Oh I believe you.
Would you mind telling this chap?
People like Dr. Moore who claim that terrorism done by those who claim to be Muslims, in the name of Allah, for the sake of their prophet, while they quote from the Qur'an - which they have memorised - does not in any way reflect the religion of Islam need to urgently inform young Mr Abedi of this. Because despite all his study & dedication he doesn't understand Islam as well as Dr. Moore does.
This is among the strangest of all phenomena to me. Extremely intelligent, well intentioned people, successful in their own field, step right out of that field and make public comments - and recommendations to governing bodies! - about an issue they manifestly know nothing about. All these blokes had to do was get on the blower to an Australian Muslim scholar like Sheikh Mohammed Tawhidi and he could patiently explain, with authority, that such violence has everything to do with Islam. Too hard?
I paste the article below and then an excellent compendium of primary sources and current proponents that discourse on the necessity of jihad for the sake of Allah by Robert Spencer. The bulk of that will be below the fold.
'Islam ISN'T linked to terrorism': Chief doctors group makes controversial claims just days after ISIS-inspired fanatic killed 22 in Manchester,
by Max Margan from the Daily Mail Australia
An Australian doctors lobby group has dismissed the 'inherent links' between Islam and terrorism and is urging a powerful committee to follow suit. The Public Health Association of Australia has called on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to 'disavow' the concept.
'The PHAA urges the Committee to include a recommendation in its report that disavows the notion that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism,' the submission reads. 'The Committee should condemn any politician who refers divisively (expressly or implied) to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain.' [Graeme: but who decides what is 'divisive' or for mere 'political gain' rather than someone expressing a genuinely held concern?]
PHAA Chief Executive Michael Moore said there is no inherent link between any religion and acts of terror. 'When you look at terrorism and the IRA, I don't think many people blamed Christianity for terrorism when clearly there was an overlay,' he told The Australian. 'In fact there's nothing inherent in Christianity that links to terrorism. [Graeme: er, I would have said that would be because Christianity and Islam are two different religions. But then I'm not President of the World Federation of Public Health Associations so what would I know about the distinctive theologies of historic monotheistic Near Eastern faiths? The obvious upside though is that people like me can now advise Governments on public health policy and not be laughed out of the room. Great, I've got some ideas...]
'Intolerable behaviour is intolerable behaviour and... because individuals might frame that around Islam doesn't mean we should accept that.'
By the by:~ Dr. Michael Moore has an interesting history. According to Wikipedia (which lists him primarily as a politician not as a medical doctor):~
Moore was a social progressive who was responsible for the legalisation of prostitution, the decriminalisation of cannabis and who was a strong advocate for trialling the provision of heroin to dependent users. He was a joint founder of the Australian Parliamentary Group on Drug Law Reform, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and sponsored the early meetings of the group Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform.
Is it mere coincidence that we so often see people with similar "liberal" values jump to defend the religion of Islam? Why is that?
Robert Spencer's thorough commentary on this fallacy follows. The last portion of which states this:~
If [the Moderate Islamic scholars] of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists. We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.
“The PHAA urges the Committee to include a recommendation in its report that disavows the notion that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism….The Committee should condemn any politician who refers divisively (expressly or implied) to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain.”
Will the Committee also disavow those Muslims who believe that there is an inherent link between Islam and terrorism? Here are a few:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30