Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Jihadist or Not?

Jihadist or Not?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

At the Counter-Terrorism Conference of the East-West Institute in Brussels (19-21 February, 2008), reports Reuters, the debate repeatedly turned to arguments over whether the term "Jihad" and "Jihadists" should be applied to activities and members of al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorist organizations.

Although the two terms have become synonymous with "holy wars" and "holy warriors" against the West, and al-Qaeda has used it in the same sense, for most Muslims "it originally means a spiritual struggle and they don't want it hijacked anymore."

Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali, an Iraqi scholar, told the conference that "Jihad is the struggle against all evil things in your soul… There is no Jihadi terrorism in Islam."

Emphasizing that Jihad can be a struggle "for elimination of poverty," "for education" or "for something very, very positive in life," the former chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff General Ehsan Ul Haq asserted that calling the terrorists Jihadists is either reflective of a "lack of understanding of Islam" or unfortunately "an intended misuse." He added: "It might have been somewhat excusable in the trauma post-9/11 but I don't think it is any more."

The foundations of Islam are the Quran, the words of Allah, and the Sunnah, the actions and deeds of the Prophet. Historically, Jihad, which stands for '"fighting in the cause of Allah", first entered into the Islamic doctrine after Prophet Muhammad emigrated to Medina in June 622 CE, following his largely failed 13-year-long mission to propagate Islam among the people of his home town of Mecca.

It should be noted that although there was strong opposition to Prophet Muhammad's new religion in Mecca, which sought to eradicate the existing idolatrous religion and culture, there is no record of violence, at least of serious nature, against him or those free citizens, who freely converted to his creed.

But soon after relocating to Medina, the first verses of Jihad were revealed, in which the Islamic God demanded that the Muslims fight against the idolaters (of Mecca) in His cause to drive the Meccans out from where Muslims were (allegedly) driven out [Quran 2:190-1]. Allah demanded that Muslims must fight and slay the idolaters and kick them out until "until there is no more Tumult or oppression" and the "religion should be only for Allah" [Quran 192-4]. "Tumults or oppression" referred to idolatrous or polytheistic beliefs, which Allah dislikes and disapproves.

The Islamic deity also later revealed verses of Jihad regarding the Jews and Christians, in which he demanded that Muslims must unconditionally fight them until they were defeated and humiliated (to dhimmi status), and willingly paid Jiziyah taxes [Quran 9:29].

With these commands of God, Prophet Muhammad embarked on a ceaseless armed violence against the idolaters, Jews and Christians of Arabia. The first successful Jihad expedition of Islam under the Prophet's command was the attack on a Meccan trade caravan at Nakhla in December 623 CE, in which one of the attendants of the caravan was killed, one made captive, and another was able to escape, while the caravan was plundered as sacred booty.

Within seven months of his relocation to Medina, according to the records of the Prophet's original biographers, his mission became a monotonous tale of uninstigated armed expeditions against the infidels of Arabia, whereby he exterminated idolatry completely, the rich and influential community of Jews of Medina expelled or slaughtered en masse and other non-Muslims were either converted to Islam or subjugated to dhimmitude. The Prophet had ordered about 100 armed Jihad expeditions, with himself commanding some 27 of them. According to Prophet's biographers Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari, expelling the remnant Jews and Christians from Arabia were among his last death bed wishes. This command was put to action by his immediate successors.

Taking Jihad forward from the examples of Prophet's life, the history of Islam has been a monotonous tale of ceaseless wars against the infidels, the idolaters, Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims of the Middle East, Africa, India and Europe which the medieval Islamic historians have proudly and gleefully called Jihad against the infidels. The last declaration of Jihad by a Muslim state was that of the reigning Ottoman Sultan against the Armenians in the 1910s, which led to the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians.

Although historically, from the days of Prophet Muhammad, Jihad has been applied to armed campaigns for extending the territories or domination of Islam, there has been an increasingly intensified effort since 9/11 to term Jihad as an "inner spiritual struggle" against vice and worldly desires. Others have called it a struggle for establishing human rights and women rights, fighting poverty, and anything that is considered good and noble in modern civilized thought.

