"Extent of Radicalization"

In the interests of arriving at a better understanding of the lethal phenomenon of Muslim radicalization it would seem to make eminent good sense to study it. To form a committee at a high level to invite knowledgeable academics, religious insiders, those who have security and intelligence experience, to add their testimony to arrive at a consensus opinion. To better aid the authorities in counter-acting terrorist threats.

In the U.S., Representative Peter King, who heads the house homeland security committee intends to proceed with congressional hearings on the "extent of radicalization" within the country as an urgent matter reflecting the state of threats posed by homegrown Muslim terrorists. One should, after all, know one's enemy. The better to deal with the threats they pose. And it is an imperative, after all, one that "is too important to ignore in the name of political correctness".

The very thought of such an exercise is anathema, however, to civil libertarians and many Democrats in the United States. And, understandably, an outrage to the Muslim community. Whose deep moral conviction appears to be that one cannot skewer an entire religious population for the violent acts of a relative few among them. Except that there is one little niggling fact that an impressive number of Muslims sympathize with the terrorists' agenda.

In that Muslims in general tend to consider themselves victimized by the larger society around them. It appears fairly universal among the Muslim ummah that "Islamophobia" is the fount of all ills. That because of that unwarranted phobia, Muslims are simply reacting. That phobia has resulted in unfair targeting of Muslims and scorn of Islam, insufferable attitudes resulting in persecution of the righteous.

The American Civil Liberties Union decries the "deeply flawed theory" that radicalization is conflated with religious practise. Perhaps forgetting or choosing to overlook the obvious fact that fanatical Muslims - and they are legion - interpret many passages in the Koran to encourage violent jihad. And they in turn recruit fervent young Muslims to gird their loins as swords of Allah.

U.S. cleric Anwar al-Awlaki now living in Yemen and broadcasting from there, encouraging and inspiring violent young men to conspire to martyrdom in the service of Islamism is the most notorious of the American Muslims who have made their mark as leaders in the battle. His writing and instructions and inflammatory rhetoric has been responsible for inciting young Muslims from North America to attempt martyrdom.

Martyrdom is achieved by seeking an illustrious death dedicated to the service of Allah by serviceably managing to mangle as many other lives in the process as possible. Serving up to Allah the premature deaths of Crusaders, Jews and apostates. Interestingly enough, while Democrats recoil at the very thought of the hearings, the White House has not stated its objections.

What it has done under Barack Obama, is reflective of what George W. Bush did in the wake of 9/11; dispatched representatives to mosques to assure Muslims that they are highly respected, that the initiative is not meant to distrust their loyalties, to single them out from among other Americans.

By and large, other Americans do not seek to systematically inspire recruits to violence and terrorism. It is not a matter of guilt by association, actually. More a prudent and most intelligent measure taken to confront the reality of what is occurring. And in the process seeking to arm oneself with knowledge sufficient unto the day.

The first order of that knowledge already recognized, that Islam does indeed inspire violent jihad. Or, put more correctly, Islam is interpreted in a manner that convinces restless young men who resent and find fault with Western response to Muslim provocation and violent unruliness in the world, to react decisively.