Sunday, 20 December 2015


 by Malik al-Kuffar

When I read the writings of some terrorism experts, I have to wonder whose side they are on.

World Post 17 December 2015

Prof Kurzman rightly points out that terrorism causes fewer deaths than traffic accidents or heart attacks.
However there is no guarantee that terrorism will ALWAYS be a negligible factor in US mortality.
Prof Kurzman‘s argument is deeply flawed: he neglects to mention that, unlike traffic accidents and heart attacks, the number of terrorist attacks largely depends on political decisions, some of them short-term, made by relatively small groups of people. Accordingly terrorism deaths have potential for much wider variation than the other sorts of deaths, and CAN BE INTENSIFIED to enforce political demands.

Quantitative methods do not seem to be Prof Kurzman’s strong point.
This is not the first time that Prof Kurzman plays jiggery-pokery with statistics.
He once wrote: “Counterterrorism policies have involved surveillance — not just of Muslim-Americans, but of all Americans”.
To this I reply that police scrutiny covers not only “all Americans”, but ALL INHABITANTS of the USA (and then some). Surveillance does not only cover American Moslems. It also covers foreign Muslims living or staying in the USA. Foreign Muslims in the USA by definition ARE NOT “Muslim-Americans”.   
According to the FBI web site, between 1971 and 2005 foreign Muslims accounted for at least 93% of all terrorism deaths in the US, and those foreign Muslims worshipped at the same mosques as American Muslims. Consequently the presumed innocence of American Muslims cannot be relied on to argue against surveillance of American mosques.
Prof Kurzman’s stress on “Muslim-Americans” is extremely misleading. Foreign Muslims in the US are much more likely to be terrorists than American Muslims.

Prof Kurzman, the celebrated terrorism expert, uses only the term “Muslim American”. He never writes  “American Muslim”. I wonder why that is?
Does he write “Seventh-Day-Adventist American” or “Buddhist American”? I don’t think so.
The regular terms are “American Seventh-Day-Adventist ” and  “American Buddhist”.
As a matter of fact, expressions of the form “Xxxx-American", as in “Muslim American”, otherwise occur ONLY when Xxxx is a NATIONALITY, NOT A RELIGION. For example “Irish-American”, “Chinese-American”, etc.
Consequently, by using this peculiar formula,  Prof Kurzman seems to be implying that the term “Moslem” designates a NATIONALITY, NOT A RELIGION.
This reminds me of the outlandish moniker chosen by CAIR, a Mohammedan lobbying organization that fronts for Hamas in the US and is principally funded by Sowdy Arabia.  
CAIR -- “Council on American-Islamic Relations” sounds as if Islam were a sovereign nation that entertained “relations” with America. At the same time it seems to imply that Moslems with American citizenship are not really Americans at all, but first and foremost Moslems.
I don’t think these word games are accidental. On the contrary, they clearly indicate a long-term propaganda campaign intended to establish Islam as a sovereign nation in the popular mind. 
Pubic relations for a future Caliphate?