Muslims guilty but not Islam; Islam guilty but not Muslims? 14

If a person is a Muslim, and he carries out a terrorist attack, he cannot be a “lone wolf” – unless he states that he is doing it for some cause other than his religion, such as vegetarianism or Catalonian independence, which no Muslim has thus far been known to have espoused. If a Muslim performs a violent act against a non-Muslim, or a member of what his sect regards as an heretical sect, he is doing what he has been taught is the right thing to do ever since he entered the misery of the madrassa as a tiny tot.

Andrew McCarthy is of the same opinion on that point. But he does not think, as we do, that the ideology of Islam compels aggressive action – whether or not in the form of terrorism.

So we are partially in agreement with Andrew McCarthy, and partially skeptical of what he asserts, when he writes this at PJ Media:

Some time ago, the invaluable Patrick Poole coined the term “known wolf”, sharply shredding the conventional Washington wisdom that “lone wolf” terrorism is a major domestic threat.

Pat has tracked the phenomenon for years, right up to the jihadist attacks this weekend in both the New York metropolitan area and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Virtually every time a terror attack has occurred, the actor initially portrayed as a solo plotter lurking under the government’s radar turns out to be — after not much digging – an already known (sometimes even, notorious) Islamic extremist.

The emphases are his, with some of our own added from now on.

As amply demonstrated by Poole’s reporting, catalogued here by PJ Media, “lone wolves” – virtually every single one – end up having actually had extensive connections to other Islamic extremists, radical mosques, and (on not rare occasions) jihadist training facilities.

The overarching point I have been trying to make is fortified by Pat’s factual reporting. It is this: There are, and can be, no lone wolves.

The very concept is inane, and only stems from a willfully blind aversion to the ideological foundation of jihadist terror: Islamic supremacism.

The global, scripturally rooted movement to impose sharia – in the West, to incrementally supersede our culture of reason, liberty, and equality with the repressive, discriminatory norms of classical Islamic law – is a pack. The wolves are members of the pack, and that’s why they are the antithesis of “lone” actors. And, indeed, they always turn out to be “known” precisely because their association with the pack, with components of the global movement, is what ought to have alerted us to the danger they portended before  they struck.

This is willful blindness, because of the restrictions we have gratuitously imposed on ourselves. The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the ideology that drives the movement until after some violent action is either too imminent to be ignored or, sadly more often, until after the Islamic supremacist has acted out the savagery his ideology commands.

The U.S. government consciously avoids the ideology because it is rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of Islam. Though it is but one of many ways to construe that religion, the remorseless fact is that it is a mainstream construction, adhered to by tens of millions of Muslims and supported by centuries of scholarship.

Oh, please Mr. McCarthy, tell what are the other, the “many ways” to “construe” Islam? No one who makes that statement ever gives examples or demonstrates the differences.

I say “the U.S. government” is at fault here because, contrary to Republican campaign rhetoric that is apparently seized by amnesia, this is not merely an Obama administration dereliction — however much the president and his former secretary of State (and would-be successor) Hillary Clinton have exacerbated the problem.

Since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the bipartisan Beltway cognoscenti have “reasoned” (a euphemism for “reckless self-delusion”) that conceding the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror — which would implicitly concede the vast Islamist (sharia-supremacist) support system without which the global jihadist onslaught would be impossible – is impractical.

But how could acknowledging the truth be impractical?

Especially given that national security hinges on an accurate assessment of threats?

Bipartisan Washington “reasons” that telling the truth would portray the United States as “at war with Islam”. To be blunt, this conventional wisdom can only be described as sheer idiocy.

We know that tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and what appears to be a preponderance (though perhaps a diminishing one) of Muslims in the West, reject Islamic supremacism and its sharia-encroachment agenda.

Do we know that? How do we know it?

We know that, by a large percentage, Muslims are the most common victims of jihadist terror.

That we certainly know. It is manifestly true.

