This is how those Muslims who support violent jihad are described by a Columbia University prof. Columbia, which was the home of late and unlamented apologist for terror, Edward Said. Columbia, which provided a philosophically compatible home away from home for the nutjob president of Iran. But one mustn’t assume things, just because so much evil is tolerated at Morningside Heights…
The topic is the term jihad, used by many Islamic terrorists and claimed by them to be justified by the Koran. Turns out that one of our political parties agrees with the hate-America-Columbia University crowd: Jihad just means “struggle” in Arabic (which it does), but this can mean spiritual struggle and doesn’t mean violent struggle to the vast majority of Muslims.
Of course it can mean spiritual struggle. But too often in history it has meant violent struggle. It wasn’t for wanting to discuss philosophy that the Muslim legions conquered North Africa and goodly chunks of Europe in the Middle Ages. It was war, plain and simple. One might argue that this was merely old school geopolitics, and religion was an excuse or even a secondary cause.
Yes, and I’ll need a really sturdy umbrella when those pigs start flying. Islam has been on the march, killing, capturing, and converting at the point of a sword, since is inception in the Arabian desert in the 7th century.
Today’s liberals are quite shy in expressing this simple fact. The Columbia prof is merely one of those who bleat that Islam is a religion of peace, hoping that if they say it often and soothingly, it will come true.
As for the divide between Democrats and Republicans, consider this extract from an enlightening article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required):
A divide is emerging on the presidential campaign trail over battling terrorists: how exactly to label the fight. While Democrats tend to talk about terrorism in general, Republicans increasingly pin the threat directly on Islam.All the major Republican candidates regularly weave some form of the phrase “Islamic extremism” into their stump speeches. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has taken the rhetoric to a new level, running a television advertisement about “this century’s nightmare, jihadism.”
Democratic candidates generally don’t emphasize linking Islam and terrorism. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton talks more of “global terrorism,” while Sen. Barack Obama refers to “stateless terrorism.”
Getting back to that Columbia prof, here’s his take, also from the Journal:
“There are insurgents and radical Islamists who use the word to describe what they are doing,” said Gary Sick, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. “But they are a teeny minority [compared with] Muslims in the world who don’t see it that way.”
What are those Muslims who “don’t see it that way” doing about their violent co-religionists? Not nearly enough. And, even if Sick were right, a “teeny minority” of 1.5 billion Muslims can be a very large absolute number of Islamic terrorists and their supporters
Unless and until the non-violent Muslims step up and start policing their own ranks, it is Islam itself that must be taken at face value: at least the face that it presents to the Western world. A face of violence with the stated goal of our submission under a world-wide caliphate, or death.
Neither is acceptable, and while we don’t wish to be at war with Islam, what we are presented with is a difference without a distinction. If we are to prevail, if we are to be left in peace, we must first know who is the enemy, and what it is they want.
By their violent actions for almost 1,400 years they have told us. We need but to listen.