2016-09-01

The Founder of Islamist Extremism and Terrorism

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

nolanNazi ideology was set out by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, Communism was explained for all by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto, and radical Islamism was planted with Sayyid Qutb‘s Milestones. Qutb was hanged in 1966 for involvement in a plot to assassinate Egypt’s President Gamal Abdul Nasser. Qutb’s ideas appear to have been more deeply entrenched as consequence of his various experiences during a visit to the United States 1948-1950.

jnolan

James Nolan

James Nolan includes Sayyid Qutb in his book, What They Saw in America: Alexis de Tocqueville, Max Weber, G. K. Chesterton, and Sayyid Qutb and there is an interesting interview with James Nolan his book (with an emphasis on Qutb) at The violent legacy of Sayyid Qutb’s visit to the USA on Late Night Live.

A famous tipping point for Qutb that seems to pop up frequently in any discussion of his experiences in America was a church dance, and not least the lyrics of the pop song being played, Baby It’s Cold Outside.

Racism in America was another stench that outraged him.

milestones-sayyid-qutb-3.gifI want to follow up Nolan’s interview about Qutb with some comments on Milestones.

Milestones is said to have been studied intensively by Osama Bin Laden and other Islamist leaders today. To anyone who has read Milestones its influence is very obvious in the propaganda pronouncements of ISIS today.

I would even say that it is essential reading for anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding the Islamist movement and the ideology behind Islamist terrorism. It is not the only work of significance (I have mentioned others, especially Management of Savagery), but a reasonable case can be made that Milestones is “where it all began”.

I have never had any personal interest in the Muslim religion but reading Milestones evoked a very strong sense of déjà vu for me. I was transported back to the days when I was reading the Armstrong literature that led me into the Worldwide Church of God cult. All the same buttons were there.

Press the one to arouse uncompromising idealism.

Press another to stir up the thrill and heavy responsibility of being part of a vanguard movement destined to change history and save mankind.

What was needed was a long-term program of ideological and organizational work, coupled with the training of a dedicated vanguard of believers who would protect the cause in times of extreme danger (if necessary by recourse to force) and preside over the replacement of Jahiliyyahh by the Islamic state. . . .

It is the right of Islam to release mankind from servitude to human beings so that they may serve Allah alone, to give practical
meaning to its declaration that Allah is the true Lord of all and that all men are free under Him. . . .

Mankind can be dignified, today or tomorrow, by striving toward this noble civilization, by pulling itself out of the abyss of Jahiliyyahh into which it is falling.

And there’s the other one for confronting hypocrisy and setting one on the path to become a self-sacrificing heroic martyr.

We must also free ourselves from the clutches of Jahili society, Jahili concepts, Jahili traditions and Jahili leadership. Our mission is not to compromise with the practices of Jahili society, nor can we be loyal to it. Jahili society, because of its Jahili characteristics, is not worthy to be compromised with. . . .The honour of martyrdom is achieved only when one is fighting in the cause of
Allah . . .

It’s all there. All the buttons that start certain people on the road to radicalization, to extremism.

And it’s all backed up by the special insights of the godly founder-figure who came to understand more deeply than anyone else the ultimate truths in the Holy Book — in Armstrong’s case, the Bible; in Qutb’s, the Qur’an.

. . . I have set down the deep truths which I grasped during my meditations over the way of life presented in the Holy Qur’an. . .

To say that the Muslim religion or the Qur’an is ultimately responsible for Islamist extremism and terrorism today is just like saying that Christianity and the Bible are ultimately responsible for Armstrongism, Dave Koresh, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jim Jones. Well, yes, in a very general sense they are, but only in such a general sense that the link become meaningless.

Just as cult leaders denounce their mainstream religionists as “false brethren”, so in Milestones we read repeatedly of the falseness of mainstream Muslims.

Lastly, all the existing so-called ‘Muslim’ societies are also Jahili societies.

We classify them among Jahili societies not because they believe in other deities besides Allah or because they worship anyone other than Allah, but because their way of life is not based on submission to Allah alone. . . . 

The people in these countries have reached this wretched state by abandoning Islam, and not because they are Muslims.

Just as cult leaders claim special insights into the Bible, so Qutb claims that his own understanding of the Qur’an is the result of long periods of study and reflection. His interpretations were not obvious at first. In fact, in Milestones he goes to considerable length to counter the arguments of mainstream Muslims condemning his extreme view of jihad and killing the faithless.

So you think the belief in being given forty-two virgins in Paradise is a motive to kill and die? Rubbish. Not a single breath of a hint of any such self-interested motive seeps into Milestones. Very much the contrary, in fact. There is a vast chasm between teachings of heavenly rewards and the actual triggers that initiate the behaviours of cultists.

I began by comparing Milestones with Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. It’s appropriate to conclude with a link back to an earlier post — ISIS is a Revolution, born in terror (like all revolutions) — in which Scott Atran argues that the Islamist extremists we face today are indeed part of a worldwide revolutionary movement that must be stopped.

You can download Milestones here or here.

qutb

Sayyid Qutb

Other Vridar posts on Sayyid Qutb

And other posts justifying the comparison between religious cults and other extremists:

40 Comments

  • james
    2016-09-02 19:45:57 UTC - 19:45 | Permalink

    “radical Islamism was planted with Sayyid Qutb‘s Milestones”

    No it wasn’t. There were plenty of radical Islamists before 1964. This idea that so-called Islamism is a recent invention is liberal propaganda, and an attempt to whitewash 13 centuries of Islamic theocracy.

    “So you think the belief in being given forty-two virgins in Paradise is a motive to kill and die? Rubbish. Not a single breath of a hint of any such self-interested motive seeps into Milestones. Very much the contrary, in fact. There is a vast chasm between teachings of heavenly rewards and the actual triggers that initiate the behaviours of cultists.”

    Chapters 11/12 are full of this, this might be a language problem, by the Garden Qutb means Paradise.

    “Scott Atran argues that the Islamist extremists we face today are indeed part of a worldwide revolutionary movement that must be stopped.”

