RUTHFULLY YOURS

The cutthroats of ISIS, Al-Queda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and any other Islamic terrorist gang at large in our time also have the same religious incentive – and are afflicted with the same psychotic obsession.

It is also fortuitous happenstance that two accomplished students of the subject of Islam, thousands of miles apart and within days of each other, published columns about what drives Islam’s penchant for homicide, torture, rape, mutilation, conquest, and destruction. They are Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, in his November 11th column, “Why Islam is a Religion of War,” and the mysterious Norwegian writer Fjordman, in his November 17th piece, “Islam: A Permanent World War,” on Gates of Vienna. Their common theme is why Islam makes war on the West. Their themes intersect at certain points, and then go off in different directions.

Greenfield led off with:

Islamic violence is a religious problem. Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.

This means that a jihadist is much like a schoolyard bully, who must triumph over his opponents and strike fear in and compel submission by the other kids. It is an absolute necessity. It is important that others witness this triumph. It is even better if he triumphs in cooperation with other bullies, or with their encouragement. It is proof of his faith. His being the “last man standing” over his vanquished and bloodied foe is taken as proof for him of the metaphysical supremacy and superiority of his faith, and of the efficacy of physical force in the name of Islam. He has faith in that fallacy. It must be true. It’s the only thing he’s sure of.

White privilege. It’s everywhere, I tell you. You can’t escape its smothering influence — even at one of the finest (and most expensive) schools in the land.

Take the case of this poor, wilting flower. Nissy Aya is now in her fifth year of undergraduate study at Columbia University. She was supposed to graduate last year with the rest of her class, but finds herself — totally not her fault — on track to graduate next year.

Ms. Aya says that she has experienced much angst and anguish while taking Columbia’s Core courses, studying the greatest, the most powerful, the most tolerant civilization in the history of the human race — Western civilization. It seems that Ms. Aya has feelings of inadequacy when reading all these books by dead white males.

I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

This puts me at odds with Barack Obama, as is often the case. It is worth explaining my reasoning, though, since – as our bloviator-in-chief is fond of saying – this is a teachable moment.

The president of the United States, shamefully but characteristically, took the opportunity of being on foreign soil – in the Philippines with its large Muslim population – to smear his fellow countrymen over their effort to protect American national security. The Republican initiative, led by Senator Ted Cruz, would thwart Obama’s scheme to import thousands of refugees and prioritize the asylum claims of Christians. In response to this “rhetoric,” Obama seethed, “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL.”

The president elaborated that “when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

So tough here to untangle the ignorance from the demagoguery. For starters, asylum does not involve placing comparative values on the lives of different categories of people. And no one would be more offended than Christians at the notion that Christian lives should be valued more highly than those of other human beings. (By contrast, the conceit that Muslim lives – especially the lives of male Muslims – are more worthy than others is a leitmotif of Islamic scripture that is reflected throughout sharia law.)

Asylum, instead, is a remedy for persecution that is controlled by federal law. Obama lashed out at Republicans for promoting a “religious test,” which he claimed was “offensive and contrary to American values.” Yet, because asylum addresses persecution, governing law has always incorporated a religious test. Again, that is not because the lives of one religion’s believers are innately better than others; it is because when religious persecution is occurring, the targeted religion’s believers are inevitably more vulnerable to murder, rape, torture, and other atrocities than co-religionists of the persecutors.