One is, however, left to wonder what was the "inner spiritual struggle" of Prophet Muhammad, who was the only ideal Muslim and perfect human being. During the last 10 years of his life in Medina, he spent more time away from home, with his armed followers, scouring the lands of Arabian Peninsula, raiding and attacking infidel caravans, communities, and territories, in which he plundered booty, enslaved the men, women, and children, and expelled or slaughtered them en masse. Of the enslaved, he ransomed the adult men, sometimes sold the women and children captives, and the rest, he kept as slaves. The prettier of the young women were kept as sex slaves.

What was his "inner spiritual struggle" of his soul against worldly vice when his harem was full of women (wives) and sex slaves?

How could the Prophet promote human and women's rights, when he attacked infidels, slaughtered them, expelled them en masse from their homes and properties, and enslave the women and children?

Does his plundering the innocent infidels of their caravans, livestock, and properties, and distributing the captured booty among his plundering disciples lead to poverty eradication?

Where were the schools, universities, and research centres, which he established to promote education?

Raphael Perl, head of the Action against Terrorism Unit at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, emphasizing urgency on devising the correct terminology for violent Islamist groups and their activities, told Reuters that "use of the wrong terms (such as Jihad) can be a major factor contributing to the radicalisation process."

Indeed, this urgency of dissociating Jihad from violent activities of Muslims has already been put into practice by the U.K. government, when it recently stopped using terms like Jihad, Islamic terrorism, Islamic extremism or Islamic violence. Instead, it utmost ridiculously decided to call the violent activities of pious Muslim extremists as "anti-Islamic activities."

There is nothing wrong in correcting a misconceived, misused or misunderstood terminology. However, while ascertaining the true meaning of Jihad, the concerned authority must thoroughly investigate the genesis, theology, and history of Islam.

Being a Muslim turned atheist, I do not believe there is anything holy. Yet, in popular belief, the term 'holy' applies to something 'noble'. The term 'holy war' can be conceived of, for example, as fighting on behalf of the weak and the oppressed.

In light of the theological doctrines and history of Islam, Jihad definitely does not stand for such a 'noble' struggle or mission. Yes, there is a definite need for changing the meaning of 'Jihad' from 'holy war' to its appropriate meaning. Let the pundits decide what the most accurate meaning of Jihad should be.

Imam al-Ghazzali (d. 1111), the greatest Sufi master, Islamic intellectual, and revivalist of Islam, who is considered the second-greatest Muslim after Prophet Muhammad, wrote of Jihad:

One must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them… One may cut down their trees… One must destroy their useful book [Bible, Torah etc.]. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…

Prophet Muhammad directed or personally commanded some 100 Jihad expeditions in the last nine years of his life — that is, one Jihad expedition a month. Al-Ghazzali reduced it to one a year.

The government and security officials in Europe, desperately seeking to dissociate Jihad from the violent activities of Muslim fanatics, have started calling them "violent extremism" or "international terrorism." One is left to wonder whether the true meaning of Jihad comes close to these terms.

Powered by

About Muhammad Hussain

  • Propagandist

    Jihad isn’t a western term applied by western intelligence agencies or anything. The terrorists themselves use it.
    In fact they use it and the idea of it to recruit and justify their attacks. So muslims are responsible for making the term synonymous with terrorism and acts of destruction.
    Some muslims find it offensive that the term has been reduced to that but they aren’t doing much about it. I haven’t seen demonstrations against terrorists using that word similar to the ones they had when the Muhammad cartoons came out.
    The apathy is interesting..to say the least.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    “Muslims are responsible for making the term synonymous with terrorism and acts of destruction.”

    No, the terrorists are. Christians aren’t responsible for the hijacking of the term “Crusade” any more than Muslims are responsible for the hijacking of the term “Jihad.”

    “The apathy is interesting..to say the least.”

    There are hundreds (if not thousands) of books, conventions, rallies, public forums, and inquests into the terms of this discussion. Correct Islamic scholarship is available, but people aren’t interested in knowing what the word means or its origins couched in Islamic faith. They, as you exhibit so eloquently, are only interested in knowing what the word means NOW.

    You cannot blame an entire people group for the actions of a minuscule minority.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “You cannot blame an entire people group for the actions of a minuscule minority.”

