For some reason, the liberal landscape is covered with personalities willing to bend over backwards to try to support the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. Whenever some outrageous crime or terrorist attack occurs – even on our own soil – it cannot be because of Islam, because Islam is the “religion of peace.”
The shooters in the San Bernadino massacre were eventually described as terrorists; but only after the FBI was able to find what they believed were links between the shooters and ISIS. Once the FBI found these links, they then discussed details of what they thought to be radical Islamic influence. And after THAT point, they referred to them as terrorists more than “Islamic fundamentalists” – distinguishing them, apparently, from “normal” Muslims.
You see, the narrative is this: “normal” Islam is the religion of peace; ISIS is not Islam (because Islam is a religion of peace).
This seems to be the template the media follows: downplay any acts of terrorism by those who hold to an Islamic world view and try to isolate their actions from what a “peaceful Muslim” would do, unless those people performing the acts can be linked to ISIS or some other known terrorist organization.
When a police officer was shot in Philadelphia “in the name of Allah,” the Philadelphia police started looking for “extremist ties” the shooter might have had to any group with “radical Islamic beliefs.” The shooter himself confessed to committing the crime “in the name of Allah.” But when there was no direct link to the terrorist group ISIS, the Philidelphia police department went out of their way to try to say it was anything but an incident driven by any kind of true Islamic ideology.
There may be reasons of expediency behind the desire to separate those who carry out acts of terror from an appearance of being Islamic. If you can create an image for the public regarding the radical versus normal Muslim, you can eventually create a dichotomy in people’s minds (if they already want to believe it) between “peaceful Islam” and “radical Islam” almost as if they are two different religions. And according to Joseph Goebbels, if you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
But if you consider beliefs and how they lead to actions, this dichotomy driven by the constant narrative might well be little more than a distinction without a difference: a logical fallacy where a speaker (or, in this case, the government) attempts to create a distinction between two ideas when no difference really exists. It is in some ways it is a propaganda tool designed to cause people to think on the wrong parts of a problem, distracting them from the distasteful bits.
Making this distinction between “the peacefuls” and “the radicals” is distracting from a core issue: both groups do what they do because they believe the Quran tells them that this is what a faithful Muslim does. The Quran is the common element to them both.
The government and law enforcement community is trying to enforce a narrative that says peaceful Muslims believe “right things” and these things come from the Quran; radical Muslims believe “wrong things,” and their beliefs must come from anywhere but the Quran.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe the vast majority of Muslims in this country strongly oppose terrorism. They truly believe Islam is a religion of peace. When the officer was shot in Philadelphia, there were Muslims marching in protests against the violence, supporting the police.
But the reality is that peaceful Muslims and radical alike both truly believe that the Quran tells them to do what they do. Each side does what it does because they believe the Quran as the final revelation from God. They only differ in interpretation of the book. But they all believe in the inspiration of the book.
Christianity is not free of its nut cases. Westboro Baptist Church is the golden child for the media to hang their hate on the “crazies in the church.” Westboro seems to specialize in doing hateful and hurtful things in the name of Christianity. Almost any other Christian church will say these people are looped and hateful. And yet, it is not disputed by any Christian that Westboro bases its beliefs on the Bible; it is only disputed that they base their beliefs on a wrong application and interpretation of the texts. Christians see it as a terrible slant on the good book, but they acknowledge that Westboro believes the book, too.
But somehow, the constant spin by the media and the government seems to be to distinguish between radicals and peaceful Muslims as if the peaceful Muslims get their beliefs from the Quran and the radicals get them somewhere else – as if the radicals only get that from the Quran because someone else wrongly tells them what to believe. With the commonly applied principals of interpretation of the Quran found in the Quran itself, it is hard to find a message of peace in the book.
Many Muslims differ with me on this point. Some Muslims do find a message of peace within its covers. For Muslims who do truly believe Islam is peace, who oppose violence, I say God bless them. I really do. But many Muslims support the violence, too. In fact, it might be fair to say that ISIS represents “radical Islam” like the Pope represents “radical Catholicism.”
Liberals, peaceful Muslims and those without much faith of any kind at all might not want to hear it. But until our society comes to grip with this, we will forever be going to exhaustive lengths to make peace with an ideology whose end goal is not one of peaceful coexistence, but of bringing everyone into submission to its authority.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com