SAN DIEGO, Nov. 20, 2015 — This time it was Paris, but the savages who boastfully accept responsibility for the slaughter say that next time it will be New York City, Washington, D. C., or someplace similar.
There has been another horrific attack. Theaters, stadiums and cafes, places civilized people go to unwind from a hard day at work and to enjoy themselves, have been left splattered with blood.
Once again, the perpetrators—ISIS—claim that they acted for the sake of their faith, Islam.
Once again, instead of taking them at their word, people are seeking out any other possible explanation. It is an attempt to explain the unthinkable by hiding from the obvious: “Sometimes people do evil things simply because they are evil; therefore they enjoy an evil ideology which gives them a green light.”
Once again, everyone from President Obama to former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to media pundits is lecturing sanctimoniously about what a beautiful religion of peace Islam is. They say that those who say they kill in the name of Islam are not its true representatives. They accuse anyone who ties the word “terrorism” to Islam of bigotry.
Referring to the actions of ISIS as “terror in the name of Islam” is not bigotry; it takes the killers at their word. Is their claim true? Do the representatives of ISIS have bonafide Islamic teachings to justify their acts?
We must start with the Quran. It is the Quran itself that is being held up to scrutiny here, not the entire Muslim world population.
There are many peaceful Muslims who hate what ISIS has done. But while every Muslim must be judged on an individual basis, Islam itself is another matter. Surah 9 and many other passages of the Koran really do call upon Muslims to conquer the world, offering “infidels” the choice of converting, submitting to Muslim rule or death.
That is a powerful and controversial claim that raises many objections:
“But only the terrorists take those words seriously.”
No. The terrorists interpret the Koran accurately, but many Muslims who are not terrorists still take those passages seriously. After all, to them, the Koran is sacred scripture.
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (Surah 9).
“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to one another” (Surah 48).
“Aren’t those verses taken out of context?”
Context is important. What the original speaker means to say and what his original hearers understand him to mean are the context. Mohammad really did wage these kinds of wars. The words are not being taken out of context.
“Then is there no such thing as a moderate Muslim?”
Many Muslims call themselves moderate, but the Koran leaves no room for moderation. Those who consider themselves moderate Muslims are only nominal Muslims.
What do we mean by nominal? There are people who know almost nothing about the Bible other than a few choice ideas taken out of context, people who call themselves “Christians” because they were raised to call themselves “Christians.” These are nominal Christians.
There are likewise many people born into Muslim countries or raised by Muslim families, who if you asked them if they believed in the Quran would say, “yes.” If you asked if they believed in the jihad, they would deny it and they would be telling the truth. There are millions of such people, and yes, they are peaceful Muslims.
There are also Muslims who see the jihad verses and choose to interpret them differently.
However, any Muslim who takes the Quran seriously and literally, who truly understands the entire message, not only accepts the Jihad commands, but also believes that it is okay to lie during a time of war.
Mohammad says it himself:
“Lying is wrong, except in three things; the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him, a lie to an enemy, for war is deception, or a lie to settle trouble between people” (Hadith, Mussnad Ahmad 6:459).
If Muslims are allowed to lie during a time of war and deny that they believe in jihad, a serious question begs to be asked: When is militant Islam not at war?
This explains why the idea of a “moderate” organization like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) having ties to terrorist groups is not a stretch of the imagination.
Although CAIR officials deny the connection, FBI agent Lara Burns, giving testimony at a 2010 trial regarding CAIR’s connection with the Palestine Committee and its relationship to Hamas, read from the transcript of a 1993 Hamas supporter group in Philadelphia that discussed the idea of starting a new organization with a less threatening name. She quoted Holy Land Foundation President Shukri Abu Baker:
“And let’s not hoist a large Islamic flag, and let’s not be barbaric-talking. We will remain a front so that if the thing happens, we will benefit from the new happenings instead of having all of our organizations classified and exposed.”
Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha pointed to similar connections in a 2005 article for Front Page Magazine: “The Institute of Islamic Thought, an institution linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave CAIR’s Washington office $14,000.00 in 2003.”
Whether we’re talking about the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas or the most current horrific incarnation of evil, ISIS, each organization is really the same cereal in different boxes. The accurate title describing all of them is Militant Islam.
Although “militant Islam” is really just the literal teaching of the Quran, we can use the term as a conventional reference point. In doing so we distinguish peaceful from non-peaceful Muslims.
All branches of militant Islam have declared war on the non-Muslim and have specifically articulated this goal as war against United States. Since they get their cues from the Quran and not U.S. Middle Eastern policy, we’d best put away the self imposed guilt, mindless diplomacy, and ultimately useless surgical military responses. The only way to end this war is to truly win this war.
Yes, there are many nominal Muslims, but a dedicated Muslim who accepts the Quran literally and truly understands it is not allowed to be moderate. It is time for U.S. foreign policy to end its own moderation.
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and a columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net