Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Our Military Won’t Defeat Islamism

 

Does anyone think that Donald Trump’s military plans for Afghanistan and Iraq are going to make a significant difference regarding Islamist violence? Do you believe that “destroying ISIS” will have any significant impact on terrorism in the long term?

I don’t. And I’m concerned that we are deluding ourselves by pursuing these military strategies as a major goal. So what should we do?

We must take a more aggressive approach to defeating political Islam. Let me explain my thinking.

Recently M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim and former Lt. Commander in the US Navy, who has been attacking radical Islam for years, wrote an essay including this comment:

It is vital that we pay close and vigilant attention to ISIS: its plans, its whereabouts, and its public statements. We must also pursue it, relentlessly and until it is decimated. Sadly, this is the same tail we chase with the rise of each radical Islamist terror group in what has become a global whack-a-mole program. As we were on the verge of decimating al-Qaeda, the violent jihadist brand shifted to ISIS. Without treating the real root cause of theocratic Islamism, any chance of decimating ISIS will disappear as the global terror movement shifts to the latest “brand” of violent jihad.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali shares similar views on political Islam in her book, The Challenge of Dawa, for which John Walker wrote a fine review. In her book she writes:

President Trump now has the chance to broaden our strategy. Instead of “combating violent extremism,” his administration needs to redefine the threat posed by political Islam by recognizing it as an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our freedoms and a movement that is working insidiously but effectively to achieve its stated utopia. I argue that the American public urgently needs to be educated about both the ideology of political Islam and the organizational infrastructure called dawa that Islamists use to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, finance, and mobilize those Muslims whom they win over to their cause.

She added the following point:

The administration should acknowledge that combating political Islam by military means alone is not working.

How do we go after political Islam? We must go after all forms of political Islam, whether or not they are violent, and do everything we can to prevent the distribution of this virulent, hateful and destructive ideology that plans to dominate the world.

The biggest culprit in the distribution of this hatred: Saudi Arabia. How did the Saudi regime, one of the most decadent and biggest violators of Islamist tenets, become the primary purveyors of Islam?

In 1964, King Faisal decided to collaborate with the Wahhabis and in spite of his modern ideas, funded the spread of Wahhabism all over the world. From that time forward, Saudi Arabia spent billions:

Over the next four decades, in non-Muslim-majority countries alone, Saudi Arabia would build 1,359 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges and 2,000 schools. Saudi money helped finance 16 American mosques; four in Canada; and others in London, Madrid, Brussels and Geneva, according to a report in an official Saudi weekly, Ain al-Yaqeen.

There are a number of problems we face in tackling political Islam, mostly our own political agenda. We don’t want to damage our relationship with Saudi Arabia; after all, they have also helped us to fight terrorism. We are “encouraging” Pakistan to more aggressively attack terrorist groups and refuse to give them safe haven, yet Pakistan has also received significant funds from Saudi Arabia to support Wahhabi education. The Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, India and parts of Africa are funded by the Wahhabis.

There are other ways to stop the incursion of political Islam:

A new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance. Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the ‘Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act’ makes it unlawful for ‘foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.’

To ‘promote a religion’ includes funding ‘religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.’ Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.

It was noted that the bill still needed work. And it’s no surprise: the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in August 2016 and is still there. Whether this bill has a chance of being passed in any form is debatable.

So what else can we do? Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes several recommendations in her book. Some of her most challenging ideas include identifying genuine moderate Muslim communities who have no relationship or history with extreme groups (which eliminates several popular organizations); prohibiting government agencies from working with non-violent Islamist groups such as ISNA and the Muslim Student Affairs Association; screening immigrants for beliefs in Islamist ideologies; screening and rejecting prison chaplains with Islamist views; conducting surveillance of Islamic centers and mosques suspected of association with Islamist groups; revoking tax exempt status for Islamist organizations.

We may always need to fight political Islam; it is an insidious virus that may not have a permanent cure. But once we free ourselves of our fear of being accused of Islamaphobia or being pre-occupied with the reactions of other foreign governments to our actions, we may finally be in the business of providing effective national security for our country.

What other suggestions do you have for fighting political Islam at its roots?

