Did you catch those breaking news reports, right after the San Bernardino shooting, suggesting that the attack was work-place violence? You might chalk that up to off the cuff speculation. Yet there was a kind of desperation behind the insistence on finding some generic, non-ideological motive. Yet it turned out to be what many expected from the outset, a jihadist attack; one of the murderers had pledged allegiance to ISIS.
One year ago today, Islamic terrorists entered the offices of the French publication Charlie Hebdo and fired sixty shots inside of three minutes. When the smoke cleared, eleven employees of the magazine and one building maintenance worker had been killed and eleven other people in the building had been injured. The “crime” for which these individuals were being punished was blasphemy.
In his terrific book The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose, who was at the center of the Danish cartoon crisis in 2006, quotes Saudi cleric and TV preacher Muhammad Al-Munajid’s reaction to the controversy: “The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not . . . . they want to open up everything for a debate. That’s it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.”
Why has Ashraf Fayadh, a poet and artist, been sentenced to death? A court of law found him “guilty on five charges that included spreading atheism, threatening the morals of . . . society and having illicit relations with women”: he has been branded an apostate, for which the penalty is death. Where did this happen?
From the Wall Street Journal, on the butchers who carried out last week’s attack in San Bernardino: “Agents are pursuing ‘the very real possibility’ that Ms. Malik was the catalyst for the violence, said one official. So far her husband ‘seems like someone who was searching for answers,’ the official said. . . An initial review of the couple’s online activity indicates one or both explored propaganda from al Qaeda and the Nusra Front, a terror group fighting in Syria, officials said.”
Sam Harris is one of the few intellectuals today willing to speak frankly about the Islamic totalitarian movement. I agree broadly with his account of how the movement is fundamentally animated by religious ideas (rather than primarily political or economic grievances). Moreover, Harris has been courageous and articulate in fighting the smear of “Islamophobia,” a dishonest term intended to silence debate and marginalize dissenting views.
The slaughter of Parisians on November 13 was an act of war. The coordinated attacks, for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility, refute the notion that ISIS had been “contained” — the term Barack Obama used in a TV interview, just a few hours before the bombings and shootings began. Hardly the first time our president has understated the problem. Moreover, by carrying out attacks in the heart of Europe, far from its quasi-state in the Middle East, ISIS has upended the premise that it is mainly a regional menace. But the failure to understand the group runs deeper than just its military-operational capability.
What do Palestinians think of Israel? What do they believe about the legitimacy and efficacy of violent attacks? Daniel Polisar, a political scientist, examined more than 330 opinion surveys, carried out by reputable polling organizations, to find answers. What he pieced together is profoundly unsettling. More so than you might have supposed.
When you look around the globe, the Islamist movement is far from defeated. On the contrary. The movement is strong materially, in its ability to inflict harm, to control territory, to subjugate people. And, what’s more significant: it is strong in its morale, exhibiting an astounding confidence.