We know that Muslim reformers are courageously working to undermine and reinterpret the scriptural roots of Islamic supremacism – a crucial battle our default from makes far more difficult for them to win.

Why is it taking them so long? It must be a very hard task. Is it perhaps impossible?

We know that Muslims, particularly those assimilated into the West, have been working with our law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies for decades to gather intelligence, infiltrate jihadist cells, thwart jihadist attacks, and fight jihadist militias.

Glad to hear it.

None of those Muslims – who are not only our allies, but are in fact us – believes that America is at war with Islam.

So why does Washington base crucial, life-and-death policy on nonsense?

Because it is in the thrall of the enemy. The “war on Islam” propaganda is manufactured by Islamist groups, particularly those tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

But if packs of Muslims are at war with us in the name of Islam,  then OUGHT we not to acknowledge the war and fight it?

While we resist study of our enemies’ ideology, they go to school on us. They thus grasp three key things:

(1) Washington is so bloated and dysfunctional, it will leap on any excuse to refrain from strong action;

(2) the American tradition of religious liberty can be exploited to paralyze our government if national defense against a totalitarian political ideology can be framed as hostility and persecution against an entire religious faith; and

(3) because Washington has so much difficulty taking action, it welcomes claims (or, to be faddish, “narratives”) that minimize the scope and depth of the threat. Topping the “narrative” list is the fantasy that the Islamist ideological support system that nurtures jihadism (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles) is better seen as a “moderate”, “non-violent” partner with whom we can work, than as what it actually is: the enemy’s most effective agent. The stealth operative that exploits the atmosphere of intimidation created by the jihadists.

We agree with all that: only we would add that the present government is full of people – including and above all the President himself – who are strongly pro-Islam.

In other words, in proceeding from the premise that we must do nothing to convey the notion that we are “at war with Islam” – or, in Obama-Clinton [and characteristically Leftist -ed] parlance, in proceeding from the premise that we need a good “narrative” rather than a truth-based strategy – we have internalized the enemy’s worldview, a view that is actually rejected by our actual Islamic allies and the vast majority of Americans.

The delusion comes into sharp relief if one listens to Hillary Clinton’s campaign bombast. …

[W]e know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists, people who number maybe in the tens of thousands, not the tens of millions, they want to use that to recruit more fighters to their cause, by turning it into a religious conflict. That’s why I’ve been very clear. We’re going after the bad guys and we’re going to get them, but we’re not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it’s wanting in order for them to enhance their position.

Sheer idiocy.


Our enemy is not the mere “tens of thousands” of jihadists. (She’s probably low-balling the number of jihadists worldwide, but let’s indulge her.) It is not merely ISIS, nor merely ISIS and al-Qaeda – an organization Mrs. Clinton conveniently omits mentioning, since it has replenished, thanks to Obama-Clinton governance and despite Obama-Clinton claims to have defeated it, to the point that it is now at least as much a threat as it was on the eve of 9/11.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are not the sources of the threat against us. They are the inevitable results of that threat.

The actual threat, the source, is Islamic supremacism and its sharia imposition agenda.

Right again.

The support system, which the threat needs to thrive, does indeed include tens of millions of Islamists, some small [? – ed] percentage of whom will inexorably become violent jihadists, but the rest of whom will nurture the ideological aggression and push the radical sharia agenda – in the media, on the campus, in the courts, and in the policy councils of government that they have so successfully influenced and infiltrated.

Obviously, to acknowledge that we are at war with this movement, at war with Islamic supremacism, is not remotely to be “at war with Islam”. After all, Islamic supremacism seeks conquest over all of Islam, too, and on a much more rapid schedule than its long-term pursuit of conquest over the West. Islamic supremacism is not a fringe movement; it is large and, at the moment, a juggernaut. But too much of Islam opposes Islamic supremacism to be confused with it.

For which, what is the evidence?