There are 91 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Member

    Susan Quinn: Does anyone think that Donald Trump’s military plans for Afghanistan and Iraq are going to make a significant difference regarding Islamist violence? Do you believe that “destroying ISIS” will have any significant impact on terrorism in the long term?

    I was watching Bill Maher last night-I like to watch his show to see what the other side is saying. Strangely, he actually supported keeping troops in Afghanistan, for reasons that I should have thought of before but hadn’t. The stronger ISIS, the taliban, whatever you want to call it, is in Afghanistan, the more power they will have in Pakistan, and Pakistan is the real concern, because they have nukes. As Bill Maher explained it, keeping a presence in Afghanistan is one way of keeping Pakistan at least partly on our side, as opposed to totally against us. Obviously, this isn’t enough, and I am fully on board with everything you suggest; military action is only part of the answer.

    • #1
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:01 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  2. Hypatia Inactive

    In fighting ISIS, we’re fighting an old fashioned ground war for territory. We have to do it. But I agree that If we win, that won’t determine the ideological battle. Cuz here’s the most important ideology we have to ” defeat”: the American Left.

    And the Left loooooves losers. Nobody believes this now, but it loved the Confederacy for decades. It loved Communism. It loves socialism. Losers all.

    So it’s almost like,: even if we win, we lose.

    But we have to win the military battle.

    Or there will be no argument at all.

    • #2
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:14 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Judithann Campbell (View Comment):
    As Bill Maher explained it, keeping a presence in Afghanistan is one way of keeping Pakistan at least partly on our side, as opposed to totally against us.

    Thanks, Judithann. The only point I’d make is that we’ve had no reason to worry about Pakistan’s nukes. I don’t know either whether keeping troops in Afghanistan will be helpful in terms of our relationship with Pakistan. Something to think bout, though.

    • #3
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:20 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    So it’s almost like,: even if we win, we lose.

    But we have to win the military battle.

    Or there will be no argument at all.

    So true, Hypatia. But I’d like to see us start to focus on more than the military. After all, we have NK to worry about, too. I’d hope we could walk and chew gum!

    • #4
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:21 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Profile Photo Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Judithann Campbell (View Comment):
    As Bill Maher explained it, keeping a presence in Afghanistan is one way of keeping Pakistan at least partly on our side, as opposed to totally against us.

    Thanks, Judithann. The only point I’d make is that we’ve had no reason to worry about Pakistan’s nukes. I don’t know either whether keeping troops in Afghanistan will be helpful in terms of our relationship with Pakistan. Something to think bout, though.

    I am definitely not an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that we have no reason to worry about Pakistan’s nukes right now because those in charge of Pakistan are relatively sane, right now. But if we allow Islamist groups to run rampant in Afghanistan, it is possible that at some point they could take over Pakistan, and that would definitely be something to worry about.

    • #5
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  6. Kevin Schulte Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    In fighting ISIS, we’re fighting an old fashioned ground war for territory. We have to do it. But I agree that If we win, that won’t determine the ideological battle. Cuz here’s the most important ideology we have to ” defeat”: the American Left.

    And the Left loooooves losers. Nobody believes this now, but it loved the Confederacy for decades. It loved Communism. It loves socialism. Losers all.

    So it’s almost like,: even if we win, we lose.

    But we have to win the military battle.

    Or there will be no argument at all.

    Agree with Hypatia 100% . They are the number 1 problem in this fight.

    Susan the 2nd greatest problem is this. I typed up a couple of paragraphs on how to address this in a successful way. I deleted it. I felt the need to self censor because I would be label a bigot. Jordan Peterson on one of his video’s . “If you have to self censor you have lost”

    We can’t speak publicly in an honest way about Islam or the black culture. This is going to be the death of us.

    • #6
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:27 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Agree with Hypatia 100% . They are the number 1 problem in this fight.

    Susan the 2nd greatest problem is this. I typed up a couple of paragraphs on how to address this in a successful way. I deleted it. I felt the need to self censor because I would be label a bigot. Jordan Peterson on one of his video’s . “If you have to self censor you have lost”

    We can’t speak publicly in an honest way about Islam or the black culture. This is going to be the death of us.

