Carol Gould, the author and commentator, has praised Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism for reaching “the highest level of scholarly excellence.” The book, she continued, “should be a primer for leaders around the globe and a text to be read by students hoping to go out into the working world in leadership positions. Highly recommended.”
What is the significance of Donald Trump’s election win? “Can You Love God and Ayn Rand?” What's Behind the Bullying of Vaccine-maker Pfizer? And what does society look like without a wall separating religion and state?
The centrality of Islam in Middle East politics can be seen in laws and opinion polls, but that data fails to capture just how entwined Islam and state really are and the destructive effects that ensue. The persecution of a Jordanian writer who shared a cartoon on Facebook dramatizes the problem.
“Islamophobia” in America is a “social cancer” — one that has “metastasized.” So claims the eminent scholar John L. Esposito of Georgetown University. Is it really? Andrew Harrod has a good write-up on Esposito's view, along with a forceful rebuttal to it. But let’s ask a prior question: What exactly does the term “Islamophobia” mean?
What we do know so far about Orlando: in a 911 call, the killer at the Pulse nightclub pledged allegiance to Islamic State, and he had previously expressed a fervent desire to become a “martyr.” In their speeches responding to the massacre, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each sought to demonstrate a firmer, clearer grasp of the jihadist menace — and therefore prove themselves best positioned to combat it. Each channeled one of the prevalent views in our culture. Both, however, are profoundly wrong. Both are united, ironically enough, in negating the crucial role of ideas in animating the jihadist cause.
When they read about a “wave of knife, gun and vehicular attacks targeting Israeli soldiers and civilians,” most people recognize it as murder or, broadly, terrorism. But in a fascinating report, the Washington Post underscores how “Palestinian society struggles with” how to describe such murderous assaults.
When defending the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama administration and its surrogates made claims that seemed, at least to some people, plausible. For a long time, I’ve argued that the deal was predicated on evading Iran’s jihadist character and malignant goals, and that the deal’s selling points were fantastical. Some people felt that “only time will tell”; so let’s consider two of the administration’s claims.