Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
Yet here’s my puzzlement. Let’s agree, for the sake of the discussion, that the 9/11 bombers did not speak for Islam. Ditto the London murders. Indeed, let’s say that neither the Boston marathon bombers nor the people who murdered a total of 16 people in Paris last week (the 12 at Charlie Hebdo and four at the kosher market), let’s say that they did not speak for Islam either. Like Major Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Ft Hood in 2009 while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” they were just “lone extremists” who carry out murder and mayhem while shouting “Allahu Akbar.” But that has nothing to do with Islam. OK. Got it.
But here’s my question: Who does speak for Islam? We are assured that it’s not the group that now calls itself Islamic State, but which, following Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, I am considering calling Daesh, a name they apparently dislike. Anyway, we know that they don’t speak for Islam because our political leaders and our media have told us so. It’s the same with Boko Haram, the Nigerian Muslim group. This morning, quoting the Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, I noted that they had kidnapped and sold into sex slavery 300 Nigerian school girls. That was before I saw the story that Boko Haram had just invaded another town killing as many as 2000. Boko Haram appears to believe that they represent Islamic teaching, but no: our leaders have assured us that that is not the case. Ditto about Syria: this summer an adulteress or two were stoned to death, but that, of course, was the work not of Islam but of “extremists,” if not quite “lone extremists.”
So who, according to the establishment gospel, does speak for Islam? The Ayatollah Khomeni was the spiritual leader of Iran, a great Shia Muslim country. Did he speak for Islam? He didn’t like a novel by Salman Rushdie and told his followers to kill him for insulting Islam. Did the ayatollah speak for Islam?
Two days ago, Raif Badawi, a 30-year-old Saudi blogger, was given 50 lashes by the Saudi authorities for the crime of “insulting Islam.” It was the first installment of 1000 lashes, scheduled to be administered with 50 lashes a session for 20 weeks. No one expects him to last that long, for the order specifies that he is to be “lashed very severely” and be denied medical care.
Saudi Arabia is a great Sunni Muslim nation, our “friend” and “ally.” Do they speak for Islam?
—“Who Speaks for Islam?”, Roger Kimball at PJM yesterday. And speaking of magic get out of the MSM’s rhetorical jail free cards:
One intrepid CNN reporter offered her theory for why Obama declined to attend the rally in Paris when so many of heads of state around the globe did: Politics.
“President Obama, while he obviously does things to deal with terrorism, this isn’t the issue that he wants to be fully front and center out there with, I think is fair to say,” said CNN Senior Political Correspondent Brianna Keilar.
—“CNN: Terrorism really isn’t Obama’s ‘issue,’” Noah Rothman at Hot Air, today. (Do other presidents get to use this get out of jail free card? “Let’s face it. Shrinking the size of the federal government just isn’t really LBJ’s issue.” “Let’s face it. Embassy security just isn’t Jimmy Carter’s issue.” “Let’s face it. Keeping students safe while protesting on campus just isn’t Richard Nixon’s issue.”)
To slightly modify one of John Nolte’s catch phrases at Big Journalism, let’s face it: Democrats — and their MSM-protected constituencies — sure got it good. And conversely:
. @oreillyfactor: Left Soft-Pedals Islamic Terrorism, Is Appalled By Christian Fundamentalism http://t.co/5KNDdCzNLw pic.twitter.com/2OrDNtsYee
— FoxNewsInsider (@FoxNewsInsider) January 13, 2015
Join the conversation as a VIP Member