    Atran has been hilariously wrong about pretty much everything for the past 15 years. This is the guy who famously insisted networks of familiy and friends were the cause of terrorism, only to get blindsided by a wave of self radicalisation by lone wolves. He said social marginalisation was the cause, and jihads weren’t really interested in overthrowing dictators and running theocracies – ha ha ha ha ha. It’s ridiculous that someone who has been so consistently wrong is thought to be an authority.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2016-09-02 20:29:42 UTC - 20:29 | Permalink

      Sigh! Have you ever read any of Scott Atran’s research publications and books? Obviously not or you could not repeat such utter nonsense as that he claims “networks and families were the CAUSE of terrorism”. That’s a faleshood promoted by Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne and co.

      Have you ever read Milestones yourself? Obviously not. But you know it’s all bollocks, right?

      I think you might (potentially?) learn something if you even read the autobiography of Maajid Nawaz, a friend of Sam Harris. It’s called Radical. Or even the book he co-authored with Sam Harris: Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz in Discordant Dialogue

      It looks to me like the version of history about Islam that you read has a lot in common with a work supposedly exposing the historical evils of Jews, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

      For others who are genuinely interested:

      The Origins of Islamic Militancy

      So why did militants turn to attack the West? — The Saudi Arabia driver

      • james
        2016-09-03 08:12:02 UTC - 08:12 | Permalink

        “It looks to me like the version of history about Islam that you read has a lot in common with a work supposedly exposing the historical evils of Jews, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

        The difference is that there was no global Jewish conspiracy. Name one year between 622 and 1924 when there wasn’t a Caliphate?

        Have you ever read Milestones yourself? Obviously not. But you know it’s all bollocks, right?

        Yes. Have you read the history of Saudi Arabia? Was it not founded through jihad? Are they not extreme islamists? The idea that radical Islamism was started with Milestones in 1964 is not true, it has deep routes in Islamic history.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2016-09-04 06:56:59 UTC - 06:56 | Permalink

          What does the existence of the historical Caliphate have to do with anything?

          As for Saudi Arabia you should read Burke’s latest book or at least my two posts on it: http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews-notes/burke-the-new-threat/

          • james
            2016-09-05 23:39:45 UTC - 23:39 | Permalink

            “What does the existence of the historical Caliphate have to do with anything?”

            It demonstrates that contrary to your claim radical Islamism did not start with Qutb in 1964.

            • Neil Godfrey
              2016-09-06 22:41:20 UTC - 22:41 | Permalink

              How so? What does the historical Caliphate have to do with radical Islamism?

              Was Qutb completely ignorant of what he wrote about the historical Caliphate and have all the Islamists who have studied Qutb since failed to spot his error? Are all the Islamists and Muslims ignorant of their own history?

              Did you ready my two posts on the rise of Islamism at http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews-notes/burke-the-new-threat/

              (Actually Qutb was indeed partly misreading his own history of the Caliphate, but not in the way you seem to think.)

            • Neil Godfrey
              2016-09-07 00:26:11 UTC - 00:26 | Permalink

              From my post about a recent historian’s work on the Arab conquests:

              So were the Arab conquests inspired by Muhammad and their zeal to spread the Muslim faith? For that we have no evidence. I don’t mean there is no evidence for the seventh century Arab conquests. They are not doubted. But what is open to question is whether these Arabs were adherents to Islam at that time. Or did the Muslim religion appear subsequent to those conquests?

              When the Romans or Persians conquered territories they left indisputable evidence of who they were and what they believed. When the Arabs conquered both Christian and Jewish peoples they left no evidence that at that time they belonged to any particular religion. Apparently some Christians feared they were in league with the Jews because they allowed Jews to return to some of their places of prayer.

              Particularly curious is that there is no mention of Muhammad in any of their coins or other records pertaining to this period. Another curious datum from the documentary (not in the interview) is that the earliest known mosque in the Palestine region is not facing Mecca, but east, for prayer.

              The first coin with the name Muhammad on it does not appear until around fifty years after the conquests of Palestine.

              At the “height” of its power the Caliphate was a focus of court luxury, and court poets praising the joys of wine and boys . . . Islamic radicalism indeed!

  • james
    2016-09-02 22:00:54 UTC - 22:00 | Permalink

    “Sigh! Have you ever read any of Scott Atran’s research publications and books? Obviously not or you could not repeat such utter nonsense as that he claims “networks and families were the CAUSE of terrorism”. That’s a faleshood promoted by Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne and co.”

    Yes I have read Atran. Remember Atran has played a key role in counter terrorism policy. Now mentally review the below in light of the last 10 years.

    From Atran: Trends in Suicide Terrorism : Sense and Nonsense. 2004.

    “Through indoctrination of recruits into relatively small and closeted cells—emotionally tightknit brotherhoods—terror organizations create a family of cellmates who are just as willing to sacrifice for one another as a parent for a child… These culturally contrived cell loyalties mimic and (at least temporarily) override genetically based fidelities to kin while securing belief in sacrifice to a larger group cause… Key to intercepting that commitment before it solidifies is grasping how, like the best commercial advertisers but to ghastlier effect, charismatic leaders of terrorist groups turn ordinary desires for kinship and religion into cravings for the mission they are pitching, to the benefit of the manipulating organization rather than the individual manipulated…

    Social psychologists have long documented what they call “the fundamental attribution error,” the tendency for people to explain human behavior in terms of individual personality traits, even when significant situational factors in the larger society are at work. This attribution error leads many in the West to focus on the individual suicide terrorists rather than the organizational environment which produces them… : no instance has yet occurred of religious or political suicide terrorism resulting from the lone action of a mentally unstable bomber (e.g., a suicidal Unabomber) or someone acting entirely under his own authority and responsibility (e.g., a suicidal Timothy McVeigh). The key is the organization, not the individual.”

    Q1. Do you think Atran is correct in his dismissal of lone wolf terrorists? Can Islamist terrorism occur based on theological motivations in the absence of organisational support, or is recruitment and manipulation in cells driven by charismatic leaders neccessary as Atran claimed? Has terrorism unfolded as Atran predicted based on extrapolations from research into Palestinian terrorism?

    From Atran: The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism. 2006.

    “Jihadis Are Not Nihilistic (Even If Apocalyptic)

    A third misconception is that those who carry out attacks in the name of Al Qaeda or through its inspiration do so mostly because the terrorist is desperate or a nihilist who, in the words of President George W. Bush, “hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises dissent” and wants only to replace the current mildly corrupt and undemocratic regimes with the terrorist’s own far more authoritarian and arbitrary form of “evil.”32 This is the thesis of the U.S. leadership.33 It is hopelessly tendentious and willfully blind.34” …charges of nihilism against an adversary usually reflect ignorance of the adversary’s moral framework or an attempt publicly to cast it as simply evil to mobilize domestic support for war.