    I don’t think you need to feel that way, Kevin. If you were going to criticize Islamism, that is acceptable on this OP and on Ricochet. You just have to follow the [COC]. Besides, name-calling is not okay (as in bigot). But I’ll leave that decision to you; it seems you’ve already made it.

    • #7
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:31 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    We can’t speak publicly in an honest way about Islam or the black culture. This is going to be the death of us.

    I want to address this comment, too! That’s the point. We have to start speaking honestly about the sickness–yes, sickness, of Islamism. It is a hateful political ideology focused on world dominance, and believes that sharia law is the only law that should be obeyed. We must condemn it and eradicate it. Again, we must separate Islam the religion from Islamism the political ideology. And that will also require moderate Muslims declaring unequivocally that there is a political ideology that must be eliminated.

    • #8
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:39 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  9. Kevin Schulte Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    We can’t speak publicly in an honest way about Islam or the black culture. This is going to be the death of us.

    I want to address this comment, too! That’s the point. We have to start speaking honestly about the sickness–yes, sickness, of Islamism. It is a hateful political ideology focused on world dominance, and believes that sharia law is the only law that should be obeyed. We must condemn it and eradicate it. Again, we must separate Islam the religion from Islamism the political ideology. And that will also require moderate Muslims declaring unequivocally that there is a political ideology that must be eliminated.

    Your half way there. I am sorry to say.

    • #9
    • September 3, 2017, at 4:42 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Hypatia Inactive

    ” They rise in green robes roaring from the green hells of the sea,

    Where fallen skies and evil hues and eyeless creatures be.

    On them the sea-valves cluster and the grey sea-forests curl,

    Splashed with a splendid sickness, the sickness of the pearl.

    They swell in sinuous smoke out of the blue cracks in the ground,

    And they gather and they wonder and give worship to Mahound.

    And he saith, “Break up.the mountains where the hermit folk can bide,

    And sift the red and silver sands where bone of saint can hide.

    And chase the Giaours flying, night and day, not given rest,

    FOR THAT WHICH WAS OUR TROUBLE COMES AGAIN OUT OF THE WEST.

    And a voice is in the mountains, in the mountains–And I know

    That voice which shook our palaces four hundred years ago!

    It is he that saith not “kismet”, it is he that knows not fate,

    It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey at the gate!

    It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth-

    Set down your foot upon him, that our peace may rule the Earth!”

    — G. K. Chesterton, Lepanto

    The Muslims lost in 1570. And thus be it e’er.

    • #10
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:21 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  11. blood thirsty neocon Inactive

    Speaking truth to Arab power a few months back was a good start.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3LY8399yc

    We should maintain close ties with Arab leaders who speak truth to Islamic power. I’m talking about Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, who is an SOB, but he’s an SOB who fights Islamic extremism in its violent manifestations and its ideologically extreme intellectual manifestations. We need to prioritize anti-terrorism over human rights in the Middle East. That fits well within the America first theme of the administration. We have to stop throwing anti-terrorist strong men like Mubarak and Gaddafi under the bus. I’m a neocon, but I prefer to intervene only when it serves our interests to do so. It serves our interests to kill extremists and reward those who do the same. Period.

    • #11
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:26 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  12. Kevin Schulte Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Agree with Hypatia 100% . They are the number 1 problem in this fight.

    Susan the 2nd greatest problem is this. I typed up a couple of paragraphs on how to address this in a successful way. I deleted it. I felt the need to self censor because I would be label a bigot. Jordan Peterson on one of his video’s . “If you have to self censor you have lost”

    We can’t speak publicly in an honest way about Islam or the black culture. This is going to be the death of us.

    I don’t think you need to feel that way, Kevin. If you were going to criticize Islamism, that is acceptable on this OP and on Ricochet. You just have to follow the [COC]. Besides, name-calling is not okay (as in bigot). But I’ll leave that decision to you; it seems you’ve already made it.

    I will say this. I don’t believe Islam is compatible with western civilisation. The reason is , Islamism cannot be divorced from Islam. In small numbers they will coexist. The larger the number you get all the horid ills of Islamism.

    Ask yourself this. Is there any Islamic country where it is hunky dory to be jew or Christian openly ?

    Then ask what a former secular country becomes when the Islam becomes 20 or 30 % of its population?