Moreover, even if being at war with Islamic supremacists could be persuasively spun as being “at war with Islam” – i.e., even if we were too incompetent to refute our enemies’ propaganda convincingly – it would make no difference.

The war would still be being prosecuted against us. We have to fight it against the actual enemy, and we lose if we allow enemies to dupe us into thinking they are allies. We have to act on reality, even if Washington is too tongue-tied to find the right words for describing reality.

Not “too tongue-tied”; too pro-Islam.

The enemy is in our heads and has shaped our perception of the conflict, to the enemy’s great advantage. That’s how you end up with inanities like “lone wolf”.

So Andrew McCarthy acknowledges, indeed insists, that we are “at war with Islamic supremacism”.  

Is not Islam essentially a supremacist ideology?

If it is, then we are, or OUGHT to be at war with it.

If it is not, demonstrate to us that it is not. No one has done that. Simply stating that “tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and what appears to be a preponderance (though perhaps a diminishing one) of Muslims in the West, reject Islamic supremacism and its sharia-encroachment agenda” doesn’t cut it. If Islam demands conquest and total world domination, and if there are millions of Muslims who reject that, it only means those millions are not observing their religion.

And Islam DOES demand conquest and total world domination.

Three Islamic holy commandments out of many:

From the Koran.

Sura 8.39: And fight with them until there is no more unbelief and religion is all for Allah.

Sura 61.9: He it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse .

From the Hadith (“sayings of Muhammad”):

Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” – Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992

If one denies that this is Islamic orthodoxy, isn’t one endorsing the false “narrative” of successive US governments?

Islam is at war with us. Do we fight that war or not? If we do not …. what then?

Posted under Islam, jihad, Muslims, Terrorism, United States by Jillian Becker on Sunday, September 25, 2016

Tagged with , ,

This post has 14 comments.

  • On topic:

    FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: EU orders British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims


    The report lays into the British press and urges the government to “give more rigorous training” to reporters.

    In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.

    • Nice that the Express report about that nonsense issuing from the EU includes a retort from Britain about keeping “a free and open press”. The piece on the Council of Europe site vividly shows that the EU is smarting over Brexit. Good. Britain will not have to obey the dictatorial EU any more. (In the past, being habitually law-obedient, it obeyed it too much – more than most other member states.)

    • liz

      Yes, “rigorous training” – in other words, re-education camp.
      Probably straight from the mouth of His Highness, George Soros.
      You, know, if the “great majority” of Muslims are so concerned about their “dignity”, why don’t they unanimously and unequivocally renounce Islamic supremacism, and prove it by dropping their demands that everyone else become Sharia compliant, or be branded “islamophobic”.

  • These apologists are constantly talking as if they were authorities on what goes on in the heads of millions of individuals.

    If telling the truth about Islam causes “moderate” Muslims to be radicalized and go and cut small children in half and cut the heads off aid workers and journalists and rape yazidi women until those yazidi women just want to be dead, then these so-called “moderate” Muslims can NOT in any way shape or form be viewed as “moderate”. In any case all they need to do is pick up a Koran any time at all and see the words written there, if they are susceptible to the idea that 7th century barbaric acts are condoned by their god. Its time to debunk this stupid argument once and for all…

    Islam is the proof that religions do not deserve special protection under any constitution, I suggest that its time to consider:

    “Amending the First Amendment”

    (first of my 4 part series on incitement and Freedom of Speech).

    • I look forward to reading the rest of the series.

      • Nigel Farage criticized Geert Wilders’s plan to ban Islam in the Netherlands, saying that such a ban was incompatible with freedom of speech.

