With all the trouble in the world at the moment i.e the battle with fanatical ideology it is interesting to receive an email regarding the use of certain words and terms. This made me wonder “What’s in a name and where
are we going?” I have copied the body of the text here… the following has probably gone round the world before it reached me and the original author was not named.
German Muslim scholar replies on TERRORISM ...
I liked the answer of this German Muslim scholar when he was asked about terrorism and Islam :
He said :
Who started the first world war? not Muslims ?
the second world war? not Muslims ?
Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia? not Muslims ??
Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? not Muslims ??
Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians
in North America ? not Muslims ??
Who killed more than 50 millions of Indians in south America ? not Muslims ??
Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown in Atlantic ocean ? not Muslims
No , NOT Muslims!!!
First of all, You have to define terrorism properly...
If a non-Muslim does something bad..it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same..he is a terrorist...
So first remove this double standard...then
come to the point!!! , . . . . .
While some of these numbers seem a bit out there… I have to agree somewhat with the last point. I really believe we should stop using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the individuals who commit atrocious acts in the name of a particular ideology.
Just as Australia did with the term ‘King Hit’ which was to change it to ‘Coward
Punch’… we need to stop with the ‘terrorist’ term and replace it with ‘criminal’, perhaps this would deter such individuals from gaining any glory. You see they are gaining credibility or cred from being called ‘terrorists’. A case of ‘one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter’.
However, there was this…
from yet another email
A German's View on Islam - worth reading. This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear.
Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large
industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride,
and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world
'My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion
of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics
rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.'
'The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics
who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.'
'The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful
majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.'
'The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered
its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority
of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
'History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant
by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.'
'Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.'
Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario , and yes, in Ottawa , too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in
our country until the fanatics move in.'
'In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular
chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.'
'In the U.K, the Muslim communities
refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.'
'As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.'
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without
sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before
it's too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!!!
We have groups here in Australia that have been banned in muslim majority countries… one example is a group that I only became aware of recently thanks to ABC’s Lateline program and a fiery interview with one of its leaders. The group is called Hizb-ut Tahrir and they advocate a world wide muslim state run on Islamic law no doubt. They say they do it by peaceful means but they will not condemn the use of violent acts by the criminals we have seen nightly on the news.
You could look at other criminal conspiracies – OMCG (Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs) otherwise known as ‘bikie gangs’ or even the Cosa Nostra (Mafia)… Notice there I said
‘bikie’ not ‘biker’ gangs as we know that not all who ride motorcycles are bad but it does seem that those bad ones all ride motorcycles. Hmm… something like ‘not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are
Muslims’ Doesn’t quite have the same meaning when you replace the word ‘terrorist’ with the word ‘criminal’ does it?? Unfortunately cutting off heads never seems to stop the problem just brings more to the fore.
I mean, what are the outcomes of these ‘Wars’ i.e. the War on Drugs and the War on Terror?
I have to say that I was against the Guantanamo
Bay facility set up by the Bush Administration and continued for a while under Obama… I was against the locking up without charge of the likes of David Hicks. It’s
not that I thought them particularly innocent, it’s just that I thought of them as crazy or just common criminals who should have faced criminal court, been convicted and locked up with other common criminals, the rapists, murderers and drug dealers…
that is where they belong.
There is one issue that seems to rear its head whenever there is issues with muslims and that is the sight of women wearing the Burqa or Nakib. Now, here in Australia, day to day I don’t see
many people wearing these particular items. I do see a number of women wearing the hijab. The hijab simply is a head scarf and not particularly
confronting to anyone, however it too is a symbol rightly or wrongly, it is an identifier with an ideology that we seem to be struggling with. So, it is the sight of the burqa or nakib that is at issue and I can understand the general populace’s
problem with these items of clothing. These are full face coverings and this is a society which relies on facial recognition and body language.
Hypothetically, if I was to start a group and say that all men in my group should
wear balaclavas out in public, would that be acceptable??? Even if my group had been around a long time and had lots of followers? NO!! It wouldn’t. Do you know why? It’s because the balaclava is associated with criminality –
commonly used by bank robbers, burglars and others who do not want to be identified.
So, why then is the burqa or the nakib allowed in this country?? Of course, we are a multicultural country and a supposedly secular state where
you have the freedom to wear what you want but there are many examples where that is not entirely true. For example you can be a nudist at home but not in the majority of public places and nudists have been around for a long time, in fact a lot of indigenous
tribes could be said to be the original nudists. The point is, when you live in a society such as this there are some norms you should follow and one is we need to see the face of people we interact with.
Also, the burqa and
nakib seem to most Australians and those who live in western countries to be symbols of oppression and could be used to hide all manner of sins. My question is: Why would any real man want his wife, mother, daughter, sister to be out in public with or
without him wearing a burqa?? Is it the fact they’re afraid that other men can’t control themselves or is it the ultimate control device, to hide them from view? Either way it is a bit of cloth too far in this country and there
needs to be active encouragement of its removal in public spaces such as Parliament House, Shopping Centres, etcetera. It may work in some countries to wear this item where there isn’t a culture of looking people in the eye and reading a
smile or frown. Here in Australia we do and we look to open dialogue but how can you openly dialogue with someone when you can’t even see their eyes and the words coming out of their mouth?? I’m sorry but I say ‘Ban the Burqa’….