I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

[Joyousperson]

Dr. Jeffrey M. Bale is an Associate Professor in the Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), where his focus is on the study of political and religious extremism and terrorism. He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern and Islamic history at the University of Michigan, and his Ph.D. in modern European history at the University of California at Berkeley.​

This is a very interesting and insightful article from Jeffrey Bale which is worth reading to access the truth. He concluded with the following.

Although many Muslims, like other religious believers, can be expected to be overly defensive about their faith, it remains far less understandable why so many Western leaders and commentators are also peddling the same falsehoods about the IS having "nothing to do with Islam."

If the latter honestly believe what they are saying, then they are either hopelessly ignorant about Islam, Islamic history, and Islamism, or are wearing impenetrable ideological blinders that prevent them from seeing reality, or are living in an acute state of psychological denial that borders on the pathological and the clinically delusional.

But if such Westerners do not actually believe what they are saying, then they are fooling themselves that their embarrassingly facile attempts to divorce Islam from Islamism will somehow end up being the most effective way to counter Islamist ideology or rally support from Muslims for various Western foreign policy and counterterrorist initiatives in the region.
Analysis: Does the Islamic State Really Have 'Nothing to Do with Islam'?

Views?​

 

[Joyousperson]

Posted by CryptoLutheran:
(from the deleted OP due to wrong forum)

People have always found ways to be evil and to make justifications for their evil. Religion has frequently been one of those things. Virtually every major religion has had its contingent of violent extremists who, by and large, ignore the fundamental tenets of the religion in order to turn their religiosity into a tribal mark of "us" against "them". Whether it is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or other.

St. Cyprian of Carthage once wrote, "The whole world is wet with mutual blood".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Yes ISIS has nothing to do with the Message of Muhammad. Just as abusive priests have nothing to do with Jesus Christs Message.

Regards Tony

 

[Joyousperson]

Yes ISIS has nothing to do with the Message of Muhammad. Just as abusive priests have nothing to do with Jesus Christs Message.

Regards Tony

Nothing??

Note Jeffrey Bale argued above, I.S.I.S definitely has something to do with Islam itself but he differentiated Islamic terrorism as based on Islamism from the moderate Islam. He pointed out that Islamic terrorists often justified their attacks with verses from the Quran and sayings of Muhammad.

However Bale did not get into details to support what that 'something' is.

I believe what I.S.I.S represent is more Islamic than the moderate Muslims are.

What is Islam is represented by all the 6236 verses of the Quran [Quran 5:3] and supported by the Ahadith.

Thus empirically and objectively, the degree of Islamic_ness of a Muslim or group can be determined by how many verses s/he agrees and practices re the 6,236 verses [& n verses of the Ahadith] as a checklist.

I strongly believe [subject to verification] I.S.I.S agree and practice all the tenets of the 6236 verses within the Quran, whereas the moderate Muslims would probably agree with 60% of the 6236 verses.

Thus my hypothesis is; I.S.I.S is 100% Islam.
Agree with my views? if not, your counter arguments?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Agree with my views? if not, your counter arguments?

It has been said the Bible is more violent than the Quran.

This is one explanation;

Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Thus, if it is the practice of the Word in the Book that creates a terrorist, then Jews should be twice as violent and Christains likewise.

Regards Tony

 

[Joyousperson]

It has been said the Bible is more violent than the Quran.

This is one explanation;

Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Thus, if it is the practice of the Word in the Book that creates a terrorist, then Jews should be twice as violent and Christains likewise.

Regards Tony

Quantitatively , it is true there are more evil and violent verses in the OT than in the Quran. But not in the NT.

However, I have argued Christianity is not inherently evil and violent in this thread
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

Whatever verses that are seemingly evil and violent in nature in the NT, they are overridden by an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'. The inclusion of this overriding term in the covenant, ensure Christianity itself is not to be blamed for the acts by Christians who acted upon their own free will and fallible human nature.

I have demonstrated above, Islam on the other hand, directly exhort and condone Muslims to commit acts that are evil and violent when Islam is threatened. The definition of threats [fasadan] in this case is very vague to the extent, drawing of cartoons of prophet Muhammad is a threat and the result was the killing of innocent non-Muslims by mobs of Muslims around the world.
In Islam, there is no overriding limit and term to stop Muslims from killing non-Muslims.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Quantitatively , it is true there are more evil and violent verses in the OT than in the Quran. But not in the NT.

