I see Two Types of Islamic Terrorism

Part II of Ardeshird's article on Islamic Terrorism; one for political gain, the other, for "Saving Islam":

In my previous post I underlined one of the reasons why radical, unreformed Islam is incompatible with democracy, modern humanity and modern values - values that I linked to Christian teachings based on ‘respect/love thy neighbour’. Therefore, the clash between the unreformed fundamental Islam and the modern values of the West was always inevitable.

The fundamentals of Christianity as I explained were basically love and peace preached by Jesus. Although history tells me that there were Christian crusaders who were violent, the fact that fundamentally the Christian teachings were non-violent, the violent branches of Christianity did not survive the test of time. It is true that the Christian West has waged wars or engaged in wars, but to my knowledge, none of these wars, at least for the past few centuries, were religious wars – wars that were motivated by the religion of Christianity or for the sake of spreading or saving that religion. Hence, the evolution of humanity as we know today was possible because of Jesus preaching love and peace to his followers. Had Jesus, like Mohammad, preached violence and prescribed Jihad for his followers, the planet, in all probabilities, would have been blown up or uninhabitable by now.

I am not a Christian and nor am I advertising Christianity. However, it is these differences between the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam that explain to me why Muslims have been unable to evolve in the same way as the Christians. Through the centuries, the Christian fundamentalists adhered to their fundamentals of love and peace as preached by Jesus and Muslim fundamentalists to their jihad and violence as preached by Mohamed and by these adherences they kept their religions alive. The fundamental Christians criticised and still do those members of their faith who wage wars: the fundamental Muslims encouraged and still do members of their faith to rise up and wage wars against the non-believers and the rest. Jihad and *Amre be Maroof va Nahey az Monker are fundamental principles of Islam. The Christian Western societies reject violence of any form: the Muslim societies encourage violence and practice violence against their own people. The only way the Islamic regime of Iran knows how to talk to its people is through beating, arresting, detaining, torturing and executing them. For an example, see this and follow any links to see more examples.

The world has been facing two types of terrorists: one is the terrorist that uses the Islamic fundamental of Jihad to encourage people to rise up and fight for political ends, i.e. the Palestinian cause and the other is the one that uses the same but for the sake of saving the old Islam. The Islamic regime of Iran, Taliban and Al Qaeda and their ilk are the latter. Since they are all terrorising the world from the same platform, the collaboration between the two types and support foe each other is inevitable. If we could separate the two, we might be able to resolve half of the problems and reduce what we have to deal with. This is a hard task and seems almost impossible, as the two are so tightly interwoven.

However, if the separation of the two were possible, then there would always be a path to deal/negotiate with those terrorists fighting for political ends. A good example is the IRA of Northern Ireland. Yasser Arafat is another good example. Therefore, whilst there may be a way to resolve the political disputes with the Palestinians or even the Islamic regime, the global ideological terrorism fostered by the Islamic regime, Taliban, Al Qaeda and their ilk to save their version of Islam will always remain. There is not a shadow of doubt that fundamental values and principles of the unrefined, unreformed and radical Islam that the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist, headed by Khamenei, Osama Bin Laden and their ilk represent are utterly incompatible with modern values. Beheading, stoning, flogging, amputation of limbs, forced hijab, discrimination against women, polygamy, gender segregation, clitoris circumcisions of little girls, banning of music, and many more atrocious acts against any human being must never be allowed to take place even in the remotest corners of our planet regardless of religion or culture.

There is no possible way/path to negotiate with these Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Sadly and despite our reluctance, we are engaged in a war that has been imposed upon us and we have no other alternative but to defend our values, unless, of course, either the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are prepared to reform or we are prepared to abandon or compromise what we have cherished for decades if not centuries: democracy, human rights and liberties.
It is an obligation on all of us, regardless of religion or culture, and if we call ourselves human beings, to uphold all human rights principles not only for ourselves but those whose rights are violated.
Read more!ادامه

Part I: Understanding Where Muslims Come From

*Amer be Marood va Nahye az monker: One of the Islam’s principle pillars is the “Amr-e be Maroof and Nahy az Monker” Amr means “ordering” and Nahy means “preventing”. This principle is basically the terror aspect of Islam. On this basis, terrorising the society is encouraged and authorised by the religion. According to this principle a Muslim is under the obligation to order another to adhere to the Islamic ways and if ineffective take measures to prevent the unislamic act from taking place.

According to the Islamic directions, this action is necessary even if it means losing one’s life or taking others’ lives. Imam Hussein lost his life while carrying out this principle. Recently, in a cinema in Iran a man killed and injured another and claimed that he was carrying out the “Amr-e be Maroof and Nahy az Monker”.

It is clear that the man was counselled and procured by the Islamic teachings and directions. However, the Islamic regime, in order not to prosecute the man declared the man “mental”! He escaped prosecution! In a civilised society, the counsellor and procurer (in this case the mullahs) become the principal offender if the person who committed the criminal act is found to be mental.