Georgy Gounev, firstname.lastname@example.org September 9, 2011
Is there such a thing as radical Islam?
The authors of a rather pretentious report entitled “Fear,Inc – the Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” created by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington D.C. based left-wing think tank are absolutely certain that there is no such thing. They go even further with their claim that everyone who holds the opposite view is a sinister character obsessed by a dark force with the name of Islamophobia.
Unlike the case with the allegedly nonexistent radical version of Islam, the creators of the report have a crystal clear definition of Islamophobia expressed in the following lines: “Before we begin a word about the term Islamophobia. We don’t use this term lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.” (1)
This definition looks quite clear. Byfollowing through the exhaustive report however, the reader will discover a huge abnormality. Obviously, the authors of the report have ignored a very important requirement mandatory for anyone who is trying to analyze the surrounding realities. The rule is a really simple one: Before addressing the nature and the degree of any reaction to some important development, the phenomenon causing the reaction has to be analyzed first. In other words, without saying a word about the nature of radical Islam, the CAP report attacks the individuals and the organizations trying to attract the public attention on the magnitude of the danger stemming from radical Islam.
The publication creates as well a completely wrong image of the Muslim community presented as a collective victim exposed to a permanent bashing from the conservative and vicious “right-wingers” who, without any apparent reason, hate all Muslims. By the way, this statement is in full-keeping with the Jihadist propaganda which also claims that the Muslim community is under permanent attack from the Islamophobes. Behind those claims is hidden the desire to conceal the identity and the main features of radical Islam.
Regardless of the huge ideological difference separating CAP from some of the individuals its authors are criticizing in one important aspect their attitudes with regard to the Muslim community are equally wrong.
From the leftist point of view, the Muslim community represents a monolithic and good entity subjected to the assaults of bad and hysterical right wingers. From the point of view of some conservatives though the same community is also monolithic, but in a bad way, because, according to them, Islam is not a religion in the true sense of the term, but rather a kind of a cult.
The wrongness of both extreme views has two aspects. The first one starts from the correct premise that Islam is a unifying force providing the common bond between the different segments of the gigantic global Muslim community. What the holders of those views fail to see, are the divisions within the same community. Due to this fact, the aforementioned holders of the opposite views are not able to see the huge difference between medieval Islam and its contemporary extreme version.
Far from trying to hide or idealize the numerous rough sides of medieval Islam, it is beyond any doubt that the Jihadists have broken many of the Koranic requirements. The Koran, for instance, is very specific in its explicit condemnation of any murder of a Muslim committed by another Muslim. Inspired by the hateful ideologies of Saudi related Wahhabism or by the Iran related Shia branch of Islamo- totalitarianism, the Jihadists violate this important rule on a daily basis.
Although there is much more to it – as a matter of fact, the Islamic fundamentalists murdered more Muslims than the representatives of any other religion. In the eyes of the Wahhabists, the rest of the Muslims are “heretics,” and consequently, they are even more dangerous than the Christians or the Jews. The murders of Muslims planned and executed by the Wahhabists, became a part of the daily life in Algeria throughout the nineties of the last century, and in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Nigeria, and Bangladesh during the last decade. Since 2001, in Pakistan alone 35,000 Muslims have fallen victim of the conflict unleashed by the Islamo-totalitarians.
Another Koranic rule is also conveniently forgotten by all those who think that contemporary Jihadism is just a part of the traditional main-line Islam. This rule stipulates that suicide is an absolutely forbidden option for every Muslim. The very act of suicide ranks prominently amongst the unforgivable sins of the Islamic ethos. The “arguments” provided by high-ranking Wahhabists in defense of the suicidal murderers to the effect that the Yemeni, Pakistani, Iraqi, and Afghan victims are “not true Muslims,” could hardly satisfy a strict follower of the main tenets of Islam. If such a follower is silent, it means that he is frightened by the murderous mayhem running supreme across most of the Muslim world.
What however, leaves a particularly bad mark on the CAP report is the fact that deliberately or not, it demonstrates a complete blindness to the danger emanating from radical Islam. By ignoring this danger, the authors of the report are facing the serious probability that one day their strategy and performance will be evaluated as a treasonous act.
The reason for the emergence of such an opinion expresses itself in their systemic failure to understand the dynamics of the Islamization of Europe and the Islamo-totalitarian long-term challenge to the American policymakers.
What the CAP experts evidently don’t realize is the fact that their attitudes are far from unique. There are two equally correct definitions involving the role of the collaborators with evil, although given by two men symbolizing the opposite sides of the political spectrum. It was the creator of the first totalitarian state in human history, Vladimir Lenin, who called the wealthy and capitalistic sympathizers of communism – “useful idiots.”
A decade later, in the eyes of Sir Winston Churchill, the actions of the pacifiers of Adolph Hitler were similar to the actions of somebody who is feeding a crocodile with the hope that he will be the last one to be eaten. Had he been alive today the great British statesman would have seen the same logic and the same pattern in the actions of the pacifiers of the Islamo- totalitarian crocodile.