Denounce violence, never justify "retaliation"

The Muslims are defend and justifying violence, even the so called "moderate" Muslims, it is true, I know them. I don't know one billion people, but almost all the Muslims I know, do.

Let me shed some light on the image of a Muslim I'm talking about. A person can be a Muslim, but also not think about the Muslim stuff. The Muslims are not always doing Islamity, Muslimity, Jihadity, or Arabity. Often, the Muslims are doing daily stupidity, they're bored at work, they watch football, play it, go to work, yell or play at/with kids at home, or visit a wife every day - all this without constantly thanking the God, without talking Arabic, or having a beard. But, majority of them act Muslimically when they hear that something has happened bad in the Middle East. Those people suddenly share Islamity with the oppressed Middle Easterners. But, what exactly oppression are we talking about? In the Middle East? In China today?

So, when a terrorist attack occurs in a European country, one can hear, and see on the internet, comments from those not really interested in believing, but suddenly interested in "justice" against the Zionists, masons, and Americans, Those comments justify the attack, and attacks. "Look at what they're doing to us in the world". Or when Gert Wilders (google) talks about burning the Qur'an, you see gathered Muslims around the world calling for execution and violence. Of course, the rest of the billion people are probably in those moments thinking "Oh no, not again this image about Islam", but when an attack actually happens, those guys mostly say "Oh, I'm against it, but the Westerners have provoked it". I hope they're not thinking that China is now provoking something.

A similar case is taking place in China and Israel. Majority of Muslims are not really against the country they live in, and those who are terrorists, and who support and teach violence, well, they feel the pressure from the country to back off. I don't know if I'm talking about Hamas, or the political movement of Uyghurs. The Hui Muslims, and the Israeli Muslims are - it seems - fine. I don't know if the countries are waiting to just curb, or to terminate the existence of Hamas and its supporters, and the separatist ideology of the Uyghurs, so then the rest of the Muslims in each of the countries can be further "processed", but it certainly doesn't look so to me.

It’s been a century since the Europeans went to the Arab nations to help them fight against the Islamic government, at the time situated in Turkey. However, was it really the nationalism that helped the “westerners” to persuade the Arabs to fight the Turks? Weren’t Muslims united then, if they’re not united today?

No, the Muslims were never united. Actually, when the Prophet of Islam passed away, and the word about it was public, the next minute the Islamic world, headquartered in Medina, split. The group of domicile Medinians argued they should lead the Islamic nation, the Meccan, refugees, claimed – since the Prophet himself is a Meccan – that they should elect a leader. One guy suggested that the leader should be picked from both groups, and the leading role should shift per certain period of time.

The Meccan group, led by Umar and Abu Bakr managed to persuade others to appoint a leader from the Meccan group, which turned out to be Abu Bakr.

I read recently that the Muslims agreed to have “democratically elected ruler”, but that’s an illusion, because the first ruler was appointed by the stronger group, with no electing, no candidacy. Even the second Caliph was kinda appointed, as it was suggested by the Caliph, and the third caliph was chosen among candidates appointed by the second Caliph. The fourth Caliph wasn’t even accepted by everybody. One person who was against the fourth Caliph’s government was a wife of the Prophet. She even took a part in a skirmish, or a battle, against the Caliph. The governor of the northern lands of Islamic state, Muawya, a son of the Prophets fiercest enemy, fought against the fourth Caliph, who happened to be a son in law of the Prophet, and the father of the Prophet’s only progeny. Muawya’s son, appointed by his father to rule the nation, murdered the Prophet’s grandson in years to come, as the grandson didn’t want to accept the reign of a corrupt person.

So, the Muslims were never united, and 13 centuries after the prophet, it was easy to persuade the Arab Muslims to fight one another.

However, they are not the majority of the Muslims. Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Europe, have more Muslims than the Middle East. It saddens us to see that the southeast Asian Muslim countries are turning Wahhabi. Probably because of the schools sponsored by the oil-rich Arab countries are teaching Wahhabism.

The Wahhabis are killing cultures of the countries wherever they come. They only tend to leave primitive customs alive, in places like India and Africa. How come they don’t change those primitive “honor-killings”? Because they also propagate that.

And, how is it now possible for an American Muslim to blame Americans for attacking a country in the Middle East, and to use that to justify a random terrorist attack, as if the terrorist has had it, and snapped, because of what?

The terrorists are usually people born and raised in Europe, where they don’t lack anything to have a normal life. However, they tend to listen to the Wahhabi preachers, who falsely accuse the west for bringing corruption to the Middle East – again, as if the ME is a holy place of Islam.