Muslims Support Terrorism and That’s a Good Thing

We’ve gone from “Muslims oppose terrorism” to “Muslims support terrorism and that’s good.”

by Daniel Greenfield

“Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens. These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that,” President George W. Bush had claimed in remarks at a mosque after 9/11 while accompanied by terror-linked Islamists. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace.”

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently asked the former president to talk about his mosque visit after the attacks to “make sure that our Muslim American citizens knew that we didn’t blame them for what had happened.” Bush chimed in, “I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion.”

Muslims, however, don’t agree. It’s not just the generation of Islamic terrorist attacks that have taken place in America since then, the vast majority of which were not organized or planned out by any central terror network like Al Qaeda, but by ordinary Muslims living in the United States.

Some of them may have even paid their taxes.

While Bush was nostalgically recalling his comments after 9/11, the father of Todd Beamer, one of the heroes who led the effort to retake Flight 93 from the Islamic terrorists who had hijacked it, was recording a commercial against Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. David Beamer had not previously gotten involved in politics, but El-Sayed had been campaigning with Hasan Piker, a Turkish Muslim influencer who said that “America deserved 9/11” and recently told an interviewer that “pound for pound”, America was worse than Al Qaeda and that was too much.

What does it say that Abdul El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani, the two most prominent Muslim politicians right now, have both been tied to a Muslim who said, “America deserved 9/11”?

Or that the biggest expansion of Islamic political power in America came after Muslims rallied on behalf of Hamas after Oct 7 (Hasan Piker had defended Hamas as “a militant resistance comprised of orphaned soldiers born into a 77-year occupation” and dismissed its atrocities as “rape fantasies”) and in doing so hijacked the Democratic Party to elect terrorist supporters.

Their current crop of candidates includes Melat Kiros, a Colorado congressional candidate who refused to condemn a Muslim terrorist setting a Holocaust survivor on fire, Dariazila Avila Chevalier, a Muslim congressional candidate in New York City who attended a rally celebrating the Oct 7 massacres, Aisha Wahab, a Muslim congresswoman in California who called for diplomatic relations with the Taliban, and Hisham ‘Adam’ Hamawy, the former translator for the Blind Sheikh terror leader at the center of the World Trade Center bombing, and who had volunteered for an Al Qaeda front group. The mask is off and they aren’t hiding it anymore.

Last year, every Muslim member of Congress called for reparations to Muslims for 9/11.

Bush’s sanctimonious lectures about how Muslims oppose terrorism and how terrorism is incompatible with Islam are as dated as he is. Since then, the narrative has pivoted from “Muslims oppose terrorism” to “Muslims support terrorism and that’s a good thing.”

The thing that isn’t happening has become the thing that was happening all along. And now we’re being told that it’s a very good thing by the very people who lied that it wasn’t happening.

Zohran Mamdani arranged to have a 9/11 commemorative pen passed to terror lawyer Ramzi Kassem, whom he appointed as New York City’s top lawyer, after his work representing Islamic terrorists and his contention right after the attacks that, “This is not a battle of good versus evil” but were the result of the “resentment these terrorists felt towards the United States” and argued that “the legacy of 9/11 ought to be recounted primarily through the stories of Muslims the world over who have largely paid the price of American power and prosperity.”

Mamdani didn’t pick him despite his past actions and words, but because of them.

Piker, El-Sayed and Mamdani don’t represent every Muslim in America, but their political activism follows the trend of institutional Islamic political power in America embodied in Islamist groups like CAIR and ISNA, both unindicted terror funding co-conspirators, local Muslim governments from Dearborn to Hamtramck, and local Muslim Democratic clubs, like the Muslim Democratic Club of New York where Mamdani got his start, whose co-founder Linda Sarsour had bragged, “I would be honored to die a martyr.”

There may be Muslims who oppose Islamic terrorism, but they have no political representation.

When CAIR, an unindicted terrorism funding co-conspirator whose leader celebrated the Oct 7 attacks, announced that it was trying to register 3 million Muslim voters, it suggests that the vast majority of Muslims living in America see things more Hasan Piker’s way than Bush’s way.

Rather than push back against it, we’re being pushed to accept and normalize this behavior.

Hasan Piker has made a grand tour of the media from the Wall Street Journal to Axios to expound on how much he hates America and how much better Al Qaeda is than America. Abdul El-Sayed has refused to disavow him even while facing a competitive Senate race because normalizing Islamic terrorism is more important to the Islamic movement than a Senate seat.

And they’re betting that Abdul El-Sayed can normalize Islamic terrorism and win the seat too.

MSNOW (the former MSNBC) praised Piker as an “anti-imperialist”. Similar euphemisms are being used to describe Hamas supporters and, in some sectors of the Left, Hamas.

Islamic terrorism has been rebranded as the new anti-imperialism.

When a Muslim terrorist rammed his pickup truck into a Michigan synagogue, targeting the 100 kids in its preschool, the media rushed to defend the act by insisting that the terrorist had lost family members in an Israeli strike. They neglected to mention that his brother had been a Hezbollah commander. Abdul El-Sayed excused the attack with “hurt people, hurt people”.

CNN shamed the 45% of Michigan voters who reportedly responded that they were hesitant to vote for a Muslim as ‘Islamophobes’, but when the top Muslim politician in their state makes excuses for Muslim terrorists killing kids and pals around with an influencer who argued that “America deserved 9/11”, is it really ‘Islamophobic’ to be worried about the consequences?

Bush asked Americans to accept that most Muslims were not terrorist supporters and were disgusted by the September 11 attacks. And most Americans wanted to believe it was true.

Now they’re being asked to accept that Muslims support the September 11 attacks. And that’s a good thing because America had it coming. No one seems to have asked what we have coming now. If the killing of 3,000 people in New York, D.C. and Pennsylvania was justified by our foreign policy a generation ago, what kind of massacre of Americans would be justified today?

And what role would Hasan Piker’s political Islamic friends play in enabling such a genocide?

The establishment has gone from assuring us that Muslims don’t want to kill us to assuring us that we deserve to be killed by Muslims for all the ways in which we have wronged them.

Accusing Muslims of supporting terrorism has gone from the unthinkable to a progressive virtue.

Muslims support terrorism and it’s a good thing. After all that’s why leftists like them. It’s not the foot washing, the special anal cleansing rituals, the obsession with covering the hair of their women or the female genital mutilation that made them the central cause of pomo leftism.

There’s only one reason that leftists like anyone and it’s because they kill people.