The liberal position on Islamic terrorism, unchallenged by the media, and shared not only by most on the political left but also by some on the right (including Republican “moderates”), relies on the following arguments.
1. Islam (as practiced by the vast majority of Muslims) is a peaceful religion.
This is a logically fallacy, known as missing the point. Basically, even if correct, this conclusion is completely irrelevant because it fails to address the actual issues. Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if 99 percent of the world’s (estimated) 1.8 billion Muslims opposed acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam, there still would be (approximately) 18 million Muslims who supported terrorism. And in reality, the number is much higher; reputable polls have repeatedly shown that 10 percent to 40 percent of Muslims from various nations in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa support terrorism. In the United States, nearly 10 percent of Muslims have consistently said that suicide bombings against civilians are justified “often” or “sometimes.”
2. Islamic terrorists are reinterpreting the Koran.
This is demonstrably incorrect. The Koran not only instructs Muslims to engage in jihad and fight nonbelievers until Islam is supreme, but also promises eternal paradise to Muslims for killing, and being killed, in this fight. Therefore, after the Koran was revealed in the 7th century, Muslims waged “holy war” against nonbelievers, spreading Islam—with violence—across the Middle East, northern Africa, and southern Europe. In short, the Muslims (and particularly the Islamic terrorists) who are waging holy war against the United States and other nations today are following the Koran according to both its literal interpretation and its original interpretation by Muslims in the 7th century. (For fighting nonbelievers, see Koran 2:216; 4:76; 9:5. For Islamic supremacy, see Koran 8:39; 9:29; 61:9. For eternal paradise, see Koran 9:111. For holy war, see Sahih Muslim 19:4294; Sahih al-Bukhari 53:392.)
3. Like the Koran, the Bible also contains violent passages.
This is a false analogy. To repeat, the Koran (specifically, Allah, the god of Islam) instructs Muslims to fight nonbelievers until Islam is supreme; the instructions apply to past, present, and future Muslims. The Bible simply does not contain any comparable instructions to present or future Christians; the Koran’s timeless instructions to Muslims are fundamentally different from the Bible’s description of events where people (Israelites) of a past era, under the command of God, engaged in violence, or where God (in judgment of people) inflicts or threatens violence.
4. Like Muslims, Christians also have engaged in violence.
This is another false analogy. Again, the Muslims who are committing acts of violence in the name of Islam are interpreting passages of the Koran (instructions from Allah) according to both their literal and original meanings. In contrast, Christians who committed acts of violence in the name of Christianity disregarded the words of Christ; both their literal and original meanings. The early Muslims engaged in violence, spreading Islam by attacking non-Muslims, whereas the early Christians endured violence, including being thrown to the beasts (wild animals) by non-Christians (Romans).
5. Like the Islamic world, the West also has produced terrorists, including the United States, which has produced domestic terrorists (both left wing and right wing).
This is a “red herring,” a separate argument that liberals introduce to divert attention from the actual issues. Among other things, domestic terrorists from any one nation, by definition, are only a threat to the people in that nation, whereas Islamic terrorists are posing a threat to the people in many nations. Therefore, domestic terrorism in one nation does not require a response by any other nation, whereas Islamic terrorism requires a response by many nations. Additionally, as a result of the decades-long influx of Muslim immigrants and refugees to non-Muslim nations, Islamic terrorists are increasingly also domestic terrorists in non-Muslim nations. Yet liberals support policies (such as continuing to accept immigrants and refugees from Muslim nations) that prevent the United States, and Western nations in general, from effectively dealing with the Islamic threat.
6. An underlying cause of terrorism is the failure of Muslim nations to provide Muslim youth with alternatives to Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.
This is an unfounded assertion. The premise is that certain factors in Muslim nations (such as poverty, injustice, and instability) are root causes of Islamic terrorism. However, in other regions of the world, non-Muslims also live under these kinds of severe conditions, and they have not responded with this kind of terrorism. Ultimately, the Koran, the collections of hadith (the reported words and conduct of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam), and Islamic history are the root causes of Muslims waging holy war against nonbelievers today in what is a timeless struggle to make Islam supreme.
7. Another underlying cause of terrorism is the use of military force by Western nations in the Middle East and northern Africa.
This is a classic example of a “half-truth.” Indisputably, there have been, and still are, Muslims motivated by the actions of the West, but this is a secondary, not underlying, cause of Islamic terrorism, which is a crucial difference. With regard to policy, the West cannot successfully use military force to change people who have resisted change for over a thousand years, but the West can successfully use military force, in targeted operations, when necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus among both the political left and right on when military force is necessary; most recently, some opposed, while others supported, the use of military force by the West in Syria. Furthermore, even the use of military force, limited to targeted operations, only when necessary, will still provoke Muslims. Every possible course of action or nonaction by the West will have consequences, and liberals offer criticisms, not solutions.
8. Yet another underlying cause of terrorism is the failure of Western nations in Europe to provide social and economic opportunities to Muslim immigrants, refugees, and their descendants.
This is pure speculation. The facts tell a different story. In Europe, large blocks of Muslims, concentrated in cities, have chosen to isolate themselves, by refusing to adopt their European nation’s culture, and instead adhering to Islamic culture. In the end, the main problem is that many practices and principles of Islam are incompatible with Western civilization.
9. The threat of terrorism increases when Western nations implement policies that are directed at Muslims.
This is a revealing assertion. The premise is that certain policies (such as the surveillance of activities at mosques, the enhanced screening of Muslims at airports, or a travel ban on foreigners arriving from Muslim nations) incite, or will incite, so-called “moderate” Muslims to join Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. But what type of person (moderate person, no less) can be incited by such policies to savagely attack other human beings? The answer, following liberal reasoning, is a person already predisposed to violence; namely, a moderate Muslim.
10. Opposition to Islam is based on fear and hate; the individuals who oppose immigration from Muslim nations or who oppose accepting refugees are Islamophobic.
This is a blatant lie that also employs a personal attack. Like opposition to communism and fascism, opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate; like communism and fascism, Islam is a belief system with principles that violate the rights of individuals. Opposition to the beliefs and actions of an individual or group is not a phobia; such opposition is legitimate.
11. We cannot allow the terrorists to divide us.
This is a raw appeal to emotion. If worded honestly, this statement would assert, “We cannot allow the terrorists to wake the public up to either the dangers or injustices of multiculturalism.” Essentially, what liberals want is for people from all cultures and regions of world, no matter how incompatible their belief systems, to live together, in the same nation, right now. And if the result is carnage, so be it. The slaughter of civilians, including children, by Muslim immigrants, refugees, or their descendants is a price that liberals are willing to pay: a sacrifice at the altar of multiculturalism, faithfully suffered in the name of such ideological concepts as diversity, openness, and tolerance.
12. The terrorists will never win; our values and our way of life will prevail.
This is rhetoric. Often, when used by politicians, “our values” means, first and foremost, the liberal value of multiculturalism, and “our way of life” means a liberal way of life in a multicultural society. Indeed, the way of life enjoyed in the West since the close of World War II has already deteriorated in sections (controversially described as “no-go zones”) of numerous cities in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, and other European nations, while politicians have been working to lull the public into a passive acceptance of this (entirely avoidable) decline, by saying things like terrorism will be “part of our daily lives” and “we should learn to live with terrorism.” And in the United States, the federal government’s policies of the last several decades, especially on immigration and refugees, have the American way of life set on this same downward course.