Now at The Daily Caller
If there's one thing that 31,065 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 teach us, it's that there is no way to foster a fact-based discussion of Islam in the halls of Western power.
That's right -- I said fact-based discussion of Islam. After 15-plus years since our Twin Towers burned and collapsed, I am still not talking about "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "Islamist extremism," or any other figleaf-word made up by blushing Westerners to cover up the embarassingly appalling facts about Islam: its defining laws which can be as revolting as they are repressive; its history of violent conquest and "radical" religious and cultural cleansing; its totalitarian goals to apply "sharia" (Islamic law) everywhere to eradicate freedom of conscience, speech, other religions, and, oh yeah, rule the world.
In other words, exactly the things the Powers That Be will not talk about since even before George W. Bush rebounded from the shock of the Islamic attacks of 9/11 to realize that Islam was a "religion of peace." In the land of the free and the home of the brave, Islamic blasphemy law rules.
Last week's Senate hearing -- even the title of last week's Senate hearing -- was more of the same.
Co-chaired by an affable Sen Ron Wyden and an angry Sen Claire McKaskill, the hearing was called: "Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics, and Techniques of Violent Extremism."
Notice no official mention of Islam. Or, more to the point, no official interest in Islam -- except to protect it. Sen. Wyden, the "good guy" of the hearing for allowing that there might possibly be some teeny tiny slightly Islamist-ic thing about jihad (not that I heard the word), actually commended the two Muslim-born witnesses on the panel for "bending over backwards" to avoid tarring Islam with a truthful brush (or words not quite to that effect).
Meanwhile, the four Democrats on Team Violent Extremism, all women, ignored the Muslim born witnesses -- ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Muslim reformer Asra Nomani, asking neither witness a single question. Instead, they focused obsessively on the non-sense of Mr. See-No-Islam, former NCTC director Michael Leiter (whom we last met here). Perhaps the Democrats saw the two women of Islamic heritage as impediments to the indoctrination in the "Ideology" of "Violent Extremism" that causes "Terror."
But did the Democrat senators really have that much to fear? I ask this after having read the op-ed Hirsi Ali and Nomani wrote for the New York Times about their dismal experience; also after having then watched much of the hearing. I cannot now un-notice their obvious determination to avoid speaking forthrightly about Islam -- same as the Left.
Hirsi Ali and Nomani write:
What happened that day [before the committee] was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism ...
Here goes, one more time: This "brutal reality" they write about is a consequence of the laws of Islam. It is neither "Islamist," nor is it a form of "extremism" within Islam. This brutal reality is all part of Islamic Normal.
The women note their own personal suffering growing up in "deeply conservative Muslim families": genital multilation, forced marriage, death threats for their so-called apostasy.
Despite any and all "ists" or "isms," such horrors and more are part of mainstream Islam.
Then they point out:
There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. ...
OK, but there is real discomfort in these two women when it comes to calling out the extremism of mainstream Islam. Just look how confused their discussion becomes on acknowledging fundamental conflicts between "universal human rights" and "Islamic law," and on listing a series of what they call "Islamist ideas" which, nonetheless, come straight out of any authoritative Islamic law book:
The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.
In sum, whether it's Claire McCaskill or Hirsi Ali, discussion and education about Islam is completely off limits. "Political Islam," "Islamism," "Medina Islam" and Violent Extremism become interchangeable threats to theworldcommunity, including the pink bunnies and buttercups that make up The Real McCoy Islam. The only problem, all agree, are those dwedful extwemists.
Such gibberish is nothing new; it is not, however, what Hirsi Ali became known for when she first found international fame as a name on an Islamic hit list stabbed into the dead body of Theo van Gogh, killed in broad daylight by a Muslim acting out the sharia on an Amsterdam street in 2004. Another soon to be internationally famous name on that same hit list was Geert Wilders.
At the time, both Hirsi Ali and Wilders were Dutch parliamentarians; Hirsi Ali was also a colleague of the murdered van Gogh, with whom she had made a short film about the Islamic treatment of women called Submission whose script was entirely composed of verses of the Koran.
In those days, Hirsi Ali was still known for a clarity of mind which, I think it is fair to say, would have found this Senate panel discussion of -isms and -ists quite absurd. Multiple Islams? "No, that is an erroneous idea," she said a dozen or so years ago. "If one defines Islam as the religion founded by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by hadiths, there is only one Islam that dictates the moral framework."
That was then. Now she wades through the same bog of euphemism Western civilization has mired itself in, moving ever farther away from forthright talk of Islam.
But it's seems to be even worse than that. There was something Hirsi Ali said in her testimony that tells me we see things even more differently than I might have thought, even as we both have been i.d.'d as public enemies by the vicious Leftist hate group, SPLC.
In stressing to the committee that we have yet to define the enemy, that our little programs here and there are meaningless next to the rising tide of "Islamists," Hirsi Ali made it plain that she did not think the Senators understood the urgency of the matter. Well, neither do I. But after she turned to Europe, noting that France has been in a state of emergency since November of 2015, for example, she began (at around 1:40:00) to lament the rise in Europe of "radical right wing groups," which, she said, "are on the rise as they have never been."
In the split second befor she completed her thought I wondered what exactly concerned her -- neo-Nazi groups? Golden Dawn...? Was she possibly referring to Marine Le Pen ...?
I was wrong on all counts.
Hirsi Ali continued:
"I have lived in Holland for 14 yrs and when I came there was a very small radical right wing group and today it's the second largest party..."
Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom is the Netherlands' second largest party.
I replayed her statement to make sure I had understood it correctly. I had. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is sounding the alarm on Europe by warning in part against the rise of "radical right wing groups" -- namely, the brilliant and courageous Geert Wilders' PVV, the most successful political movement to emerge in the West with a clear program to begin to reverse the process of Islamization in the West, which ultimately spells cultural extinction, as any historical map of the Islamic world reveals.