    Q2. Do you think Atran was correct is his rejection of jihadist ambitions to create “authoritarian” and “evil” regimes? Have any real world developments challenged Atrans view? Did these charges of support for Caliphism reflect warmongering “ignorance” of jihadis moral frameworks, or an accurate understanding of their theological and scriptural motivations?

    Atran’s theories are catastrophically wrong. He absolutely failed to predict both self-radicalisation and the rise of jihadi states – both incidentally deductable from the Harris/Coyne model of scriptual motivation. I do not know how people can take Atran seriously when he had so confidently argued for the impossibility of the two main recent developments in jihadism.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2016-09-03 00:32:17 UTC - 00:32 | Permalink

      Before I respond to your questions I think it is reasonable to expect you to respond to the key opening point of mine. If you have read Atran then do cite where argues that “networks and families were the cause of terrorism”. If you somehow think that your quotations above answer that question, please point out how.

      Before I respond to your point about lone wolf terrorists, and since you are clearly in angst over Scott Atran’s presumed arguments, do tell me what articles of Atran’s you have read concerning the lone-wolves.

      Are you aware of the changes in terrorism that have occurred since the 1980s and the way different scholars have kept apace with these changes in their research? Have you read any works published since 2004 or 06?

      • james
        2016-09-03 07:47:26 UTC - 07:47 | Permalink

        Before I respond to your questions I think it is reasonable to expect you to respond to the key opening point of mine. If you have read Atran then do cite where argues that “networks and families were the cause of terrorism”. If you somehow think that your quotations above answer that question, please point out how.

        One of many examples:

        “What seems critical is belonging to action-oriented networks—of families, friends, and fellow travelers—especially when these young people are in transitional stages in finding meaning and a place in life (e.g., immigrants or students in search of friends, mates, jobs).

        Young jihadis are powerfully bound to each other—they are often campmates, school buddies, and soccer pals—who become die-hard bands of brothers united in what they perceive to be a thrilling and heroic cause.”

        Atran has been consistent that indoctrination in small and closeted cells is needed to create terrorists – it runs through almost everything he’s wrote even as self radicalisation took off. I don’t know why you would try and deny this.

        “Are you aware of the changes in terrorism that have occurred since the 1980s and the way different scholars have kept apace with these changes in their research? Have you read any works published since 2004 or 06?”

        Yes. The situation reminds me of scientists who claimed “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, except they were humiliated on the demostration that their theories were wrong. Somehow tightly bonded terror cell theorists still have careers…

        • Neil Godfrey
          2016-09-04 07:01:24 UTC - 07:01 | Permalink

          Atran has been consistent that indoctrination in small and closeted cells is needed to create terrorists – it runs through almost everything he’s wrote even as self radicalisation took off. I don’t know why you would try and deny this.

          Now I know you have not read Atran’s works but nothing more than a few paragraphs presumably through the guidance of Sam Harris or such. Atran says no such thing. The networks he speaks of are not Atran’s theory, by the way, and he certainly does NOT say they “indoctrinate” anyone.

          You overlooked my other comment pointing out that Atran begins the article you cite with a declaration that the terrorists we are talking about are motivated by religious ideas.

          • james
            2016-09-04 07:18:27 UTC - 07:18 | Permalink

            Now I know you have not read Atran’s works but nothing more than a few paragraphs presumably through the guidance of Sam Harris or such. Atran says no such thing. The networks he speaks of are not Atran’s theory, by the way, and he certainly does NOT say they “indoctrinate” anyone.</i/

            Did Atran not write this?

            From Atran: Trends in Suicide Terrorism : Sense and Nonsense. 2004.

            “Through indoctrination of recruits into relatively small and closeted cells—emotionally tightknit brotherhoods—terror organizations create a family of cellmates who are just as willing to sacrifice for one another as a parent for a child…”

            • Neil Godfrey
              2016-09-04 08:01:49 UTC - 08:01 | Permalink

              You got me. Yes he did. The indoctrination of which he is speaking is a social process, a shaping of ideas through peer-to-peer social interaction. That is also apparent in that same article. It is the same gradual social conditioning that leads to what Zimbardo called “the Lucifer Effect” and that Atran supports with the following footnote in that article:

              Studies of people who become torturers for their governments demonstrate the eventual power of such blind obedience. See Mika Haritos-Fatouros, “The Official Torturer: A Learning Model for Obedience to the Authority of Violence,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18 (1988): 1107–1120. The recent scandal involving American servicemen torturing Iraqi prisoners, which has been attributed by American military investigators to “leadership failure” and “lack of supervision” that allowed deviant “criminal” behavior, may in fact result from a less direct and more pervasive culture of abuse promoted by authorities in military intelligence. “Leadership Failure Led to Prison Abuse, Says US General,” Agence France Presse wire, May 12, 2004, http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040512/1/3k6s5.html; Peter Slevin, “Red Cross Describes Systematic Abuse in Iraq,” Washington Post, May 10, 2004.

              What is clear from Atran’s work is that what he (and it’s not only Atran, by the way) is attempting to understand is what are the most reliable predictors of someone becoming a terrorist. And networks are indeed still the most widely used predictors. There is no “ha ha ha ha ha ha” mud on his face as you fatuously assert.

              Sam Harris would have us believe, I think, that the most reliable predictor is being a Muslim. Right. So all Muslims must be suspect; Islam is the enemy.

              Since 2004/06 terrorist networks have inspired “lone-wolf” attacks and this testifies to the power of the internet, also addressed in Atran’s and others’ works. That this was not the primary method of certain types of attacks we have seen since does not invalidate anything. Anti or counter-terrorist agencies still use networks as their primary focus for identifying potential terrorists.

              The difference is that they are now confronted with the additional problem that networks can also be “virtual” and far harder to identify beforehand.

              To suggest that a description of the essential predictors of joining a terrorist group and becoming a terrorist oneself is somehow “wrong” because not all terrorists today join a terrorist group does not make any sense.

              • james
                2016-09-04 08:23:51 UTC - 08:23 | Permalink

                “The difference is that they are now confronted with the additional problem that networks can also be “virtual” and far harder to identify beforehand.”