However, I have argued Christianity is not inherently evil and violent in this thread
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

Whatever verses that are seemingly evil and violent in nature in the NT, they are overridden by an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'. The inclusion of this overriding term in the covenant, ensure Christianity itself is not to be blamed for the acts by Christians who acted upon their own free will and fallible human nature.

I have demonstrated above, Islam on the other hand, directly exhort and condone Muslims to commit acts that are evil and violent when Islam is threatened. The definition of threats [fasadan] in this case is very vague to the extent, drawing of cartoons of prophet Muhammad is a threat and the result was the killing of innocent non-Muslims by mobs of Muslims around the world.
In Islam, there is no overriding limit and term to stop Muslims from killing non-Muslims.

Justice is not Evil, yes it can be violent, but no the Quran only teaches defence of ones faith and protection of other faiths that choose to live under muslim law and pay the taxes.You have quoted actions of people that do not follow the law of the Quran

The Bible foretells that Muhammad's Revelation will take on more of a Law based Faith, just as the Old Testament was. The Passsage about the two witnesses clothed in sackcloth, who would give Prophecy for 1260 years, tells us that it is God that gave us Muhammad and the Quran.

Regards Tony

 

[JosephZ]

Note Jeffrey Bale argued above, I.S.I.S definitely has something to do with Islam itself but he differentiated Islamic terrorism as based on Islamism from the moderate Islam. He pointed out that Islamic terrorists often justified their attacks with verses from the Quran and sayings of Muhammad. However Bale did not get into details to support what that 'something' is.

That article that is linked in your OP contains excerpts from a much longer piece by Dr. Jeffrey Bale about Islamist and Islamist ideology.

From the website: Note: This analysis has been excerpted, with the approval of the author, from a much longer scholarly article that will be published in an academic journal.

Since the site you linked to is ran by Steve Emerson, the quotes used in that article were very selective and intentionally used to mislead the reader.

Here's an article that gives a little information about the man behind the website your link leads to. Steven Emerson has 3,390,000 reasons to fear Muslims. That's how many dollars Emerson's for-profit company — Washington-based SAE Productions — collected in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. The payment came from the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a nonprofit charity Emerson also founded, which solicits money by telling donors they're in imminent danger from Muslims. Emerson is a leading member of a multimillion-dollar industry of self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims in books and movies, on websites and through speaking appearances.

The title to your thread asks the question.

I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

Dr. Bales's short answer:

Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.

The piece by Dr. Bale takes on a completely different meaning when put in full context and actually argues against your point of view. What's ironic is that when additional context is added, Dr. Bale even speaks out against people like Steve Emerson who intentionally equate the religion of Islam with Islamism (Extremism).

More than a decade after 9/11, there still remain shocking levels of ignorance in the West about the nature of Islam as a religion, about the basic outlines of Islamic history, about tribal social structures in the Muslim world, and about the doctrinal characteristics of Islamism, an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines. Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations...

‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism,
an intrinsically radical modern Islamic political ideology whose distinguishing characteristics will be clarified further below. Or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general.

The allegation is, explicitly or implicitly, that such characteristics are intrinsic to Islam itself, and therefore that Islamism and jihadism are simply logical extensions – or simple applications in practice – of the authentic tenets and core values of Islam. Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic, what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Sources for the above and the article on that website come from here: The Darkest Sides of Politics, II and here: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions

Basically what Dr. Bale says is that extremists and extremist groups like ISIS use the exact same religious texts as mainstream Muslims, yet they come to opposing conclusions as to what the religion of Islam teaches. The only thing ISIS has in common with the religion Islam are their use of the Qur'an and other Islamic religious texts to justify their actions just the same as Christian terrorist groups like the NSCN, NLFT, and LRA use the Bible to support theirs. Neither Islamic extremists nor Christian extremists represent the true teachings of the religions that claim to represent.

 

[Joyousperson]

Justice is not Evil, yes it can be violent, but no the Quran only teaches defence of ones faith and protection of other faiths that choose to live under muslim law and pay the taxes.You have quoted actions of people that do not follow the law of the Quran

The Bible foretells that Muhammad's Revelation will take on more of a Law based Faith, just as the Old Testament was. The Passsage about the two witnesses clothed in sackcloth, who would give Prophecy for 1260 years, tells us that it is God that gave us Muhammad and the Quran.

