In the midst of grief, still confusion |

Source: In the midst of grief, still confusion |

“’Islamist’ is a reasonable neologism – I use it myself – to describe political or jihadi Islam and thus necessarily differentiate it from the un-extreme, pacific interpretation of the religion to which millions of Muslims subscribe. But to assert… that Islamism is therefore not Islamic is demonstrably ridiculous.”

In the aftermath of the Westminster (London) attack, commentator Melanie Phillips takes UK Prime Minister Theresa May, and by extension, the Western political establishment, to task for – as it too-often the case – refusing to recognize and name the problem for what it is:

“Does she think the concept of jihad is not Islamic? For sure, jihadi Islam is an interpretation of the religion to which many Muslims do not subscribe. But it is a genuine interpretation, solidly based on religious sources and is the historic inspiration for centuries of bloody Islamic conquest. It is as absurd to say it has nothing to do with Islam as it would be to say the Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity or ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews have nothing to do with Judaism.

“The claim that identifying religion as the problem would demonise all Muslims is a non-sequitur. Yes, many Muslims are not extreme; but a terrifyingly large number are.

“In an opinion poll of a sample of British Muslims last year, only 34 per cent said they would report to the police anyone they thought was involved with jihadi extremism; 38 per cent blamed either the US or the Jews for 9/11; four per cent – which would amount to around 100,000 British Muslims – sympathised with Muslim suicide bombers; and 23 per cent wanted Islamic sharia law to replace domestic English law in areas with large Muslim populations.”

It has been said in a number of places that violent jihadists are snakes; the Muslim population at large is the grass they hide in. These figures quoted by Ms Phillips give some specific background and support to this claim, for Britain at least; but similar figures hold true elsewhere in the West. Even in the US, radicalism is increasing. The fact that most Muslims do not commit violent jihad does not mean they are not sympathetic to those who do.

[According to some recent studies, as much as 51% of US Muslims would prefer having the choice of being governed under Sharia law, while 60% of Muslim-Americans told Pew Research they were more loyal to Islam than to America. Islam’s insistence of being politically, legally, and socially dominant, as well as religiously / spiritually so, is a dramatic contrast to Christianity – which, as this article points out, “instructs followers to respect secular leaders — rendering ‘unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’ — while living godly lives within secular societies.”]

I have stated before in this forum – multiple times, and I will doubtless state multiple times again – that the majority of Muslims are not bent on the violent overthrow of Western civilization; however, the majority – nearly all, in fact – of those currently bent on the violent overthrow of Western civilization are Muslims. That means that the ideology / worldview of Islam, which is grounded in but not limited to (an important distinction) religion, is not benign.

Facing up to a problem – clearly identifying its scope, nature, and all the implications thereof – is the first step toward solving it. As long as we continue to refuse to understand and accept that violent Islamic jihadism is rooted in the religion of Islam itself, our efforts to combat it will be conducted with one hand (at least) tied behind our backs.

American “Founding Father” James Madison, on property

“In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize [sic], or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” ~ James Madison, 1792

Many thanks to the inimitable Tara Ross for this and many other wondrous posts!