    I think that there is certainly merit to this comment. That said, who is the minority? Who in the Muslim majority is standing up and saying these actions are wrong? Seems to me, it’s the Muslims who are against Jihad that are in the minority in Islam.

    Consider the riots over the cartoons, or the Theo Van Gogh murder, or intolerance of critics of Islam (Hirse-Ali, Rushdie). Where is the moderate voices? Perhaps in all of my readings and news exposure, I’ve missed it. But I really don’t think so.

    As a side, you brought up the crusades in a throw-no-stones type of comment. The crusades sucked. But let’s not try and be relativists here because the crusades happened hundreds of years ago. There really aren’t that many Christians or Jews or anyone else for that matter killing in the name of their religion. Aside from genocide in Darfur (and a possibly re-burgeoning genocide in Bosnia) the only religious war that exists today is between Islam and the west.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    Well, for answers on how certain pockets of Muslims became acquainted with terrorism, you have to go back to Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s. Qutb said that Islam was “dead” to coerce Muslims into arming themselves and rebooting their religious beliefs, so to speak. He had an extreme dislike of America and his followers, Qutbists, started using Shariah law against non-Qutbists to find them as apostates. Mainstream Islam was very much in opposition to this, but Qutbism still existed in small pockets as Qutbists tried to use Shariah law against those they felt to be less than Muslims.

    Fast-forward to today and small pockets of Muslims getting influence from Qutbism and various neo-fundamentalist mullahs are acting. The majority of people in the West believe that fundamentalist Muslims or ALL Muslims are responsible for these actions. Most aren’t aware of Qutbism or any other facets of religious violence. Out of Islam’s 1.2 billion people, only a few thousand follow the ideals of Qutbism and groups like Al Qaeda.

    If we highlight some specific types of attacks, this can become even clearer. Suicide bombers, for instance, are less motivated by Islamic principles and more motivated by making extreme statements. According to American political scientist Robert Pape, most suicide bombers are trying to compel a clear strategic effect rather than to destroy infidels and the like. Other attacks are often seen as attempts to combat American “apostate” power in Muslim lands.

    It should be noted, just as an interesting aside, that a study of suicide bombers in 2007 revealed that about 80% of them had mental disabilities. This study, done in Afghanistan, also highlighted the idea that Muslims there are not celebrating these individuals as martyrs nor as religious heroes. This attitude is widespread, a few Muslims consider suicide bombers to be heroic and most have understood the theology of the Koran to say something very different than what Qutbists and other extremists are saying. Even the fundamentalists disagree.

    The idea that Muslim terrorists know their stuff is up to serious question too, especially in the Muslim academic community. Outspoken critics like Abdal-Hakim Murad have stated that guys like bin Laden and others don’t know Islam. Dale C. Eikmeier is another critic of the religious idea behind the terrorism. Hamoud Al-Hitar, a Yemeni judge, attacks the belief that terrorism is okay using hujjat (proof) from theological sources. The Iranian ayatollah, Yousof Sanei, issued a fatwa against suicide bombing, saying “Even those who kill people with suicide bombing, these shall meet the flames of hell.” Scholar Karen Armstrong has said that anybody who is a “true Muslim” could not be a terrorist. Her words have been echoed by Fethullah Gülen, prominent Islamic scholar from Turkey. Thousands of other prominent scholars, Islamic, Jewish, and Christian, have all supported this notion.

    “the only religious war that exists today is between Islam and the west”

    There is a LOT of debate that this is a “religious war” at all, especially in most academic circles. It tends to be about land, oil, security, and other issues. The religious issue, to steal from the other thread shamelessly, is not the “main identifying factor” of these issues for the Arabic world. With some individuals, it is a factor, but it is hardly a religious war. Analysts, pundits, and other have made it one by exposing us to fear, ignorance, and a lack of proper Islamic scholars that know the issues, know the Koran, and have a studied rationale towards that region of the world. Our ignorance truly shows on this issue and the rest of the world knows it.

