Post-Reformation, there was a great cultural civil war that plagued Europe for years. Protestants and Catholics used violence to secure political power. Was that terrorism or was that war? Obviously, it was both a cultural and political “civil” and “state-sponsored” war. It was also terrifying.
The religiously-motivated violence which took place at Ohio State University yesterday has sparked a debate over whether or not Abdul Razak Ali Artan’s rampage was terrorism. Obviously this debate hinges upon our definition of terrorism, but instead of defining terrorism first, we really ought to categorize religiously-motivated violence.
Is this war? Currently, Islamic violence across the globe is associated with calls for Jihad, a war or struggle against non-believers. In many cases, this violence is sectarian and for decades we’ve seen violence to degrees easily defined as “war” between Sunni majorities and Shi`ite minorities throughout the Near East and Persia. We’ve seen national jihads targeting Israel, Russia and the United States, as well as Germany, Great Briton, and France. These Jihad’s are geopolitical in nature resulting from political and economic behavior resulting from European sphere’s of influence within artificially carved African and Arab “nation-states”.
The September 11th attacks on the United States set off a global war on terror (violent attacks carried out “in resistance” to the presence of non-Islamic world powers in Muslim countries). Western Powers have been targeting radicalized Islamist groups across the world ever since. Western Muslims, however, have become increasing isolated and disconnected from the cultures and society of their Western homelands. Calls for the deportation of Muslims in the United States and Europe have begun as non-Muslims fear for the survival of their own culture and freedom, as well as over fear of terrorism. Then-candidate Donald Trump called for a ban on Muslim immigration from nations experiencing Islamist unrest until reliable vetting processes could be put in place.
What we have is a global, cultural and religious clash of civilizations. Maybe “terrorism” isn’t the right word to describe all religiously-motivated violence. Maybe it is. What we are experiencing, however, is war – a war without civilians and without soldiers. The idea that we are fighting a war against Islam offends many multicultural ideologies in the West, so we prefer to talk about terrorism, in order to isolate every act of violence and to assign blame to the evil-motives of the individuals which carried out the attacks. After all, not all Muslims are looking to overthrow Western Civilization.
However, proposed ban’s on Burqa’s indicate that some Americans believe that Islam and Western Civilization are incompatible. I studied political Islam at George Mason University in 2006 and concluded that, fundamentally, Islam would require a reformation before it was able to integrate into Western Civilization. The Protestants (16th century Germany) and Jews (19th century Germany) went through reformations. The Catholic Church experienced Vatican II in 1965, which lead to a decrease in American skepticism toward Catholic politicians (for over a century, Catholicism was viewed as incompatible with the US Constitution and US citizenship). Democrats Keith Ellison and Andre Carson are the only two Muslims serving in the federal legislature.
Like the Catholic Church of old, which experienced a great deal of political power throughout Europe, the Islamic “Church” is similarly concerned with political power and geo-political influence. Islam has its own laws and its own political ideology that tends to isolate its members and to prevent cultural assimilation. Throughout history, a lack of cultural assimilation has caused trouble for immigrants of every religion. Today, the rift truly is between Islam and a Western Civilization grounded in political, cultural, philosophical, and scientific principles developed during The Enlightenment (not to mention a rift between Islam and Communism and Russian Nationalism).
So when a Muslim immigrant “snaps” and tries to kill his fellow students at an American University, or to kill co-workers at a corporate holiday function, or targets homosexuals in Orlando, we call it terrorism. What these attacks actually are, however, are acts of violence motivated by a global religiously-motivated culture and political war. Are isolated acts of war terrorism? Sure. I think the Ohio State attack was terrorism, but merely calling it terrorism seems to miss the larger context within which that violence occurs.
32 comments
Steve,
It is true that I have written quite of few comments below. Even so, and at odds, I acknowledge that you have introduced a conversation much needed. Very good of you to done this.
