By Word Warrior and Russell Farris
The Boston Marathon bombings, by a seemingly “average” college student and his more obviously troubled and radicalized older brother has led to discussion on our policy towards Muslim immigrants; and our Visa policy regarding foreign students in general. What it should also trigger is a meaningful policy discussion on the nature of Islamic violence. Because unlike any other religion in the world, violence is an integral part of Islam.
The problem lies within the Quran itself.
The Quran is no easy read. It is also not a gentle book of enlightening prose. The “Prophet” was no Kahil Gibran, and the Quran is not “The Prophet“. It is the hodge-podge mumblings of a mean old pedophile. Muhammad’s words were collected during his epileptic-like seizures (according to Philip Schaff, during his revelations Muhammad “sometimes growled like a camel, foamed at his mouth, and streamed with perspiration.” ). A study of the book (a task for only the most perseverant) leads to the inescapable conclusion that believers are repeatedly directed to convert, enslave, or kill all non-believers (in that order).
I will grant that most educated Muslims (particularly American Muslims) choose to ignore those instructions; or try to explain them away. They are the nice face of Islam. When explained by such spokesmen, “Jihad” becomes an internal, spiritual struggle; rather than holy war against the infidel. Islam becomes a religion of peace, ignoring the fact that the Muslim World (and all other lands with a large Muslim minority) are the most violent, non-peaceful places on earth. Since 9/11/01, there has been an average of 5 attacks a day by Muslim terrorists!
But to the truly dedicated, observant, fundamentalist Muslims these more cerebral (nice) Muslims aren’t really Muslims at all. To the ones we call “radicals”, a real Muslim has the Allah-given task of converting, enslaving, or killing the rest of us.
“Good Muslims” are commanded to kill other Muslims who stray from the path. Consequently, the nice Muslims have to keep their mouths shut. This slows down the spread of the nicer varieties of Islam; while the radicalization of Mosques (or “cells” within those Mosques) goes unabated.
This week has seen even dedicated liberals, like Bob Beckel, call for a slowing of Muslim immigration and a reexamination of our Student Visa policy. But the real problem is how do we distinguish the nice Muslim immigrants from those that want to kill us and subvert our democracy (which they consider Satanic)? The oath of allegiance taken by naturalized citizens, to the country and constitution, should weed out the bad ones. Except that the swearing of false oaths and other means of deceiving the infidel are an integral part of Islam, when deemed necessary in the defense of Islam. And as we see in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, even seemingly nice Muslims can change into bad ones.
Progressives have a pathological need to ignore the differences in people. Though profiling is a proven, effective tool of law enforcement, liberals consider this tantamount to racism. David Sirota, for example, objects to us treating white, non-Islamic terrorists differently than non-white or Islamic terrorists (“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American”; Salon, Apr 16, 2013).
But there are almost zero white non-Islamic terrorists. Those few that did exist in the recent past, such as Germany’s infamous Baader–Meinhof gang, the Irish Republican Army, or our own Weather Underground (compliments of the President’s friend Bill Ayres) were leftist radicals or a part of nationalist liberation movements; and have mostly faded away after the fall of the Iron Curtain. If any white, non-Islamic groups should commit acts of terror they should indeed be treated just like non-white or Islamic terrorists. (The speedy trial and subsequent execution of Timothy McVeigh demonstrate that we, in fact, do just that; undermining Sirota’s contention to the contrary.)
Most horrible things done today by white non-Muslims are not acts of terrorism: they are individual manifestations of deranged minds. White, non-Islamic killers are almost never parts of larger groups that brain-wash them, train them, or finance them. That is, at this point in history, a manifestation of radical Islam.
Religiously, it is unique to Islam. There are no Christian terrorist organizations or movements, financing and sponsoring terrorism in the name of Christ. Nor are there any such Buddhist nor Hindu groups.
Liberals hate the idea of evil. But radical Islam is as evil in the 21st Century as Christianity sometimes was in the Middle Ages. And Islam has no prospect of getting any better, of internal reformation because the evil in it comes from its most fundamental tenets.
The evil in Christianity came from ignoring its fundamental tenets.
 Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church. Third edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Volume 4, Chapter III, section 42 “Life and Character of Mohammed”