    As far as comparing the Crusades, my inference was towards the use of terminology as per the context of the article. The word “Crusade” was used a while back by G.W. Bush and negative connotations were poured out by both sides of the aisle. “He should not have used that WORD,” they said. It’s not a throw no stones argument, it’s an etymology argument. The usage of the term “Crusade” has been hijacked via past events to have a different present context. The usage of the term “Jihad” has been likewise hijacked by a minuscule amount of Muslims (again thousands out of 1.2 billion) to have a different context as well.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Believe it or not, I agree with just about everything you’ve written here. Lots of good points and well said.

    But it does not change the fact that many Muslims do keep mum on the issue, or make excuses for why it happens. Those excuses typically look nothing like what you’ve presented here, usually blaming the west’s foreign policies. One just needs to look at the efforts undertaken by CAIR to attack America and defend the indefensible, to understand why so many Americans have a problem with Islam, and raise the same questions as we do.

    Were catholics to engage in a terrorist war designed to kill as many people as possible (IRA wasn’t that) I have a feeling the pope himself would speak out on it. Why hasn’t that really happened on the Islamic side?

    But yes, from what I know of the Koran, there is no basis for this Jihad, and any study of the motives of Al Qaeda confirms that their goal is hardly religious in nature. Which makes the silence of the moderate Islamic classes all the more deafening.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    “But it does not change the fact that many Muslims do keep mum on the issue, or make excuses for why it happens. Those excuses typically look nothing like what you’ve presented here, usually blaming the west’s foreign policies.”

    I don’t know that, to “them,” those are “excuses.” I think it’s a little arrogant to assume that there’s only one side to this story. The West’s foreign policies are harmful to most Arabic nations, to how they conduct business, to how they lead their people, and to many other factors that affect the daily lives of individuals in those countries. The majority of people do NOT want Western influence in their culture. That’s just a simple fact and we need to respect that more ably within our own culture.

    “One just needs to look at the efforts undertaken by CAIR to attack America and defend the indefensible, to understand why so many Americans have a problem with Islam, and raise the same questions as we do.”

    I think media coverage and its lack of balance and lack of any expert analysis from external sources points more towards America’s attitude towards Islam than anything else. In terms of CAIR, they actually responded to many of the critiques leveled against them in a letter entitled “Urban Legends” which is widely available for perusal online and offline in libraries. I’d prefer to let them answer their own criticism, but I’d invite you or any other interested party to have a look at “Urban Legends” and CAIR’s actual statements on various issues to clarify some of this.

    “Were catholics to engage in a terrorist war designed to kill as many people as possible (IRA wasn’t that) I have a feeling the pope himself would speak out on it.”

    Depends on the Pope. Some popes would have no problem letting the Nazis operate under their watchful eye. The RC is notorious for “turning the other cheek” at all of the wrong historical moments, with rare exceptions. Hans Kung has written an excellent critique of this, but the name escapes me at the moment.

    “Why hasn’t that really happened on the Islamic side?”

    For starters, Muslims have no papal authority. They have the mullahs and other religious leaders, but there is no “single point” to which Muslims can promote a solid voice like the RC church has. There’s no governing body for Islam, no popes, no global leaders, etc. There’s only groups and the groups have been speaking out, as I’ve outlined in my post previously.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “I don’t know that, to “them,” those are “excuses.” I think it’s a little arrogant to assume that there’s only one side to this story. The West’s foreign policies are harmful to most Arabic nations, to how they conduct business, to how they lead their people, and to many other factors that affect the daily lives of individuals in those countries. The majority of people do NOT want Western influence in their culture. That’s just a simple fact and we need to respect that more ably within our own culture.”

    Firstly, in terms of terrorist Jihad against the US, by your own comments I am confused how you can say that there is perhaps another side of the story. I will say that whatever the other side of the story on killing Americans in the name of jihad I don’t really care to hear it.

    Our policies might not be great for some arab nations, but it’s been really great for others. I happen to think the Arabs in Kuwait like our involvment. Certainly the Kurds like the US. Turkey values our relationship greatly, as does Egypt (who receives the second most US financial support in the middle east). But either way, we should be acting in our own interest, as should be their governments. At the end of the day, it’s the leaders of the Arab world, and not the US, that causes most of the problems for the average middle easterner.