                No. Atran’s networks – and I’ll quote this again – are “action-oriented networks—of families, friends, and fellow travelers … powerfully bound to each other—they are often campmates, school buddies, and soccer pals”.

                He wasn’t talking about people IMing a twitter account in Syria before shooting somewhere up. Atran had a specific theory of social motivation in kin group – not just from interviews on groups at the time, but from general anthopological theory. History hasn’t been kind.

              • Neil Godfrey
                2016-09-04 09:44:42 UTC - 09:44 | Permalink

                Understand what predicting means. How has anyone’s work (no need to focus on Atran who is not the only person making these points) been falsified?

                Atran had a specific theory of social motivation in kin group

                And this has been falsified?

                To suggest that a description of the essential predictors of joining a terrorist group and becoming radicalized this way is somehow “wrong” because not all terrorists today join a terrorist group does not make any sense.

                It makes no sense to fault anyone for not explaining a situation they was not describing. Especially when they have written about the place of the internet and kept apace with the changing faces of terrorism.

                But I guess understanding all of that will deprive you of your ‘ha ha ha ha ha ha’ moments.

                Tell me more about your conspiracy theory concerning Atran.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2016-09-03 04:46:11 UTC - 04:46 | Permalink

      Okay, I promised not to respond till you engaged with my own comment on your earlier comment first, but I have just caught up with the first article of Atran’s that you cite. I have to ask: Did you read the entire article? Did you read the very first line/second sentence in Scott’s article that says:

      The past three years saw more suicide attacks than the last quarter century. Most of these were religiously motivated.”

      Now, what was it you were saying about Atran denying the religious [i.e. Islamic!!] motivation of terrorists?

      Exactly what works have you read by Scott Atran about terrorism? More to the point, what works of any specialist in terrorism have you read in full, on their own terms and in their own right, without the tendentious blinkers of the likes of Sam Harris?

      • james
        2016-09-04 08:03:18 UTC - 08:03 | Permalink

        “Now, what was it you were saying about Atran denying the religious [i.e. Islamic!!] motivation of terrorists?”

        Atran view is basically sacred values + action oriented groups are needed. By sacred values he means a very very broad class of ideas: communism, democracy, buddhism can all be sacred values. So religion is there, but he doesn’t see it as anything particularly unique to religion – it could as well be any higher motivating cause. That’s why I used scriptural and theological, rather than religious, in my comment. Atran will admit a “sacred” motive in a very general sense, but refuses to accept specifically “Islamic” motivation or to engage with doctrine.

        Obviously the classic example is denial that jihadis actually want to establish a theological tyrany that I reference above.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2016-09-04 08:10:44 UTC - 08:10 | Permalink

          Can you point me to where he assigns sacred values to some sort of “very general sense”? Most of his work that I have read place sacred values at the forefront of his explanations. The one I linked to in the post above certainly did.

          Where does Atran deny that jihadi’s want to establish a theological tyranny? He certainly gives the very opposite perspective in the article I linked to.

  • Neil Godfrey
    2016-09-03 01:30:35 UTC - 01:30 | Permalink

    Hi James,

    You are outraged at what you have falsely heard about Scott Atran and by what you have read into selected paragraphs of his works, but let me invite you to another researcher into terrorism. It is someone I think is from “your side” of the fence, certainly no “liberal”, that is one who belongs to a right-wing think-tank (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), Daveed Gartenstein-Ross: The Myth of Lone-Wolf Terrorism .

  • james
    2016-09-03 07:58:59 UTC - 07:58 | Permalink

    “You are outraged at what you have falsely heard about Scott Atran and by what you have read into selected paragraphs of his works, but let me invite you to another researcher into terrorism. It is someone I think is from “your side” of the fence, certainly no “liberal”, that is one who belongs to a right-wing think-tank (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), Daveed Gartenstein-Ross: The Myth of Lone-Wolf Terrorism.”

    I agree that lone wolf attacks are often falsely declared (ironically enough so that people can deny that Caliphist ideology is motivating IS to launch attacks against the west). However, noting that jihadis are in online contact with IS planners does not validate Atran’s theories. His claim was that “action-oriented networks” of people with tight social bonds “campmates, school buddies, and soccer pals” was needed – not that it could be achieved by whatsapping some dude you’ve never met in Syria.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2016-09-04 07:07:52 UTC - 07:07 | Permalink

      What do you mean by “caliphist ideology”? (Please respond with a thoughtful answer, not a flippant knee-jerk reply.)

      Atran along with countless other terrorism experts says radicalization happens through networks because in all the situations they study that’s exactly what happens. That’s not a prediction or a law saying that some other situation is impossible. Atran has also spoken about the place of the internet, too, — I trust you knew that.

      What a bunch of complete fools are the experts on terrorism employed by the governments of the USA, Australia, UK, European nations …. Why the hell isn’t the United Nations calling on Sam Harris to come and offer expert testimony about the underlying causes of terrorism and what to do about it instead of the likes of scholars like Scott Atran?

  • james
    2016-09-04 08:04:42 UTC - 08:04 | Permalink

    “What do you mean by “caliphist ideology”?”

    I mean the traditional division of the world into the house of islam and house of war, and the classic sharia view that the Caliph has a religious duty to wage war on non-muslims until they convert or accept his authority. People who oppose foreign intervention (which may well be the right view regardless) are motivated to attribute attacks to lone wolves rather than admit they’re being planned and directed from IS – which if the fact were admitted would weaken their case.

    Atran along with countless other terrorism experts says radicalization happens through networks because in all the situations they study that’s exactly what happens.

    No. Atran’s back peddled, because reality hasn’t given him a choice. But went very strong on groups – organisations are key, networks are critical – because of his anthopological theories on social motivation. That’s not been borne out.

    Why the hell isn’t the United Nations calling on Sam Harris to come and offer expert testimony about the underlying causes of terrorism and what to do about it instead of the likes of scholars like Scott Atran?

    It’s very obvious why the Jordan chaired Security Council invited Atran to address a debate on Islamic terrorism Countering Violent Extremism presided over by His Royal Highness Crown Prince Al Hussein Bin Abdullah II, rather than Sam Harris. I’m sure even you agree that inviting Harris would have made for a more entertaining event.

