Anderson Cooper began a recent segment on Revolution Muslim, a radical New York-based group that praised Major Hasan for the Fort Hood shootings, with the caveat that the group is “a splinter of a splinter” group. His warning is no doubt intended to short-circuit the mass hysteria that would ensue if Americans were to view the raw footage. Surely, without the filter provided by supposedly objective mediators, Americans might reach their own conclusions. Many other pundits and talking heads have followed suit, preempting any coverage of the Fort Hood shootings with patronizing warnings to separate the actions of one radical shooter or group against the supposed mainstream version of Islam. The first order question that is missed, however, is the assumption that underlies Anderson Cooper’s statement: “How big is the splinter?”
Emphasizing tolerance above all other values ironically enables radical groups that take advantage of American tolerance and secularism. Radical Islamists advance fundamental Shari’a law, a system predicated on the forced imposition of virtue according to the Quran. The strength and representation of these radical groups should not be understated. An examination of history, current trends and public opinion in Arabic countries on issues like suicide bombing demonstrates the clear need for massive reform within the Islamic community.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams sat down with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, to discuss the unprovoked attacks of the Barbary pirates on American ships. Jefferson and Adams were understandably confused as to the motivation for the pirates to attack American ships when the Americans had no quarrel with them. They recorded Ambassador Adja’s response to their inquiries; in a letter to Congress, Jefferson and Adams noted “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” The justification contained in this passage never mentions economic goods like oil or political issues like Israel, most notably because the first was not relevant at the time and the second did not exist. The central driver of the war was the religious duty of Muslims to subjugate the infidels.
So the splinter is not new, but the size question remains. How many Muslims subscribe to this radical ideology? The weight of the evidence is not encouraging. In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a speech where he referred to some of the teachings of Islam as “evil and inhuman.” In response, seven churches in Palestine’s West Bank and Gaza were attacked and a nun was shot in Somalia. Anjem Choudary, a lawyer in London, told an assembly that those who insulted Islam would be “subject to capital punishment.” Protesters carrying signs that read “Behead those who insult Islam” listened to him as he explained, “The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and ... also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the Prophet.”
The reaction of the Islamic community made the Pope’s point for him. The duty to subjugate that is inherent in radical Islam did not account for the absurdity of responding violently to a supposedly unfounded claim that your community has a history of violence. That this followed the fire-bombing of embassies and worldwide attacks on Christians after the release of a cartoon in Denmark that poked fun at the prophet Mohammed is unequivocal proof that the protesters were serious about their intentions to carry out the message on their placards.
Disturbingly, Anjem Choudary and radical Islamists have attained the influence they desired to project, a situation which suggests that the radical movement is powerful indeed and if still a splinter, then a very sharp one. Roland Emmerich, the noted director of the blockbuster movies Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow, is releasing another movie soon called 2012. The film, based on the notion that the world will end in 2012, features a scene in which the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica topples and crushes a crowd of faithful Christian worshippers beneath it. It goes on to depict the destruction of the Sistine Chapel and the statue of Christ the Redeemer that watches over Rio de Janeiro.