I reject the use of the term ”radical Islam”, there is only Islam, with the more violent aspect of it originating during the Post-Hijra perios when Mohamed left from Mecca to Medina (the former Jewish town of Yathrib).
At this late juncture in the war against Islam 101 (Post-Hijra Islam), I’ll cut some slack, just go after the ideology of Islam, and everything else will fall into line.
Does Trump Grasp the Reality of ‘Radical Islam’?
It was the key national-security debate of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election, in no small part, because he appeared to be on the right side of it. Appeared is used advisedly: Trump was at least in the general vicinity of the bull’s-eye; his opponent wouldn’t even acknowledge the target existed — except in the most grudging of ways, and only because Trump had forced the issue. The question boiled down to this: Are you willing to name the enemy?
After a quarter-century of willful blindness, it was at least a start. We should note, moreover, that it’s a start we owe to the president-elect. Washington, meaning both parties, had erected such barriers to a rational public discussion of our enemies that breaking through took Trump’s outsized persona, in all its abrasive turns and its excesses. Comparative anonymities (looking down at my shoes, now) could try terrorism cases and fill shelves with books and pamphlets and columns on the ideology behind the jihad from now until the end of time. But no matter how many terrorist attacks Americans endured, the public examination of the enemy was not going to happen unless a credible candidate for the world’s most important job dramatically shifted the parameters of acceptable discourse.