    I do wonder whether Atran’s published views are his true beliefs – it would just not be possible to interview jihadists or get support from the places Atran gets support if he had said the stuff about Islam Harris has. His published views are still awful though.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2016-09-04 08:15:28 UTC - 08:15 | Permalink

      So you suspect there is a conspiracy behind Atran’s career and professional status?

      You really ought to read Milestones and the other works I have suggested so you can see that the Islamists complain that mainstream Muslims (mainstream Islam) has NOT supported their views on jihad. That has something to do with why they kill far more Muslims than Westerners. The extremists claim to be the only true Muslims and you believe them and reject the views of mainstream Muslims. Nice.

  • Neil Godfrey
    2016-09-04 10:04:30 UTC - 10:04 | Permalink

    Evolution is not falsified as we learn more about how life evolved and find there is more to it than just “natural selection”. Newton’s laws are not falsified as we learn more about how the universe works. Describing the role of networks is not invalidated because different types of networks and how they radicalize persons have emerged since.

    Scott Atran once took the time to comment on this blog so I suspect he is approachable. Why not email him and ask him to “explain himself”? Or would you prefer to hang on to your “ha ha ha ha ha ha” moments? See what he says about your conspiracy theory while you’re at it.

  • Zbykow
    2016-09-05 22:21:13 UTC - 22:21 | Permalink

    “So you think the belief in being given forty-two virgins in Paradise is a motive to kill and die? Rubbish. Not a single breath of a hint of any such self-interested motive seeps into Milestones.”

    Who’s the man of straw who says that?

    It goes without saying that belief in afterlife alone is hardly a sufficient motive to go on a killing spree. That’s not how it works.

    There’s a variety of stupid motives, but if one wants to kill people in hostile territory and get away with it – that’s very difficult. On the other hand, if he doesn’t necessarily expect to survive, that makes it a different game.
    That’s where the belief in the reward in afterlife comes in, it helps make that decision – expendable grunts that is, propagandists hardly blow themselves up.

    That’s how belief in the afterlife kills people. It enables certain solutions, provides cannon fodder, makes killing more effective, increases the likelihood of people being killed.
    It need not be the motive for killing.

    Besides, so you found a piece of propaganda that doesn’t dwell on the concept of heavenly reward, what does it prove?
    Is it some kind of argument from selective silence?

    Quite frankly, you’re wrong even on that. The guy quotes the following verse from Quran, and he makes it clear he agrees:
    “They ought to fight in the way of God who have sold the life of this world
    for the life of the Hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of God and is
    killed or becomes victorious, to him shall We give a great reward.”

    • Neil Godfrey
      2016-09-06 22:34:42 UTC - 22:34 | Permalink

      I presume you opine that the motive for killing others in a martyrdom operation would be motivated by the Quran or belief in certain passages of the Quran and if such a person had any hesitation then the belief in paradise would tip him or her over into carrying out the operation. And if they quote the Quran in their actions then that is all the proof you need that the Quran motivated them. Do I understand correctly?

      Do you understand what my argument is by comparison? Can you sum it up as I have attempted to do yours — and ask for corrective feedback if I have misunderstood?

      • Zbykow
        2016-09-07 18:24:42 UTC - 18:24 | Permalink

        That’s not what I meant.
        I meant belief in heavenly reward is hardly a sufficient motive for killing, but along with many other important factors and beliefs it contributes to terrorism e.g. by making one less reluctant to kill and less afraid of being killed. It’s of little relevance whether it’s written anywhere, more important is whether there are terrorists who hold such a belief. Qutb certainly did.

        Second, you draw conclusions about motives of large number of individuals from one text by one individual, that’s fallacy.

        Third, contrary to your claim in Milestones there’s evidently more than a breath of a hint that there’s a reward in heaven awaiting those who die fighting for Islam.

        “Do you understand what my argument is by comparison?”

        I was referring to just two specific sentences, they’re clear enough.

        If you mean the gist of the whole post, you seem to be trying to argue Milestones suggest that Islamic terrorism has less to do with Islam than some people think. I’m not sure why you think it follows, it feels like most reasoning is going on behind the scenes.
        Anyway, I doubt such an argument can be made using this kind of evidence.

        One thing can be said for sure about Milestones – Qutb appears to be influenced by Islam way more than by anything else.

      • Dwayne
        2018-01-09 23:30:01 UTC - 23:30 | Permalink

        [I’m sorry I can’t find the original comment from you that this is a response to to be able to reply directly to it. Its no longer in the comments (or I can’t see somehow)]

        “I know of no countries where a majority supports attacks on civilian targets such as we see in the UK, France, Iraq. I don’t think you do, either.”

        Were the charlie hebdo massacre victims “civilians” or legitimate targets according to the “islam” as endorsed by ‘muhummad’ the ‘prophet of islam’? Remember you said that ‘muslim terrorists are following books OTHER THAN KORAN’, correct? So show as FROM KORAN that it is even possible for “kaffirs” to be mere simple “civilians”.

        How many “muslims” believe that people who do what charlie hebdo did should be killed? How many people claiming to be “muslim” think its wrong when people they deem have insulted islam have been slaughtered by an islamic terrorist following the fashion set out and endorsed by ‘muhummad-the prophet of islam’?

        “Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that :
        There was a blind man during the time of the Messenger of Allah [SAW] who had an Umm Walad by whom he had two sons. She used to slander and defame the Messenger of Allah [SAW] a great deal, and he would rebuke her, but she would not pay heed, and he would forbid her to do that, but she ignored him. (The blind man said) One night I mentioned the Prophet [SAW], and she slandered him. I could not bear it so I went and got a dagger which I thrust into her stomach and leaned upon it, and killed her. In the morning she was found slain. Mention of that was made to the Prophet [SAW] and he gathered the people and said: “I adjure by Allah; a man over whom I have the right, that he should obey me, and he did what he did, to stand up.” The blind man started to tremble and said: “O Messenger of Allah [SAW], I am the one who killed her. She was my Umm Walad and she was kind and gentle toward me, and I have two sons like pearls from her, but she used to slander and defame you a great deal. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not pay heed. Finally, I mentioned your name and she slandered you, so I went and got a dagger which I thrust into her stomach, and leaned on it until I killed her. The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: “I bear witness that her blood is permissible.”” Sahih (Darussalam) http://sunnah.com/nasai/37/105

        Why would it be that muhummads approval of a pregnant woman being slaughtered in her own home over her ‘words’ said about muhummad, by an islamic vigilantly, who took it upon himself to slaughter her for “defaming/slandering” his beloved prophet muhummad, whereas kaffir charlie hebdo gets away with it?

