While the 44th al-POTUS has traveled to Saudi -- "the place where Islam began ...  to seek seek his majesty's counsel," as Obama put it (insert air sickness bag here) -- and has "Holy Koranned" his way through his Cairo dawa, it is my regrettable task to report that Beau Romney appears to have been been drinking out of same oasis. Lawrence Auster has the bad news:

Asked by Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News & World Report if his repeated references to "jihad" in a speech at the Heritage Foundation this week characterized Islam in sinister terms, Mitt Romney surprised Gilgoff with this reply: 

I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

 

Gilgoff comments:

Romney sees no connection whatsoever between Islam and the jihadists? Experts often say that Islamic terrorists are promoting a distorted version of Islam, but they seldom claim that there's no connection between the Islam, and the jihadists who claim to act in that tradition's name.

The Heritage Foundation itself has issued papers and sponsored events on "radical Islam," "revolutionary Islam," and "militant Islam." Would Romney argue that none of these phenomena are related to Islam but rather constitute an entirely distinct phenomenon called jihadism?

[end of Gilgoff article.]

Auster writes:

I am deeply disappointed in Romney, stunned, actually. His previous statements about the Islam threat had shown more sense of reality than this. Now he's gone to the irrational extreme of denying that jihad has anything to do with Islam. Even Bush and the neocons never went this far. They would call jihadism a perverted form of Islam. But Romney--to the disbelief of the liberal reporter Gilgoff, who initially was worried that Romney was painting Islam in sinister colors--states categorically that Islam and jihadism are two entirely different entities.

The command to wage holy war and subdue the infidel is central to Islam. And it's not just something in books. Muslims have been carrying out the jihad campaign for the last 1,400 years. Their sacred texts tell them to wage jihad, and, century after century, devotedly and bloodthirstily quoting those same texts, they wage jihad. How someone can arrive at the conclusion that what is central to Islam is an entirely different entity from Islam is beyond me.

Though Romney was clearly a dubious figure in some ways, I supported him in the Republican primaries as by far the best available candidate. I always thought he was highly intelligent. This statement reveals how the Prime Directive of Liberal Society, "Thou shalt not discriminate," turns even a highly intelligent man into a moron.

Oh well. At least we don't have to waste time wondering....