Thanks …
we have the Jewish people living in our country practicing their own religion without any problems– so too are Muslims– for years, without any problems—
then our leaders started to stick their noses into other people’s business, ruffling feathers, trying to tell other people how to live their lives.– resulting in 9/11 and the knee jerking reaction of war
then we get obama?– wanting– to TRANSFORM our country into some kind of world savior, at the expense of the sovereignty of our country, regardless of the economic impact to our country. A fool trying to kiss the world’s ass to gain their favor, but only screwing everything up, causing the world to go crazy with mass killings and tens of million people fleeing their own homes because of him.– then he brings these people here?– having no idea if they really want to come here to assimilate with us, transform us to their ideas, or destroy us,— AND DOESN’T CARE.
it used to be– we welcomed those that wanted to be here, that was willing to assimilate with us,– that was able to contribute to the well being of our country–no more.
with obama– no one has any idea of their desires– we DO KNOW we destroyed their lives –there, –where they used to live, –turned their countries into war zones without any real leadership
I would be angry at our country, if I was any of them
why do so many people hate us?— just look at their countries because of us.
look at the results of obama over there.
this is the result of electing an activist instead of a world leader– putting in as SECRETARY OF STATE, a money hungry person willing to sell anything to anyone regardless of its effect on anyone.that only made things worse
what country in the world is better off with our interference?– NAME ONE.–
OTHER THAN CHINA
open borders to the south?— only brings in their poor, their criminals, adding only cheap labor to some business people that cares only about themselves.
I agree with 95% of that – so, what do you think the Trump Administration should do over the next four years?
You mean since it doesn’t look like he will be draining the swamp, but filling it even further?
Islam is what it always has been, whether at Tours, the Gates of Vienna or on the Iberian peninsula, an onslaught against the Christian. Those who believe it any different are very, very naive people who have learned their cultural indoctrination lessons oh so very well.
Secularization of Islam is happening in the West. Homosexuality, excesses in alcohol and drug use, breaking of religious customs, happens all the time in Western Countries, especially as Muslims break away from their “communities”. That said, as long as people are insulating themselves in communities, there will be little hope for change.
Thus the no-go zones.
Steve! It’s not about hope. It about who wins in the war which determines how we are to live.
On target as always Mr. Tucker. Terrorism is but a symptom of a culture war.
It is not a culture war, it is an ideological war. Islam, as demonstrated by its history and current geopolitical activities, is utterly incompatible with western civilization and values. It’s government is a dictatorial caliphate not a representative republic. Its sharia law structure has little in common with constitutional legislative and western law. Its law and culture is repressive of women and non-believers. There is no separation of government and law from religion. In its 1400 year history, conquest by any and all means is acceptable, and Islam was and still advocates for and practices slavery.
In my studies on Political Islam, this was precisely my conclusions and why I couldn’t imagine how Islam and Western Civilization could coexist without some kind of Islamic reformation. It is important for their to be an organized and official reformation, as we saw with Christianity and Judaism, in order to rise up leaders to continue the work of adapting traditions and perspectives. We still do not have this, even though millions of Muslims have “adapted” to the American way of life, in so far as they have adapted to our laws and many of our workplace and corporate customs. But the Islamic political and cultural system has created both political and cultural war-footings, as well as ideological war-footings. It isn’t just one – it’s all. Hence the need for reformation or the inevitability of long-term conflict.
“It is important for their(sic) to be an organized and official reformation”
There is no ‘official’ Islam. There is no Pope, there is no organization, there is no institution. Waiting for the so called “official reformation” is a pipe dream. That isn’t to say there hasn’t been change. There is always conflict between orthodoxy and modernism, as in any religion. In Islam, the fundamentalists believe that civil governments should adopt Sharia law. That is the ‘institutional’ reform that they seek, and they are working to impose Sharia everywhere. There is no Islamic authority, nor existing Islamic institution that opposes them.
You studied Islam, and I haven’t, so maybe you can tell me where I’m wrong. I don’t see Islamic reformation as a realistic path forward in our lifetimes, unfortunately. We will probably just see the continuation of the effort to expand Sharia into civil institutions as has been happening since the Ottoman empire more than a hundred years ago.
You hit upon the key issue regarding Islamic reformation. The entire 1400 year history shows some internal struggles within Islam but when it comes to infidels there is basic unanimity. Infidels are not to be tolerated but merely allowed to exist. They can abused for profit or slaughtered for religious convenience.
The idea that the West can wait around for reformation is equivalent to the ideas associated with the appeasement of Hitler before full hostilities broke out.
It saddens me greatly that our political leadership believes that accommodation is possible when the lessons of history show that accommodation leads to slaughter, slavery, and cultural disintegration.
The West has been sitting around waiting for reformation. What else are they to do? The only other option is extermination.
The West destroyed the Ottoman Empire but it did not exterminate the Muslim population or Islam. Islam will not be so kind.
Ok, but what do you think is the correct policy here?
First, let’s identify Islam as an ideology, thus eliminating its freedom of religion arguments.
Second, shut Dow mosques where any terrorist has studied and cancel,the building of all future mosques.
