Muslims are terrorists


Once upon a time George Washington was a terrorist. He, too, killed a lot of people. But he became a patriot when the Americans won the war against the English and then they named a city after him.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is not Islam that is at fault. The fault lies with those who misinterpret Islam.

I am not against Islam. I am against those who misinterpret Islamic teachings.

Islam is a peaceful religion. It is Muslims who do not understand Islam who are violent.

Most Muslims are liberals, only a small minority are extremists.

Liberal Muslims who make up the silent majority should speak up against the extremists.

The apple never falls far from the tree.

The fruit of a poisonous tree is poisonous.

Yes, I am sure you have heard all those arguments before, plus many more. Basically, this is an attempt at trying to explain human behaviour, for or against as the case may be. But can human behaviour be explained? And is it so simple as to explain it by linking it to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of certain religious teachings?

Islam is a belief system based on a certain doctrine. And the devotees of this belief system act in a certain way and hide behind this doctrine in doing so. Hence the blame would go to the belief system of those devotees and the doctrine would be faulted.

Many violent and cruel acts have been perpetuated through the ages since the beginning of time. Today, those acts are done in the name of Islam. In the past, they were done under the banner of so many other beliefs.

The Japanese invaded South East Asia based on the belief that that region needs to be freed from western domination and colonisation. Those who were opposed to western domination and colonisation supported the Japanese. In fact, many Malays who were anti-British supported the Japanese and collaborated with them.

Note that the word ‘collaborated’ is a negative word that denotes treason and is used here merely because the Japanese lost the war and the west considers the Japanese as baddies. If the Japanese had not lost the war then these ‘collaborators’ would be called patriots instead.

All over the world colonised people rose up in opposition to their colonial masters. Those that won and those that successfully forced the colonialists out of their country were called freedom fighters. Those that failed were called terrorists. It all depends on who won and who lost and who is writing those history books.

How would you view Alexander the Great? Was he really great or was he just another terrorist?

What about Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Saladin), Richard the Lion Heart, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan and the other great people of their time? Would they be considered terrorists?

By that same definition, Moses would be considered a terrorist if not for the fact that the Bible and the Qur’an revere him. But then to label Moses a terrorist would be considered an act of blasphemy according to Christianity and Islam.

Julius Caesar would then have to be considered a terrorist, as would William the Conqueror. But history calls them great men and not terrorists even though by definition they were terrorists.

Chin Peng is not called Chin Peng the Great but Chin Peng the Terrorist because he failed to kick out the British while his army is called CTs or Communist Terrorists. But then this is because the British wrote the history books.

Is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the Father of Modern Turkey or an apostate, as some Muslims call him, PAS President Hadi Awang included?

What about Omar Mukhtar? Was he really a terrorist as the Italians say he was or was he a noble freedom fighter?

Were Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Humphrey Gilbert, Ferdinand Magellan, Vasco da Gama, Christopher Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci, Bartolomeu Dias, Hernando de Soto, and many more great men of the 15-16th century pirates or patriots?

Today we have many freedom fighters that are just as brutal as those so many freedom fighters before them. The only thing is today they use Islam as their flag while the others before them used the flags of their church or their country. And they are all considered terrorists because they are on the wrong side of history.

The Cuban regime before Castro and the South Vietnamese regime before the fall of Saigon were terrorist regimes but they are not called terrorists because they were pro-America. They would only be called terrorists if they opposed the United States.

The Shah of Iran was not a terrorist while Ruhollah Mostafavi Moosavi Khomeini was because one was pro-America while the other was anti-America even though both were equally evil and killed many of their own people.

Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti became a terrorist only when he no longer listened to America. Before that, while he was opposed to Iran, he was a great man in spite of all the people he killed.

Today, all those who fight under the banner of Islam are terrorists. And they are terrorists because they kill people. And they are terrorists because the west says so.

Once upon a time George Washington was a terrorist. He, too, killed a lot of people. But he became a patriot when the Americans won the war against the English and then they named a city after him.