    Moreover, how can you claim that most suicide bombers have mental issues, but yet defend the sensibility?

    “I think media coverage and its lack of balance and lack of any expert analysis from external sources points more towards America’s attitude towards Islam than anything else. In terms of CAIR, they actually responded to many of the critiques leveled against them in a letter entitled “Urban Legends” which is widely available for perusal online and offline in libraries. I’d prefer to let them answer their own criticism, but I’d invite you or any other interested party to have a look at “Urban Legends” and CAIR’s actual statements on various issues to clarify some of this.”

    Hmmmm, are you aware of the flying mullah’s lawsuit? You know, the lawsuit that sues the airlines for “discriminating” against it’s passengers, solely on the basis of their praying loudly and ferverently on a plane (chanting long live Allah), asking for seatbelt extensions and sitting in seats other than what was assigned (both behaviors that were copied from 9/11 hijackers). You can thank CAIR for that one.

    I’m not talking about urban myths my friend. I pay attention to CAIR, and it seems that they are much more interested in the I than the A in their name. And if anything, the media has done their best to avoid covering this basic reality.

    “For starters, Muslims have no papal authority. They have the mullahs and other religious leaders, but there is no “single point” to which Muslims can promote a solid voice like the RC church has. There’s no governing body for Islam, no popes, no global leaders, etc. There’s only groups and the groups have been speaking out, as I’ve outlined in my post previously.”

    So? What about the mullahs in Iran who installed Ahmadinejad and openly call for Israel’s destruction? What about the various clerics in Iraq preaching suicide? What about in Saudi Arabia? Remember, the pope isn’t a “single point” either. He only represents catholics, which in this country is a very small minority. Still wouldn’t stop him from spelling out what was right (your comments about previous popes notwithstanding).

  • Lee Richards

    The author of this piece clearly makes the point that it has been an historical principle of Islam and an article of that faith through the ages to attack, kill, capture, convert or subjugate “non-believers” whenever possible.

    If that has so long been a fundamental belief, teaching and tactic–and history gives evidence of it–then why should we doubt that radical Islamists will continue to seek those ends by either steering or forcing a majority of believers in that direction?

    I, personally, am deeply suspicious of any preacher, priest, or mullah who seeks to control people’s actions by threats, fears, intimidation, superstition, and thought-control. And I’m also wary of those who say, “You can trust OUR religion never to do that”.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    “Firstly, in terms of terrorist Jihad against the US, by your own comments I am confused how you can say that there is perhaps another side of the story. I will say that whatever the other side of the story on killing Americans in the name of jihad I don’t really care to hear it.”

    You dismissed rationale as “excuses.” To those individuals dying for their cause, it is not simply an excuse. It is a damn good reason, in their mind. Hence, two sides….

    “Our policies might not be great for some arab nations, but it’s been really great for others. I happen to think the Arabs in Kuwait like our involvment. Certainly the Kurds like the US. Turkey values our relationship greatly, as does Egypt (who receives the second most US financial support in the middle east). But either way, we should be acting in our own interest, as should be their governments. At the end of the day, it’s the leaders of the Arab world, and not the US, that causes most of the problems for the average middle easterner.”

    This is highly debatable and contains ample generalizations to satisfy the most undiscerning philosophy. It also all depends on who you ask, as it’s tough to say that most Arabs are appreciative of United States influence in the regions. Surely the ones who have been made wealthy by dealing with United States contractors, arms dealers, oil barons, and other tycoons would be having regular love-ins for Americans, but I highly suspect that sentiment is not echoed throughout the throngs of common people in the Arab world.

    Part of the reason many Arab governments cause such problems is because they serve two masters: the American Empire and the people of their country. The only problem is that the latter come a distant second in terms of loyal duty. The United States has, throughout history, manipulated events, wars, and leadership in the region to suit their own interests. Suggesting that Arab governments have been problematic to their people is a little like saying the sky is blue but never wondering why. There are deep reasons behind these political issues, many of which bely an invasive foreign policy from the West.

