Join Daniel Pipes on a
trip to Israel's Negev desert, with side visits to explore the recent
Gaza war. For more information, please click here.
Dear Reader:
I appeared on the Milt Rosenberg radio show (long: 1½ hours) on March
3: It can be heard by clicking here.
I appeared on Press TV on March 4 to discuss the Iran vs. ISIS battle
for Tikrit. It can be watched by clicking here.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Pipes
Why Politicians Pretend Islam Has No Role in Violence
|
|
|
Share:
|
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Prominent non-Muslim political figures have embarrassed themselves by
denying the self-evident connection of Islam to the Islamic State (ISIS)
and to Islamist violence in Paris and Copenhagen, even claiming these are
contrary to Islam. What do they hope to achieve through these falsehoods
and what is their significance?
First, a sampling
of the double talk:
President Barack Obama tells the world that ISIS
"is not Islamic" because its
"actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith." He
holds
"we are not at war with Islam [but] with people who have perverted
Islam."
British Prime
Minister David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Obama agree that
violence perverts Islam.
|
Secretary of State John Kerry echoes him: ISIS
consists
of "coldblooded killers masquerading as a religious movement"
who promote a "hateful ideology has nothing do with Islam." His
spokesperson, Jen Psaki,
goes further: the terrorists "are enemies of Islam."
Jeh
Johnson, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, assents: "ISIL
is [not] Islamic." My favorite: Howard
Dean, the former Democrat governor of Vermont, says of the Charlie
Hebdo attackers, "They're about as Muslim as I am."
Howard Dean, former
governor of Vermont, has declared himself a Muslim?
|
Europeans speak identically: David Cameron, the Conservative British
prime minister, portrays ISIS
as "extremists who want to abuse Islam" and who "pervert
the Islamic faith." He calls Islam
"a religion of peace" and dismisses ISIS members as not
Muslims, but "monsters." His immigration minister, James
Brokenshire, argues that terrorism and extremism "have nothing
to do with Islam."
On the Labour side, former British prime minister Tony
Blair finds ISIS ideology to be "based in a complete perversion
of the proper faith of Islam," while a former home secretary, Jack
Straw, denounces "the medieval barbarity of ISIS and its
ilk" which he deems "completely contrary to Islam."
Across the channel, French president François Hollande
insists that the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher criminals
"have nothing to do with the Muslim faith." His prime minister,
Manuel
Valls, concurs: "Islam has nothing to do with ISIS."
Dutch Prime Minister Mark
Rutte echoes the same theme: "ISIS is a terrorist organization
which misuses Islam." Daniel
Cohn-Bendit, a left-wing German politician, calls the Paris murderers
fascists, not Muslims. From Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe agrees: "Extremism and Islam are completely different
things."
This is not a new view: for example, prior
U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also aired their insights
about what is and is not Islam, though less assertively.
Summarizing these statements, which come straight out of the Islamist
playbook: Islam is purely a religion of peace, so violence and barbarism
categorically have nothing to do with it; indeed, these
"masquerade" and "pervert" Islam. By implication,
more Islam is needed to solve these "monstrous" and
"barbaric" problems.
But, of course, this interpretation neglects the scriptures of Islam
and the history of Muslims, seeped in the assumption of superiority
toward non-Muslims and the righteous
violence of jihad. Ironically, ignoring the Islamic impulse
means foregoing the best tool to defeat jihadism: for, if the problem
results not from an interpretation of Islam, but from random evil and
irrational impulses, how can one possibly counter it? Only acknowledging
the legacy of Islamic
imperialism opens ways to re-interpret the faith's scriptures in
modern, moderate, and good-neighborly ways.
Why, then, do powerful politicians make ignorant and counterproductive
arguments, ones they surely know to be false, especially as violent
Islamism spreads (think of Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, and the Taliban)?
Cowardice and multiculturalism play a role, to be sure, but two other
reasons have more importance:
First, they want not to offend Muslims, who they fear are more prone
to violence if they perceive non-Muslims pursuing a "war on
Islam." Second, they worry that focusing on Muslims means
fundamental changes to the secular order, while denying an Islamic
element permits avoid troubling issues. For
example, it permits airplane security to look for passengers' weapons
rather than engage in Israeli-style interrogations.
According to
non-Muslim politicians these Taliban members have nothing to do with
Islam.
|
My prediction: Denial will continue unless violence increases. In
retrospect, the 3,000 victims of 9/11 did not shake non-Muslim
complacency. The nearly
30,000 fatalities from Islamist terrorism since then also have not
altered the official line. Perhaps 300,000 dead will cast aside worries
about Islamist sensibilities and a reluctance to make profound social
changes, replacing these with a determination to fight a radical utopian
ideology; three million dead will surely suffice.
Without such casualties, however, politicians will likely continue
with denial because it's easier that way. I regret this – but prefer it
to the alternative.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org,
@DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2015 by Daniel
Pipes. All rights reserved.
This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment