ISIS - Islamic State is guilty of creating its violent theocracy on earth and claiming in doing so that it follows Islam and Muhammad correctly.  Allah, God, is ultimately responsible for he founded Islam.


The problem is that because of ISIS conducting terror attacks such as 9/11 the left in order to prevent attacks on Muslims has tried to make out this is not a Muslim problem for ISIS is just heresy or fake Islam.  The real goal is just to keep winning votes for no politician can afford to be linked to anti-Muslim violence.  Sadly they can be linked to persecuting people for so-called Islamophobia and there is no problem!




Think on this: The American Thinker in 2014 worked out that through the centuries, Islam slaughtered 250 million people through wars and expanding the religion. "Islam has killed and tortured far more than any other creed, religious or secular."


Think on this: If I hate dictatorships and how they kill and endanger people why am I not suicide bombing in such a regime?  Why are Muslims then hating our freedom and blowing themselves up to make this point?


Lesson: There is no evidence and cannot be any evidence that religion or any religion is by definition good because all kinds of devout people may do harm in every religion.  Thus we can define religion as being "an arrogant set of beliefs around magic and the supernatural" and why not?  Nobody has cause or the right to say we are wrong!   A really good religion or faith cannot incubate terrorist ideology and/or terrorists.  A golf club does not develop suicide bombers.  Any religion that is man-made has no power to change evil hearts.  Man is not that powerful! 


Re - claims by Obama and Cameron that ISIS is not really Islamic though it claims it is

Even if ISIS is behaving contrary to the Muslim religion, it is behaving in accordance with its understanding of Islam and is still a religion. It is still proof that religion can be dangerous and often is dangerous.  It is possible to misunderstand doctrine and still be acting in the name of the religion and it is still the religions fault - say for example, it has violent scripture texts.  It is its fault if you find authority in those texts to kill even if your interpretation is unpopular.  It is still a valid interpretation.  People are allowed liberty in interpreting.

Remember the Nice attacks? Do-gooders squealed that the terrorist was not very devout so it had nothing to do with the Muslim faith or religion. But no one person ever can represent all the values of Islam or any religion. A religious terrorist who prays ten times a day is still a religious terrorist even he prays only once a week.

A religion is to blame for terrorism either directly or indirectly. The indirect links are the worst for they are harder to do something about and people keeping trying to make out that the religion is blameless.

Some Christian and Muslim groups are fond of bloodletting and ISIS is one example. If they are behaving contrary to the Christian or Muslim religion, the fact remains that the God speaking in the Old Testament and the Koran and Muslim tradition authorises violence.  That leads to the sects thinking, "Okay let us endorse and dish out this violence.  If we are wrong, it is not that big of a deal for violence is endorsed by God in the scriptures anyway."  And it does not matter if the sect is authentically Christian/Muslim or not.  What matters is that it claims to be a religion and we should take it at its word.  Is the religious attitude the problem?  Is religion the problem? Is the sect merely a symptom of what religion does to people's heads?  Does "good" religion pose a risk? Is it luck or forces external to the religion that we have to thank when nothing has happened?

And the Koran God does undeniably endorse barbaric terrorism:

Koran 5:33 “Those that make war against God and his Apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides or be banished from the land.”

We must not forget that believers in God hold that God has the right to murder and take life.

How can they expect to get through to somebody who thinks he is a prophet and who says God authorised him to take life? We must remember too, that it is not true that Christianity and Islam (to mention just two faiths) are opposed to killing the innocent. They know that war always results in much loss of innocent life but they do not consider that enough to forbid it. Also, even if those faiths say they condemn the killing of the innocent, they do not consider adulterers or practicing homosexuals or apostates as innocents. The New Testament God says that he has sentenced us all to death for sin. Their defence of the innocent is empty and superficial.

And the terrorists might reason, “Okay if we are wrong big deal!  The scriptures command violence anyway.”

What gives Obama and Cameron the right to state what Islam teaches and what is real Islam and what isn't as Muslim scholars struggle with deciding what teachings follow from the scriptures/hadith and what one's are inconsistent with it? Their assertions are just whitewashing and they want to pretend to be ambassadors of religious tolerance. And they want intolerance towards those who may know that their Islamic faith is pro-violence. They want to set the stage for that to happen with their manipulative talk.

In response to David Cameron telling the House of Commons that Islam does not justify terrorism. December 2013.

So, 'There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror.’

What an utterly hypocritical statement from Cameron considering that even Christianity allows war in certain circumstances knowing fine well that war makes many people uncontrollable and soon there is child murder, rape, torture all because the chances of getting away with it are virtually certain. Both Christianity and Islam facilitate terror - it might be sort of limited but that does not make it any better. And both the Bible and Koran Gods commanded violence.

Airbrushing violent religious teachings does not help at all and is refusing to deal with the problem properly and honestly and can lead to violence against those who broadcast the truth and oppose scriptures and holy books that glorify evil. Even if Rigby's killers are disobedient to Islam, the question is, how wrong (from a Koranic perspective) is that disobedience considering God supposedly endorsed violence anyway in the Koran? Perhaps it could be seen by believers as being wrong but not a serious sin considering violence is not intrinsically wrong? I am proud to follow no scripture and is it any wonder?

The notion that all religion is really good so that anything bad is not religion is ridiculous. It makes one religion as good as or as true as another. If a religion is not true, then it is opposed to what people should and need to believe. It is opposed - perhaps unintentionally - to what God wants people to believe. To suggest that all religions are equally good insults the victims of bad religion and enables bad religion to thrive. The notion that we all have our crutches and religion is a crutch enables the problem of religion too. We do not need a religious crutch and that is that - even if we are fond of crutches. If religious faith is a crutch that does not excuse it. The only right reason to belong to a religion is thinking it is true - and religion itself teaches that. The crutch is an abuse of religion.


ISIS can be Islam.  It can be true Islam even if the chance is slim.  ISIS is Islam for that is what the facts say.  Muslims of peace either have no reason to hurt or they are not committed enough.

No Copyright