They Were Such a Nice Couple

In an article in the Washington Post, a senior U.S. law enforcement official was perplexed about why Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people. They weren't regular readers of jihadist websites. Investigators don't know if the couple were "radicalized" or not. "It's very odd," said the official. "It appears they were a happy couple of the Muslim faith."

The article asserts: "Relatives, friends, co-workers, police and neighbors agree on one thing: It doesn’t make sense." Which is true — if you know nothing at all about Islam, the shooting in San Bernardino doesn't make any sense.

If you know about Islamic doctrine, however, it makes sense. The fact that they were Muslims means they have identified themselves as believers in the Islamic ideology, and given Allah's final message about non-Muslims, slaughtering them makes sense. In the Koran, Allah even anticipates that anyone with a shred of humanity would hesitate to carry out the horrific actions recommended in Islamic doctrine. It says, basically, "Even if you don't want to do these things, you must." It is a test of a Muslim's faith.

In other words, to really prove to Allah that you trust and believe him, you must set aside your own feelings of empathy and do what he commands.

Farook and Malik did just that. Investigators are scrambling to find connections to a "terror network" or some other official membership in something so they can explain how such a nice couple could suddenly go on a murderous rampage. But no Muslim needs to be affiliated with anything other than Islam to decide to murder non-Muslims. They just have to read Islamic doctrine, available at any nearby bookstore, and do what it says.

And one of the things it says is to go ahead and be nice to non-Muslims if it serves Islam's main goal, but never let them in your heart. In a different Washington Post article, we find a description of that. It says: "Farook’s supervisor, Amanda Adair, who also went to college with him at California State University at San Bernardino, said he 'got along with everybody, but he kept his distance.'"

In many articles you find the same sort of comments. Here's another quote from the same article: "Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, co-workers who knew Farook described him as a quiet, polite man who held no obvious grudges against people in the office."

In still another Washington Post article, you can read comments like these:

"Farook had always been one of the most agreeable, the quietest, and also among the best at his job...

"He got along with everybody..."

"We all thought he was doing great, having a family, but still the same guy — peaceful and quiet..."

"And so many in the San Bernardino County Department of Health were left doubting how much they knew about their co-worker..."

When I talk to people about Islam, one of the most common things people respond with is, "I know a lot of Muslims, and they're nice people," or "I work with a Muslim and she's a very sweet woman," or "I've traveled to Jordan and Egypt and met a lot of Muslims and they are good people."

These things are said as if they refute your statement that the ideology of Islam is dangerous to non-Muslims. How can someone be a nice person and at the same time believe in an ideology that recommends slaughtering people?

It's not as far fetched as it may seem at first glance. The "argument" (if you can call it that) is irrelevant to the issue. The fact that you know a Muslim who is a very nice person doesn't in the slightest imply that Islam's ideology must be peaceful and loving. It would be like stating: "Islam's ideology can't be intolerant or violent because I know this Muslim and he's really nice. The existence of this nice Muslim man is proof that Islam is a peaceful religion." Not much of an argument.

It's a weak argument because first of all, almost every psychopathic serial murderer is described by people who knew him as a quiet, peaceful, nice man. Someone can be "nice" and still enjoy killing people, as strange as that may seem to someone who doesn't know much about sociopathy.

It is, of course, unlikely that a large proportion of Muslims are sociopaths, but there's another way to explain a nice Muslim being willing to kill non-Muslims: The way killing is framed in Islamic doctrine helps to soothe a Muslim's conscience. It goes something like this: "Non-Muslims are going to suffer in hell forever unless we can somehow bring them into the light of Islam. Sometimes people are stubborn and you have to use force to get them to accept the truth. So we have this system, and if you use the system, we will bring a lot more people into the light."

The system, as laid out in Islamic doctrine, is this: Scare people into submitting to Islamic rule. If you have to terrorize people, so be it. The more horrific the atrocities, the more quickly people will submit (from this point of view, horrific atrocities can be seen as compassionate). Once you establish Islamic rule and begin applying Islamic law, everybody but the Christians and Jews have already been killed or converted. So right there, you have potentially saved a lot of souls from eternal damnation (the ones you scared into converting). And when you apply jizya and all the other official forms of discrimination against Jews and Christians, they will feel the heavy burden of their underling status, and over several generations, most of them will convert to Islam, saving even more souls.

Given this way of thinking, murdering innocent non-Muslims can be seen as an act of kindness. So even a "nice" person might be willing to do it.

People who know about Islam know this, and it's one of the main reasons we want to stop Muslim immigration. People who don't know this can't see why we shouldn't accept millions of poor refugees who have been forced from their homes by war.

It's not the people we're worried about. It's the ideology they carry with them.


  1. We need to stop saying "radicalised" and just say Muslim. These attacks are going to become more frequent and eventually people will see Islam as a false religion then dismiss it as a cult.
    Islam is not a race but a theopolitical ideology and should be treated as such.
    Only when we speak out against Islam and unite as a judeo christian country can we deafeat the ideologies of Islam.

  2. Calling Muslims as orthodox or radical or fundamentalists or cultural or even moderates is inappropriate, keeping in mind they all consider themselves to be “good” Muslims. Such terms are used by liberals or politically correct or leftists with the only purpose to confuse Kafirs.

    Muslims are either "Devout Muslims" i.e believe in Allah & Mohammad and follow the sunna or they do not, in which case they are "Rational Muslims" i.e. unable to believe in divine camel excreta for their rational mind are unable to accept it but are unable to declare their apostasy for fear of death.

    The earlier Kafirs get that in their heads the better understanding we would have of natural Islamic behaviour which are often described as brutal, primitive and inhumane.

  3. "Orthodox" means following the teachings strictly. "Devout" means following the teachings strictly.

  4. It is certainly interesting as to why a couple who on the face of it seem "normal" westernised Muslims with smiling family pics and beach shots ( incidentally and correct me if I am wrong but her dress does not seem to be that of a Muslim more of a Hindu in the picture above ???) however be that as it may they went on a killing spree as a couple ?
    The answer may lie in triggered brainwashing such as demonstrated in a early Denzel Washington movie whose title escapes me , or perhaps they just had been sleepers planning such an attack for years judging from the arms cache that was found on their premises , after all Islamic terrorist groups are far from stupid even if they are primitive in their beliefs and with surveillance of typical stereotypes such as long beards and burkas being increasing hazardous , the logic in their eyes would be to plant such people in western society with orders to mix and appear as normal as possible to the unbelievers.
    On e things for certain wherever the outcome of the enquiry and its conclusion , we are now dealing with a sophistic enemy using more and more elaborate methods to avoid detection and breed as much paranoia and mistrust as possible, eventually it will lead to the internment of Muslims as the war with these people becomes more frequent and more deadly

  5. The more devout a Christian, the more he can be trusted; the more devout a Muslim, the more he should be feared.

  6. Muslims do not have a religion it's a cult, lslam is a cult that incites it,s followers to commit violence