I would put it to you that most people aren’t really good disciples.
So when a Muslim doesn’t emulate Mohammad that is in fact a good thing. A very good thing. But that doesn’t change the fact that Islam itself is what can make a terrorist of any Muslim with little warning.
Moreover, Islam creates the conditions for “moderates” to be the tall grass the others hide in.
In addition to that, even the very definitions used by Muslims of common terms may not be used colloquially, and this is in fact something the OIC has put the world on legal notice of.
When ANY Muslim official says that they oppose terrorism or are for human rights as a matter of OIC treaty they mean something very different than what you or I mean.
Finally, because the OIC officially speaks for the whole umma (sometimes spelled ummah) this same principal must be assumed to apply to ANY Muslim simply because we cannot know who is or isn’t applying taqiyya.
Because the OIC represents all Muslim nations at the head of state level, it is an authority over Shiite and Sunni alike. Per Sharia includes Muslims living in non-Muslim lands.
So a Muslim that actually opposed terrorism as the colloquial meaning set it forth, who actually supports the ability of nations to have their own laws, is in fact in opposition to Islam.
This post was quoted on Fundies Say the Darndest Things, a site where people rant about things posted on the internet rather than discuss them with the folks who posted them.
http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=138844&Page=1#2154633
I do give credit where credit is due, as one fellow posted: “- It’s not a man! Machine! Muslimnator! Rurudyne Systems model 101!” which is pretty funny. Kudos to you Malingspann.
As for the rest, well, it seems that people cannot separate holding Islam itself to be contemptible, and it is, from thinking individual Muslims are so. A post that starts off with observing that Muslims don’t always emulate Mohammad (and that it’s a good thing when they don’t) can’t be said to be critical of all Muslims as if they did ... just those that do emulate Mohammad or, as set forth in the post, use alternate meanings for words like terrorism defined according to Sharia.
I wonder what they’d do with the suggestion that what John saw, what he wrote down in Revelation, was not Greek letters but something in a script he didn’t recognize? That what is often translated as “666” is in fact the Arabic script for “in the name of Allah” combined with the common crossed swords motif? That Islam is the specific religious environment from which the Antichrist will come?
Islam is of the spirit of antichrist ... that is not disputable. They proclaim the blasphemies of Mohammad literally from the rooftop of the Dome of the Rock. Moses did speak of another to come after him and Christ indicated that Moses had spoken of Him; but, Christ never spoke of another because there would be no more to come. Mohammad was and can only be a false prophet.