A bone or plastic handle of a knife?
His beheading tool?
The article is self-serving to the mosque at which he attended. When surveys were taken in various Muslim countries about radical positions the results were not surprising.
http://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg?list=UUy9VHF_ihqzBsx9tr0_XZIQAnd, in a
2010 survey of Muslim populations:
So, 49.9% of Muslims support Bin-Laden and share both his goals – and his tactics to achieve these goals. In the elections of 1932, Hitler received the support of only 33% of Germans.
And,
from another article:Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence? That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.
In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the "minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn't even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.
The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in "discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.
(These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active. We will continue adding to this).
and a LONG list of polls taken over the years, sampling Muslim populations about "radical" activities follow.
And, from the
Gatestone Institute:Moderate Muslims will also not rein in radical Islamists as extremists are the ones who drive the train. In many Muslim countries the majority does not rule. Instead, a fervent minority imposes its agenda on large populations through persuasion, or, failing that, through intimidation – often justified by appeals to Islamic tenets. This model was developed in the seventh century by Muhammad and the first generation of Muslims: a relatively small band of followers conquered and converted the entire Arabian peninsula by the sword in fewer than 30 years, during which thousands of Arabs and Jews were slaughtered. The promise of democracy, heralded by the so-called Arab spring, is already being extinguished by the sword of Muslim supremacism. If there is a large majority of moderate Muslims, they are either unable or unwilling to resist the advance of Islamists.
To put this "tiny minority" of extremists in perspective, consider the numbers. Muslim world population is approaching two billion. Even a "tiny minority," say 1%, would number 20 million (not to mention the tens of millions of willing adherents). Though scattered throughout the world, this is an army sufficient to destabilize governments, subvert cultures, and terrorize millions of innocent people. There have been, since 9/11, tens of thousands of documented terrorist attacks carried out by this "tiny minority" of Islamic supremacists.
Have you seen "tens of thousands" of marches by "moderate" Muslims protesting these attacks? No. On the contrary, when ever a Muslim protest occurs it is usually to support such actions. For example, a few years ago in southern France, which is rapidly approaching a Muslim majority, the Muslims staged a violent protest after a Muslim boy was convicted and sentenced to prison for killing a French girl who had spurned his advances.
Could it get worse? Glad you asked.
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=14Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases. Others state with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers.
