says it recognises that Muslims have a duty to show that the vast majority of them wish to do so.

[...]

Sadiq Khan MP said: "This is a fantastic initiative. Islam is a faith whose primary focus is peace and submission to one God.

"This campaign will help to bust some of the myths about Islam and allow the true face of Islam to reach all parts of our country."

Secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain Muhammad Abdul Bari said: "The silent majority of Muslims are coming forward and now challenging the islamophobia in sections of our media - it is a brave undertaking."

The campaign is launched as a new law banning incitement to religious hatred comes into force.

Prime Minister Badawi of Malaysia on Islam

From HERE:

New York - Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called Friday for increasing dialogue to repair misunderstandings by the West about Islam.

'The main cause is the misperception in the West that Islam promotes exclusively and encourages extremism,' Badawi said in an address to the UN General Assembly.

He said action should be taken to generate 'greater understanding' between civilizations and cultures and dialogue to establish 'the truth that Islam is a religion which espouses universalism, not exclusivity, and tolerance, not bigotry.'

The Academic Redrawing of Jesus and Mohammad

I only have sections of the entire article, but what I have is from Stand Firm.

The Academic Redrawing of Jesus and Mohammad
by Raymond Ibrahim

Few things are more demonstrative of the sad state of affairs of modern academia than the increasingly fictionalized portrayals of the founders of the two largest religions in the world: Jesus and Mohammad. Though the same dubious methods are used for both — ignore the most historically valid texts and documents, build ponderous theories atop evidence of the most tenuous kind — the goals are markedly different. In academia today, we find Jesus, far from the Son of God, portrayed at once as a wandering “magician” and a hippie-like philanderer inclined to homosexuality. Mohammad, whom the most authentic Muslim sources portray as, among other things, a warlord who had entire tribes executed and plundered, their women herded into harems, their children sold into slavery, appears as a peaceful and altruistic ruler whose governance ushered in, among other improvements, a sort of seventh-century “feminism.”

Considering that the early writers who composed the original texts and scriptures of Christianity and Islam were separated by only a few generations from the historic Jesus and Mohammad, as opposed to modern academics who are separated by 20 and 14 centuries, respectively, one would think that the former group would have been in a better position of authority to tell the narrative of Jesus and Mohammad. Yet nowhere is the arrogance of modernity better manifested than in the universities, where the straightforward words of history’s primary sources are increasingly brushed aside. The implicit understanding is that the writers of the New Testament and Islam’s vast compendium of scriptures were naïve and superstitious simpletons who — unlike their more “objective” modern day counterparts — simply could not critically engage their subjects.

Whenever the primary sources make mention of anything that might annoy or offend modern sensibilities — from Jesus’ celibacy to Mohammad’s militant jihads — “progressive” academics tend to simply dismiss it out of hand, preferring to rely on their own thoughts on the matter.

When it comes to “reconstructing” Jesus, academics invariably make two assumptions: The Gospels are not inspired, and the historical events recorded therein are also untrustworthy. In other words, not only do they reject the miraculous, they suspect the entire narrative, which has long been the primary source for understanding the nature of Jesus, even in a secular sense. Irrespective of what Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John record Jesus saying or doing; irrespective of the antiquity and authority of the Gospels, written just decades after the events they describe; irrespective of the fact that much of the historical events described in the Gospels accord with first-century Roman history; irrespective of all this, several Jesus “reconstructionalists” have decided that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament simply will not do for historical accuracy.

Instead, they rely on two dubious authorities: any scraps of other religious writings and their own conjectures. Obscure Gnostic documents, which were refuted, discredited, and abandoned nearly 2000 years ago, or were of such little importance that the early church was not even aware of their existence, become foundational. Through these fragmented parchments, academics can read into Jesus whatever they desire.

The UN: A Ridiculous Waste of Time and Money

So this is not a (very) political blog, but sometimes you read things and just realize that truth is truth. The UN is a waste of time and money:

Despite its numerous calls for Israel's destruction, and repeated denials of the Holocaust, Iran has been selected by the United Nations for a leading position in a committee that will plan the 2009 UN World Conference against Racism.

The planning committee, which will meet for the first time in Geneva on August 27, will be made up of an inner circle of 20 UN member-states, to be headed by Libya.

From Here.

Consider Islamophobia

Whoever coined the term "Islamophobia" was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not "Muslim-phobia" or "anti-Muslimist," it is Islam-ophobia – fear of Islam – yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.

The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.

--Dennis Prager

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad
By Walid Phares

In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public's understanding of the terrorists' ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and jihadi cadres didn't waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed the international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.

From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by "martyrs" in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990's, the statements by the jihadists themselves were very convincing.

The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is "jihadi studies." Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the "missing link" as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from "Jihad is spiritual yoga" to "Why didn't we know it was something else as well?" And this triggered in response one of the last attempts to prevent jihad from being understood.

