“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
This is pure claptrap. Everyone understands that the West is not at war with Islam broadly, and that an overwhelming percentage of Muslims reject violent extremism. It’s been beaten into our heads by politicians of all stripes since 9/11, and we’re generally bright enough to draw the relevant distinction: “These Muslims over here are just peaceful, faithful people living their lives, whereas those Muslims over there are radical and seek to impose a toxic strain of their faith via terror and violence. We have no quarrel with the former group, which thankfully represents the large majority; the latter group must be confronted and defeated.” This dynamic isn’t hard. It can be quickly and easily explained, yet we are constantly bombarded with dumb, sanitized denialism like Hillary’s second sentence above. Instead of treating us like adults, we’re infantilized. And to what end? Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, we’re instructed, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. This last bit is insultingly preposterous. Some Muslims have quite a lot to do with terrorism, actually. Like the ones who were led by their hardcore theology to kill 3,000 people on 9/11. Or blow up trains in Spain. Or target London’s public transit system with bombs. Or slaughter students at a Kenyan university. Or Devastate a nightclub in Indonesia. Or shoot up a shopping mall in Nairobi. Or lay siege to a hotel in Mumbai. Or terrorize Nigerian schoolgirls. Or, you know, take hostages in Mali. I could go on for some time. But those aren’t real Muslims, our Thought Leaders inform us. Islamists loudly beg to differ — and wouldn’t they know a lot more about their motives and religious teachings than Western purveyors of bumper sticker feel-goodery? Try this: Ask someone who’s convinced jihadists shouldn’t be considered Muslims whether or not Osama bin Laden’s corpse should have been discarded with no regard for Islamic traditions. Or whether the terrorists at Gitmo should be deprived of prayer mats, or Halal meals, or Korans. Maybe some enterprising reporter will ask Hillary these questions someday. In any case, the “nothing to do with terrorism” line is plainly nonsense. The more difficult part is the “peaceful and tolerant” phrase. It’s absolutely true that a huge preponderance of Muslims worldwide abhor and reject religious violence. But as I explored in a piece after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there is a worrisomely sizable strain of abject illiberalism that runs through mainstream Islam. Data from Pew, a respected global pollster, gathered two years ago:
I have to admit that I cannot get a grasp on why western nations are begging for migrants from the Middle East and East Africa to come into their countries. Canada is gearing up to take in 25,000 Syrian “refugees” within the next six weeks. Why? Why would the Prime Minister of Canada put Canadian citizens at risk? That’s precisely what he’s doing. That’s what Obama is doing. It’s not even a “gamble” or a “roll of the dice.” It’s a sure thing that active terrorists will be amongst the refugees and innocent people are going to be killed. So, again, why? The only logical explanation I can come up with is the leader of Canada is compromised, bought. Now, Obama I can understand why he wants the migrants. He hates America and Americans. Hillary, I know she’s been bought. That’s how the Clintons roll. I hope there are enough Americans liberal and conservative who have enough sense to see the eminent danger of welcoming Muslims by the thousands from the Middle East and will keep Hillary far away from the White House.