Why every Muslim is a Terrorist
There’s a joke that has been waiting for over six years to be unleashed on late–night. “What does America’s first black president,” the joke starts, “call a terrorist who”:
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
- committed offensive genocide on a village of Jews,
- in order to steal a man’s wealth and fund an Islamic collective, had a man tortured with hot coals on his chest
- has this man killed
- then personally rapes the dead tortured man’s wife the very night said terrorist kills the woman’s husband?”
The answer to this joke, according to the White House web site, is 
“[a] demonstrat[or]… of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
And the late–night follow up goes, “To what kind of individual does America’s first black president eulogize with great praise? Would such an individual’s conduct be characterized by A or B:
A. A Muslim who fought for freedom of conscience, peaceful co-existence with the state of Israel or;
B. A Muslim who fought for the continuance of the historical Islamic tradition of issuing no punishment for vigilantes who murder apostate Muslims, approved of suicide terrorist operations against Israeli citizens. ”
While the Muslim terrorist Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi approved of suicide terrorist operations against Israeli citizens—and never retracted these internationally accepted remarks—the terrorist leader was eulogized by the Obama White House as “a voice for faith and tolerance, who was widely respected in Muslim communities, in Egypt, and by many around the globe, who seek to build a world grounded in mutual respect.”
Ah yes. It is good to see how much our black President has learned about the abuses of slavery and how he fights against slavery in all its ugly forms.
A Universal Failure
The only problem with the title of this article is that it is true.
Multiculturalist on the left and right argue that since many Muslims would never even think about committing an act of terror, let alone perform one, it cannot be true that all Muslims are terrorists.
But this reasoning is a non-sequitur.
The thesis that, “all Muslims are terrorists” is so beyond-the-pale of our multicultural government school and government–media indoctrination, that we reflexively think it must be false. The title of this article, with its prominent “all,” contains an apparent conspicuous trapping of error. Indeed the title suggests the exact opposite of the official Bush-Obama “Islam is a religion of Peace” doctrine. According to said doctrine, the terrorists are the great misunderstanders of Islam. If only those poor ignorant terrorists, like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—with his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies—knew the truth of Islam, then they too could see that Mohammad was the pre-incarnation of Gandhi.
Indeed the ignorance of multiculturalists is bliss. It is bliss until a massacre—like that which occurred in Paris last month—bursts our denial.
Our multiculturalists craft a Mohammad in their own narcissistic image. Multiculturalists are either unaware of or in denial of evil Islamic celebrations including
- the religious apartheid in the Jizya tax (Koran 9:29) or
- female sex slaves (euphemistically called “right hand possessions” Koran 4:3, 24 …)
But the thesis that “all Muslims are terrorists” just happens to be true. And the proof is as simple as it is clean:
As night follows day, from these two premises it follows that every Muslim is at least a doctrinal terrorist. And a doctrinal terrorist is a terrorist, a type of terrorist. While we can concede that not every Muslim is a functioning or operational terrorist, this syllogism forces us to concede that every Muslim is a doctrinal terrorist.
There are peculiar phenomena that attend doctrinal terrorists. One such phenomenon is that doctrinal terrorists can quickly and seamlessly convert from being doctrinal terrorists only, to full–on operational Mohammadian terrorists. How many more terrorists do we have to hear about, where the Muslim or Multiculturalist will gush, “Friendly Mohammad wouldn’t hurt a fly, I don’t understand how he could have possibility been radicalized!”? Let’s see, there is Jihadi John of ISIS who was an “extremely gentle, kind … beautiful young man.” Then there is Mohammad Atta, the 911 ringleader of whom it was said, “Mohammed was an incredible human being…. Maybe I was the closest to him in our class. He could not have a black spot in his character. He was so solid and pure, good to the roots.” There are tens of thousands of such stories since 9/11.
And the more that multiculturalists, like the erstwhile Multiculturalist slut-saint Hasna Ait Boulahcen, do not at least honestly address our four–word question—”Was Mohammad a terrorist?”—the more they facilitate the devolution: Multicultural terror facilitator to doctrinal terrorist to functional terrorist.
More, More about Mohammad
Listen to some of the most important words in the Koran. Listen and hear the beckon of Mohammad to terror
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. (Koran 2:216, Sahih International)
In these words one can hear Mohammad undermining the humanity of those whose conscience would otherwise give them pause to take up the sword in offensive Islamic jihad.
