Every so often, someone “finds” or “rediscovers” the eloquent smackdown issued by Brigitte Gabriel in June 2014 of a “Muslin student” who was so concerned about “fighting an ideological war.” A video – as of this writing – may be viewed below.
Inevitably, there are those individuals who will attempt to equivocate or marginalize her statements. The biggest focus is always upon the phrase “15 to 25 percent who are “radicals.” We hear the comments that “she’s just pulling numbers…” or “that’s not the real number” or “she’s just saying that to sensationalize” or she is “promoting fear.”
It is always interesting how quickly the focus goes to the numbers, is if “numbers” have ever really been of interest to those who want their way only. If those individuals were actually concerned about “numbers” then they would actually be doing the research necessary to disprove the number. Disconcertingly, an article I refer to later actually tries to reduce the number by limiting the number to those actually seeking to join ISIS. Yet when it suits this same organization’s purpose, it will suddenly widen the eye of the needle to include what works for their opinion. These actions are exactly what is needed to ignore the camel already in the tent.
Ms. Gabriel is not “promoting fear.” This is defining reality. It is not about numbers. It is calling out everyone, but in particular, all Muslims, who wish to be legitimate members of society, to show themselves to be legitimate members of society. This is a challenge to each and every person to stop living as a slave to the world portrayed by the media. It is a challenge to actually think, evaluate, and stand up in support of accepted societal norms, not what you are told are “norms.” It is calling upon all people in each country to do what German, Japanese, Nicaraguan, Argentinian, Russian – all those within the cultures of the world – that allowed groups to overrun their culture, their society, their nation and go on genocidal binges intentionally killing people wholesale, people did not agree with them: identify and turn in the extremists.
Of course, the flippant argument is “Whose society?”
The simple response: “The society built over the course of 2015 years and counting and what is acceptable based upon Natural Law.”
Just for a moment, let’s understand that all civilized society is based first and foremost on Natural Law: the use of reason to evaluate the social and personal actions within human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. It is not positive, common, Devine, or survivalist law. Rather, Natural Law is based upon the interactions of individuals and the acceptance of behavior among the people within that society which benefits each person and the society as a whole without the intention of harming or destroying individual freedom or societal structure.
“Extremists” are not solely the ones who act upon radicalized thought. They are the individuals who advocate those thoughts purposefully. They are the ones who accept the actions being proposed within that radicalized thought even though it is anathema to Natural Law.
But then we hear the comments from Angel Rabasa of the RAND Corporation in an article published by the Christian Science Monitor. The equivocation of Natural Law through the opinion of group-thought is stunning. As an example:
“Radicalization and violent extremism are two different things,” Mr. Rabasa says. “Violent extremist behavior only comes about if a radicalized individual falls in with a circle of people who are open to using violence.”
According to Rabasa, a “radical” Muslim could also be an individual who belongs to an Islamist organization that is advocating for a Sharia legal system, but does not embrace violence to bring this to fruition.
“Radicalization and violent extremism are two different things.”
No they are not. The radicalization is the violent extremism. The person is willfully moving away from that which is accepted within Natural Law through the personal decision to pursue and maintain adherence to actions that intentionally harm others who have no purpose or intent to harm them or others.
“Advocating for a Sharia legal system” is not violent?
There is a harsh reality here: Such an effort is, on it’s face, one of violence because it seeks to remove the established law of a sovereign nation. The violence continues because the “system” is not one based on either equality or established precedence. Both equality and precedence are aspects of natural law that are accepted by people without the intent of violence. Moreover, the Sharia legal system is not developed based on natural law. Rather, it is based on the whims of men – the ultimate in the application of situational ethics.
Thus, the intent and avocation of a Sharia legal system within a sovereign nation pursues violence toward that established nation and society. The support of the actions to bring about Sharia law are extremist because the ultimate goal is the eradication of the established law of the sovereign country and, by extension, the destruction of the society and culture which is the foundation of that sovereign country. In the case of those individuals who are either citizens of the country by birth or by naturalization, who espouse Sharia law, they are committing acts of treason by actively seeking to replace the historically established law in place in the society that has been agreed to by the individuals who make up the society. Secondly, those only residing in the country, but have never sworn allegiance to that country, are on even weaker footing as their actions are identified as outright sabotage and terrorism against the sovereignty of the nation and the citizens of that nation.
Grow up and open up your eyes.