        This series was an attempt to answer this question to see if I could define a rational legal framework that wasn’t going to run into the age-old problem “but doesn’t Christianity also incite violence, we can’t ban Christianity can we?”. So, here is the rest of the series:

        A brief look at US and UK law currently:

        “Incitement and Current Law”

        An attempt to define a new legal framework that divides incitements into direct and indirect categories. A direct incitement would need to meet an additional test that it is a “credible” incitement to be deemed illegal:

        “Incitement – A New Legal Framework”

        Finally I take a look at how the 3 Abrahamic religions will fit into this framework – I explained why I think that Islam uniquely deserves to be considered as inciting violence in a direct and what I have termed “credible” fashion. Note particularly that I have studied the apologists’ arguments to arrive at these conclusions and answered their arguments:

        “Incitement and Religion”

        I would welcome criticism as ever, especially as I’m scarcely an expert on religions.

        • Your first three parts in this series seem eminently sensible. Thanks for sending the links.

          The fourth part: Yes, the Koran and the hadith do incite to violence as you describe. And it should be loudly and often said that they do. But far more important in the context of law and violence is sharia law. It is sharia that makes Islam more to be compared to other ideologies of our time than to other religions. The US banned Communists from entering the country after WWII. No reason why they shouldn’t apply the same law to Muslims (except that Islam it calls itself a religion, and Communism – though also a religion – doesn’t). It would need to be banned as an ideology, and it is in sharia that the justification is to be found. It is incompatible with the Constitution.

          Nowhere on earth is there a Christian or Jewish theocracy. Well, okay, Vatican City is a theocracy, but even there the law is not based on the Bible. Israel firmly rejected any idea of basing its laws on those of the Jewish religion (though small concessions were made to the religious party in matters of marriage and conversion).

          But every Islamic state bases its law on sharia law to one extent or another. Iran is an outright theocracy. So is Saudi Arabia. European countries are very likely to be Islamic theocracies after Muslim majorities have used liberal democracy to abolish liberal democracy.

          • Thanks for the feedback!

            I can certainly agree that this is another valid and insurmountable objection to Islam. Interestingly that sounds like a similar position to the one taken by liberty gb (Paul Weston’s party), quote from 2015 manifesto:

            Islam is not a religion as we know religion to be, and it certainly is not a ‘religion of peace’ as its adherents and apologists would have us believe. It is a socio-political ideology that governs every aspect of life, and claims its legitimacy through Mohammed’s assertion that he is the messenger of Allah and all should submit unto Allah’s law as transcribed by him.
            The aggressive, supremacist nature of Islam makes it impossible for it to coexist in any society without subjugating that society to Islamic law once it has the power to do so. There is no place in Islam for democracy, equality or human rights, and Islam refuses to recognise man-made laws: there are only Allah’s laws, the Sharia. This makes Islam totally incompatible with a modern secular democracy, and it is why there can be no compromise with Islam. Islam is not about give and take; every slight concession we make to accommodate the Islamic way of life is seen as a weakness to be exploited and encourages further demands.

            They (and many others) are rejecting Islam on the grounds that it is a political ideology and not really a religion at all. I rather suspect that this type of thinking originates in the First Amendment, where religions have special protection, so they are trying to get around the fact that religions command special protection in our Western laws currently (that is also the case in UK in different ways). My own take on this is that Islam is both – a political ideology and a religion. As I explained in the first post, I strongly object to the idea that religions deserve any special status in our law. It is surely up to the religious to prove to us that their particular religions are not at odds with our political and legal system. Separation of church and state is absolutely paramount.

            The thing that worries me though when we mention Sharia law is that the sort of arguments I have heard from the “moderates” and “reformers” is that Islam does not need to include Sharia law. I think they are arguing that if they could just take Islam back to its “pure” form, i.e. base it purely on the Koran, then it would be compatible with Western democracy.

            For example:

            “That the sharia derives from the Koran is a myth,” the general secretary of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Hasan Mahmud, told IBTimesUK.


            I would also counter this point of view because I think you can make the argument that even if you look solely at the Koran then you could still come to the conclusion that it is a political ideology as well – Mohammed’s actions are clearly a warlike campaign to establish his own dictatorial rule, and this is justified by Allah’s “messages” in the Koran. The only problem from an Islamic perspective is deciding who exactly should take over when Mohammed dies (as I understand it this is the source of the Shia/Sunni split).

