“Islam
is not the problem,” proclaims the Left. And if you say otherwise,
you’re a “racist,” even though “Muslim” is not a race. Yet a fact
remains: virtually all the world’s terrorists today claim Islamic
motivations. So if Islam (belief) is not the problem, are we then left
with a genetic explanation for this violence? Is there
something inherent in the groups generally embracing Islam — Arabs,
Persians, Indonesians, Punjabis, etc. — that would account for it? And,
hey, I’m just asking; it’s the liberals who profess ideas suggesting
this possibility.
Consider: When analyzing WWII and Germany, few claim the problem was Germans, but Nazism. When looking at 1917 Russia, we don’t say the problem was Russians, but Marxism. So fill in the blank: when evaluating the Muslim world and its violence, do we assume the problem is the people or _____?
Then there are other explanations for Muslim violence, all of which amount to Islamsplainin’. Poverty is one, but the Muslim world is not uniquely poor. There are many millions of poor Catholics in South America, Africa and elsewhere; and hundreds of millions of poor Hindus in India. Yet they aren’t committing terrorist acts. And Osama bin Laden was worth $125 million.
Consider: When analyzing WWII and Germany, few claim the problem was Germans, but Nazism. When looking at 1917 Russia, we don’t say the problem was Russians, but Marxism. So fill in the blank: when evaluating the Muslim world and its violence, do we assume the problem is the people or _____?
Then there are other explanations for Muslim violence, all of which amount to Islamsplainin’. Poverty is one, but the Muslim world is not uniquely poor. There are many millions of poor Catholics in South America, Africa and elsewhere; and hundreds of millions of poor Hindus in India. Yet they aren’t committing terrorist acts. And Osama bin Laden was worth $125 million.
No comments:
Post a Comment