    • #12
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:30 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    The Muslims lost in 1570. And thus be it e’er.

    Awesome poem, Hypatia. And so very relevant, even today. Thank you.

    • #13
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:30 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    Speaking truth to Arab power a few months back was a good start.

    We should maintain close ties with Arab leaders who speak truth to Islamic power. I’m talking about Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, who is an SOB, but he’s a terrorist-fighting SOB. We need to prioritize anti-terrorism over human rights in the Middle East. That fits well within the America first theme of the administration. We have to stop throwing anti-terrorist strong men like Mubarak and Gaddafi under the bus. I’m a neocon, but I prefer to intervene only when it serves our interests to do so. It serves our interests to kill extremists and reward those who do the same. Period.

    I know al Sisi is a bad guy in a lot of ways. But he’s been straightforward with us (even when Obama tried to ignore him). We need to be certain about those who are our friends, who will stand by us, and those who only give lip service. It’s going to be a matter of life and death. Thanks BTN.

    • #14
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:34 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Quake Voter Inactive

    If we want to make headway against Islamist terror we need more honest concepts.

    I would suggest this start:

    Replacing “violent, stone age, woman hating, gay tossing, aggressively backward, culturally impoverished and politically brutal Islam” with a more economical concept: “contemporary Islam.”

    Imagining that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and secular Westerners can effectively combat the forces which define modern Islam within Islam is a progressive missionary fantasy, and one that grips too many conservatives.

    Defend Israel, benign neglect from Western Sahara to Pakistan wherever and whenever possible and relentless energy exploration and development are my preferred policies.

    I’d also focus any emigration from Islamic countries on genuine refugees from the political and religious culture of Islam, not the losing sides in the region’s interminable bloodlettings.

    • #15
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:39 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  16. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Ask yourself this. Is there any Islamic country where it is hunky dory to be jew or Christian openly ?

    Then ask what a former secular country becomes when the Islam becomes 20 or 30 % of its population?

    I think it’s safe to be a Christian in Indonesia; I don’t know about Jews. Malaysia is a possibility, but that’s a guess. But I get your drift, Kevin. If we are ever able to distinguish between Islam and Islamism (and that may be a long way off), Islam proponents will have to publicize their efforts to change the religion, perhaps even rename it. There have been efforts (M. Zuhdi Jasser has started one) to modify the religion, but they are small-scale efforts. There was a time when Islam approved of debating the meaning of the Koran, similar to the Talmud from what I understand, but that was stopped a long time ago. The other problem is that we have Muslims who already live here, who are glad to live here. What do we say to them?

    • #16
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:40 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Replacing “violent, stone age, woman hating, gay tossing, aggressively backward, culturally impoverished and politically brutal Islam” with a more economical concept: “contemporary Islam.”

    Could you elaborate, QV? What do you mean by “contemporary Islam”? Do you mean essentially breaking out a new sect (which I wouldn’t disagree with)? How is this different from —

    “Imagining that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and secular Westerners can effectively combat the forces which define modern Islam within Islam is a progressive missionary fantasy, and one that grips too many conservatives.”

    • #17
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:44 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. Unsk Member

    Speaking the truth about Islam is the problem.

    Even if we defeat ISIS- another version will emerge to take it place because we have refused to deal with the real problem- Orthodox Islam is not compatible with American ideals and our concept of god given inalienable rights.

    That’s right – Orthodox Islam, not just ‘radical Islam” or “Islamic extremism” or some other expression that deflects the idea that we must deal with the Orthodox versions- both Sunni and Shia. Sharia Law and other texts sacred to Islam call for the murder and the conquering of we infidels. Those murderous texts are well within Orthodox Islamic Law.

    These texts are held to be the direct word of Allah, and as such they must be followed to the letter according to Islamic scholars. There is no ‘ reforming”, modifying or changing the Koran to make it more western friendly in Orthodox Islam.

    The only hope to change the Koran is to discredit it for being contradictory, for the earlier parts taken from when Mohammad was a preacher in Mecca are much more Judeo-Christian in their views, while the latter parts taken when Mohammad was a warlord in Medina are the ones that encourage murder, mayhem, slavery and thievery and seemingly contradict the original earlier verses of the Koran. Thus the earlier verses are “abrogated” in favor of the more violent latter verses in what some have called the “doctrine of Abrogation”.