        The problem for you is that you are looking everywhere except where matters. You are more interested in ‘muslim-ology’ than koran-ology. You are presenting the idea that its not about islam which motivates muslim terrorism, you put it down to any and every other thing being the motivation for their acts. From what i see, one of the main bedrocks of your argument is that not all muslims are terrorists. But to come to such a conclusion means you ignoring the reality that even koran recogizes people who called themselves “muslims” who were actually defined by allah as “hypocrites”.

        And here is how allah tested people who called themselves “muslim” to find out if they were actually “muslims (because muslims obey allah/muhummad)”or fake ‘muslims’ who are defined by allah as “hypocrites”.

        Sura 3.167 so that He would know the hypocrites. They were told, ´Come and fight in the Way of Allah or at least help defend us. http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/167/default.htm

        So I don’t see why you have counted every person who claims to be a “muslim” who has not engaged in terrorism for allah as an athentic “muslim”. Neither you nor I get to decide who is a “muslim”. But what we can decide is whether islamic terrorism for islam is an authentic expression of islam in light of koran and the other islamic source material. Name one of the authentic source books of islam that doesn’t depict the first “muslims” as terrorists and terrorism the way how islam gets to dominate? That is my challenge to you.

        Now my simple question to you is straightforward and which presents you with a simple yes/no choice of answer.

        Question: Should “kaffirs” be afraid of “islam” and the followers of islam? You’d have to explain why you think the answer is ‘no’ in light of koranic teachings about “kaffirs”. And then, whatever psuedo response you give, you will need to explain why the god all Muslims claim to serve insists that “kaffirs” should be afraid.

        Sura 8:55:The worst of animals [l-dawābi] in the sight of Allah are those who are kafir and do not have iman [do not believe]. Aisha Bewley translation.

        Sura 3.56: As for those who are kafir, I will punish them with a harsh punishment in this world and the Next World. They will have no helpers. Aisha Bewley

        Sura 5.72: Those who say that the Messiah, son of Maryam, is Allah ARE KAFIRUN. If anyone associates [yush’rik] anything with Allah, Allah has forbidden him the Garden and his refuge will be the Fire.´ Aisha Bewley

        71.26: [Islamic prophet] Nuh said, ´My Lord! do not leave a single one of the kafirun on earth! Aisha Bewley

        Sura 3.151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who are kafir because they have associated [ashrakoo] others with Allah for which He has not sent down any authority. Their shelter will be the Fire. How evil is the abode of the wrongdoers. Aisha Bewley

        Sura 9.30: And the Jews said, “Uzair is the son of Allah”, and the Christians said “The Messiah is the son of Allah”; they utter this from their own mouths; they speak like the former kafir; Allah kill them [QaTaLahumu Allahu] ; where are they reverting! Faridul Haque Translation

        Omar Hussain used the secure messaging service Telegram to tell fellow fanatics to “buy a knife and stab a kafir (non-believer) in his guts or slit his throat” before Khalid Masood launched his murderous assault http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ranting-british-isis-thug-called-10104900

        Kaffirs have EVERY reason to fear islam and those who claim to follow it, do they not?

        And by the way, “muslims” have never targeted people they deem “muslims”. They target them for being fake “muslims (“hypocrites”)”.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-01-10 00:13:53 UTC - 00:13 | Permalink

          Do you know any Muslims personally? How many? What has been your contact with them?

          How would you think an Anglican or Roman Catholic would feel if you went to them with key proof-texts from the Bible that you had been fed by Dave Koresh’s cult and challenged them to stop being hypocrites and believe the scriptures you could read for yourself in black and white? Why do you take the interpretations and definition of Islam as set out by the terrorists as the normative rule for “true Islam”? You are doing the terrorist’s propaganda work for them.

          If I want to know what Roman Catholics or Anglicans believe I do not try to work it out from ignoring them and just reading the Bible. That would not give me much of an idea at all and would in fact mislead me in many major areas. If I wanted to know what Jews believed and what Judaism was and did nothing more than read the Old Testament I might think they are bloodythirsty genocidists, ethnic cleansers, racists, etc.

          I really would appreciate it if you could just repeat in a summary form what it is I have tried to argue.

          How much of any one of my posts on terrorism and Islam — including the one above — have you actually read?

          Instead of throwing up knee-jerk challenges to me how about actually trying to learn something that serious researchers have uncovered and engage in a serious dialogue?

          • Dwayne
            2018-01-10 00:52:14 UTC - 00:52 | Permalink

            I know many people who call themselves ‘muslim’. I have had many contacts with people ho call themselves many times. What does that have to do with my post? In my post I dealt specifically with koran and muhummad, what would my encounters or non encounters have to do with anything in my post? It shows straight away that your first response is a psuedo one when dealing with a very serious matter. I did hope for more from someone who bothers to take the time to attempt to refute other peoples articles and post it on a website. That is not a good start my friend. But I’d be lying if I expected any different judging by your above article.

            So instead of responding to my post you are asking me about things I’ve not mentioned “Anglican, Roman Catholic, bible”? As was pointing out in the “Islamic Terrorism is Motivated by Religion, Not Retribution” article which you claim to be responding to ‘other groups do not have the problem that islam/”muslims” have (global acts of terror in the name of their god allah)’. So you are introducing strawmen/red herrings (pretty shocking considering the importance of the topic).

            How many people did david koresh order to be bombed/slaughtered? Which passages of “bible” did david koresh use as “PROOF TEXT” to justify any position he held? You should know, right, after its you that introduced him into the debate. You want me to respond to something that you have yet to establish?

            We know which passages of koran islamic terrorists quote to justify their acts:

            During the 80-second clip, [Woolwich terrorist] Adebolajo says that the Prophet Muhammad fought against ‘way worse’ opposition. ‘THEY ARE PIGS,’ he shouts. ‘Allah says THEY ARE WORSE THAN CATTLE. Do not be scared of them. And do not turn your back to them. Don’t be scared of them, or police, or the cameras.’
            Adebolajo yells: ‘Do not be scared of the FILTHY KUFFAR. THEY ARE PIGS.
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333039/Woolwich-terror-suspect-Michael-Adebolajos-rant-rally-incite-youngsters.html#ixzz2UqCvrtYd

            “allah says they are worse than cattle”.

