Why are Western Leaders always saying there is no problem with Islam after terror attacks?

Five people died, including the attacker, and at least 50 people were injured in a terror attack committed by a Muslim near the Houses of Parliament in London, United kingdom on 22 March 2017.

A day later Prime Minister Theresa May said in Parliament "It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith."

How is such a statement possible when she described herself in an interview as a practising member of the Church of England, a vicar's daughter?

Does the Prime Minister really not know that the Koran denies the very centre of the Christian faith, Jesus' death and resurrection for the forgiveness of our sins in Surah 4, verse 157? Furthermore, can any faith be called 'great' by a practicing member of the Church of England, if it says in Surah 3 verse 85 that only the religion of Islam is accepted by God?

We have been here before. Why are Western Leaders always saying there is no problem with Islam after such terrible terror attacks?

Do they not know that the Koran says, 'fight those who do not believe in Allah' according to Surah 9, verse 29? Muslims are commanded to strife hard against the unbelievers in Surah 9, verse 73. Muslims are told to fight in Allah's way, so they kill and are killed according to Surah 9, verse 111. Muslims are to show hardness to unbelievers in Surah 9, verse 123.

Are Western leaders not aware that Surah 33, verse 21 tells Muslims to take Mohammad as their role model? In Sahee Muslim 129 he declares, 'I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah'. In Sahee Bukhari 2977 Mohammad said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'.

Why are Khalid Massood and countless other Muslims who caused terror all over the world called 'Islamists who pervert a great faith' when they just follow Islam to the letter?

Could that mean Islam has been perverted from its very beginning?

Why are some Muslims quoting Surah 5, verse 32 out of context 'If any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind'? The very next verse says:

'The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter'.

Could it be because of ignorance or are they engaged in a practice called 'Taqiyya' in Arabic? It is found in Surah 3:28 and Surah 16:106 . Accordingly, Muslims are allowed to lie under pressure to protect their religion and peace in the family. Muhammad said, 'War is deceit', in Sahee Bukhari vol 4, book 52, hadith 269. Oaths can be abandoned according to Sahee Bukhari, 7, 67, 427.

Are Western nations not aware that for them not to accept Islam and to criticise is to wage war against it and to spread mischief in the land as described in Surah 5, verse 32?

Muslims generally believe that Surah 2:256: 'There is no compulsion in religion', is either abrogated by Surah 9:73, 123, or refers to Jews and Christians only, not to Pagans and Muslims. (

Surely Western politicians cannot be ignorant of all these facts.

What then lies really behind the standard response of Western leaders and mainstream Media that there is no problem with Islam?

Please judge for yourself whether the following could be the right answer to this urgent question:

Western governments have conveniently put all different religions under the umbrella of 'faith groups'. To them it does not matter that religions contradict themselves greatly, as has been shown with Islam and Christianity. Important is to keep the peace between them so they can continue to do the majority of charity work in society.

The state claims to be neutral, secular, giving freedom of religion to all, not favouring any particular view. This position seems very sensible, also in light of history where religious beliefs sometimes have been used to force non-believing, or different-believing people into conformity.

However, secular neutrality is not possible since one cannot step away from what one beliefs to be true. Faith in God or no God will always influence decisions of people with particular worldviews, be they religious or what some consider ‘the good life’.

So called 'neutral' governments have to use some criteria to decide what is right and wrong. Removing the beliefs of faith groups from this process unavoidably favours non-religious belief.

Adherents of such secular groups decide what can and cannot be tolerated in public life. Of course, they operate according to non-religious reasoning.

Currently those without religious beliefs are generally free to say what they like in public life. That is why they lie after Islamic terrorist attacks and tell the citizens that Muslims who do such horrendous things have nothing to do with the religion of Islam.

Members of faith groups who disagree have to accommodate themselves, or else are excluded from the political process.

Surely, it cannot be right to favour those who do not believe that God exists, when it comes to lead and influence the public. That amounts to religious discrimination.

Here is how this unjust and unfair situation can be addressed:

-The reality of religious disagreement needs to be publically acknowledged rather than denied.

-Members of faith groups ought to be given the freedom to express their faith based opinions in public life.

-Western leaders and the mainstream media should provide opportunities to publically debate the existence of God and different religions on a national level. This could be achieved through a new programme entitled 'Religious Question Time' in the format of David Dimbleby's 'Question Time' television series at the BBC.

There is plenty that urgently needs to be discussed. Since the enlightenment and Charles Darwin the West is led by atheists who believe there is no God in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For example:

Code is absolutely necessary for replication and for life. It is necessary for cells to have instructions to build themselves; code is necessary for reproduction. Code that has the ability to change itself is required before any kind of evolution can occur.

That leads to one of the most important questions: Where did the information in DNA come from? How do you get a code without a coder? Computer scientists tell us that this is impossible. For more details see:

Please let us know your thoughts via


Here is more proof in support of the existence of God:

Believe in God in 5 Minutes:

Is the Conflict Between Science and Religion Real?

The moral argument:

Atheist Physicists Prove God:

Atheist to Christian Testimony:

Atheist Doctor Finds Jesus After Doing His Own Research:

Is Atheism dead?