    After Mohommad evolved from the itinerant preacher in Mecca to the Warlord that preached rape, thievery, slavery, violence and murder were justifiable parts of Islam, his ‘flock” grew dramatically. Those violent members of his flock, who grew in importance within Islam during the years of conquest, were the ones who after Mohammad’s death determined the direction of the Koran.

    Also, btw, over a millennium ago Islam declared war on the rest of the world. We live in a perpetual state of war with Islam as such, and their intention is world domination largely through world conquest. All part of the reward to the followers of Islam is the booty derived by world domination. We who live in the west and who are not living under Islam are said in Islamic theology to live in Dar al Harb – or loosely translated to be the “House of War”, whereas those living under Islam in the other parts of the world live in what is called Dar al Islam or the “House of Islam”.

    For those apprehensive of criticizing Islam because of our rights to freedom of religion, you should be relieved to know that Islam is not just a religion, it is a political state and one that is hellbent under Islamic law to control your every waking thought, desire and action 24/7. In a way, Islam is more political than religious because the heart of it’s appeal is to conquer territory through any means necessary including murder and violence and to reap the booty along the way.

    • #18
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:46 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Unsk (View Comment):
    For those apprehensive of criticizing Islam because of our rights to freedom of religion, you should be relieved to know that Islam is not just a religion, it is a political state and one that is hellbent under Islamic law to control your every waking thought, desire and action 24/7. In a way, Islam is more political than religious because the heart of it’s appeal is to conquer territory through any means necessary including murder and violence and to reap the booty along the way.

    Thanks, Unsk. I’m familiar with this history, but many of our readers may not be. All you say is true. As I said in a comment #16, many changes would need to be made, perhaps even creating a new religion. Whether something new can be separated out is a big question, but M. Zuhdi Jasser, who is a very credible conservative and Muslim, believes it can be done. I think part of the problem may be that he doesn’t have a whole lot of support from his own community.

    • #19
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:53 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Hypatia Inactive

    Bravo , @unsk! Mohammed was a general. Between his revelation and his death, he fought and /or led 15 military campaigns. He makes Napoleon look like a slouch. The first action was against Jews, which is why they still have a missile called the Khybar. Islam is and has been from its inception a military power whose goal is world domination. Wake. Up.

    • #20
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:55 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  21. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Part of my hope for this conversation is that we identify other ways of defeating Islamism. I appreciate many of you see the enormous difficulties in doing so, but facts are facts: (1) We already have many Muslims in this country. (2) We don’t know which Muslims are truly moderate or not. (3) We have people who are being converted, sometimes to the radical side. (Preventing radical imams in prisons can help with that issue.) These are the realities we are facing. You might want to read the last part of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s essay I referenced above. Perhaps it will stimulate additional ways to deal with radical Islam.

    • #21
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:57 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    The first action was against Jews, which is why they still have a missile called the Khybar. Islam is and has been from its inception a military power whose goal is world domination. Wake. Up.

    For those of us who are awake, Hypatia, what else should be done besides those ideas referenced in the OP? I’m receptive.

    • #22
    • September 3, 2017, at 5:59 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  23. Henry Castaigne Member

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    I will say this. I don’t believe Islam is compatible with western civilisation. The reason is , Islamism cannot be divorced from Islam. In small numbers they will coexist. The larger the number you get all the horid ills of Islamism.

    I should note that the Sufism of Rumi and Achmadaya Muslims are nonpolitical and nonviolent. However, they have always been minorities within Islam.

    • #23
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:06 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    I should note that the Sufism of Rumi and Achmadaya Muslims are nonpolitical and nonviolent. However, they have always been minorities within Islam.

    . . . and the Sunnis and Shia both reject them.

    • #24
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:08 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. Henry Castaigne Member

    Susan Quinn: What other suggestions do you have for fighting political Islam at its roots?

    How about we have Muslim terrorists as the bad guys in our Summer movies? Seriously. Humans communicate by telling stories and we don’t tell stories about how Islamism is horrible. We need to make it culturally acceptable to call Islamist evil what it is, which is evil in a religious garb.

