President Obama, John Kerry, and a number of left-wing pundits have been in the habit of pronouncing Islamic State (IS) “not Islamic.” Now, in the rush to downplay the connection between the massacre in Orlando and radical Islam, some commentators have invoked the perpetrator’s impiety as reason to doubt his connection to IS in the first place. Abe Greenwald spots the contradiction:
If IS isn’t a true representation of Islam, and if Omar Mateen wasn’t a particularly devout Muslim, wouldn’t that make him—by progressives’ own logic—an exemplary IS terrorist?
Apparently not. As it turns out, Islamist terrorism is for confused Muslims only until a confused Muslim commits mass murder in the name of Islam. When that happens, Islamist terrorism turns out to be for the serious and devout, after all. . . .
What’s the benefit of deceiving on the matter of radical Islam? The answer is, it allows us to avoid our responsibilities and tell soothing stories while the world burns.
If we called things by their proper names, maybe we wouldn’t have spent the week after a terrorist attack straining and contorting in a national effort to deny the obvious. [What’s more], there’s dignity in facing the truth. Frankly, that’s benefit enough.
Read more on Commentary: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/radical-islam-terrorists-muslims/