The man arrested for throwing a bomb at a Synagogue near Miami gives a chance for an honest conversation… or it could, if anyone wants one.
If we are going to have an honest conversation about Islam, and whether it really is the “Religion of Peace” they claim, we need to understand how they see their prophet. They see him as the perfect example of a religiously faithful man.
This creates a crisis for Liberal Western Idealists. Liberal Western Idealists have been conditioned to “not judge” things. (With certain notable exceptions.) They believe that all cultures are more or less equal, or at least equally valid. (Except perhaps our own.) This means we are supposed to “engage and understand” other cultures. (Notice the one-sided obligation.)
So long as everyone basically gets along, these ideas appear harmless, even if it does give foreign ideas and values a competitive advantage with the local values. We see this advantage in subtle ways, at first. When Muslims pressure restaraunts to remove bacon from their menus, those that comply are cheered as inclusive and tolerant. Unfortunately, this trend has snowballed and some government agencies have even gone so far as to endorse propaganda pieces calling Jihad “noble”. This is the political climate we live in today.
Until something goes kaboom. Or shots are fired.
In such a crisis, these same Idealists circle their wagons, and point their judge-y fingers to scold us like wayward children if ever we should draw connections between the slaughter of civilians and Islam’s Ideal Man.
Instead of facing facts, they call for gun control (San Bernardino) or label it workplace violence (Fort Hood). Even that infamous war cry of the suicide bomber is insufficient proof of an attacker’s “authentic” dedication to the Islamic cause. (Paris, Brussels) They’re obviously imposters, copycats impugning the name of a “most noble religion”. Or something.
Really? That isn’t so obvious to some of us. Looking at these documented numbers, there are a helluva lot of imposters. More than 1000 people killed in the name of Islam in the last 30 days alone. But what do I know? I don’t live in an academic ivory tower.
It’s the real-life examples of people acting on their beliefs that make that Idealist position lack credibility.
The would-be Bomber of Aventura, Florida assumed he would die in his attack. The bomb he purchased was a fake, but he didn’t know that. He left a “goodbye” message, pro-ISIS messages, some anti-American rants, and deliberately targeted a Jewish Synagogue during Passover. His willingness to die only complicates things for the hand-wringing Islamic apologists. The willingness to die for his cause is no minor point.
I have personally known Christians who were slaughtered at the hands of a mob for refusing to deny the name of Christ. That commitment-stronger-than-death is solid evidence that — at minimum — they were personally convinced of the truth of their beliefs.
We must not overlook the detail that the Aventura bomber expressed a desire to become a martyr. Besides that, he speaks openly about his disdain of Jews, he was willing to kill civilians and children, and he hoped to inspire other attacks. He called himself Muslim. And yet, Islam’s defenders will still deny he was truly Muslim.
Here’s the problem. Consider two hypothetical scenarios:
Scenario 1: someone claiming to be Christian or Buddhist goes on a killing spree.
Scenario 2: someone claiming to be Muslim goes on a killing spree (targeting non-Muslims).
It’s ridiculously easy to show how the first scenario is completely at odds — not just with the religion itself — but with the personal example of its founder. Showing this guy to be a false follower of their religion is no trouble at all.
But the second scenario can’t be disproven so easily. Mohammed is called “the Prophet of the Sword”. Why? Because he wasn’t afraid to kill. Or maim. Or take slaves. Or wage war. Etc.
It is beyond me how people expect to reconcile a “Religion of Peace” with a founder known by its own followers as the “Prophet of the Sword”. The bomber expressly identified himself as Muslim. In a culture where anyone can “identify” as anything, (male, female, feline, child, etc) and it is “wrong” for the public to question it, what reason do we give for not taking him at his word?
That brings us right back to the security issue, doesn’t it? The people chucking bombs (he thought his bomb was real, remember) into civilian “safe spaces” have exactly one thing in common. It isn’t race, color, or language necessarily. That threat comes from the fountainhead of a commitment to a particular set of ideas. Love it or loathe it, those ideas are rooted in the life and personal example of one, specific, historical man.
The “moderate” Muslims just “going about their lives”, or even those like Tarek Fatah who are helping expose these jihadis, do not negate the real threat in our midst. Until we acknowledge this root cause, how can we possibly hope to engage and defend against those who have already declared war on Infidels?