    We should also focus on telling stories about FGM, rape culture and cousin marriage in the Muslims world. All these things probably make Muslim people more susceptible to Islamist violence.

    Theologically we should note that, all the wars fought over who should be the Caliph did not make humanity or Muslims any better and that maybe we as human beings should focus on inner jihad instead of slaughtering each other over we gets to be the boss.

    • #25
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:12 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  26. Hypatia Inactive

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    The first action was against Jews, which is why they still have a missile called the Khybar. Islam is and has been from its inception a military power whose goal is world domination. Wake. Up.

    For those of us who are awake, Hypatia, what else should be done besides those ideas referenced in the OP? I’m receptive.

    Susan, I think first we have to win. Military success by itself may not be enough, as you say. But it is a sine qua non.

    I like Hirsi Ali and Jasser. They believe in a secular state. Right now in America, and I’m not sure how this could possibly have happened after 9/11, Ft hood, Orlando, Boston, San Bernardino, the NYC and NJ bombings, to name a few–we are inclined to tolerate Islam to the exclusion of all other religions in the public square. Stop that! Our leaders have to stop proclaiming that it is a “religion of peace”. 0 god how can anybody say that with a straight face! We are not going to persecute it, but we will not allow it to be exalted above our indigenous creeds. And we don’t care what any other nations think about that. That’s what should be done. And so far Trump is off to a good start.

    • #26
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:16 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Hypatia Inactive

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: What other suggestions do you have for fighting political Islam at its roots?

    How about we have Muslim terrorists as the bad guys in our Summer movies? Seriously. Humans communicate by telling stories and we don’t tell stories about how Islamism is horrible. We need to make it culturally acceptable to call Islamist evil what it is, which is evil in a religious garb.

    We should also focus on telling stories about FGM, rape culture and cousin marriage in the Muslims world. All these things probably make Muslim people more susceptible to Islamist violence.

    Theologically we should note that, all the wars fought over who should be the Caliph did not make humanity or Muslims any better and that maybe we as human beings should focus on inner jihad instead of slaughtering each other over we gets to be the boss.

    Henry you are so right! I’m sick of white people always being the villains. Have you seen Wind River?

    • #27
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:30 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: What other suggestions do you have for fighting political Islam at its roots?

    How about we have Muslim terrorists as the bad guys in our Summer movies? Seriously. Humans communicate by telling stories and we don’t tell stories about how Islamism is horrible. We need to make it culturally acceptable to call Islamist evil what it is, which is evil in a religious garb.

    We should also focus on telling stories about FGM, rape culture and cousin marriage in the Muslims world. All these things probably make Muslim people more susceptible to Islamist violence.

    Theologically we should note that, all the wars fought over who should be the Caliph did not make humanity or Muslims any better and that maybe we as human beings should focus on inner jihad instead of slaughtering each other over we gets to be the boss.

    Excellent suggestions, Henry! I’m so accustomed to political correctness that I forgot we’re “not allowed” to depict Muslims in a negative way! We are really going to have to re-train ourselves to let go of having to “look good” and take the difficult steps: make people angry. And as you say, let people know the cultural actions that Muslims are following, such as honor killings and FGM, that are unacceptable. Well done!

    • #28
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:33 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. Nanda Panjandrum Inactive

    Thanks for this, SQ and all!

    • #29
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:50 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Quake Voter Inactive

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Replacing “violent, stone age, woman hating, gay tossing, aggressively backward, culturally impoverished and politically brutal Islam” with a more economical concept: “contemporary Islam.”

    Could you elaborate, QV? What do you mean by “contemporary Islam”? Do you mean essentially breaking out a new sect (which I wouldn’t disagree with)? How is this different from —

    “Imagining that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and secular Westerners can effectively combat the forces which define modern Islam within Islam is a progressive missionary fantasy, and one that grips too many conservatives.”

    Maybe I was being too sarcastic. I meant you could replace the longer phrase listing the sundry stone age qualities with the economical “contemporary Islam.” They are identical, particularly in Afghanistan, which scores at the top of the league tables on nearly every measure of fanaticism and brutality in the Pew Survey.

    • #30
    • September 3, 2017, at 6:55 PM PDT
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.