            Sura 8:55:The worst of animals [l-dawābi] in the sight of Allah are those who are kafir and do not have iman [do not believe]. Sura 8:55. aisha bewley. http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/55/default.htm

            I posted this verse already. Its been found in the mouths of “Muslims” that you would have people believe are ‘extremist/misguided’, yet you have not responded to my direct question regarding it and other koranic verses. Yet now you offer meto consider a fictonal senario of fictional verses that were supposedly used by a supposed christian. I am not going to engage asuch nonsense.

            Michael adebolajo gave a list of koran verses & passages which he believes justified his acts of terrorism. I bothered to collect the verses. I challenge anyone to prove that michael adebolajo misused koran:

            Can anyone refute a terrorist reading of the koran? https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4789150

            So you gave me a fictonal senario to consider and so I am now giving you a real senario involving an act of islamic inspired terror.

            “I really would appreciate it if you could just repeat in a summary form what it is I have tried to argue.”

            I already did. It looks like you are too afraid to address me. If this is your issue, why on earth would you begin by asking me about whether I know any ‘Muslims’? Looks like a red herring.

            In light of my original post, kaffirs have ever right to fear islam and the followers of islam. As you have not even dared to go near that, I will take that as recognition of the axiomatic reality/fact in light of koran and islamic source material.

            “How much of any one of my posts on terrorism and Islam — including the one above — have you actually read?”.

            Enough to recognize that your position is weak. I read most of the article and much of several of your posts.

            I thought you would come with something more than the lowest of red herrings.

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-01-10 01:30:17 UTC - 01:30 | Permalink

              I know many people who call themselves ‘muslim’. I have had many contacts with people ho call themselves many times. What does that have to do with my post? In my post I dealt specifically with koran and muhummad, what would my encounters or non encounters have to do with anything in my post? It shows straight away that your first response is a psuedo one when dealing with a very serious matter. I did hope for more from someone who bothers to take the time to attempt to refute other peoples articles and post it on a website. That is not a good start my friend. But I’d be lying if I expected any different judging by your above article.

              If you wanted to know about Christianity or Judaism and what its adherents believed what would you do? Who would you ask? What would you read?

              The New Testament? The Old Testament?

              Just quoting selected passages from the Bible won’t tell you what Judaism or Christianity is.

              My references to the cults of Christianity was to present you with an analogous situation that is comparable to what you are doing when you try to tell others what Islam is by your cherry-picking of passages from holy books.

              Your portrayal of Islam is an offence to Muslims. You are merely mouthing the shallow terrorist interpretations and leveling the same accusations against Muslims as the terrorists do. If you want to say that only the terrorists are true Muslims and all the other Muslims aren’t then you have simply redefined Islam to reject or exclude the majority of Muslims.

              • Dwayne
                2018-01-10 02:22:49 UTC - 02:22 | Permalink

                “If you wanted to know about Christianity or Judaism and what its adherents believed what would you do? Who would you ask? What would you read?”

                I would read the bible. Any challenging aspects I would consult the scholars and see what their views are. And I wouldn’t consult one. I would quote the most authentic/accepted by christians/jews.

                The same approach is used with islam. Overall, my view is usually/if not awlays suppoorted by the most authentic and accepted scholars of islam. Scholars like ibn kathir, Al suyuti, etc… They are accepted by the majority of sunni world as being among the greatest scholars of islam.

                “The New Testament? The Old Testament?
                Just quoting selected passages from the Bible won’t tell you what Judaism or Christianity is.”

                The bible does a pretty good job at explaining itself and providing its own context. Why are you saying the koran doesn’t make its message clear? The message of koran is clear concerning kaffirs. You are pretending that its not clear and thus need outside help (unspecified outside help) to be told what ther message of koran is to “Muslims” regarding “kaffirs”. It’s a message of ‘hate/destruction/torture’ regarding “kaffirs” and nothing else, true or false? If you say ‘false’, back it with koran regarding “kaffirs”.

                “My references to the cults of Christianity was to present you with an analogous situation that is comparable to what you are doing when you try to tell others what Islam is by your cherry-picking of passages from holy books.”

                A) Christian cults don’t have a problem with terrorism.
                B) Terrorism doctrine is not found or supported in the bible (you cannot say that about koran).
                C) I have not “cherry picked” anything. I have posted just a few verses from koran that demonstrate the hatred koran breeds towards kaffirs, terrorism against kaffirs is the natural extention. As I have said, that is the message of koran and will not find any passges whether “cherry picked” or otherwise which create a different picture.
                D) If a god in his book says that he wants to kill christians for daring to say jesus is the son of God (sura 9.30) you may call that book “holy”, but for me I would find it as disgusting as I would with anyones “holy book” that has ‘a god’ saying that he wants Muslims dead for daring to say muhummad is a prophet. My guess is that you would not class any book that spoke the way koran speaks about non Muslims towards Muslims as “holy”. You’d class it as hate speech, incitment, etc… Well that is what koran clearly is.

                “Your portrayal of Islam is an offence to Muslims.”

                So why can’t THEY be an “offence” to allah? Prove they are not themselves an offence to the god they claim to serve. Ask them (the worlds muslims, as you act as if you know them) if they believe people who insult muhummad/islam should be killed and then come back and remind me how much I AM an offence to them. I can be an offence to them but they can’t be an offence to allah? Why assume that they are allahs authentic “Muslims” and not clear cut koranically definded “hypocrites” whom allah promises to roast in hell?

                Muslims worship a god that brags about spreading hate among christians (sura 5.14) and jews (sura 5.64), and yet you say i am an “offence” to them? Shame on you.

                “You are merely mouthing the shallow terrorist interpretations and leveling the same accusations against Muslims as the terrorists do”.

                No sir, far from it. In fact, the only criticism I have with the “Islamic Terrorism is Motivated by Religion, Not Retribution” article which your article claims to be responding to is that when the author spoke of the isis explanation as to “why we hate you” the author didn’t quote the verse isis quoted in their magazine. That verse I myself noted years ago upon first reading it as being ugly and inciting hate from Muslims towards non Muslims. Seeing isis using it to justify their hate showed that I was right about the dangers of sura 60.4 years before anyone heard of isis.

