Rise of Islamic Terrorism is Requiring a New Level of Islamic Deception

As Islamic terrorism continues to rise and as the horrors of ISIS continue to take root in the collective consciousness of westerners, stealth Jihadists (stealthists) and Muslim sympathizers (sympies) need to reach a new level of deception. Non-Muslims will seek clearer lines of demarcation between Muslims and radical Muslims, even between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As such, look for the stealthists and sympies to be more critical of Islamic terrorism. Barack Obama’s attempt to assert that ‘ISIL is not Islamic’ insulted our intelligence, especially when the group’s leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies.

The recent criticism of Islam by liberal atheists Bill Maher and Sam Harris has in many ways moved the ball further down the field than anyone on the right could have done. That’s a fire stealthists and sympies are still trying to put out. Berkeley’s call for banning Maher isn’t helping.

In the past, supposed ‘moderate’ Muslims would denounce acts of terrorism while simultaneously denying that the terrorists were not true Muslims. The ‘moderates’ would say this while also refusing to denounce terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Now, more attention is being given to stealthists and sympies who are willing to say Islam has a problem. Many make this admission not out of belief but out of political necessity. This movement is not necessarily new but it’s a page out of the playbook that could see increased usage. The upshot is that it reflects an awakening western civilization; the downside is that it demonstrates a new level of deceit to neutralize that awakening.

Let’s take a look at CNN personality and author Fareed Zakaria, the same man whose book Post-American World, Obama was caught reading when he stepped off a plane in 2008. The New York Times mocked the controversy instead of investigating Zakaria’s background. Prior to Obama’s first presidential campaign, vetting authors of books candidates read was quite common.

Obama reading Zakaria's book in 2008.

Obama reading Zakaria’s book in 2008.

Zakaria is an interesting case because when it comes to Islam, he’s either a stealthist or a sympie. His father Rafiq Zakaria was a fundamentalist Islamic scholar who died in 2005. Fareed granted an interview to the Village Voice that year and said that he was raised in a secular home:

“I do know a lot about the world of Islam in an instinctive way that you can’t get through book learning,” he says thoughtfully, but admits he finds the role of token Muslim explainer in the American media slightly uncomfortable. “I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that’s not mine, in the sense that I’m not a religious guy.”

How does Fareed grow up in a secular home with a fundamentalist Islamic scholar as a father? The Village Voice interview leaves no indication that the relationship between Fareed and his father was in any way damaged or even strained. If Fareed concedes that he’s not “religious” despite his father’s fundamentalism, why isn’t there any such separation?

Also in 2005, Fareed received a first amendment award from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Fast forward to the summer of 2010. The issue of the Ground Zero mosque was front and center. Shoebat.com exposed Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s true intentions as a stealth jihadist. Five years earlier, the allegedly agnostic Fareed himself admitted to knowing “a lot about the world of Islam” which must mean that he understands the true intentions of Rauf.

Yet, Fareed returned the ADL award because the ADL opposed construction of the mosque. Here are some excerpts from the letter Zakaria sent to the ADL:

I was stunned at your decision to publicly side with those urging the relocation of the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse… I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come.

As someone who “know(s) a lot about Islam”, Zakaria’s support for the Ground Zero mosque is somewhat revealing, especially considering what Walid uncovered about Rauf:

In the weeks after the 9/11/01 attacks, Fareed wrote an article that appeared in TIME Magazine. In it, he asserted that Islamic extremism was not rooted in Islam. He then had this to say about one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most recognized fore fathers, Sayyid Qutb (keep in mind that Zakaria’s father was a fundamentalist Islamic scholar):

In his book, Qutub condemned Nasser as an impious Muslim and his regime as un-Islamic. Indeed, he went on, almost every modern Arab regime was similarly flawed. Qutub envisioned a better, more virtuous polity that was based on strict Islamic principles, a core goal of orthodox Muslims since the 1880s. As the regimes of the Middle East grew more distant and oppressive and hollow in the decades following Nasser, fundamentalism’s appeal grew. It flourished because the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations like it at least tried to give people a sense of meaning and purpose in a changing world, something no leader in the Middle East tried to do.

That was Fareed in 2001; here is Fareed in 2014:

Note in the above commentary that Zarkaria insists that terrorists represent a “tiny minority”. As Ben Shapiro excellently points out, the MAJORITY of Muslims in the world are radical.


, , , , , , ,