In the 1990's, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that jihad was a "spiritual experience only, and not a menace." [1] That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality jihad can develop in two forms: good jihad and bad jihad.

Read More »

The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University [2] who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard.[3] On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosly Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith." [4]

The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. [5] Since then the "concept" of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of the defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces.[6] Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."[7]

UK Muslims condemn terrorism, sort of

Read it all Here

My favorite part:

"British Muslims are leading a new campaign condemning the recent attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow." But in reality, this one is not as clever as the Fiqh Council's document: its weasel wording is relatively obvious.

MUSLIMS UNITED !

..Whoever kills an innocent soul.. it is as if he killed the whole of mankind, And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind” [The Quran, 5:32]

"An innocent soul." But reading beyond the quoted passage (you know how important context is, after all), we learn what awaits those who not deemed innocent: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter" (Qur'an 5:33).

The Muslim communities across Britain are united in condemning the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.

We are united with the rest of the country at this critical time and are determined to work together to avert any such attacks targeting our fellow citizens, property and country.

Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam.

"Innocent people." How, then, does this declaration do anything to refute the views of the British jihadist Anjem Choudary, who has said forthrightly on British TV that no non-Muslims are innocent? Anjem Choudary would have no trouble agreeing to this statement. And there's your problem.

Facts not Fear

A reader of this blog, Rev Jim Sutter, has offered an interesting comment on one of my posts.

He is more optimistic than I am about the peacefulness of Islam, but in all fairness, one should read the statements of Islamic leaders RE terror and violence. But I wouls say that one should be quite careful in evaluating these statements. First: the use of dishonesty for securing the victory of Islam is sanctioned in Islam (taqiyye, taqiyya--which I have written about on this blog, feel free to query). Also, since Muhammad used violence in a rather robust manner to further his vision of God's power and sovereignty, violence cannot be said to be un-Islamic. That would indeed be heresy.

Here is a portion of one of his comments, with the link:

As to specific denunciations from thousands upon thousands of Muslim leaders worldwide, including fatwas against terrorism, violence, suicide bombing, militant jihad, and perverting the Qur'an and hadiths, you can find a compilation of these at http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com

Everyone Denounces Terror

Quote from Robert Spencer:

Muslim leaders of all kinds have already denounced "terror." The problem here is that no one is defining these terms; rather, everyone is assuming that we all mean the same things by them whenever we use them. By "terror" does one mean "an unprovoked attack against innocent civilians with the intention of causing undifferentiated mayhem"? Muslim leaders will have no problem denouncing that. But if one means "actions carried out in order to further the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad," that is quite another matter. No one is being specific enough. No one is speaking about "the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism" and asking Muslims to denounce that. No one dares.

From Here

By the way one of our readers has voiced concern regarding Jihad Watch, so I am careful when I reference articles from that site. But I think this quote is right on and too good to pass up.

Muslims Should Condemn Muslim Violence

Nice article. Let the Muslim communiy be clear about what is 'violence' and what is terrorism.

From Jihad Watch:

While Muslim groups have issued vague condemnations of "terrorism" and the killing of "innocent civilians," they have never bothered to define who exactly is an innocent civilian, despite the fact that jihadists have claimed that Israelis and, in some cases, Americans and Britons are neither innocent nor civilians. Yet despite the fact that there is no global network of Jewish or Christian terrorists committing violence in the name of either religion and justifying that violence by referring to its sacred texts, and Christian and Jewish leaders have quickly condemned violent acts committed by Christians and Jews, without vagueness or weasel words, the idea that all three religions are equally likely to inspire violence persists.

Victimhood and Terrorism

Back in December I wrote this:

“No one admits that his own yoghurt is sour.” --Syrian proverb

I want to suggest in this post that victimhood has become an integral and essential element in Muslim identity today. There are a number of reasons for this, some of them are valid, but many of them are not. I want to explain why and how this has come to be the case today.

And now we have this astounding announcement from the OIS (Organization of Islamic States):

Speaking at a special brainstorming session on the sidelines of the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia the worst form of terrorism and called for practical steps to counter it.

The ministers described Islamophobia as a deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. “This campaign of calumny against Muslims resulted in the publication of the blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper and the issuance of the inflammatory statement by Pope Benedict XVI,” they said. During a speech in Germany last year, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things. The Pope’s remarks aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world.

“The increasingly negative political and media discourse targeting Muslims and Islam in the United States and Europe has made things all the more difficult,” the foreign ministers said. “Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.

I don't have anything to say about their claim. But I really want to object to the sense of self-pity and victimhood that pervades every single sentence in this article. Amazing really. There is not even a single mention that maybe Islam has anything to do with terrorism. There is no room for introspection, for self-criticism, for wondering if somehow Muslims have failed in maintaining their societies.

Nothing is Islam's fault. It's all your fault. Nor do they mention that the connection between terror and Islam was not invented in the West. It comes, quite obviously and clearly, straight from the Muslim holy warriors (terrorists). But they don't mention that.