Regards Tony

A wise and efficient religion should only provide effective solutions to spiritual and existential issues.
It is ridiculous for a religious book to be a manual on justice via war.
Note in the case of the Chinese and Taoism, it has Sun Tzu Art of War which is independent of the religion.

Note the wiser religion like Buddhism which came about more that 1000 years before Islam and it does not include any elements of wars, just wars, justice using violence, etc.

Islam is an ideology which has more to do with politics with an imperialistic background than being a religion in the first place. Islam is analogically like the ideology of Nazism that was accepted as a religion with the supremacy and political imperialism suppressed within.

Note the inevitable STALEMATE dilemma that arise, where neither the moderate Muslims and the violent extremists can judge who is right or wrong since only Allah can judge. This dilemma will enable extremists to continue waging evil and violent acts in the name of Islam and no one can judge they are wrong.

The prophesy of Muhammad in the Bible is false, i.e. based on confirmation bias.

 

[Joyousperson]

That article that is linked in your OP contains excerpts from a much longer piece by Dr. Jeffrey Bale about Islamist and Islamist ideology.

From the website: Note: This analysis has been excerpted, with the approval of the author, from a much longer scholarly article that will be published in an academic journal.

Since the site you linked to is ran by Steve Emerson, the quotes used in that article were very selective and intentionally used to mislead the reader.

Here's an article that gives a little information about the man behind the website your link leads to. Steven Emerson has 3,390,000 reasons to fear Muslims. That's how many dollars Emerson's for-profit company — Washington-based SAE Productions — collected in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. The payment came from the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a nonprofit charity Emerson also founded, which solicits money by telling donors they're in imminent danger from Muslims. Emerson is a leading member of a multimillion-dollar industry of self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims in books and movies, on websites and through speaking appearances.

The title to your thread asks the question.

I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

Dr. Bales's short answer:

Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.

The piece by Dr. Bale takes on a completely different meaning when put in full context and actually argues against your point of view. What's ironic is that when additional context is added, Dr. Bale even speaks out against people like Steve Emerson who intentionally equate the religion of Islam with Islamism (Extremism).

More than a decade after 9/11, there still remain shocking levels of ignorance in the West about the nature of Islam as a religion, about the basic outlines of Islamic history, about tribal social structures in the Muslim world, and about the doctrinal characteristics of Islamism, an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines. Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations...

‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism,
an intrinsically radical modern Islamic political ideology whose distinguishing characteristics will be clarified further below. Or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general.

The allegation is, explicitly or implicitly, that such characteristics are intrinsic to Islam itself, and therefore that Islamism and jihadism are simply logical extensions – or simple applications in practice – of the authentic tenets and core values of Islam. Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic, what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Sources for the above and the article on that website come from here: The Darkest Sides of Politics, II and here: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions

Basically what Dr. Bale says is that extremists and extremist groups like ISIS use the exact same religious texts as mainstream Muslims, yet they come to opposing conclusions as to what the religion of Islam teaches. The only thing ISIS has in common with the religion Islam are their use of the Qur'an and other Islamic religious texts to justify their actions just the same as Christian terrorist groups like the NSCN, NLFT, and LRA use the Bible to support theirs. Neither Islamic extremists nor Christian extremists represent the true teachings of the religions that claim to represent.

Note my reply in the other post.

If Bale's views is totally different from mine, i.e. Islamism is not Islam, then his views are shallow and narrow because he did not account for the critical deeper root causes I listed in various posts.

Note Islamism as Bale's claim is political, but he forgot Islam claimed to be "a-way-of-life" that incorporates all aspects of life, i.e. especially politics.
As such the extremists who are political cannot be wrong if they claim to be Islamic.
Note the STALEMATE dilemma which Bale obviously is ignorant off.
In addition, WHO IS BALE to judge and decide on Allah behalf on those Muslims who claim they are following the command of Allah as Muslims? Get the point??

The Muslims of I.S.I.S already asserted political elements are secondary while disbelieving by the infidels [verified to verses in the Quran] is primary. Who is Bale to say they are wrong?

The ultimate true view re the Muslims must be objective and based on the original sources of Islam that represent the covenanted terms every Muslims must comply with.
You are not doing that but rather rely on person subjective opinions and logical fallacies.

