Thursday, May 24, 2012

What’s more correct? “Radical Islam” or “Islam is Radical?”

The term “radical” Islam is en vogue to describe the Islam that is worthy of our concern.  Is there an Islam that isn’t radical? 

Some suggest that the phrase “Islam is radical” as distinct from the more popular term “radical Islam” is merely a nuance – an unnecessary nitpicky rhetorical exercise that ought to be avoided.  The belief is most people aren’t ready for the “nuance” of Islam being portrayed as inherently radical.  

Others, like most media and even ACT for America, the major Islamic awareness group in America, insist on the use of the term “radical Islam” to describe the threat to our existence.  You see, they don’t want to offend anyone with the use of the more accurate and truthful phrase “Islam is radical.”  The fear is that if we express the truth, people will hear something different.  But if we express a lie people will somehow hear the truth.  I don’t know about you but that sounds insane!

The “politically correct” philosophy:  “It’s not what you say. It’s what they hear.”   Frank Luntz, pollster.

The “morally correct” philosophy:  “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  Jesus, savior.

We do not win the high ground by being less than truthful.

But is Islam itself really radical?  Radical compared to what? It depends on who you talk to.  No aspect of Islam is radical to those who have no deeply held values about anything to contrast with it.  For people who simply don’t care, nothing can be truly radical.  Even Muslims who have bombs strapped to their chests may not be considered radical in the mind of the person who believes everyone's values are equally good and should be protected and respected.  After all, if these Muslims are oppressed and feel justified to blow up people for their cause, by Allah, they should be allowed to do it.  Who am I to judge another?  So says the progressive liberal.

Granted, that is an extreme example. But believe me, I have met people who come pretty close to using that line of reasoning.

So, is ACT’s “dancing around the truth” for the benefit of those who have no deeply held values that they feel are worth defending and contrasting as the basis for calling Islam’s ideology “radical?”   Such people cannot sense darkness (of Islam) because the have no light (of their own values).  Our failure to expose these people to the truth will not bring them light.  They are a lost cause either way.

Back to the question, “radical” compared to what? Radical compared to western culture, western ethics, our system of common law, and Judeo-Christian religion and morality.  So with this definition, an ideology whose founding leader and whose mainstream interpretations of their primary religious texts that call for the elimination of the infidel, wife beating, beheading of homosexuals, eradication of Jews, multiple wives, concubines, intolerance, and military conquest of other nations, including ours, has to be considered “radical” wouldn’t you think?

But no.  We cannot call Islam radical because there are many very nice Muslims.  And most Muslims don’t practice violent Jihad (many may agree with it and seek opportunity to practice it, but they don’t currently practice it - yet.)  And just like any religion, there are many Muslims who don’t understand fully what their “religion” teaches.  So there are many nominal, in-name-only Muslims who really really don’t identify with a “radical” religion.  Wait a minute!  Ignorance of ones RADICAL religion does not make the religion UN-radical now, does it.

Aside from the moral problem of not expressing the truth as we know it, what are some of the other problems created by the media and ACT for America when they continue to refer only to “radical Islam” as being the problem for us?

Here is my litany of problems with referring to “radical Islam” instead of admitting that “Islam is radical”:

  1. It misrepresents the truth.
  2. It misleads people into believing that there is a form of Islam that is not radical.  There is not.  The historic, orthodox form of Islam that the great preponderance of Islamic scholars teach today is radical by the above definition.
  3. All known forms of Islam hold up Muhammad as the ideal man, all of his sayings and actions.  And all known forms of Islam hold to the absolute truth of every word of the Qur’an.  Muhammad and the Qur’an define the essence of Islam.  Muhammad was radical.  The Qur’an is radical.  Here the meaning of radical includes vile, immoral,and repulsive mandates, and a threat to our way of life.
  4. Those who insist only “radical” Islam is the problem damage their credibility and discourage those of us who know better from working with them to address the real problem.
  5. When the US intervenes in Islamic nations, we fail to address the fundamental beliefs and predispositions of Islamic populations, expecting them to have values similar to ours when in most cases they are diametrically and hatefully opposed.
  6. Most mosques in the US are funded by Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations which are known to have outspoken Islamic leaders who desire Islamic conquest of America.  Failure to understand Islam is radical results in failure to understand the teaching inside mosques is both radical and seditious.
  7. Islam at its core is a seditious political ideology promoted by a multitude of organizations in religious garb.  Every Islamic organization in the US has a seditious intent.
  8. Even those Muslims who appear absolutely benign, such as Zuhdi Jasser who draws the ire of hard-core Islamists and other Muslim apologists, still promote the establishment of new mosques and stand by the principles of Islam.  I and others have asked Jasser what portions of the Qur’an and other Islamic texts does he ignore or interpret differently from the teachings of the mainstream Islamic Imams.  He has not replied.
  9. It cripples our accurate understanding of Islam which delays effective actions.
  10. The lack of accurate knowledge of Islam suppresses the attitudes and will of the people necessary for us to elect leaders who will adopt policies required to effectively address the seditious influence of Islam in our land.

Let us please rely on the higher value of truth rather than the corrupt value of “not offending.”  Yes, truth will usually offend someone.  Those it offends are part of our problem whether we offend them or not.  Failure to promote the truth is much more offensive to those of us who know the truth. Those of us who know the truth about Islam are the only ones who can effectively warn others.  Withholding the truth because the truth may be offensive to some is political gamesmanship and immoral.   Shading the truth with regard to Islam reminds me of Obama pandering and apologizing to Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations.  His false hope is that not offending via his pandering will somehow cause those societies that hate America to love us.  As with ACT’s deception concerning the truth of Islam, such pandering only makes us look weak and stupid.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hey Jer--right on 100%. Question is, why is our government doing what they do, i.e. ignore, minimize and allow Islam to spread? As with most government actions they must have an "AGENDA". Could it be that they are directing the playing field towards a showdown with Islam, i.e. a WORLD WAR between Christianity & Islam as their goal? Something to consider I would think. Their, the government's actions against Christianity and FOR Islam, might lead a thinking person in that direction. Bill Wayland