Peter King Radical Islam Hearings a Step in the Right Direction

Radical Islam and apologists throw the term Islamophobia around to paint anyone who dares criticize radical Islam as racists.

But it should not silence those who attempt to tell the truth about jihadist Islam.

Accusations of Islamophobia were first slung broadly in this country to suppress attention to the Islamic jihadist motivations of the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. Most recently Islamophobia has been invoked with renewed vigor to discredit Rep. Peter King whose congressional hearings threatened to expose the realities of the ideological basis of terrorism.

The accusations of Islamophobia have been also used to silence European politicians such as Geert Wilders and U.K. academics such as Patrick Sookhdeo.

The psychological term "phobia" describes an excessive and irrational fear. Some called Islamophobic are merely heeding the solid evidence of those who commit terror acts and their motivations.

The statistics are striking. According to a recent survey by the Justice Department, while Muslims constitute about 1 percent of the American population, they contribute 80 percent of the homegrown terrorism.

According to the data, the probability of an American Muslim to conduct a terrorist act in the U.S. is approximately 400 times the probability of American non-Muslims.

Furthermore, in the last decade, worldwide terror acts have overwhelmingly been conducted by radical Islamic groups. (A list of these terror acts has already exceeded 15,000 by radical Islamists since Sep. 11. It is available at www.thereligionofpeace.com.)

In addition, the only nations that punish or kill for religious crimes are majority Muslim states.

Likewise, one of Shariah’s central ideals — approved by ALL the main schools of Islamic jurisprudence — is declaring wars against non-Muslims to spread Islam across the globe. This has led some practitioners to believe that violent acts are a legitimate means of accomplishing that goal.

Shariah in Muslim countries permits killing apostates and "sorcerers," hanging gays, honor killings, stoning adulterers, and using violence against women.

The lack of a powerful denouncement in the Muslim world or by leading Islamic scholars to atrocities just adds fuel to the proverbial fire. In fact, many Islamic institutes and scholars actually promote such values.

These are facts — NOT irrational beliefs. Therefore, labeling fear of Islam “Islamophobia” is clearly inappropriate and misleading.

Singling out Muslims for evaluation in King's counterterrorism congressional hearings or in other forms of research is an appropriate response to the facts and dangers of Islamic terrorism.

Failure to take appropriate steps to evaluate the danger violates the constitutional mandate to protect citizens from violence. Moreover, the outcomes of ignoring terrorism’s Islamic roots can be disastrous.

Being political correct has inhibited our political leaders and the American media from pursuing an understanding of the role of religious ideology in Islamic terrorism. The result has been a confused public and muddled understanding within our State Department, Congress, and Department of Homeland Security.