Will the Obama administration now make an issue out of where Hasan got his “violent Islamic extremism” from?
Wow, according to Fox News, Janet Napolitano just described what happened at Fort Hood as “violent Islamic extremism.”
This is quite a step. How long did it take her to figure this one out?
It must be hard, after all, when you’re a person who heads Homeland Security but who has no idea who the 9/11 hijackers were – and thinks that they came from Canada. It’s really difficult when your first instinct after Abdulmutallab almost blew himself up on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, is to say that the airport security “system worked.”
Hmmm, I wonder if Napolitano will now confirm that thirteen American heroes lost their lives at Fort Hood precisely because of people like her, who have created a culture in which naming Islamic extremism and crystallizing its roots is disallowed? Major Nidal Malik Hasan would have been thrown out of the army a long time before his shooting spree if members of the army were not afraid to get in trouble for violating “diversity” and felt safe to point a finger at a Muslim who was preaching hate and violence against non-Muslims.
Will Napolitano and the Obama administration now make an issue out of where Hasan got his “violent Islamic extremism” from? Indeed, from where oh where could Hasan have possibly got the idea that he was supposed to kill the kafir? Hmmm, could it have been from the Verse of the Sword of the Koran (9:5)?
Hmmm, could it have been from all the other Koranic verses? (i.e. 9:29).
This is just all so mysterious.
Is the Obama administration now going to talk about how Hasan’s and Abdullmutallab’s actions, and, well, you know, things like 9/11, just might have something to do with the fact that 61% of the Koran is devoted to the hatred of non-Muslims, that 75% of the Sira (the life of Mohammed) is devoted to jihad, and that 20% of the Hadith is in reference to the necessity of subjugating and killing the infidel?
I wonder, could any of this have anything to do with the fact that nowhere in Islamic theology is there even one positive reference to kafirs and even the slightest suggestion that a Muslim should love them as much as he loves himself?
How do we win this terror war if our administration not only refuses to fight the enemy on many realms, but to even name him?
The issue here is not to demonize Muslims. Many Muslims, like Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji, are fighting to reform Islam and to bring it into the modern and democratic world. We must support them. Millions of Muslims suffer from persecution under Sharia Law. We must help them. The key is that it is time to be honest about what Islamic theology inspires and sanctions. The key is that the onus is on the Muslim world to confront these teachings and to negate them if there is to be any possibility for an end to this conflict.
Napolitano’s step is a positive one. But do we hold our breath for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and to name not only Islamic jihad as our enemy, but to also name the Islamic theology that spawns it?
To get the whole story on why the lib-Left and the Obama administration refuse to name the jihadist enemy, read Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.