            Another point is that I suspect that apologists (Ben Affleck springs to mind) will say something like, but Muslims are just a helpless minority, they are not trying to overthrow our democracy, there aren’t enough of them to do that, they just want to eat some sandwiches!

            In summary I think we need to object to Islam on both grounds – it is a seditious movement against our democracy and it incites its followers to commit acts of violence.

            • There seem to be differences of opinion on the sources of sharia. Have a look at what Wikipedia says. Their authority claims far more for the Koran and hadith as sources, though they agree that other sources added to it. Numbers of laws perhaps less important than the intention of the law? Your argument that Islam would still be a political ideology without sharia holds good. A totalitarian supremacist ideology, commanding its acolytes to conquer and subjugate. That alone – all from the Koran itself it seems – makes it incompatible with the values of the West and the US Constitution.

              I agree heartily with your summary.

            • I did a bit of research thinking I might write on this sedition angle, but I found out that sedition was abolished in the UK in 2009. As far as I can discover the Communist Party of the UK has never been prosecuted by the authorities. It seems to me then that if we’re thinking about current legal approaches then the sedition angle makes sense from a US perspective, while the incitement angle does not, because of the requirement for “imminent harm”. However in the UK I think the incitement angle holds good under current law, for the reasons I set out in the fourth post.

              I’m inclined to think European countries would benefit from adopting a constitution like the US one – the US seems to have (so far at least) survived the huge attack on freedom of speech that the left having been waging. Liz Truss the new UK justice secretary has been proposing a Bill of Rights, but that’s a very different thing and as we’ve found out from the EU’s Human Rights Act that we adopted, such acts create more problems than they solve. Home secretaries have been thwarted time and again since it was adopted when they tried to deport criminals and terrorists etc. because the act grants the “right to a family life”. As someone rightly pointed out to me, people have rights, we don’t need governments to tell us what they are. The EU human rights act was supposed to defend freedom of expression but numerous European countries interfere with that “right” on a regular basis and even passed laws against that right since it was enacted. Somehow the US constitution seems to have been much more useful.

            • Yes, thus far the First Amendment has protected freedom of speech. But I doubt it would last long if Hillary came to power. She’s been trying to submit to the OIC’s demands to forbid criticism of Islam for years now. And she has many reasons of her own to fear free speech.

              Your analysis of what would work in the US and what would work in the UK seems good to me.

              I much prefer the idea that “we are free to … ” rather than that “we have a right to … “. Did you see our post yesterday on the origin of American liberty?

              I see that Theresa May has taken a first step with a Bill to implement Brexit. That’s very good news.

            • Indeed it seems that Hillary and Obama don’t care one jot about the US constitution.

              Yes TM is at least looking as if she means business on Brexit although of course I’d still prefer another PM. We can revive that debate in earnest post article 50 (the borders appear to be as undefended as ever etc.).

    • liz

      “..if they are susceptible to the idea that 7th century barbaric acts are condoned by their god.” – Exactly! This particular trait that Muslims somehow possess puts them on the same mental level with lunatics and the mentally retarded. We don’t import lunatics and idiots by the hordes – why should we do the equivalent of that with Muslims?

  • liz

    Yes, just as there are millions of Christians who either don’t know, or if they do, ignore, Jesus command to “sell all your possessions…” there are probably millions of Muslims who are either ignorant of, or who ignore Mohammed’s command to kill unbelievers. But all religions have their “revivals” that call true believers back to their roots. We’ve survived Christian revivals for centuries – evangelists make money preaching repentance, and everyone goes home.
    The Islamic version of revival is infidel killing – not survivable.
    Which is why we can’t treat Islam as just another religion. It will never become a benign anachronism like other religions have.