Third, stop all immigration of Muslims regardless of country of origin. If they are found in country use an expedited deportation process that seems them back to the country of origin or the North African desert.
Fourth, watch France, Germany, U.K., Denmark to find out if they have any good ideas. Adopt Visagard approach to stopping Islam and empowering foundational religion (see Poland).
Fifth, join with Russia to stabilize the mid-east with particular emphasis on eliminating the hostile Iranian regime.
Sixth, educate and prepare the American citizenry for any potential hostilities. No more giving into Islamic pressure groups.
Steve! I don’t get it? “… sitting around waiting for reformation.” What is this nonsense? At a hinge point in history, the door either swings open or shut. Open for some. Shut to others. What is all this wobbliness in an otherwise pointed articel?
Now “extermination!” This is a real good word to think on.
What wobbliness?
The wobble is that you know well the instruction of history, a history buttressed by the recent example of Lebanon, a Christian country conquered by Islam and made over into a misery of sorrow for Christians. This is the in the face reality, and yet you wobble on in some kind of Kumbaya hope of coexistence? Reformation? Some indeterminate musing?
I suppose that we all get to things by degrees. This is undeniably so. But at some point we ought just chuck the weapons which been used to disarm us of our manly determination … and to act once again the man in behalf of our own households … and all the political correctness be damned.
I wouldn’t encourage anyone to wait for reformation. However, I do believe that reformation is necessary in order to allow Islam and Western Civilization to exist simultaneously.
Steve, I think that you are a very naive person. 99.99% of history says one thing, one thing only … and you choose the wisp of .01%? Incredible!
What is it you think I’m saying?
Yes! That is the question quite to the point! When I read Giere, I know exactly what he is saying. When I read Tucker????? My preference has always been for a razor’s edge of exposition. Slice clean through and don’t pussy-foot around the edges of a subject.
Thank you! The keen edge once again slices through nonsense!
Churchill’s “the river wars” quite accurate described Islam and Muslims. Today’s France quite accurately shows what happens when Muslims are a substantial percentage of a population. The French authorities have identified some 750 no-go zones. France is now a martial law society and has been such for well over a year. Trump is stepping into this growing Islamic minefield that was deliberately created by obama.
Trump will have some difficult decisions to make, but he needs to focus on as extremely thorough a method of vetting potential immigrants as can be devised.
No just Obama the puppet, but by suicidal elites who are in turn controlled by a relatively small inner circle of Globalists. But for sure, a war in which we will either conquer or be conquered.
The Protestant Reformation is somewhat of a misnomer. The so-called Reformation was a movement to RESTORE CHRISTIANITY. And as such, it was a COMPLIANCE MOVEMENT. In short, the aim was to restore and comply with the original Christian teaching which is characterized by what is know as the Apostolic Age.
The Islam invaders of Christian lands, the Western countries, are not multi-cultural. They are not reformers. They aren’t interested in co-existence. Like the Christian Dissenters of old, the Islamists seek a NEW COMPLIANCE. The aim is comply with Islam or else suffer Dhimmitude. And is Islam is successful in their colonialism, life will become at some point of inflexion … a hell hole for Christians, both actual and nominal.
Any idea of ‘reforming’ Islam is naivety. Islam is siege warfare introduced into our midst by the madness of our secularized Marxist elites. The operating rule here is that no two bodies of Law can occupy the same space at the same time. To ignore this rule is suffocation.
Islam will change or not change with the Muslims that represent it, just as Christianity has changed, or failed to change, with its own leaders. Reformation doesn’t point in a direction; but what it did was to prepare the way for the Enlightenment and for free markets. Ideas have consequences. Looking at the big picture, anything is possible. That said, I agree, reformation is unlikely. Islam is a political movement, globally, fractured as it may be.
That you agree as to the unlikely reformation of Islam does not surprise me.
In the above, you look at the Enlightenment as being in some way an extension of Christianity. In contrast, I see the Enlightenment as a departure, a severing from, a total breach of Christian practice.
I say with firmness that no two laws systems can occupy the same space at the same time. In America, embrace of the Enlightenment by a long progressive process of secularization effectively has terminated the old America system of law based as it was in God’s Law. As a result, the old unalienable right of custom has been displace by the rise of the era of the civil right. And with the rise of the civil right, the state infringes wherever it pleases.
We are now engaged in a multi-faceted war wherein people will have to chose sides. And the winner will be the one who is LEAST political correct.
You guys worry me sometimes 😉