The Boston massacre (four dead, over 200 wounded) resulting from the Tsarnaev jihad is having a profound effect on American public opinion. Most Americans are, finally, unwilling to accept at face value the mainstream media, academic and US government excuse that “inherently peaceful” Islam has been “hijacked” by a “few extremists. Of course, why this propaganda ever was conventional wisdom is perplexing, considering:
● Over 60% of foreign terrorist groups are Islamic
● Over 80% of Justice Department terrorism convictions since 9/11 are of Muslims (who comprise less than 1% of the US population)
● Since 1972, exclusive of the 9/11 death toll, over 100 people have been killed in this country in the name of Islam. Add in 9/11 and the figure tops 3,000.
Most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims—including 2.6 million in the US—are not terrorists. But the lion’s share of terrorism today is done by people waging jihad fi sabil Allah, “in the path of Allah.” Liberals sputter about the Crusades and the Inquisition, but both ended centuries ago, unlike jihad—the primary meaning of which is not “striving to be a good Muslim” but “holy war” against non-Muslims. There are over 164 passages in the Qur’an recommending either jihad or its analog qital, “killing”—including variations like decapitation. Also, many hadiths—sayings attributed to Islam’s founder—extoll lethal dissemnation of that faith. And Muhammad himself, unlike Jesus or Buddha, led armies in battle and even ordered the beheading of Jewish captives. This trifecta of divine sanction for religious violence has helped fuel Islamic conquest for fourteen centuries, and gives lie to the canard that jihadists are “radical” or “extreme”—actually, they are mainstream.
What the world should be thankful for is that such a small percentage of the world’s Muslims actually engages in violence—but even if 99% of Muslims are peaceful, that means 16 million are potentially jihadist (or faciltators thereof), insofar as they take the Qur’an, hadiths, and Muhammad’s example literally. There are sects of Islam (the Isma’ili Shi`is; the Ahamdis; certain mystical Sufi orders) that shun violent jihad altogether—but they are minorities. Clearly, Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev—like Major Nidal Malik Hasan (Ft. Hood shooter), Faisal Shahzahd (attempted Times Square bomber) and Reshad Riddle (who killed his own father in a church in Ohio)—were influenced by mainstream Islamic rubrics on jihad, amplified, but neither distorted nor “hijacked,” by the Internet-available teachings of Islamic clerics like Feiz Muhammad (who actually simply reinforces the views of venerated scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya). And note: four of these five men were American citizens.
Neither banning Muslim immigration nor revoking US citizenship is the answer to terrorism that is now both foreign and domestic. Rather, American law enforcement and intelligence should profile for increased Islamic religiosity, since there is a direct correlation between such and propensity to violence. It should also be far harder for those from certain Muslim areas to obtain American citizenship or, even, to enter the US (as was the case pre-Obama), via perhaps a screening test that plumbs relevant attitudes. Muslims should be welcome in the US—provided they can, first, prove their commitment to modernity and American civic values.