    We can look at several examples. In the 1970s, Iran was under the regime of the shah and was one of the US allies of choice in the region. The Nixon Doctrine of 1972 held Iran as its major focus, as the United States began a serious arming project in the region and started giving tons of weapons to Iran. With American $$$upport, the shah began to upgrade his military significantly and Iran became a Middle Eastern superpower. Tensions in the region were on high because Iran was clearly arming themselves with US support and nobody else was able to move a muscle. It’s like watching your neighbour stockpile guns on his front lawn courtesy of Wal-Mart. You might begin to feel concerned when those guns are aimed at you. Of course, the shah of Iran was a dictator too and the Iranians became even more pissed that the United States was not only supporting this dictator but was also arming him and his military. In 1979, the people revolted and overthrew the shah. As with the Iraq oil boycott in 1973, the United States stopped getting their way in the region and got really pissed off. The hostage crisis didn’t help matters.

    There’s also the subsequent Iraq-Iran war, the US support of the Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982-1983, and the questionable “first” Gulf War under the Bush Administration in which the United States played Iago quite well and duped both Iran and Iraq into false security while Kuwait fleeced Iraqi oil by moving the border continually. How much land Kuwait actually has is still in dispute, yet the United States is more than happy to ensure Kuwait gets to protect whatever borders they claim. Why? Upton Sinclair knew.

    “Hmmmm, are you aware of the flying mullah’s lawsuit?”

    Yep. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy opposed the lawsuit and CAIR on this issue, as did many American Muslims in general. It should also be noted, as per the AIFD, that only a small percentage of the 5-6 million Muslims in America are members or are related to CAIR. As I said, all I stated was that they themselves responded to some of the critiques. They are hardly a failsafe organization, nor did I support them in any way. As with many PC-style groups, overkill is the order of the day. I do think they responded to the serious allegations of terrorist support though, which was the context in which I presented the “Urban Legends” retort.

    “I’m not talking about urban myths my friend. I pay attention to CAIR, and it seems that they are much more interested in the I than the A in their name. And if anything, the media has done their best to avoid covering this basic reality.”

    Nor am I. They picked the name for their retort to the allegations, not me. They chose to describe the allegations against themselves as “urban legends.” You’ll have to take this comment up with them. I think they SHOULD be more interested in the I than the A, by the way. Pardon my unforgivable rhyme, too.

    “So? What about the mullahs in Iran who installed Ahmadinejad and openly call for Israel’s destruction?”

    It’s funny you bring this up because the whole “destruction of Israel” thing is quite misrepresented. Ahmadinejad is a nutter, there’s no question about that. Interestingly enough, and talk about being not reported, Ahmadinejad has less total power than the Ayatollah (Supreme Leader) of Iran, Ali Khamenei. Khamenei condemned the terrorist attacks of 9/11, while the majority of Iranians wept for the victims in the streets. Khamenei also issued a fatwa saying that nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. He also denounced the remarks of the aforementioned nutter about Israel and has been supportive of many conservative issues in Iran continually.

    “Remember, the pope isn’t a “single point” either. He only represents catholics, which in this country is a very small minority. Still wouldn’t stop him from spelling out what was right (your comments about previous popes notwithstanding).”

    Well, the Pope IS the representative of the whole of the Catholic Church, so in that way he very much is a single point that many Catholics, if not all, look to at some point. The Pope, being the Vicar of Christ, very much has to serve as the veritable head of state to the Vatican and, of course, the head of the church to the RC tradition.

    So when we talk about Muslims, we again have to regale ourselves back to the single communities. You say that the Pope would condemn war or other genocidal issues or what have you. But what do you do when your religion has no Pope? You cannot have an imaginary leader presuppose an apology when there is no such leader. My point is to say, in response to your comment about why this apology or form of atonement or denouncement hasn’t happened on the “Islamic side” is that there is no “Islamic side” to speak of. There’s no internal leadership. The denouncement can be done nationally, as it has been with the Ayatollah and with the other examples I’ve cited, but in terms of a cross-Islam denouncement, it’s impossible to predicate that type of response unless you start polling individuals Muslims. If you do that, by the way, you find as many other scholars and research bodies have found that the overwhelming majority of the world’s nearly 2-billion Muslims heavily denounces all acts of terrorism.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    Man, I really need to start proofing my comments before I post them. Sorry about some of those errors, guys.