Tuesday, 23 April 2013
What Does It Mean For A Muslim To Be "Radicalized"?

Tamerlan  became "radicalized." Muslims here, there, everywhere, who attack, or plan to attack but are caught in time, are all Muslims, apparently, who have been "radicalized."

But not one of those who uses this term, on the radio, on television, in print, nor any of the interviewers who hear some "terrorism expert" self-assuredly -- a little too quickly -- use the term "radicalized" ever asks the obvious question: what exactly does that word mean? What are the passages in the Qur'an that others had forgotten and Tamerlan noticed, what the stories of Muhammad's deeds and sayings in the "authentic" Hadith that a billion Musilms ignored, but Tamerlan and others "radicalized" discovered, what are the newly-discovered details in the Sira (the Muslim biographies of Muhammad), that suddenly were brought to the attention of Tamerlan, or to the attention of thouands, tens of thousanhds, of would-be Mulsim terrorists, hat no other Muslims had known about before?

The answer is: there are none. The Qur'anic passages, the stories in the Hadith, the details of Muhammad's life set down in the Sira, that so inspired Tamerlan, and so many others who have committed or plotted to commit murder or mass murder against Infidels -- at the Atocha station in Madrid, by the side of a canal in Amsterdam, in the London Underground and on a London Transport bus, at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, at a newspaper office in Denmark and a cartoonist's house in Sweden, at the house of a Norwegian, a Japanese,a (fill in whatever nationality you wish) translator, in northern Nigeria, in southern Sudan over fifty years of mass murder and deliberate starvation,in Moscow at a theatre filled with spectators, in Beslan in southern Russian,  in Mumbai, in Delhi, in so many other places in India where Muslim attacks never make it outside of the local Indian papers, in the southern Philippines, in southern Thailand, on the streets of cities in Xinjiang, everywhere that Muslims can, they attack non-Muslims and plot to attack them. And their inspiration is not a Qur'an, nor Hadiths, nor a Sira, different from that read by Muslims all over the world. And it is clear from the constant attempts to prevent Infidels from realizing this, the most absurd attempts -- Islam "had nothing to do" with this attack, or that attack, or that attack, or that attack -- the Muslims living in the West who, of course, wish to prevent the non-Muslims among whom they have been allowed to settle to ever come to the stark realization that the texts of Islam, the tenets of Islam, constitute a permanent danger to the wellbeing -- the physical security -- of all non-Muslims, and that to the extent that any Believer takes seriously, takes to heart, those texts, those teachings, and is prepared to act on them, that Believer becomes more dangerous than other Believers.

But those other Believers, the ones who when answering, in unguarded fashion, various opinion polls, show their support for the imposition of Sharia everywhere, show a willingness to support, or not to condemn, acts of Muslim terror, and exhibit a frightening constellation of beliefs and attitudes that, if non-Muslims were only paying attention (and not allowing themselves to pretend, as so many do, that it is only a "handful of extremists" who are the threat), would cause them to demand the complete cessation of Musilm immigration, and further demands to figure out ways to make our societies not open and friendly to Islam, but deliberately hostile to it, so that it has no chance to spread its tentacles, to inveigle the psychically and socially marginal to convert to Islam, or others, apparently having no mental or emotional ballast, and sexually attracted to this or that Muslim -- like the pathetic Katherine Russell, who fell hard for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and ended up working 80 hours a week so that Tamerlen could spend time at home, with their daughter and his pressure-cookers. 

Why is there no clamor, no demand, that those who prate about "radicalization" tell us in what way the "radicals" depend on texts that are different from those with which all other Muslims are familiar? And why is there no clamor for an intelligent linking of violent Jihad, terrorism, to all the other ways that the exact same goals of Jihad -- that is, the "struggle" to ensure that everywhere Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere -- are shared by all good Muslims, and it is only the bad Musliims, the unobservant Muslims, the ones who are embarrased by the doctrines but lack the courage to leave Islam, and in refusing to leave it, swell Muslim ranks and perceived Muslim power, and still worse, by lying -- it's called Taqiyya or Kitman - about the Faith so as to protect it (and, self-interestedly, protect their own positions in the West) -- about Islam, help to prolong the deception and self-deception of unwary non-Muslims, which weakens their will and prevents them from taking adequate measures of self-defense.

The next time anyone uses the word "radicalization" ask them what they mean by that? What different texts, what different beliefs, did Tamerlan , or Nihad of the Fort Hood massacre, or the two men in Canada just picked up, or the assorted Pakistanis who were behind the bombings in London, or the Chechens in Moscow, or the North Africans in Spain, or....well, you get the idea, the one thing that links all  these people is Islam, not a strange Islam unkonwn to all other Muslims, but perfectly orthodox Islam.

If Muslims choose to partiicpate in Jihad using other means, such as the "money weapon" (those rich Gulf Arabs, especially from Saudi Arabia, who pay for mosques and imams in Bosnia, or in Niger, or in the United States) -- what is Al Jazeera if not the propaganda outlet of the Emir of Qatar, who in LIbya, in Egypt, and in Syria, has not hestitated to deliver money and weapons and other kinds of support to members of the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood?. Or they particiipate in the Jihad of "pen, tongue" -- that is, propaganda, designed to fool Infidels. And example after example -- think of Dzhokar Tsasrnaev, having coolly set his bomb and seen the effects of its explosion, on a Monday, then going down to his university, to go to the gym, to see his pals, possibly to pick up or leave off something in a dorm room, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, the coolest of Muslim cucumbers. Or think of all the other masters of deception -- why, so very many Muslims, of even the most ordinary untrained kind, exhibit an extraordinary ability   to deceive that is far beyond all but the absolute masters in the secret servides of the West.

Those who work to ensure the triumph of Islam through terrorism share exactly the same goals as those who work for its triumph through other means. Why should we allow ourselves to keep pretending there is some kind of special Islam, a deformed Islam, unknown to or shunned by all those Muslims who haven't openly used terrorism as their immediate weapon (even if in so many ways they lend support to, or create an atmosphere which makes it easier for, acts of Muslim terrorism to be planned and, in some cases, carried out)? There is no such special version of Islam.

Make sure, when that word "radicalized" or "radicalization" is used, that you demand details, demand that the person using it spells out exactly what he means. And then ask him why he thinks that we need not worry if the same goals are worked for by instruments of Jihad other than terrorism.

Posted on 04/23/2013 9:13 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
22 Jan 2016
Send an emailNunyuh
This article is so scattered and not well put together i couldnt even follow anything u were saying with your rin on sentences and shitty sentence structure. Waste of time