It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Maher Hathout stayed up until the wee hours of Friday morning, watching television news coverage of a long, violent night in Boston and the manhunt for suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing.
Hathout, the senior advisor of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, slept only a few hours and woke early to pray. His wife told him the suspects, two young Chechen men, were Muslim, and he soon saw vitriol on Facebook: people saying that they didn’t want Muslims in the country and that they should "go home"
Originally posted by dontreally
A balanced understanding reads like this:
The vast majority of Muslims in the west are law abiding peaceful people. Some polls show that those who support terrorism could be as high as 20%. Nevertheless, 99.99% don't engage in terror attacks.
But a balanced picture also must take into account the prevalence of Islamic terrorism. More than half of the organizations listed by the state department as terrorist organizations are Islamic. Every country with a majority Muslim population deals with Islamic radicals - from Mali (as we all can see) to Indonesia. Countries with a minority but still sizeable Muslim population, like Russia (in Chechnya), China, India, Israel (Duh) struggle against Islamic militantism.
Islamic militantism is an ideology all its own. Its recruits are mostly from WELL EDUCATED families (as we see in the recent boston bombers), often trained in engineering, or the sciences, and have been impressed by the brand of Islamic spirituality they've been exposed to (mostly Sayd Qutb). For some deranged reason, they think carrying out terror attacks against the 'depraved' west will have some appreciable effect on the overall status quo between Islam and it's competitors (the west and East). It's delusional, of course. But these maniacs clearly believe in it.
As said, these terror attacks happen often enough on US soil for us to take notice. Islamic terror in America didn't end after 9/11. Islamic terror need not be coordinated by a centralized body - such as al qaeda - to be called Islamic terrorism. The Fort Hood shootings was an epode of Islamic Terrorism, although the media has gone to great lengths to sidestep this fact. Nidal Malik Hasan exclaimed "Allahu Akhbar' just before he opened rounds on Army staff at fort hood.
These 2 peckers had also become more religious before they decided to murder 3 innocent people and maim tens of others - after a marathon, to boot. Why did they do this? What sort of amoral religious doctrine sanctions this type of carnage? Well, Wahibism, Salafism, literal-minded interpretations of the Quran. This is what allows certain Muslims to kill fellow worshipers in Iraq; this is why Al Qaeda in Iraq has grown so unpopular amongst the Sunni in that country.
In truth, most Muslims are fine. I know countless Muslims. Some of the nicest people I know happen to be Muslim. However, theres no denying that there is a serious problem in the Islamic world, which is why above all, Muslims, and not Non-Muslims, should be the first to excoriate these sorts of attacks. They should be acknowledging it - they should be raising awareness of it in their communities, that way non-Muslims will understand what is being spoken of, and HOW it is being spoken of, and what we can do to prevent these sort of attacks from occurring again.