Re Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say ‘radical Islam’
December 6, 2015 Leave a comment
STEPHANOPOULOS: You put — you’ve also been reluctant to say we’re fighting radical Islam. And I wonder why not.
Isn’t it a mistake not to say it plain, that the violence is being pushed by radical elements in that faith?
CLINTON: Well, that’s a different thing. Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions, I’m fine with that. I say it all the time and I go after Islamic, too.
So “Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions” provides more clarity than “radical Islam” (or even more focused and on-point, “radical Islamism”)?
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what’s the problem with radical Islam?
CLINTON: Well, the problem is that that sounds like we are declaring war against a religion. And that, to me, is, number one, wrong but…
Actually, the failure to differentiate radical Islamists from garden-variety Muslims is what makes it sound like we are declaring war against a religion.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though the qualifier radical is there?
CLINTON: No, because, look, that — you know enough about religion, you’ve studied it. And there are radicals, people who believe all kinds of things in every religion in the world.
The Left never tires of this idiotic false equivalence. The most virulent and widespread current form of religiously-based extremism, radical Islamism, is based in Islam–is a subset, not the totality, of Islam–not Hinduism, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, etc.
I don’t want to do that because, number one, it doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people.
First of all, be careful comparing American Muslims, who overwhelmingly reject radical Islamism, to Muslims elsewhere (and even in the latter case, there’s a lot of variation, region to region).
Secondly, the failure to clearly differentiate Islamism in particular, from Islam in general, associates the latter with the former by default, which Ms. Clinton employs such tortured verbiage supposedly trying to avoid.
Those who pretend that Islamism is a mere mutation of an otherwise benign religion, like any other, are no more thoughtful than those who pretend that Muslims are All One Violent Thing–and that Islam invariably descends into Islamism (which latter view perversely dovetails with the primary argument made by Islamists).
In other words, the Religion of Peace crowd are just as cartoonish in their global pronouncements as the Religion of Pieces crows.
Number two, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying we’re in a war against the West. You must join us. If you are a Muslim, you must join us.
Blah blah blah, keep hammering on that Rubio reference like it makes your argument more coherent.
The primary recruiting tool of radical Islamists is an idiotic denial of reality by Western leaders–a refusal to clearly state that we are at war with radical Islamism because radical Islamism long ago declared war on us; that, and our stupid insistence that, contra reformist Muslims, Islam is not really undergoing an existential upheaval brought about by the Islamofascist strain of Islam. Instead, we in the West only need to alter our language to magically create the world that we wish to exist, goes the clear implication of Ms. Clinton’s words.
No. If you’re a law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim, you need to be with us against those who are distorting Islam.
Let me be clear, Mrs. Clinton:
Your interpretations of Islam are neither here nor there. The one thing you do need to understand, though, is that Islam is many things throughout the world. And radical Islamism, which you play such tortured word games to avoid identifying, is just as at war with “law-abiding, peace-loving” Muslims as it is with the West.
And you, Madame Secretary, are just squirting out rhetorical squid ink trying to avoid the cruel reality that exists outside your wishes and assertions. In doing so, you ensure that many more in the Muslim world, and in the West, will have their lives ripped apart by what you are so squeamish about identifying.