Brian Lilley: "Call It What It Is--Islamic Terrorism"

If you dig into that anti-radicalization handbook, a co-creation of two Muslim groups and the RCMP (which has since sought to distance itself from it), you will find this, er, modest proposal:

“Abandon public terminology that creates false linkages between Islam and terrorism in favour of consistent language that contextualizes threats and accurately identifies the perpetrators of violent extremism. Avoid terms such as 'Islamist terrorism,' 'Islamicism,' and 'Islamic extremism' in favour of more accurate terms such as 'al-Qaida inspired extremism.'"

Brian Lilley thinks that's a terrible idea (me too):

Here is the problem: Obama may not want to call ISIS Islamic, and the National Council of Canadian Muslims may not want to link Islam and terrorism, but the people carrying out the terror strikes do...

You can claim all you want that they have nothing to do with Islam - but the people doing the shootings, the bombings, the beheadings say they are doing it for their religion. 

They claim they are joining the jihad. 

If you want to have a debate over what is the true interpretation of Islam, that's fine -- but don't try to say we cannot or should not make a connection that is clearly there.

Actually, Brian, I don't see much point in that kind of debate. What Islam says on the subject of waging jihad is clear as can be, even if the Muslim groups behind the handbook contend that everyone currently heeding jihad's siren call has gotten it wrong and has "misunderstood" or improperly contextualized holy words which are genuinely friendly and non-violent. (Did you know that the Koran is chockfull of hugs and kittens and unicorns and rainbows? No? Me neither.)

Frankly, the fact that so many so-called moderate Muslims are averse to telling the truth about Islam (truth-telling should be Step One in the process of trying to change it) is a huge part of the problem.


Not in the Koran.