Posted on | August 5, 2012 | 19 Comments
Moderation is not a fighting creed. Voices of compromise and tolerance can never prevail in a culture that permits militant radicals to resort to intimidation and violence to achieve their ends. David Herzenhorn of the New York Times reports a brutal lesson from Russia:
MOSCOW — A self-described guerrilla fighter urging strict adherence to Islamic law has claimed responsibility for the killing last month of one Muslim leader and the attempted murder of another, in Tatarstan, a region in central Russia that prides itself on a tradition of religious tolerance.
“On July 19, 2012, on my orders an operation was conducted against the enemies of Allah,” the guerrilla fighter, who identified himself as Muhammad, emir of the mujahedeen of Tatarstan, said in a video posted on an Islamist Internet site that focuses on the predominantly Muslim Caucasus region, including Chechnya.
In the video, he is shown sitting in the woods, with an automatic rifle propped against one knee. He specifically named the victims of the attack last month: Valiulla Yakupov, the cleric in charge of Islamic education in Tatarstan, who was shot and killed outside his home in Kazan, the regional capital; and Ildus Faizov, the chief mufti in the region, who survived a car-bomb attack less than an hour later.
“All praise Allah,” the jihadist, Muhammad, said in the video. “We believe the operation was a success.” He also warned of further violence against Muslim leaders who do not adhere to Shariah, the strict legal code of Islam based on the Koran.
“If any of the imams do not want or cannot carry out the points established by Shariah, they should leave their posts,” he said. “That way, you will be protected from the mujahedeen.”
(Via Memeorandum.) It is useless, as a counter-argument, to point out that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent terrorists, when any who do not share the ideology of the radicals are denounced as “the enemies of Allah” and regarded as acceptable targets for assassination.
In all likelihood, the clerics targeted by “the emir of the mujahedeen” shared their killer’s ultimate goal — the Islamicization of Russia — but were killed because they did not endorse his proposed means of achieving that goal, i.e., an immediate violent uprising. And the profoundly troubling aspect of this, as any objective student of Islamic history must agree, is that the assassin’s co-religionists can scarcely claim that his acts are incompatible with their faith. Islam’s founder was a warrior, who spread his beliefs by the sword, and the Prophet’s successors took up that sword to expand their religious dominion by violent conquest. No matter how sincerely “fundamentalist” a Muslim leader may be, he is vulnerable to the accusation of apostasy if he rejects violent jihad as a means of achieving worldwide Islamic supremacy.
It has become unfortunately fashionable in the West, even among some soi-dissant conservatives, to ignore this unfortunate reality and to denounce as advocates of “Islamophobia” anyone who dares call attention to the dangerous truth about radical Islam.
Witness how the Left greeted Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in Stockholm and witness, alas, how little notice conservatives give to the battle that Geller and Spencer have so courageously fought.
Hundreds turn out to hear American conservatives speak in Sweden, they are greeted with vitriolic hate by Swedish leftists and — despite the genuinely newsworthy nature of this occasion — where is the Army of Breitbarts to cheer on the conservative heroes?
Robert Spencer mocks the idea that violent Islamic jihadists misunderstand their own religion. His good humor disproves the assertions of his critics that Spencer is a grim hateful fanatic, although Spencer is nevertheless serious about the grim hateful fanaticism of his antagonists, both among the radical jihadists and the radical leftists who side with “the emir of the mujahedeen” against the West.
The Left would have you believe that the danger free people face is not from radical Islam, but from “extremists” like Geller and Spencer. In fact, the danger is from those foolish enough to think that the war against “the enemies of Allah,” which brings death to Muslims in faraway Tatarstan, has ceased to be a danger to America, merely because the jihadis have not recently committed any headline-grabbing terrorist atrocities here. Leftists dishonestly inflame suspicion of the Tea Party, attempting to blame them for the Aurora massacre. (Tucson killer Jared Loughner will plead guilty for his crimes, although the liberal media already convicted Sarah Palin.) Meanwhile, the menace of Islamic extremism remains, waging a worldwide war that we seldom seem to notice anymore.
We are seeing a re-enactment of a familiar theme: The confusion caused by those who insist that we should not fear our enemy, but rather fear those who warn against the enemy. In England during the ’30s, the advocates of appeasement insisted that Churchill was a greater danger than Hitler. More recently, during the Cold War, there were those who claimed that anti-Communist “extremists” like Ronald Reagan were a greater danger than the Communists themselves. And now we find that many fools have been persuaded by those who say that “Islamophobia” is a greater danger than Islam.
Will we be deceived? I am not, although I seldom write on this topic, on which others have far more expertise. My accustomed silence, however, should not be confused with neutrality or indifference. In the aftermath of 9/11, many Americans wrung their hands in perplexity, thinking that somehow our nation had brought this evil upon ourselves.
The liberals asked, “Why do they hate us?” And the eloquent answer came from a Lebanese woman, Brigitte Gabriel: Because They Hate.
There is no safety in cowardly silence. No one deserves to be the victim of terrorism, and the killers alone are responsible for their crimes. Yet we have a duty to defend the innocent against evil and, if we fail in that duty, our failure carried its own burden of guilt.
Those who have the courage to speak out against the danger — including not only Geller and Spencer, but also such witnesses as Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali — deserve our support. We cannot rely on “moderate Muslims” to restrain the danger, because if proponents of radical Islam cannot terrorize the moderate “enemies of Allah” into silence, they will kill them. How many more “moderates” will have to die before we admit the radical truth?