Britain, Barbarians & Random Acts of Islamic Violence

In an unspeakably barbaric and evil terror attack in London on Wednesday, a young British soldier was murdered by two men who were apparently motivated by radical Islam. I use the word “apparently,” because what seems today like a clear-cut case of Muslim extremism will tomorrow (which, in England, is already here) be deemed a random act of violence.  Much like the Obama Administration categorized the Ft. Hood shooting, carried out by radicalized Muslim Major Nidal “Allahu Akbar” Hasan,” as simple “workplace violence,” the British people should not be surprised when Prime Minister David Cameron, in the coming days, downplays the links between this specific act of terrorism and radicalized Islam, the so-called “religion of peace.”

One begins to wonder just how many more random acts of Islamic violence that the United States, Great Britain, and other western countries will have to endure before the politicians dispense with political correctness and begin denouncing radical Islam by name. On Sunday night, following a viewing of a video of James Walker of The Watchman Fellowship sharing some facts about Islam, I was asked by a member of my congregation, “Why don’t our elected leaders speak out forcefully against radical Islam?”  I suppose there are a myriad of reasons for politicians’ reticence to “name names,” but the short answer to that question comes down to one word — politics.

I would love to say this politically correct approach to Muslim extremism began with President Barack Obama, but the sad fact of the matter is that Republican George W. Bush was the President who proclaimed “Islam is peace” shortly after radical Islamic Al-Qaeda militants murdered almost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. In 2007, President Bush reaffirmed his faulty theology while speaking to an Arabic-language television station:

I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace.”

While not all Muslims in the world — including in the United States or Great Britain — are radicalized, how many are? That’s a question that ordinary Americans and Brits are asking in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the bloody attack in London yesterday. It’s a question that our elected leaders should be asking, if not in public, then certainly behind closed doors. If Presidents and Prime Ministers and their intelligence agencies are not at least curious as to the number of radicalized Muslims in our midst, then we need to elect new leaders! And, by curious, I mean we need to use profiling as one of (not only) the weapons in our counter-terrorism arsenal. We already use profiling at our Border Patrol checkpoints. I’m glad we do. Otherwise, I would be sitting at checkpoints between Alamogordo and El Paso or Las Cruces for hours instead of minutes.

Most estimates put the worldwide Muslim population at 1.5 billion. In the United States, the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) supports Cornell University’s estimate of 7 million Muslims living in this country. The number of Muslims in Great Britain doubled between 2001 and 2011, going from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. Taking the worldwide, American, and British numbers and estimating how many Muslims might be radicalized, the following would be the results:

10% Radicalized:       Worldwide (150,000,000)    U.S.A (700,000)       Great Britain (270,000)

1% Radicalized:         Worldwide (15,000,000)       U.S.A (70,000)         Great Britain (27,000)

Based upon what we are experiencing in the United States and the United Kingdom, do we really think that the percentage of radicalized Muslims will decrease in the next 10 years? Not only will the Muslim populations worldwide and in America and Great Britain increase, but there is a strong likelihood that the percentages of radicalized Muslims will also increase. Even if we want to employ conservative estimates and assume that the overall percentage of those radicalized will not increase, the total numbers will. Some believe that the worldwide Muslim population will reach 2.2 billion by the year 2030, which would put Islam at 26.4% of the world’s population. That is staggering.

Since September 11, 2001, there have been at least 34 random acts of Islamic violence committed in the United States. From John Allen Muhammad (Beltway sniper attacks) in 2002 to Maj. Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood) in 2009 to the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston Marathon bombings) in March of this year, the hits just keep on coming. And, to add insult to injury, one of the alleged terrorists, Hasan — who the Defense Department refuses to classify as a terrorist — has kept drawing his military salary ($278,000 since his arrest) while the victims of the Ft. Hood massacre cannot receive benefits because the Obama’s DOD continues to absurdly classify the attack as “workplace violence.”

But, that is par for the course for the politically correct crowd in Washington. Every time one of these unrelated, random acts of Islamic violence occurs, the politicians — in unison — rush before the cameras to reassure the citizens, “There’s nothing to see here. Move along. All is well. Just some crazy, rogue criminals who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion.” I’m not buying! I wasn’t buying when George W. Bush was selling. I’m sure as heck not buying it from the current President. It’s far past time that we — Americans, Brits & other freedom-loving people in the west — snap out of our delusion and demand that our elected leaders stop trying to sell us a bill of goods when it comes to radical Islam. If we don’t, we can expect more — not less — random acts of Islamic violence. And, not just in London or Boston. Coming soon to your city, town, or village.

6 comments for “Britain, Barbarians & Random Acts of Islamic Violence

  1. Bennett Willis
    May 23, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    I’m not sure what the value of calling it a “religion of random violence” would be. What do you think the value would be? Would it reduce the number of these events? At least when you call it a “religion of peace” you are addressing 90-99% of the group correctly–your numbers.

    Would you feel better about things if the whole religion was declared… Well, you can probably come up with a better name than I would.

    Suggest the name that people who speak for the US should use when talking about Islam.

  2. Bennett Willis
    May 23, 2013 at 7:07 PM

    I think that the issue with Ft. Hood is that if you declared it an act of war (which personally, I believe it is) you would have to treat the Major as a POW.

    • May 24, 2013 at 12:02 PM

      Bennett,

      I’m not sure if a declaration that Ft. Hood was a terrorist act automatically means that Hasan is considered a POW. He could be treated as an “enemy combatant,” but as an American citizen serving in the Army, he would be subject to the rules of a military tribunal. I think what has prevented the Obama Administration from classifying Ft. Hood as a terrorist attack is politics, both domestic and international. I think that most reasonable people understand that Ft. Hood was not an issue of “workplace violence” like a post office employee who snaps.

      As to what to call Islam, I personally think it is a “false religion,” although I am well aware that politicians, particularly the President (Bush or Obama) could not so classify Islam. However, Islam’s origins and much of its history, including recent history, would argue against calling it a “religion of peace.” Thanks for stopping by. Have a great weekend and God bless,

      Howell

      • Bennett Willis
        June 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM

        Reasonably, you should regard any religion other than our version of Christianity as a “false religion.” Personally, I share that opinion. But this is not what you can routinely call Islam if you represent or speak for the US.

        You have avoided the question concerning the term that any representative of the US should use to refer to Islam. Do you have a better term or were you simply being critical of a President that you don’t like?

        • June 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM

          Bennett,

          I’m not sure I do have a better term, but, to set your mind at ease, I do like President George W. Bush 😉 Thanks and God bless,

          Howell

          • Bennett Willis
            June 4, 2013 at 1:50 PM

            I have found that I tend to support the incumbent. Maybe because I think they have an impossible job.

Leave a Reply