Later in the Medina years, Mohammad became more violent:
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Koran 9:5, Sahih International)
Apparently to Muslims and Multiculturalists alike, this Islamic offensive jihad is “forgiving and merciful.” How else could one explain their straight–faced acceptance of this utter cruelty cloaked with mercy? By not morally vetting Mohammad, Multiculturalists and “conservatives” accept and celebrate terrorism in the print of the Koran. But only when Islam spectacularly spills from the pages of the Koran onto streets do Multiculturalists tolerate even a momentary vetting of the texts of Islam. In 1940 the German political establishment, including most of the German Christian leaders, effectively worshipped Adolph Hitler. They sided with Hitler over natural law. In turning these tables, the Nuremberg Trials restored a sense of humanity to the German body politic.
In 2015, all of the US’s national political class effectively worships Mohammad. Ditto for the EU and UN. They join Obama and side with terrorism over natural law. How else can one explain this confusion of terrorism with “mercy”? Why is the U.S., via its 501(c)3 status–granting, providing moral cover and economic benefits to organizations that celebrate the Koran? Why is there no national representative speaking out against such perversity? Koran 9:5 should be a conspicuous joke. By granting 501(c)3 status to Islam, the U.S. has become dead serious about this cruel joke and has subordinated natural law to Islam. Thanks to Islam and Multiculturalism, we can scarcely make such elementary moral distinctions between “jihad” and “merciful” now.
In the aftermath of 9/11, it became politically easier to declare impulsively “Islam is a religion of peace” and spend trillions on a war against an undefined enemy than to ask our four–word question about Mohammad. But also in 2001 another way became apparent. A certain Ali Sina offered anyone thousands of dollars to disprove the thesis that Mohammad was a terrorist. While in more recent years the prize money has been elevated to $50,000; it is clear that this $50,000 is far more expensive to the U.S. Multicultural Government than the trillions we are spending on Quixotic efforts. Obama rightly, even if smugly, criticized the Bush administration for being wrong-headed “You do not wage war against terrorism: Terrorism is a strategy.” While Obama’s criticism of Bush was correct, in declaring war on “man-caused disasters,” “work place violence” and “global warming,” Obama took stupid to new levels. Curiously the former two Obama classification strategies represented situations, like the situation of 9/11, which were accompanied by “Allahu akbars!”
Under Bush we had war on terrorism. Under Obama we have war on situations and misunderstanders of a great religion based on a great prophet. What we need is a war against Mohammad. That is the war that will usher world peace.
Compassion towards Mohammadians
Just because every Muslim is a doctrinal terrorist, doesn’t of course mean that we should kill all Muslims. Certainly some Muslims, having been so fully unskinned by Mohammad, need to be killed. But most Muslims are ignorant and illiterate. With an effective bully pulpit, most Muslims can be led out of the clutches of Mohammad.
In order to redeem Muslims, we must understand them. When a Muslim says that Mohammad was not a terrorist, they do not mean that Mohammad did not:
- commit offensive genocide on a village of Jews,
- in order to steal a man’s wealth and fund an Islamic collective, had a man tortured with hot coals on his chest
- then has this man killed
- then personally raped the dead tortured man’s wife the very night Mohammad had the woman’s husband killed
- murder to retaliate against the poet Ka’b al-Ashraf who spoke ill of Muslims
Rather they mean that Mohammad’s behavior cannot be judged. They mean that Mohammad is the non-prophesying “prophet” whose behavior sets the standard by which all other human beings are judged. And that is what America’s political leaders, if we ever get one, must show the Muslim world about themselves. Any reduction of terrorism accomplished by means of the bully pulpit should be seen to be superior to the more ruthless technique of bombing Muslims. Yet this act of humanity is what Multiculturalism and Islam forbid. We must show the Multiculturalists and the Muslims that Mohammad should be judged according to natural law, according to the same laws by which we judge ourselves. For the sake of our own humanity, we must not put Mohammad above judgment or the law.
Although they will not admit it unless they are prodded into doing so, Muslims worship Mohammad. Therefore it is up to us to gently, if possible, inform Muslims of the difference between evaluating Mohammad as one under natural law (see Surah 3:144) and worshipping Mohammad as one above natural law. The Koran strictly forbids making distinctions among Allah’s messengers and this includes Mohammad (see Surah 2:136). Thus the Koran forbids worship of Mohammad. We can point out to Muslims that when they put Mohammad above the law, they are making a clear distinction between him and the rest of the messengers.
The average Muslim on the streets of Cairo may not have been willing to interpose himself between the more authentic Mohammadians—who screamed “Jew! Jew!” as they raped—and the non-Jewish public–rape victim, newscaster Lara Logan. But the average Muslim wants to engage in a moral conversation and would be willing to entertain moral questions about religion. Such questions like
- All other factors being equal, is a religion which celebrates sexual slavery (e.g., Koran 4:3, 24 …) superior or inferior to a religion that declares said behavior to be a moral evil?
