“For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,'” he says. “That’s the key,’ they tell us. ‘We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
Well, since he asked, it would offer a precise understanding of its appeal as a perverted interpretation of Islam. Using such a precise phrase would give cover to millions of peaceful Muslims who are outraged by what is carried out by radicals in the name of their religion. It would identify its appeal to young men and women who call themselves Muslims, but whose radicalism is fundamentally ideological and political. It would draw attention to the mosques — and there are hundreds of them across the land — that preach violent politics, not a faith of the heart and spirit. It would answer the mistaken prescription to bar all Muslims from America, and draw the issue as one of our nation’s security being threatened by “radical Islam,” not Islam.
This message from the president would explain the Orwellian appeal of another “homegrown” man who has had such a strong influence on aspiring terrorists. The “sermons” of the American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted for death by the CIA in 2011, were eagerly consumed by Omar Mateen, as well as the Boston Marathon bombers, the San Bernardino shooters and the Fort Hood killer. These men all became soldiers of their “faith,” not merely soldiers of something the president wants everyone to call “workplace violence.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member