 

[JosephZ]

WHO IS BALE to judge and decide on Allah behalf on those Muslims who claim they are following the command of Allah as Muslims? Get the point?? The Muslims of I.S.I.S already asserted political elements are secondary while disbelieving by the infidels [verified to verses in the Quran] is primary. Who is Bale to say they are wrong?

One could also ask who are you to judge? Isn't that what you are doing also?

You have formed the opinion that Islamic terrorists and extremists are right and the more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are wrong when it comes to Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

One could also ask who are you to judge? Isn't that what you are doing also?

You have formed the opinion that Islamic terrorists and extremists are right and the more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are wrong when it comes to Islam.

I definitely agree I cannot judge ultimately.
The best I can provide is sound objective arguments.

What is in reality is the STALEMATE exists and the continual evil and violent acts will be committed by people who claimed they are Muslims of Islam and no one can judge them.

Can you see the logical inference is, Islam [inherently contentious] is the critical variable that contribute to the evil and violent that arise from that STALEMATE.

So the logical and rational solution is to deal with the root cause, i.e. Islam. The solution is thus to get rid of the contentious elements within the Quran or in the Ahadith so that no Muslims can rely on them at all.
But this cannot be done to a supposedly immutable Quran from Allah.
So the ideal [not practical at present] solution is to get rid of Islam altogether.

So it is critical to recognize the above facts rather than deflecting from the truths as you have been doing, thus enabling continual evil and violence to originate from the basis of Islam.

At least you must recognize the above facts and the inherent dilemma, then one can think of solutions to how best resolve the dilemma.

 

[JosephZ]

So the logical and rational solution is to deal with the root cause, i.e. Islam. The solution is thus to get rid of the contentious elements within the Quran or in the Ahadith so that no Muslims can rely on them at all.
But this cannot be done to a supposedly immutable Quran from Allah.
So the ideal [not practical at present] solution is to get rid of Islam altogether.

I have already shown you where experts have come to the opposite conclusion and have even suggested that "a strong religious identity could well serve to inoculate people against turning to violence in the name of Islam."

Study after study shows otherwise:

Eli Berman, Radical, Religious, and Violent 9-13, 212 (2009) (relying upon Israeli study of Muslim suicide bombers, among other evidence, to demonstrate that “religious terrorists, even suicide bombers [are] not particularly motivated by heavenly rewards”)

Tufyal Choudhury, Dept. for Communities and Local Gov’t, The Role of Muslim Identity Politics in Radicalization (A Study in Progress) 6 (2007) (emphasis added), available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/452628.pdf. Sageman found that terrorists are not particularly religiously literate and do not come primarily from religious families. Only about one-fourth of his sample was deeply religious when they were young; two-thirds were secular; and the remainder converted to Islam. Nor were his subjects well versed in Islam. Rather, the “majority of terrorists come to their religious beliefs through self-instruction. Their religious understanding is limited; they know about as much as any secular person, which is to say, very little.” Leaderless Jihad, supra note 40, at 51.

With respect to American homegrown terrorists, the Rand Study concludes that, although we have “no metric for measuring faith . . . the attraction of the jihadists’ extremist ideology . . . appears to have had more to do with participating in action than with religious instruction.” Rand Study, supra note 25, at 3.

The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions… Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. (Pape, Robert. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. 2006)

The available research does not support the view that Islam drives terrorism or that observing the Muslim faith—even a particularly stringent or conservative variety of that faith—is a step on the path to violence. In fact, that research suggests the opposite: Instead of promoting radicalization, a strong religious identity could well serve to inoculate people against turning to violence in the name of Islam.

The British MI5 Study explicitly debunked this view. It found that “[f]ar from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices.”

Sageman’s review of 500 cases, as well as multiple other empirical studies, have found that “a lack of religious literacy and education appears to be a common feature among those that are drawn to [terrorist] groups.” Indeed, there is evidence that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization.”

No need to respond to the above, you already have in the other thread.

You will note the so-called experts are ignorant of the critical factors I raised... How can their findings be holistically consclusive if their research are shallow and narrow-minded.

 

[Joyousperson]

I have already shown you where experts have come to the opposite conclusion and have even suggested that "a strong religious identity could well serve to inoculate people against turning to violence in the name of Islam."

