A Letter to Charles Krauthammer on Islam
Below is a letter I wrote to Charles Krauthammer regarding his most recent article on Islam.
I appreciate your calling out of Obama, Holder & Co. on their disingenuousness (to put it politely) with regard to Islam. It is not only hugely destructive to fail to recognize our enemies, but also shows complicity when this administration poo poos the theo-political ideology of Islam.
While I laud your effort to shed light on this topic, I do take issue with some of your assertions regarding Islam, and wanted to get some clarification on it.
You say in your most recent article:
“Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism.
Instead, President Obama’s National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy — how else do you define those seeking your destruction? — “a loose network of violent extremists.” But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill.”
What radical interpretation of Islam is it exactly to which you are referring?
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan was quite honest when he said said with regard to “moderate Islam” that ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Surely you know that Muslims have been partaking in violent jihad for 1400 years.
But I would imagine as well you are familiar with the Koranic concepts of taqiyya and abrogation — the former the Islamic principle that it is ok to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam and the latter that the violent verses revealed chronologically later by Allah supplant his earlier peaceful words.
Moreover, Islam itself means submission. Nonbelievers must either convert, be killed by the sword or live as dhimmis, second-class oppressed citizens forced to pay a tax and essentially banned from their cultural and spiritual practices.
If by so-called “fundamentalism,” you mean to say that portions of Muslims literally use the Koran as justification to commit violent acts of jihad in the cause of world Islamic supremacy, then I will grant that this term is proper. However, what about all of the peaceful Muslims that work to advance dhimmitude and the imposition of Sharia Law and ultimately Muslim domination more subtly, for example by chilling criticism of Islam through bodies like CAIR and ISNA, or by forcing Western society to create separate facilities and make other cultural accommodations specifically for Muslims? What about all of the peaceful Muslims that give money to mosques and Muslim foundations that produce terrorists and support terrorist states and leaders who work to deceive us when it comes to Islam through taqiyya? What about all of the peaceful Muslims who believe in everything the Koran says, including the parts about the imposition of worldwide Sharia Law and Muslim dominance, and work however they can to bring this about, but don’t kill people to carry out this cause?
Whether Muslims are peaceful or not is not the important thing however, nor does it matter how one interprets the Koran. What matters are the fundamental tenets of the religion, most importantly that its end is a world united under Islamic law and subservient to Allah, and that the means to this end can take peaceful and/or violent forms depending on their efficacy. Is there any other way to interpret what the Koran says? Certainly if you read the works of scholars far more knowledgeable about the topic than I such as Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Ibn Warraq and any other of a number of apostates, it would seem that there are not. There are certainly peaceful Muslims, but a religion that is not only intolerant of other religions but seeks to supplant other religions cannot be a peaceful one itself.
I submit that Islam is a theo-political ideology which directs its followers to work towards its end goal of world Islamic domination, and no matter how you interpret it, it is incompatible with Western Civilization. Failure to recognize the danger of the ideology itself, not various interpretations of it, is in my view suicidal.