We hear the term “this person has been radicalized”. What is meant by this term? A person who attempts to commit Jihad is termed radicalized if he is caught or commits Jihad. But after a person commits to jihad it is easy to claim he has been radicalized. Does this mean that a person cannot be labeled as radicalized before he attempts or performs jihad? One could infer that a person who says he will perform jihad has been radicalized but if he never takes action the label is not applied. A mullah who preaches jihad is not labelled radicalized yet the source of others who follow his preaching of jihad and act on it are radicalized. Radicalized by whom should be a component of understanding how radicalization comes about.
Radicalization if it is to have any meaning for the individual must point to the conviction that killing the infidel is an act that is rewarded in the afterlife. These thoughts must proceed any action designed to achieve the death of those who do not believe as commanded. From this precondition comes the first step of radicalization but it is not sufficient to identify if a person has been radicalized. Action in consonance with this belief makes the identification of radicalized complete.
What then is the status of those who by fear and intimidation will not declare their opposition to jihad yet do not act to promote it? The Germans who were not members of the Nazi party but knew what the Nazis were doing to people such as Jews, were the equivalent of the Muslims who see what the “radicalized” Muslims are doing yet remain silent. This is how intimidation works and those who are intimidated are letting fear rule their lives. The moral compass they require to stand up against the injustice of killing innocents is not provided to them but instilled in them the very opposite which is submission. Fear and intimidation was used in Nazi Germany and it has raised its head again in the Muslim world. This phenomena must be identified and rejected if the Muslim world is to right the wrongs it is perpetuating.
We did not use the term radical Nazis. Why? The reason is the apologetic approach to the Muslim religion. Radicalization without the Muslim religion would not be possible. Some system of thought whether religion or philosophy must generate the radicalization in one’s mind. A deranged idiot might commit a horrendous crime but it is the fouled up thoughts in his mind that triggers the action. It is more systematic when the mind contortions are the results of the preachings of a religion. The systematic approach produces far more death and mayhem as witnessed by the attacks around the world and the obvious component of Muslim religion.
Radicalization conjures up the vision of the extreme. Extreme is a word that indicates it is outside the norm. When killings and bombings are every day events does it follow that these killers are extreme or simply followers of a corrupt belief system?
It is not hard to determine why the Muslim religion was created and formulated. It is based on intimidation and that is how it is foreseen to conquer all. Other religions cannot compete on the intimidation front. Most religions are more tolerant, more gentile and more likely to be intimidated by one that tells them to either renounce their beliefs or die. It is also an advantage for Islam to use force and intimidation to spread its belief as long as there is little intellectual challenges. Other religions can only refer to faith but the Islamists combine their faith with force and intimidation and therefore reduce faith to a common denominator with the addition of force and intimidation on their side. Thus the beheading of Christians becomes a simple task as the opposition to such acts only brings out horror instead of outrage and retaliation.
The Christian doctrine of the golden rule doesn’t work on Jihadists. Their faith says to kill the infidel no matter what he believes if it does not conform to the Koran. It is a simple doctrine and it depends on nothing but blind faith. And here is the key to de-radicalization.
If reason is to reign in this world ( and there are no others ) it must be utilized in all arenas which includes belief systems. If you interject faith as a component you make it possible for the true believers to become “radicalized” and perform horrendous acts pulled from the “holy “ book whether it be the Bible, the Torah or the Koran or any other testament that claims truth by way of faith. Faith is unquestioning belief. It lays the foundation for radicalization. If one can dismiss reason be simply saying I believe there are others that need to be annihilated because they think differently, look different or vote differently then tyranny and horror can only be the expected outcome. It does no good to say , but we only believe in peace and harmony. This lays the foundation for the faithful that can label you an infidel and kill you off.
You cannot expect to reason with those who claim they have knowledge of the truth by way of faith. But you can explain your position regarding their attempts to intimidate or kill you. Your position must be clear that you will not tolerate such behavior and if they try to kill you or intimidate you there will be consequences. You will meet force with force and leave no quarter. There can be no turning of the other cheek, no forgiveness and you must declare your right to live. After making your case, it is incumbent on you to show that you mean what you say. This is how bullies are reduced to either humans who respect their fellow man or properly annihilated. If this view be deemed radical then so be it.Tags: Jihad religion