I thought this was cool, during the holiest of rituals, to take the opportunity to do it. http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/middle-east/132619-no-room-for-terrorism-in-islam-haj-sermon.html
It's good that he did that. Sad enough that he even had to do it because it should be self-explanatory, but nonetheless good. Thanks for posting this.
How long will it take before everyone forgets about this and starts yelling "where are the moderate Muslims denouncing terrorism"? My guess: a couple days tops.
You are a sad little man. If the Muslims condemn terror, you have an issue, if they dont, you have an issue.
Why is it sad that he had to do it? Aren't you always complaining that not enough top clerics are coming out and openly condemning terrorism?
Big deal, the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia is a state sanctioned official and not some independent cleric. Ofcourse Saudis official policy is anti-Islamic-terrorism.
I'm in Saudi Arabia right now and have lived here for 4 years. All I can say is that 99.9% of Muslims are friendly and welcoming. That .1% really gives the rest a bad rep.
He spoke the words at the most sacred pilgrimage in Islam, to thousands of Muslims who make the trip. I know it's more fun to bash Islam, based on the false idea that they never speak out against terror, even though it's that's not accurate at all. But sometimes you have to try and find your enjoyment elsewhere.
This would be awesome if he wasn't also the guy who said religions are irreconcilable. I wouldn't be surprised if he was being sarcastic or indirectly implying that others are the 'actual' terrorists.
Is it a lack of reading comprehension? Is it your bias? Is it a lack of intelligence? My comment was not that difficult to understand. It is sad that he even had to say it the same way that it is sad that the pope has to distance himself from child abusers: If there were no islamist terrorists and if there were no child abusers in the catholic church, neither statement would be necessary.
Interesting comment, Mathloom, thanks for that. I read the article and read this part: and was wondering if this meant that he was referring to critics of islamist terror rather than to the islamist terrorists themselves. I was not sure, it sounded a bit to me like he was saying "do not commit terror so they (the "vicious campaigners") cannot point their fingers at us" rather than describing those who commit terror as the vicious attackers. Your comment seems to point in that direction.
I think he was referring to the people who attack Islam as a whole for the acts of a few. I doubt he was implying that those people are the 'actual' terrorists, though.
Again, I don't think he was talking about critics of terrorists but rather people who defame the entire religion because of the 0.01% terrorists. In the first paragraph it mentioned: It's pretty obvious who is trying to defame Islam...Pamela Geller.
I don't know what he meant, but I'm pretty sure he intended for it to be vague. I think we probably shouldn't take advice from a man who, just last year, declared that girls can be married off when they're 10 years old.
Don't let your personal antipathy for the Saudi regime nullify what is received and/or perceived as a positive message by Westerners (like ATW) badly in need of this type of reassurance.
