Daniel Greenfield, in his Sultan Knish columns, writes about Islam from a perspective that is 100% objective and rational, a perspective I wish more people were capable of grasping. They don’t need to emulate his writing style or acquire as in-depth knowledge of Islam as his to appreciate the value he offers readers, indeed, offers the nation. Grasping the unchanging and unchangeable nature of Islam is a simple exercise in non-contradictory identification. A is A. Islam is Islam.
A.K.A. Sultan Knish, intellectual enemy
of all Social Justice Warriors,in government and out.
“Bad” Islam is just “Good” Islam in a bad mood, he writes. “Bad” Islam has nothing to do with Islam. It’s as though “Bad” Islam were not quoting from the Koran, but from the Peanuts cartoons and the translation always gets skewed in the process.
Greenfield is not an Islam-basher for the sake of bashing Islam. With his unbeatable gift for irony, he unleashes the same no-holds-barred passion as he bashes phony politicians (is there a difference?), and phony technologies (like solar and wind power), and phony humanitarians who profit from phony charities and leave chump change for the alleged beneficiaries (re Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, the Clintons, George Clooney, and two or three dozen more extraordinarily rich people who want to “do good”). The private organizations “resettling” Muslim “refugees” in American cities, and which are paid and subsidized by the U.S. government, are a case in point.
He recognizes Islam’s root poisons and premises and tactics. And he does this no better than in his recent column “Good Islam and Bad Islam” of February 16th. He writes from the assumption that his readers are conversant in current events that concern Islamic terrorism. He dwells in a different but no less effective and persuasive way on the means and ends of Islamic jihad against the West from Stephen Coughlin’s exhaustive but compelling treatise on the delusional policies of our political and intelligence communities in Catastrophic Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jiahd.
Friends of Islam, collectivists of a variety of stripes, BDS advocates, fiends of the Palestinians, flaccid but repellent Israel-haters, and Democrats (and most Republicans) all share an ideological allergy to reason, objectivity, and facts. It’s as though If they attempted reason, they would probably break out in spots or contract some horrid disease. They would be baffled by Greenfield’s opening line in his column:
Our only hope of defeating Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.
Some will remain in a state of bafflement, from either a natural state of inert ignorance or because their minds will slam shut when they smell a truth that must not be acknowledged. Others who exercise their minds and indulge in, for them, rare spates of analysis will understand that the statement is a nose-tweaking of our current “Countering Violent Extremism” policy (CVE), a policy which is chary of even naming Islam as the foremost incubator of “violent extremism.” (See Coughlin’s book for the tortuous road to self-delusion surrounding “CVE”), lest our intelligence agency risk the charge of “Islamophobia.” As a generic term, “extremism” could mean anything from armed American militias to taking the U.S. Constitution seriously to demanding that all dairy products sold in the country be lactose-free.
Islam, however, was waging terrorism against the West for decades and concurrently with that of the IRA, Basque separatists, and the Belgian Walloon separatists. The last three have wilted from just about everyone’s memory. Only terrorism rooted in Islam remains energized. Echoing Coughlin, Greenfield’s next sentence, however, would clarify things for the baffled and the face-makers:
But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives.
That is, it expresses Sharia law. Imposing Sharia on everyone is the end-all and be-all of Islamic Jihad. The triumvirate of Islamic terrorism is jihad, dawah (or proselytizing) and the Ummah (what I like to refer to as the Borg hive or collective, or the Islamic zombie herd). In its quest to thoroughly enfeeble the West’s resistance to Islamic conquest I wrote in “Interfaith Bridges to Islam”:
…No member of the tripartite alliance of jihad, dawah, and ummah in the organizing principle, which is Sharia, can nullify, frustrate, or contradict the other two. They work together as one entity in an aggressive ideological gestalt.
Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.
It is important to note that when fatwas are issued by Islamic clerics against terrorism, they are in fact condemnations of Muslims killing other Muslims. The fatwa does not include killing non-Muslims – except if the non-Muslims sue for “peace” and submit. To Islam, it is always open season on infidels, Jews, and other non-Muslims. This has been true for about 1,400 years. And also on Muslims of differing faiths: Sunnis vs. Shi’ites, and vice versa.
Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims [but Bush said it first], “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.
Yes. It’s always a bunch of atheists who repeatedly quote the Koran before, during, or after their latest round of butchery.
Let’s concoct a Saturday Night Live skit to demonstrate how CVE works – or doesn’t work. Say, you are an innocent infidel, out walking your pet armadillo. A female jihadist walks up to you and her burqa shows a suspicious bump beneath it. She says to you, “I hate armadillos! Allahu Akbar!” And she blows herself and you up.
You, the suicide bomber, and the armadillo are but guts and blood all over the place, and basically unrecognizable. The FBI calls in “Dexter,” a blood splatter pattern expert and graduate of CVE Academy. He hands in his splatter report: With meticulous precision, he details the trail of blood caused by the bomb, and concludes that while your scattered remains and those of the armadillo are identifiable, there was no third person. No suicide bomber. He suggests that you were the unfortunate victim of a renegade quark from an alternate universe that intruded into our universe and exploded on contact. Case closed. Islam is not indicted. Muslims have not been denigrated. Their “self-esteem” as Muslims has been preserved.
Or perhaps Dexter will offer an alternative explanation for the “violence”: There really was a third person, a suicide bomber who was an armadillo-hating “extremist” who also hated armadillo pet owners.
That’s how CVE works. Blame anyone – anything – but the identifiable perpetrator. But there’s nothing even darkly humorous about how CVE works and how it contributes to the ongoing Islamic jihad with real blood being splattered in Europe and in the U.S.
Greenfield discusses the Mainstream Media version of CVE:
After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes, and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.
So, formerly “Good” Muslims turn “Bad” for every reason under the sun but the non-negotiable moral imperative in Sharia to kill non-Muslims. Let’s hear another doozy: “I killed all those people in the Paris concert hall because I gained 30 pounds, because the Jews and infidels control food distribution and foist non-halal, saturated fat food on Muslims, causing them to have heart attacks.” Is that reason any better – or more ludicrous – than what one can hear mouthed by photogenic talking heads on CNN or Fox?
Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist?), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.
One might guess that a “Radical Islamic Jihadists” likes to slaughter people by the dozen; a “moderate Islamic Jihadist” will settle for one or two, perhaps running Jews down with cars, or resorting to the knife; he’s a humanitarian with limited jihadi resources). Greenfield asks:
But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.
What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.
There is no measurable difference between Good and Bad Islam. They are one and the same. They hale from the same malevolent pool of poisonous glop of wanting the unearned, of envy, of jealousy, all insatiable appetites unless corrected by objective justice. Good, non-violent Islam cajoles its auditors into believing Muslims just want to be left alone to follow their faith, and it’s unfair to ascribe the actions of the few to the many. And the next thing you know the cajoled are blood splatters on sidewalks and walls or are crushed smears of flesh in the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center. But sooner or later Bad Islam loses patience and starts sharpening its swords and machetes and giving lessons on how to create bombs and how to fly planes into buildings. And then they do it.
Good Islam is a chiseler, writes Greenfield. It plays its cards with a marked deck, and demands that it be the dealer or banker.
To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.
And when the card game is over, Islam is left with piles of chips and all the pot.
The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam.
There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.
The alternative title for this column, of course, could just as well be, “How to Enable Evil…and Islam.”
A is A. Islam is just Islam.
Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.