In Islam, a Muslim is a person who have entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms stipulated within the Quran and the Ahadith with a promise of salvation.

The covenanted terms [6236 verses] contain loads of evil and violent elements.

To be more religious meant complying with more the 6236 verses.

Because the convenanted terms contains loads of evil and violent elements [3400++] evil and violent concepts against disbelievers, then being more religious, i.e. more compliant would meant the Muslims must be more evil and violent, for fear of missing the passage to paradise and ending hell.

Thus the proposal above is false.

It is so obvious, there are so much empirical evidences where Muslims turned violent when they get more serious with the religion of Islam.

 

[JosephZ]

It is so obvious, there are so much empirical evidences where Muslims turned violent when they get more serious with the religion of Islam.

Not according to the experts and there is a strong consensus among them.

 

[Rubiks]

ISIS is definitely following the spirit of some of the barbaric traditions ascribed to their prophet (note that Islam is not a "scripture-alone" religion and those who hold to the Quran as the only authoritative source are generally branded as heretics)

Well-informed moderate Muslims generally don't dispute that those traditions exist, they just reject their historicity.

 

[Rubiks]

You have formed the opinion that Islamic terrorists and extremists are right and the more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are wrong when it comes to Islam.

Well the Hadith literature don't really present a consistent portrait of Muhammad himself. Islamic extremists focus on the bad stuff whereas moderate Muslims focus on the good stuff.

We know that by the time these traditions were being recorded Muslims were fighting over the interpretation of their religion; in many cases, complete teachings were fabricated and ascribed to their prophet.

 

[Joyousperson]

Not according to the experts and there is a strong consensus among them.

The experts you refer to are not objective.

Note my objective argument [again] below.

In Islam, a Muslim is a person who have entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms stipulated within the Quran and the Ahadith with a promise of salvation.

The covenanted terms [6236 verses] contain loads of evil and violent elements.

To be more religious meant complying with more the 6236 verses.

Because the convenanted terms contains loads of evil and violent elements [3400++] evil and violent concepts against disbelievers, then being more religious, i.e. more compliant would meant the Muslims must be more evil and violent, for fear of missing the passage to paradise and ending hell.

It is so obvious, there are so much empirical evidences where Muslims turned violent when they get more serious with the religion of Islam, i.e. compliant to more toward 100% verses either by their own reading & understanding or preachers.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's kind of like saying the early Islamic Expansions had nothing to do with Islam, or the Ottomans had nothing to do with Islam. The Islamic mandate to subjugate all to Allah is entirely part of Islam, despite how it's carried out. Isis just happens to be more extreme about it than other Islamic states or people.

If someone says ISIS is totally unrelated to Islam, they are ignorant or being deceptive.

 

[Joyousperson]

It's kind of like saying the early Islamic Expansions had nothing to do with Islam, or the Ottomans had nothing to do with Islam. The Islamic mandate to subjugate all to Allah is entirely part of Islam, despite how it's carried out. Isis just happens to be more extreme about it than other Islamic states or people.

If someone says ISIS is totally unrelated to Islam, they are ignorant or being deceptive.

In a way IS is more compliant to the tenets of the religion. Their degree of Islam-ness is higher than the so called moderates Muslims.

Those who placate, mollify and appease Islam are not so much as being ignorant or deceptive, rather, they have been cowed by the effective strategies of Islam in casting terror into their hearts, to the extent they do not dare to get to the truths of evil and violence of Islam. This is happening subliminally not consciously.

The term 'terror' is mentioned many times in the Quran as strategy to subdue disbelievers to be dominated. Here is one of the verse;

3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror [R3B: l-ruʿ'ba] into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [ShRK: ashrakū idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed.​

In one of the authorized guide book 'Reliance of the Traveler' Muslims are exhorted to commit terror at least twice a year to sustain an atmosphere of terror over the minds of disbelievers. This is one reason for the prevalence of terror attacks by Islamists. Note the related reference from the Quran,

9:126. See they [infidels] not [Do the infidels ever realized] that they [infidels] are tested once or twice in every year?
​

These terror attacks affect the mind of the Muslims apologist to the extent of being cowed subliminally [not consciously], thus their defense that Islam is peaceful so as to suppress the real truth of terror embedded in their minds.