- All other factors being equal, is a religion which celebrates an individual’s freedom of conscious superior or inferior to a religion that prohibits any punishment upon the vigilante murder of apostates? Yet this unconscionable punishment is celebrated by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
could help the more humanized Mohammadians see that Islam is perhaps not the morally virtuous religion that their parents led them to believe.
Mohammadians are the first victims of Mohammad. By presenting Muslims with questions of the above nature, we respect their moral faculties and extend true mercy and compassion upon them. A mercy and compassion not evident in that Koran. Indeed, “[true] peace be upon them all!” But the only meaningful way this can happen is to dissuade Muslims about this monster Mohammad.
To show that we are serious about fighting the historic progenitor of modern global terror, this monster Mohammad, America must firmly and immediately deny any Koran-revering organization the moral cover and financial benefits of 501(c)3 status.
Just as the Nuremberg trials humanized Germans and Nazis, so a patriotic bully pulpit—accompanied with 501(c)3 status denial—can humanize Multiculturalists and Muslims.
Criticism of Multiculturalism
When Multiculturalists on the left or the right refuse to address the moral conduct of Mohammad, they too are worshipping Mohammad—or perhaps their own cowardly lives.
Since 9/11, the US has yet to have a politician on the national level whose protection and defense of the Constitution exceeds his protection and defense of Mohammad. No one is publicly vetting Mohammad and asserting the incompatibility of Islam with freedom, let alone America.
But the time of this childish dance around the 600 lb gorilla in the room by our political class is over. Fourteen years is long enough. It is time to ask the most pertinent four-worded question that the UN, the US and all the other multicultural mamby–pamby sissy–states have been afraid to ask, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?”
Should the media ever wish to fight for civilization, the drum they should beat concerns Mohammad. How is it that whereas most Muslims are far better moral models, that Mohammad ends up being “an excellent example” (Koran 33:21) for all Muslims? And why is the penalty for mocking Mohammad worse than the penalty for mocking Allah? And how can a religion begin to promote morality when criticizing the immorality of its model for all mankind begets the death penalty?
Coherency of our Constitution
This denial of 501(c)3 status to Islam is not a violation of the Constitution. When in article VI paragraph 3 sthe Constitution declares, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” it nonetheless has in view the self–evidence of natural law. Those who, in the name of the Constitution, argue that denying Islam the status of an acceptable religion is a violation of the Constitution essentially argue that
- The federal government must be smart enough to understand natural law so that they can perform their preeminent function, which is “to secure … [our] rights” (quote from The Declaration)
- The federal government must put its head in the sand and disavow plain knowledge of natural law so that the federal government must play stupid and provide every sanction to a monstrous “Allah” as to the God who graces Art. VII of Constitution “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”
This is of course absurd. We cannot embrace both bullets. Let us embrace the first. Let us, in this manner, embrace our Constitution.
Mohammad is the 600 lb. gorilla in the room that the West does not have the courage, patriotism and audacity to vet. But if America does not have the courage to vet Mohammad, then the oath “to protect and defend the Constitution” is meaningless.
Once Mohammad is vetted, once we meaningfully ask and answer the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?,” premise 1 (above) follows. Given premise 2 (above), the conclusion that all Muslims are terrorists—at least doctrinal terrorists—immediately follows.
This truth is self–evident. The truth that “every Muslim is a terrorist” is the result of a simple logical exercise. It is the political forbidding of the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” that makes our logical discovery so counter–cultural and so strange. But no matter how politically incorrect the thesis, the wishes of five billion multiculturalists should not trump a demonstrably simple demographic truth.
Enough with the Islam-exculpating talk of “Islamists,” “extremists,” “Muslim radicals”…. These are terms which imply that the mean of Islam is humane. But the mean of Islam is Mohammad, and Mohammad was a terrorist.
 Strictly speaking, this quote refers not to Mohammad, but to Islam. But as the link on the second premise illustrates, Mohammad is the perfect example for all Muslims. Surely then, if Mohammad is the perfect example, then Obama’s remarks are applicable to Mohammad. I note that Obama’s speech uses “Islam” or “Islamic” over twenty times and “Mohammed” is only allowed one instance. Obama’s speech craft thus hides this evil Mohammad. Mohammad is the wart of Islam and a true American patriot politician exposes this Mohammad’s evil and not hide himself from it.
*Article from FreedomOutpost.com