The Source of Islamic Terrorism.
By Paul Merkley.
Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, et al.
The past few weeks have proved exceptionally fruitful for the Warriors of Allah – even by Islamic-terror standards.
Early Sunday morning, June 12, there occurred in Orlando, Florida, the most recent case (to date) of a fanatical, self-proclaimed warrior for Allah heading to a tightly-packed venue and murdering everyone in sight – in this case, murdering fifty persons and cruelly wounding an equal number.
President Barack Obama had had enough. He went on international television to declare solidarity with the victims; while he was at it, he proclaimed that there could be “no definitive judgment on the precise motivations” of the terrorist. He had, of course, been briefed about the Orlando incident by his National Security appointees and therefore knew at that moment everything that within about twenty-four hours the rest of us would learn about the perpetrator.
On Monday, June 20, the FBI released a transcript of a phone message that the gunman delivered to us all via 911 from the very scene of the ongoing massacre. We were told at this point that references to Mateen’s alleged connection with ISIS were being erased —so as to limit pain to survivors! A few hours later, the FBI was compelled by public backlash to walk back this ridiculous argument: a new version was issued, with at least some references to ISIS restored. On these tapes, Mateen introduces himself as ”a soldier of Islam.” The FB I gent knew better of course; he explained that Mateen “does not represent the religion of Islam but a perverted view” picked up from ISIS.
How did we get to this moment when we are expected to accept theological exegesis from FBI agents?
A few hours after his initial comments, Obame returned to the Orlando challenge. Visibly angry, he denounced those of his political opponents who have taken note of his consistent avoidance of the phrase “radical Islam,” even in such contexts as the war against ISIS.
There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point. It’s not a strategy. That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.” What exactly would this label accomplish?” (“Obama Denounces Donald Trump for His ‘Dangerous’ Mind-Set,” New York Times, June 14, 2016. )
The best answer that I have found to Obama’s rhetorical question has come from Pete Hoekstra, while a Member of the House of Representatives from Michigan’s Second Congressional District (1993-2011) served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (2004-2007) and who has since become an effective voice raising awareness of the Islamic threat to America.
The worst aspect [of the Orland story] is that political leadership could have helped to prevent the attack by addressing the violent Islamist threat by its rightful nature. As was the case in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino or any of the other murders in the name of Allah against the West the during his time in office, the president will not identify “jihad” as even a possible motivation. He instead talks about gun control, identity politics and thought crimes…. The evidence of the West losing the struggle is overwhelming. Globally, the number of victims has increased to unprecedented levels. Millions of refugees flood Europe from the Middle East and Africa, Islamists behead and inflict genocide against religious minorities and ISIS has created a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, as well as in Libya. (“Why can’t Obama just tell Americans the truth about the Orlando attack and radical Islam?” www.InvestigativeProjectonTerrorism.or/5426.)
The Source of Islamism is Islam
The source of Mateen’s derangement is the Qur’an. The purpose for which he conducted his record-breaking massacre and for which he died was to impose the Qur’an’s understanding of life’s purpose on all of us by violence. Violent conquest was, after all, the very form in which Muhammad conducted his own missionary activity. On this the Qur’an is colourfully explicit:
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, On this, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them;) thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom (Sura 47: 4.)
The Muslim terrorists and their supporters and soul-brothers are absolutely persuaded that the Qur’an is the source of everything they think and do. There are those who insist that Mateen must have misunderstood the true message of the Quran – as did all those other mass-murderers who acted and died under the same banner – those in Brussels, those in Paris, and all the others whose actions we are losing track because of the sheer quantity of mass-murdering that goes on in the name of Allah.
The organization called the Religion of Peace maintains a convenient ongoing daily catalogue of lethal terrorist actions in the United States, as well as a briefer notation of deadly terrorist attack s world wide. This organization reckons that, since September 9, 2001, and as of today, Islamic terrorists have carried out 28,640 terror attacks throughout the world. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx
Is it conceivable that Obama does not grasp the illogicality of his assertion that Islam is irrelevant to the story of Islamic violence? By what right do Barack Obama and the deep-thinking FBI spokesman just cited presume to declare to the world that Mateen and his brethren have misunderstood the Qur’an and (by corollary) that they, non-Muslims by their own definition, understand it?
Every day it becomes more evident to anyone not enslaved by political correctness that Islam is at odds war with our way of life. At the same time, our politicians, following our leaders of opinion, are taking upon themselves the duty of stifling curiosity about the differences between the worldview based upon the Qur’an and the worldview that has governed our civilization until at least the day before yesterday. This work seems never to allow for open discussion of the premises of Islam. Instead, the best energies of correct thinkers are directed towards smothering the sensible conclusion of most people: that Islam is based upon premises utterly at odds with the premises of Christianity and Judaism.
Enormous harm is being done by the slogan which inspires these elites — “After all we all worship the same God” – “we” meaning Jews and Christians and Muslims. The power of this dictum to close down thinking derives from a cheap idealism. It springs effortlessly to the lips of politicians and spokesmen for the police – people who are trained in the uses of phony humanitarianism to lull the public. Official voices speaking for our ecumenical denominations take the cue and join in. To them it seems not merely right but necessary – a requirement of public order, an expression of the spirit of love – to circulate this bromide. It does not follow, however, that it is true.
The fact is that Islam stands on premises that are utterly incompatible with the premises of Christian faith; Islam, accordingly, produces, thoughts , words, and deeds that cannot be reconciled with the thoughts, words, and deeds that inspire all Christian faith (if not all Christian conduct.)
In plain words: the source of Islamic terrorism is Islam.