“An Islam of Their Very Own.”

Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review,

...there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved inanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this:

Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion. “Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like. Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form.

This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

...The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

McCarthy goes on to cite many examples from Islamic teachings about homosexuality.

The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed. See, for instance, this 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq — notwithstanding its new, U.S.-supported constitution).

As I have argued before, while a categorical ban on Muslim immigration would be bad policy, our immigration law must distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism, the sharia-supremacist political ideology, which tends to grow strong support wherever Muslims form a critical mass. There absolutely should be severe restrictions on immigration from countries, regions, and communities (e.g., in Europe) in which sharia standards are de jure or de facto imposed.

The problem with mass immigration from sharia enclaves is not merely that trained terrorists may infiltrate the immigrant population. It is that sharia-adherent, assimilation-resistant Muslims will form sharia enclaves in the U.S., as they have throughout Europe, where young Muslims will be “radicalized” under our noses in the years to come.

Read more here.

What does it mean to be a "radicalized" Muslim?

Tom Krannawitter asks a good question today:

For those who perhaps have spent more time studying the Qur'an than have I, please offer some enlightenment:

I am having a difficult time understanding what is meant by the phrase popular among news media talking heads and some politicos of Muslims being "radicalized." What exactly does "radicalized" mean in this context?

I have studied the Qur'an enough to know that Islam views legitimate religious authority and legitimate legal or government authority as essentially the same thing.

It takes a stretch of interpretative imagination to deduce something like "separation of church and state" from the Qur'an, which provides a detailed guide for the lives of Muslims individually, socially, and politically -- including detailed punishments for a host of Qur'anic "sins." For Muslims who believe that the Qur'an is literally the word and authority of the one and only God, how could they ever concede that, say, some man-made Constitution is more authoritative than the Qur'an in any situation?

I've also read over the Qur'anic passages providing injunctions for Muslims to engage in violence, including detailed instructions of how to cut off hands and feet, decapitate, and "strike off the fingertips" of "non-believers." The Qur'an makes clear that such violence should persist until "all religion is for Allah." (Surah 8:39)

So it seems to me that there are essentially two kinds of Muslims: There are Muslims, who piously obey the Qur'an including its commands to engage in violence and kill and torture non-believers. And there are apostate Muslims, meaning Muslims who have for the most part abandoned Islam in belief, in practice, or both. This is what religious "apostasy" means.

If I am correct -- and, again, I ask kindly to be righted if I am wrong -- then what might it mean for a Muslim to be "radicalized?" How does a "radical Muslim" differ from a "Muslim?" Is being "radicalized" just another way of saying a Muslim who did not take his faith or the teachings of the Qur'an seriously before, now, all of sudden, IS taking his faith and the Qur'an seriously? Or does it mean something else?