By Walid Shoebat
Yesterday, I received this question and comment from sociologist-historian and scholar Mr. Alvin Schmidt, whom I greatly respect:
I have for some time said that Sean Hannity seems to be an ignorant supporter of the politically correct ideology when he keeps talking about “Radical Islam.” He either has never read the Koran or he is blinded by political correctness. Or is it because he knows he would lose his job if he were to say ‘the problem lies with Islam and its Koran?’ But by saying ‘Radical Islam,’ he can keep his job. As I have pointed out in my book The Great Divide: The Failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West (2004), anyone who follows the Koran is by definition a radical, because the Koran is a radical book. The so-called ‘Radical Muslims’ are individuals who follow the Koran right down to the line. When will people like Hannity wake up?
To answer the questions laid by our scholar Mr. Schmidt, Hannity’s reasons for not calling a spade a spade is both his “fear of losing his job” and his “ignorance.”
Ignorance on Islam is a result of forgetting history. How often do you ever see Hannity discuss issues on Islamic history? I have met with Hannity and interviewed with him on a few occasions and I still love the guy, even though Hannity on few other occasions crucified friends of mine for using the term “Islam” instead of “radical Islam”.
The naiveté of Hannity and many on the left, as well as on the right, is this: they say that since there are so many Muslims who are ‘peace-loving’ then we should distinguish between ‘Radical Islam’ and ‘Islam’.
Alright then, let’s conduct a survey of the ‘peace-loving’ Muslims Hannity refers to. And to these peace-loving Muslims I ask:
Will you denounce terrorism?
After we tally the number of all the Muslims that would condemn terrorism, we should ask them this:
Will you denounce Islam’s historic invasions against Christendom?
Once we tally the numbers of Muslims who come forth, we should ask:
Under inheritance law, if a will is not written by the deceased, would you accept that a daughter should inherit an equal portion to her brother?
Once you see how few Muslims are left, ask this:
Are you willing to denounce Shariah as it stands today in the Muslim World?
The ones who remain after the survey, I can assure you will be very few. These are cultural Muslims who identify with Islam to remain alive and could care less about religion altogether. These are not the individuals we are surveying. What we are surveying are religious Muslims. After all, we are questioning Islam, the religion and not a culture. I am not asking Muslims to denounce pork but primitive laws.
The question I ask Hannity is this:
Does “radical Islam” exist or is Islam inherently “radical”?
There is no third choice.
If Hannity is correct and the first is true, and if indeed it was a few radicals that hijacked Islam, then we should be able to find the un-radical Islam.
To date, no one can find a single Islamic reference manual, from main Islamic sources, that is not in its essence radical.
Muslims like to use this phrase from the Quran:
“bring your proof if indeed ye are truthful” (Quran 2:111)
In turn, I ask every Muslim on earth:
Where is the peaceful reference manual on the Quran, in the Islamic world that shows Islam is indeed peaceful, so we can all examine its contents?
The best way to prove the point is to quote Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi who is probably the most respected Muslim scholar in the Sunni Muslim world today. In an article written by Qaradawi, which I translated from the Arabic, he states:
One of the reviled expressions used by secularists and modernists is the expression “political Islam”, which is alien to our Islamic society without a doubt. What they mean by this is the Islam that manages the affairs of the Muslim Nation and their relationships at home and abroad…The reason for this application is a master plan by the enemies of Islam to fragment it into different divisions. It is not a one Islam as revealed by God but they manufactured “Islams”, plural, several different Islams, which they desire to accomplish. Sometimes they even divide Islam by regions: there is the Asian variety of Islam, and then we have the African Islam. And sometimes, according to the ages: there is the Prophet’s era of Islam, and Rashidi Islam, Umayyad Islam, Abbasid Islam, Ottoman Islam and modern Islam. And sometimes, according to race: there is Arab Islam, Indian Islam, Turkish Islam, and the Islam of the Malaysian … And so on and so forth. And sometimes, according to the doctrine: There is Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam. They even divide the Sunni into divisions and the Shia into divisions.
They even added new divisions; there is revolutionary Islam, reactionary Islam, radical Islam, classical Islam, right-wing Islam, leftist Islam, orthodox Islam, modern Islam and, finally, political Islam, and spiritual Islam and theological Islam. We do not understand, why they invent such divisions that are rejected in Islam? The truth is that these divisions are all unacceptable in the eyes of a Muslim, there is only one Islam, which has no partners which recognizes no other; it is the first Islam, the Islam of the Quran and Sunnah.
Well put, Mr. Qaradawi.
Why can’t Westerners like Hannity believe him, especially if it is coming right from the donkey’s (horse’s) mouth? Would Sean Hannity ever ask the Muslims he interviews, the questions we ask here? The answer is never.
In other words, if we please the Muslims and point the finger at “radical Islam,” they will not be happy because there is only one Islam. If we identify the cause of all this chaos as “Islam” itself, they still won’t be happy. Why?
It is because Islam is inherently radical. Period.
The question I always ask is this: Why can’t we simply just tell the truth and call a spade a spade?
Some actually consider that phrase racist because spades are black (I’m not kidding).
The answer is simple—It’s political correctness as Mr. Schmidt so correctly pointed out.
The media, regardless of left or right, is a political entity and nothing more. Truth is not found amongst politicians, but comes from honest scholars and historians.
Scholars like Mr. Schmidt.