Wednesday, October 01, 2014

The Corrosive Power of Political Correctness

The politically correct fear of affronting Muslims is so infectious and poisonous it will lead a man who takes an otherwise commendable and irrefutable position on Islam to make a fallacious distinction between Islam and its allegedly “militant” adherents and practitioners.

In one sentence, apparently calculated to mollify Muslims and Islamic states of all stripes, including ISIS, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated:


It occurs in the fourth paragraph of Netanyahu’s speech to the UN on September 29th, 2014.

It’s not militants. It’s not Islam. It’s militant Islam. Typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one. Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Kurds – no creed, no faith, no ethnic group is beyond its sights. And it’s rapidly spreading in every part of the world. You know the famous American saying: “All politics is local”? For the militant Islamists, “All politics is global.” Because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world….

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch called the Prime Minister’s speech “brilliant.” Indeed, it is that in many respects. But that one sentence has dimmed its brilliance with that single corrosive politically correct statement.

That single sentence undercuts the clarity and force of the rest of his speech. I won’t be the only one to have noticed it and measured its import on the balance of the speech and Netanyahu’s position on the threat of ISIS, Hamas, and all the other terrorist gangs he names. Our enemies will have noticed it and evaluated it and reached the same conclusion: He has pulled back from a blanket condemning of Islam root, trunk, branch and twig.

So when it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas.
And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common: • Boko Haram in Nigeria; • Ash-Shabab in Somalia; • Hezbollah in Lebanon; • An-Nusrah in Syria; • The Mahdi Army in Iraq; • And the Al-Qaeda branches in Yemen, Libya, the Philippines, India and elsewhere.

I really never expected Netanyahu to repeat the sentiment oft expressed by a political enemy of his, President Barack Obama, that the West is not at war with Islam.

Not to mention the supposedly “lone wolf” jihadists in America and Europe, who have their own personal ways of waging jihad and becoming “martyrs”: beheadings in Oklahoma and New York and London, bombings in Boston, the Ft. Hood massacre, honor-killings, sex grooming gangs, sex slavery brothels, female genital mutilation, anti-Semitism, and etc.

However: “Militant” Islam is “radical” Islam is “extremist” Islam is “moderate” Islam and however else one wishes to style Islam. Sugar-coating Islam by divorcing it from itself, from its fundamental nature and political ends, isn’t going to bring about any kind of peace except that of the graveyard.

It still reads like the ubiquitous, off-the-rack denial uttered by Barack Obama and other politicians and pundits that Islam isn’t evil at root, that it’s a religion of “peace.”  But, in whose time? Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper and proclaimed it heralded “peace in our time.” What he got was war, because Hitler had his own time schedule, and it didn’t include “peace” until he was finished conquering Europe. 

Like a broken record, Obama told the UN General Assembly on September 24th:

…[W]e have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.

Again, Islam can’t be anything but “militant.” Was there a difference between Nazism and “militant” Nazism? Between Communism and “militant” Communism? The distinctions are as artificial and delusionary for those totalitarian systems as they are for Islam.  It’s one and the same. Netanyahu continued, making sure he was speaking of “militant” Islam:

Some are radical Sunnis, some are radical Shi’ites. Some want to restore a pre-medieval caliphate from the 7th century. Others want to trigger the apocalyptic return of an imam from the 9th century. They operate in different lands, they target different victims and they even kill each other in their quest for supremacy. But they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever expanding enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance – Where women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Militant Islam’s ambition to dominate the world seems mad. But so too did the global ambitions of another fanatic ideology that swept to power eight decades ago.

The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith. They just disagree about who among them will be the master… of the master faith. That’s what they truly disagree about. Therefore, the question before us is whether militant Islam will have the power to realize its unbridled ambitions.

Yes, because exempting Islam from complete repudiation and moral judgment empowers Islam to continue its mass depredations – against Israel, against the U.S., against Europe – against the world. Netanyahu’s qualifier was completely unnecessary and represents the intellectual and moral virus that is guaranteed to undermine any short-range military action against it and render such action futile.

An instance of how virulent the politically correct fear of “offending” Muslims can affect the minds of those faced with the indisputable evidence of Islamic terrorism: the Oklahoma prosecutor will not suggest that Alton Nolan’s beheading of Colleen Hufford at Vaughn Foods in Moore was Islamic jihad or a terrorist act, but as merely the commission of first degree murder. In his Washington Post article of September 29th, “After a beheading in Oklahoma, debate over what to call it,” Mark Berman wrote:

Authorities have not called the Oklahoma beheading terrorism, instead saying that it appears to be a case of workplace violence. Some commentators and politicians have disagreed with this assessment. Television host Joe Scarborough said this was due to “political correctness.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who is considering another presidential campaign in 2016, told Fox News that this appears to be “an act of violence that is associated with terrorism.”

Charging an individual who has committed a crime is the proper action to take. All crimes committed domestically in the U.S. in the name of Islam should be treated as crimes, divorced from an individual’s motive. Secular law should discount a criminal’s reason for committing a crime. That in itself, in practical terms, would serve to deflate the importance of any religious sanctioning of the crime. Western secular law is in direct conflict with Islamic Sharia law, which should be banned from all levels of America jurisprudence, and also from law enforcement.  

Charging Alton Nolan with first degree murder and aggravated assault – as crimes – will serve to focus on Islam as an incubatory ideology that sanctions crime, and also serve to remind prosecutors and others in the judiciary and in Congress that Islam is our mortal enemy.

On September 30th, Sean Murphy of The Associated Press muddied the waters of clarity:

An Oklahoma man apparently uttered Arabic words during an attack in which he allegedly severed a co-worker's head, and had "some sort of infatuation with beheadings," but the killing appeared to have more to do with the man's suspension from his job than his recent conversion to Islam, a prosecutor said Tuesday. Alton Nolen, 30, could face the death penalty after being charged with first-degree murder in the attack Thursday that authorities say appears to have been an act of revenge for a co-worker's complaint that got him suspended.

The FBI also is investigating the attack, given Nolen's interest in beheadings and a recent surge in Middle East violence. "There was some sort of infatuation with beheadings. It seemed to be related to his interest in killing someone that way," Cleveland County Prosecutor Greg Mashburn said. "Other than that, it seemed to be related to his being suspended earlier in the day."

"It had more to do with race rather than trying to convert people," Mashburn said. He said there was a "back and forth with Ms. Johnson and that led her to make a complaint to the HR department."

Apparently, not publically recognizing Nolan’s crime as an act of Islamic terrorism – despite Nolan’s record of  proselytizing Islam, having his body tattooed with Islamic symbols, and loading his Face Book page with Islamic materials – is the safer way of not being tarred with the brush of “Islamophobia.”

End states that support, finance, and encourage Islamic terrorism. That will mean taking out at least one major sponsor of Islam terrorism, Iran or Saudi Arabia, which  are at the top of the list. Small fry like Qatar and the U.A.E. and Libya and Yemen will submit to the West – and not the other way around.  

3 comments:

95BSharpshooter said...

As those of us paying attention know, "Peace" to the Islamics doesn't mean what we think it means.

Edward Cline said...

Sharpshooter: And Netanyahu ought to know that, too. Which makes his PC nod to Islam all the more bizarre.

Michael Neibel said...

I see this evasive technique more and more in the press now days.
"There was some sort of infatuation with beheadings."
Translation: His beheading of the lady was only a personal, subjective choice and not connected in any way to some commandments in the bible of his chosen religion Islam so move along, nothing to see here.