All women are not witches, but all witches are women

 But seriously, by linking the notion of a witch to a woman, it invariably associates the two in a nasty way. It is this manufactured linkage that is problematic and easily spotted in the above statement. That is because it attempts to say that there is something about being a woman that encourages witchcraft. And by implication bring all women under suspicion.

Hence, a war on witchcraft turns into a war on all women. If you think that sounds far-fetched, think again. There was a time when a mere finger pointing would trigger a set of events that would almost always end in the murder of the victim or she would die trying to prove her innocence, the notorious "witch test". In other parts, victims were mercilessly tortured to extract a confession. I guess some things never change.

Some of you may have figured out where I am going with this. There are two sets of problems with the “All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim”. First, it is a factually wrong statement. Secondly, it contains a bunch of informal logical fallacies and at least one formal fallacy. In spite of its sound bite quality, it is the data on terrorism which makes it factually wrong. As somebody pointed out “All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim except the 94% who aren’t”. Misdirection like these is nothing but manufactured lies straight out of the “Hate Islam” back offices.

When people are not trained to handle data, the results are often comical. Around 5% of women were awarded the Nobel prize. Let that sink in.

If Islam was “uniquely evil”, as the accompanying talking points of these false claims would have us believe, then it is reasonable to demand uniquely compelling evidence for it. And by evidence, I don’t mean linguistically challenged and illogically forced context onto isolated verses. Neither do I mean quoting from the fundamentally flawed secondary sources. Where chronologically impossible claims like the age of Aysha being six sits alongside a mere mortal splitting the Moon with his finger. If one were to reject the later why accept the former? Of course, we don’t expect a coherent response to the logically raised questions.

Islam is over 1,400 years old. “Islamic” terrorism as we know it today is hardly a few decades old. In fact, the focus on it directly coincides with the West invading the Middle East. If you are looking for the root cause then look into how the West used the corrupt leaders of the regions to spread the un-Islamic Wahabi doctrine. The aim was to prevent secular democracies in the region which would have made it impossible for the vultures to steal the region’s resources.

The evidence, in fact, is overwhelming that these types of attempts to demonize Muslims are a well-funded organized effort by the usual suspects. Who are they? As they say, follow the money and you will get to the snakeheads.

Needless to say, terrorism needs to be tackled as a criminal issue which it is. The proof of that can easily be gauged from the fact that whenever there is an incident without a Muslim suspect it is treated exactly like that. Ironically the media is quick to mention it is not a terrorist incident but at the same time reminds us of the earlier “real” terrorist attacks for good measure. Hence, terrorism is ruled out when the suspect happens to be a “deranged" Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist. Apparently, Muslims are immune to mental illnesses.