New York, congratulations at your stellar assistance in recruiting terrorists. Why? Because terrorists already claim that the West is targeting Islam. You just gave them actual credible evidence to support their wild claims.

You would not believe how many people would actually be OK with this. I have several good friends, otherwise reasonable people, who firmly believe all Muslims are evil bastards waiting to wage jihad upon anyone who disagrees with them.

Many people don't know any Muslims, they just know what they see on TV and they think that's all there is to Islam. It's hard to convince them otherwise.

I'll be honest; my biggest exposure to Islam was The 13th Warrior.

Something I've never been able to figure out - was Timothy McVeigh a Sunni or a Shiite? How about the IRA? Maybe the government of New York knows.

Come on, people. Haven't you figured it out yet? ALL brown people are terrorists! DUH!

This actually isn't the first I've heard of this. A very similar story came out a few years ago.

Several people I know have also claimed to have read a translation of the Qur'an and mentioned that supposedly the aim of Islam is "join or die". I pointed out to one of them when I was researching on this stuff for an essay at uni that generally jihad means "Struggle".

Personally I was thinking of Columbine or Virginia Tech...get em young . (I do believe in both cases, it was psychologically motivated)

It's worth noting that MANY of the "spree shooters" from the past decade or so (including all three of the ones mentioned above - Harris, Klebold, and Cho - although it's worth noting that Harris may have been a genuine psychopath) were bullied loners. I personally feel that the way schools handle bullying (by treating the bullied party as equally culpable) to be horrid and counterproductive.

Most people who kill have that streak. It tends to be white kid loners because... well young white boys generally don't have a real cause.

That's the problem. Terrorists generally feel they do.

Sadly, I have relatives who are of the opinion that Muslims in general are to blame for terrorists. That Muhuammad Baqir down the street is at fault for what is being done in Iran or Iraq or Syria.

I've tried to call them on it, but they can't seem to understand how it's the same as me blaming them, personally, for what the 'Reverend' Fred Nile, a nominally-Christian Australian politician, chooses to do.

(Or rather, that it's even worse - because at least my relatives are on the same land mass as Fred Nile. The hypothetical Baqir family would be halfway around the world from Al Queda.)

For those who have no idea about the shit he's pulled, here's a list culled from Wiki (some good, some bad):

-Believe homosexuality is a choice, but hates people who physically attack homosexuals. Instead he's happy for them to open their mouth and verbally abuse homosexuals.

-Very much against the Sydney LGBT Mardi Gras.

-Tried to have the anti-vilification laws repealed, claiming that they should apply to all citizens or none.

-Has labelled the Greens (environmental political party that is slowly gaining more clout) as pagans. (primarily due to their pro gay-marriage leaning)

-Tried to ban Muslim immigration to Australia, wanting more Christians to arrive. (he believed that they were favouring Muslims over Christians)

-Tried to ban any full-face covering. While Cory Bernardi is more known for this in Aussieland, Fred's reasons are purely anti-Muslim, whereas Cory's were more for legal reasons (at this stage, I do believe that Muslim women can ask for a female photographer for their licence photos and will remove their face covering for that).

-When a particular sheik stated that women were at fault for sexual assault, he tried to have the guy removed. (now this one I can actually agree with and is the only one I agree with)

-Openly opposed to neo-pagans and tried to ban their activities and weddings (which won't get very far)

-Tried to ban ethics courses. Ok this one reqiures an explanation. Basically in public schools in a couple of states, there are "comparative religion" classes, which most of the time are just sanitized Christianity lectures. (I could be wrong on this, as these classes are not taught in my state THANK GOD) These classes are PURELY opt-out, but a few times, there have been noted examples where the opt-out children have been dragged along, made to sit in the principal's office or aren't given anything actually worthwhile to do in the meantime. The state where Nile resides introduced ethics courses as an alternative.

Funnily enough, while he managed to get a parliamentary inquiry going, he then claimed that said classes were linked to Nazism and communism.

The party that he is a member of can basically be likened to Family First (another party with religious ties) on steroids*. They've managed to make themselves look like idiots though by claiming that all the major and minor parties are against them (a microparty)**.

*-unlike the CDP, while Family First do have pentecostal ties, some of their policies do take into account that not everybody is Christian and their focuses are more or less based on ensuring that families get what they need. Despite this, they are anti-euthenasia, anti-abortion, anti-surrogacy and anti-same sex marriage/parenting. They have no problem with homosexuality or homosexual actions in themselves, they want to provide programs for unskilled and underskilled people to get up to speed job-wise and want to help with public housing.

**-the major parties in Aussieland are the Liberal and Labor party. A minor party will run candidates in most states and/or electoral districts, but doesn't always get a ton of seats. A microparty on the other hand, will usually only field 1 or 2 candidates in particular districts.

The terminology is confusing; from what I can find on a very short search, the Liberal party sounds like US conservatives.

Pretty much, they're republicans and family first and similar are the tea party

Sad thing is that's a much closer portrayal of Islam than most of the News and Hollyweird give them credit for.

Verses 8:39, 9:5, 9:11, 9:56-57...but the one that rubs me is 9:29;

I will grant that this is one of many english translations of the Quran passage, but I have yet to find one that commonly holds as an accurate translation that doesnt worry me.

While I have met Muslims who are not outwardly violent, and some who openly denounce all acts performed by Islamic terrorists, I have not met one who denounces these passages of the Quran from their religious beleifs, either as single exemptions or as an entirety. I dont do submission well.