Recently a man named Khizr Khan, the father of a soldier named Humayun Khan who was killed in Iraq by a suicide bomber driving a taxi, has spoken against Donald Trump in a speech held at the Democratic National Convention alongside his wife Ghazala over his rhetoric on radical Islam. This weekend, he also told CNN this:
“In addition to this, there was in the speech that my good wife asked me to refrain from saying, I wanted to say we reject all violence. We are faithful, patriotic, undivided loyalty to this country. We reject all terrorism. She asked me not to say that because that was not the occasion for such a statement. We say to his ignorance, I address his ignorance, that the dirt effect, the most effect of the menace of terrorism have been Muslims in the world, Muslims hate this menace of terrorism as much as any other place. It is our duty to keep this country, our country, beautiful country, safe. We have always thought of [it] that way, we will continue to do our part to keep it safe and beautiful. What he cites in the name of Islam, and all that — that is not Islam at all! I wish he would have, somebody would have put something in his head that these are terrorists, these are criminals, these folks have nothing to do with Islam.“
Khizr is thus reiterating the whole “Islam dindu nuffin” narrative that is constantly pushed by the mainstream media these days. We also saw this narrative in play in the aftermath of the massacre in Nice. The perpetrator, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, was described as having drank alcohol and beat his wife (as if the latter is somehow un-Islamic), and to them that meant that he wasn’t really Muslim. Indeed, he was referred to not as Muslim, but as “shit”. Never did it occur to them that in the process of his radicalization, he decided that killing non-believers was a way of redeeming his soul and going to Jannah (the Islamic heaven). And when ISIL attacked Medina, people thought this somehow proved that ISIL had nothing to do with Islam – something I already wrote about last month.
What about the gunmen in Mali who in November last year took over a hotel and released hostages who could quote the Quran and executed those who couldn’t? Or Al-Shabab, who took over a university in Kenya earlier that year and shot people on the spot if they weren’t Muslims? What about the gunmen who shot and killed cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo specifically in order to “avenge” the prophet Muhammad? What about Boko Haram, who want to take over the Nigerian government because they believe it to be run by non-believers and want to replace its current government with an Islamist state?
Let me explain something to Mr. Khan about Islamism and Jihadism – the ideological forces that seem to be driving Islamic terrorism. Islamism is literally an ideology which advocates for the implementing of Islam in all spheres of life. This means that, under Islamism, society would be structured specifically around the teachings of Islam or the guidance of Sharia law. And there isn’t a doubt in my mind that the people who subscribe to Islamist ideology view it as an expression of their Islamic faith. Islamism is not simply a political ideology, but also a religious one, one where the implementation of religious belief into all spheres of secular life is the goal. At the center of this, logically, is the Islamic faith. It is impossible to separate the religion of Islam from the ideology of Islamism. Jihadism is our word for Islamists who want to achieve their goals through bloodshed – by literally waging jihad. They believe that jihad is and obligation and duty that must be fulfilled by every Muslim who can do so, and they also believe that violence is a necessary means of removing the obstacles to the Islamist goal of ordering society around Sharia law. To that end, they believe murdering non-believers, even children, is justified. And let’s not forget that, as ISIL is more than willing to demonstrate, even non-Muslims can be considered non-believers if they don’t subscribe to a specific branch of Islam (in ISIL’s case, that would be Wahhabism). For jihadists, the ends justify the means. To them, the world is divided into those who believe – typically those who believe in a specific branch of Islam or those who support Islamism – and those who don’t. It doesn’t matter how seemingly immoral their actions are to them because they believe they are allowed to do this to non-believers, and to them this sometimes includes other Muslims.
The whole idea that Islam has nothing to do with jihadist terrorism, that it is in no way Islamic, is a farce. It is a delusional attitude held by those who believe that they are shielding Muslims from bigotry by perpetuating it.
And the thing is, ISIL actually knows this. They know all about the narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and they find it laughable. In an article of their most recent issue of their magazine Dabiq, ISIL makes this explicitly clear, along with the reasons they hate the West and why they fight us. Here’s an excerpt for you from that article, which is found in pages 30-33 of the issue itself:
“Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target from saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect”. The apostate “imams” will repeat the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script. There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continue believing the false narrative.“
They know how the West is responding to jihadist terrorism, or at least how the political class and the media are choosing to deal with it. In my opinion, it surely can’t have escaped them that the French prime minister Manuel Valls told his people that their country should get used to terrorism in response to the Nice attack. They know that the West is weak and divided, and it may only be a matter of time before they manage to exploit it further.
In the same article they list six reasons why they hate the West. I’ll summarize them for you (you can read the article itself for more information):
- They hate us because most Westerners don’t believe in Allah and don’t practice Islam, especially Christians.
- They hate us because we are a liberal society whose laws and customs are different from Islamic law and whose social structure is based on the will of the people rather than the will of Allah.
- They hate atheists because they don’t believe in any God, which means they don’t believe in Allah.
- They hate Westerners for transgressing Islam.
- They hate the West for the deaths of Muslims at the hands of military action in the Middle East.
- They hate the West for “invading” Middle Eastern territory.
They don’t hate us solely because of foreign policy, unlike what left-wing commentators might claim. The West’s actions in the Middle East are not as important to them as the fact that our values, our laws and our very society itself is diametrically opposed to their religious values and their idea of how the world should work. Even if we weren’t in the Middle East, they’d still hate us and wish us dead solely for the fact that we do not embrace Islam, let alone as the core belief system of our society.
That we still have a media and a political class denying the reality of the explicit religious motivation driving the jihadist terrorists is, then, a painful farce. The deluded imbeciles influencing public opinion actually believe that by denying the reality of jihad they will protect Muslims from increased discrimination and bigotry and stop the far-right from taking advantage of it, which makes them nothing more than useful idiots! How many more people are going to die in the name of Allah before we discard that narrative for good?