                Here is the verse isis quoted:

                Sura 60.4: YOU HAVE AN EXELLENT EXAMPLE IN IBRAHIM, and those with him, when they said to their people, ´We wash our hands of you and all that you worship apart from Allah, and we reject you. BETWEEN US AND YOU THERE WILL BE EMINTY AND HATRED for ever UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU BELIEVE IN ALLAH ALONE.´

                So don’t accuse me of repeating islamic terrorists when I am reading the words of the islamic god allah.

                “If you want to say that only the terrorists are true Muslims and all the other Muslims aren’t then you have simply redefined Islam to reject or exclude the majority of Muslims.”

                Yes that is exactly what I am saying, because of course, its exactly what allah is saying. Its not me who “rejects” anyone, its their allah that rejects them. Just by a muslim merely having christians/jews as friends they become apostates. Not according to me, but according to allah (sura 5.51). So, in light of sura 60.4, is a “true muslim” loving towards kaffirs and those who reject islam or are they full of hate towards them? When these koran verse start to stack up in islamic minds is it any wonder that they lash out at kaffirs in the name of their religion?

              • Neil Godfrey
                2018-01-10 02:50:48 UTC - 02:50 | Permalink

                You say you have read many of my posts so you know doubt know about explanations of Islam in titles like “Inside Muslim Minds” and “Who Speaks for Islam” etc. and you are apparently not interested in what Muslims tell us what they believe and practice.

                So don’t accuse me of repeating islamic terrorists when I am reading the words of the islamic god allah.

                You are repeating the interpretation and cherry-picked quotes of the terrorists. Yes you are. Just ask mainstream Muslims or imams or read authoritative books educating the public about the nature of Islam.

                “If you want to say that only the terrorists are true Muslims and all the other Muslims aren’t then you have simply redefined Islam to reject or exclude the majority of Muslims.”

                Yes that is exactly what I am saying, because of course, its exactly what allah is saying. Its not me who “rejects” anyone, its their allah that rejects them. Just by a muslim merely having christians/jews as friends they become apostates. Not according to me, but according to allah (sura 5.51). So, in light of sura 60.4, is a “true muslim” loving towards kaffirs and those who reject islam or are they full of hate towards them? When these koran verse start to stack up in islamic minds is it any wonder that they lash out at kaffirs in the name of their religion?

                That’s exactly what the terrorists say and you have swallowed their interpretation completely. That, by the way, is exactly what they want others to do — read their writings.

                You cannot avoid interpretation when you read. You are simply ignoring half of the Koran and half of what I have posted and commented here and repeating yourself without engaging with my argument or key points.

                If you say that most Muslims are not real Muslims then you have simply redefined Islam to suit your own interpretation — as if you are the authority to interpret the Koran for all others.

                If I want to understand what the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world believe and practice I will ask them and their authoritative voices — such as I find in Inside Muslim Minds etc. I will not listen to the terrorists or you.

                You can say Islam inspires its followers to murder but you have just excluded most of the Muslim population by your definition of Islam! And you have also excluded all the Koran verses that contradict the ones you have selected. So according to the logic of your argument if most Muslims are not real Muslims then they won’t be inspired to kill.

                The question then becomes, what led the tiny few who do kill and who don’t have any deep knowledge of the Koran (like yourself) to embrace the views and careers that they have chosen?

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-01-10 02:25:07 UTC - 02:25 | Permalink

              How many people did david koresh order to be bombed/slaughtered? Which passages of “bible” did david koresh use as “PROOF TEXT” to justify any position he held?

              It does not matter how many outsiders he killed. What matters is that every sect has its scripture proof-texts for what it does. You might as well ask how many Muslims kill others compared with those who have their interpretations and cherry-picked quotes of the Koran influenced by the Qutbs and co. The same logic will tell you that mainstream Islam is peaceful and it is only those who are influenced by the Islamist ideology who believe Islam is what you say it is.

              There are many other verses also in the Koran but you only select the ones that feed into your preconceptions. Why not try to do what the mainstream Muslims do and have done for centuries and try to see how certain verses are completely modified, made obsolete, etc by OTHER verses in the Koran? That’s how Christians and Jews interpret their sacred books.

              Why not judge Islam by the same standard?

              There is ALWAYS another interpretation: even of the Quran

          • Dwayne
            2018-01-10 01:08:34 UTC - 01:08 | Permalink

            “Instead of throwing up knee-jerk challenges to me how about actually trying to learn something that serious researchers have uncovered and engage in a serious dialogue?”

            Again this is a fallacy. The undeniable “research” is that “muslims” can flip out and kill for their religion at any time. Those “muslims” are more in line with koran and muhummad than the ‘muslims’ who condemn them. The only logical first step is to check out what their religion is as it is documented in its own source material. From there you will see the spirit of that religion. That is why I presented a taste of koran and the aprovals of muhummad.

            Your “research” tells you what about “muslims” who kill/demand death for people they deemed “insult/slander/muhummad” “islam/muhummad”when muhummad condoned such vigilantism? Even if you found other reasons for their acts, denial that muhummad approved such acts in the light of the sahih hadiths and forever greenlighted that path for any “muslim” who choses to take it is in the context of bloodbath manifestations of that spirt is ‘sitting-duck-ology’. That is what you are selling, ‘sitting-duck-ology’. No one smart who has actually read the source books of islam would buy your product.

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-01-10 01:33:26 UTC - 01:33 | Permalink

              No, go and talk to Muslims and ask them what they believe and how they read their Koran etc. Go to the library or bookshop and find books by mainstream scholars or imams who explain what Islam is and what it teaches.

              There is no fallacy in asking you to read widely and beyond the narrow sectarian views that you have so far encountered. Your mind is made up, it appears, to the extent that you do not believe you can learn anything from talking to mainstream Muslims or scholar specialists in Islam and terrorism.

              Again, read the Old Testament and from that alone tell me what Judaism is and what Jews believe today.

              There is ALWAYS another interpretation: even of the Quran

  • Pingback: Vridar » Two Caliphate Myths

  • Pingback: Vridar » Management of Savagery — The Plan Behind the Terror Killing

  • Pingback: Vridar » Why Blaming Islam for Terrorism is Misguided

  • Pingback: Vridar » Jihad Closer to Marx than the Koran?

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *