That’s pretty much a first.
I agree with President Obama over his refusal to use the term ‘radical Islam’, albeit for different reasons.
Obama refusal to use the term is a demonstration of his contempt for the reasoning abilities of his fellow citizens, by failing to use the term he panders to Islam as a whole, and hopes to focus attention on other issues, such as the supposed failings of tolerance in America, and the need to disarm everyone who isn’t a criminal.
I, on the other hand, don’t use it because radical Islam, in the sense everyone is using, doesn’t exist. The violence we see is not due to any new fangled radicalisation of Islamic belief, but rather to the ancient doctrine of Jihadism. This is a fundamentalist interpretation to be sure, and while it is certainly not a universal view, it has been mainstream for the entire existence of Islam.
Use of the term radical implies something new, or unusual, or extreme. It is none of these. What we call radical Islam is, in historical terms, not in the least radical.
I would certainly consider proposing the use of ‘fundamental Islam’ in preference to ‘radical Islam’ as part of the CCiZ house style, but I am surrounded by stroppy individualists here. Seeking agreement with this lot really is like herding cats, so I won’t bother trying.
The “radical” Muslims aren’t the crazies with the long beards and the mad staring eyes spouting medieval gibberish that they happen to believe to be the word of God (and who am I to say they are right or wrong?).
No, by the proper use of the word “radical”, they would be those who believe they can transform Islam, with all its traditional beliefs and vile prejudices, into a faith that’s compatible with modern, tolerant Australia.
Rowan Dean: Courier Mail 19 June, 2016
H/T Andrew Bolt