[ARKADS] Wiltshire Avenue, Terrorism in essence

[Mustafa Almahdy]

Hello, I hope you are keeping really well. At its inception, this is
John Smith. Second, subsequent to my e-mail discussing the terribly
perpetrated terror assault on the two Masjids in Christchurch New
Zealand last March, someone suggested that the Australian who carried
this callous assault reacted to Moslem terrorism. He also claimed,
that terror ideology is predominately dependent on Islamic related
text, pointing, that terror atrocities are often justified in Shariah
based jural. With this proposition, he has impinged on the actual
definition of terrorism. It is the act of perpetrating or subjugating
innocent civilians to violence or threaten them with doing so. This is
done through intimidation for essentially ideological  motives. What
he suggests explicitly incentivizes terrorists in general to attempt
justify their heinousnesses. Terrorists are wholly insentient, they
are perfectly frigid. Shariah jural principles are not prompting
detest nor racial disparity. Nonetheless, Israeli terrorism is barely
criticised within the  international community. Despite its strict
prohibition by international law, Israel uses white phosphorus to
ruthlessly murder defenceless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank
on virtually a periodical basis, yet, it has never been condemned nor
sanctioned for this. While when the Syrian regime awfully inflicted
its nation with the usage of chemical and biological weapons, the
United States led an air strike on the country, utterly destroying
much of its major infrastructure and carelessly killing dozens of
innocent civilians. The west and America in particular enforce what we
may possibly call double standard as it deals with these issues.
Israel has the right to unlimitedly defend itself while Palestinians
must be invaded, persecuted, completely sabotaged and still be
satisfied. Where is justice in this plainly discriminative disposal
that is based on much of racial aversion which is sufficient to fill
an ocean? The United States isn't eligible to lead a genuine
democratic entity. Trump the misanthropic, the gravely scathing and
scoundrel chief is immensely prosecutable. He is yet endorsed by many
of those white supremacists who often attend his enormously
opprobrious rallies across the country, warmly cheer and spat out of
total favorable reception to what he does and says. How is that not
expected to chronologically incite retaliation and consistently prompt
 despise of the States here in the Muslim world? The United States
incessantly instigates motivational retaliation as it relentlessly
stands by oppression. It stands by Israel, backs potentates and their
rise in our countries and then, well, it strangely scolds us for not
having democracy settled properly. Isn't that just so louzy? I
certainly do not propose the hate of all westerns nor even Americans.
I knew many people in America and the west in genral who
wholeheartedly decline what politics does. One of them is Professor
Mark of South Bent Indiana, who has visited my home recently.
Unfortunately, they just like us, couldn't do much as we are mutually
trammeled in this situation. We are here just attempting to treat
ourselves yet we knew the miserable condition is unlikely to get
changed. I would like to furthermore mention, that the Shariah doesn't
give permission to the killing of innocent civilians in any manner.
Moreover, we have a very intriguing fatwa issued by Imam Malik, the
prominently recognised scholar of Medina, that if a woman is armed,
Muslim fighters shall attempt to the best of their capability to avoid
engaging with her in the battlefield. She hasn't been meant to fight,
even if she is armed, he illustrates. I suppose he means commonly,
typically or ordinarily. What about those who are defenceless? If
combatants have their weapons disposed, they are not to be assaulted.
They are to perhaps be taken into incarceration and treated leniently.
They are then to either be ransomed, freed at no charge or executed
for committing murder previously. Torture of war prisoners is
absolutely forbidden in Shariah, and Da'ish, which is a viciously
fringe element surely doesn't represent its jural spirit. I attempted
very concisely, to summarise some of the major rulings regarding
combat mission in Islamic Shariah. I welcome questions from viewers. I
just may ask people not to misquote text of the Koran, Hadith or cut
them out of context with  witching scissors to make it say what it
doesn't meant to. Impeachment of terror has been intrinsically
exclusive to us. This callous act has no affiliation with any faith,
notion or conviction. It has rather been tied to exorbitant
unconscionableness. Thence, the most threatening type of terror is
that of governmental arrangement, fascism, fanaticism and counterfeit
patriotism. The latter, however, is broadly imposed by the de facto
coup based tyrannic military regime of my country. It surely doesn’t
respect basics of human rights, yet, it is majorly endorsed by the
United States government. Terror of Israel in Palestine is also backed
by the latter. How could the United States then be considered the
globally primal guardian of democratic tenets? This question is
challengingly crucial and it therefore must be tackled thoroughly. I
just wish, that some of us may have got sufficient courage to do so.
Israel has the right to defend itself. This is the typical phrase,
often uttered by pro Zionist Protestants. Israel may murder innocent
civilians as of women and children in the sake of that cause. Still,
it emphatically has the right to defend itself, in the manner deemed
appropriate. This is how they insensately fend for Israel. They may
justify it killing civilians but if Hamas strikes back on Israeli
transgressors, they are terrorists. This is how paradoxical these
people are. Your implementation of this already repudiated adherence
of double standard is plainly visible and concurrently condemnable.
We’re facing a major crisis on that regard. Unfortunately, your
condemnation of terror is essentially slanted. Thence,  it’s not
equally apprised. So for instance, if someone of Muslim descent
committed a grave criminal offence as of murdering dozens of innocent
civilians, which is surely condemnable in Islam, the matter, however,
is intently twisted  and the focus wholly becomes on Islam inciting
such brutal act. But, when this Aussie felon committed this monolithic
massacre at a temple of worship, no one called this man a terrorist
nor even described Christendom with bearing terror disposal. Well,
this is the problem I have with you. It’s quite factual, that you’re
coping with such subjects unfairly. So, when your veterans infested
Iraq and killed plenty of innocent civilians, was that considered
terrorism or championship? I recognise though, that the answer to that
question is a bit odd, unless someone is fair and ethically
consistent. You must wholly fathom then, that we’re not exclusively
impeached of conducting terror. This idiotic notion became so old and
rather possibly tedious. Thence, you may look for any other excuse
upon which you can base your racial disparity toward us. The matter
lies beyond political orientation. It’s of religious affiliation. Your
infatuation of Trump has a reason folks. He consistently resembles
your racial secernment of others. Honestly, Trump is incomparably the
dumpiest guy I ever encountered. He reflects misanthropy in its worst
instance. He’s terribly abhorrent. He viciously  takes advantage of
his people’s mass nescience. This is John Smith of Cairo, thanks and,
best wishes.