I've always regarded the academically projected idea of "Islamophobia" as being an infringement upon the democratic freedom to think and weigh evidence against the perceived threat of Islamic terrorism. If the presence of Muslims in my community makes me feel anxious, that is the fault of Islam and not the fault of my existence in a Western democracy like Canada.
In Canada it is still my freedom to feel anxious about certain religious, especially if such anxiety, in light of all I've read both in books and newspapers, warns against the violent manifestations of Islam as embodied in the persons of those whose lasts utterances before they murdered innocents helter skelter were addressed to the god known as Allah.
Being an expert on Islam is not yet a prerequisite to being a Canadian citizen; being dedicated to my country's security and the safety of my community is not yet a crime in this country. It is the fault of Islam and the Muslim "radical" that many Canadians like me (although they are fearful of saying so publicly) view all Muslims as being suspect.
In my view, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' description of the "radicalization process" is simply more of the same tedious apologia long ago worn out by others before him also in possession of laudable education but likewise without an intellect.
When a Jew chooses to become more observant, as did Rabbi Kahane (obm), he/she moves to Israel and eats Kosher; when a Christian decides to become more religious, he/she quits smoking or quits drinking or maybe attends Mass more often.
When a Muslim decides to become more religious, he/she decides to kill anyone whom for x amount of days, months, or years prior the tenets of his interpretation of the Koran defined as being "blasphemous" and an affront to the god and religion they now swear to serve resolutely, namely Allah and Islam.
The terms "adopting a legalistic interpretation," "manifesting a low tolerance for perceived theological deviance, and attempting to impose one's religious views on others" could be used to describe Billy Graham's life story. These terms are descriptive only, and weightless.
The religious adherence Mr. Gartenstein-Ross delineates also dictates, of necessity, the observance of the most moderate religious types, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim. What differentiates the "Islamist" (who, according to the Koran, is a "faithful" Muslim) is his/her angry hatred of all non-Muslims, but especially Western non-Muslims, and even more so all Jews.
What Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has failed to address (along with many others) is the frightening reality that even in the mind of the comfortably moderate and well educated Muslim, the tenets of Islam regarding his/her measure of adherence to the Koran can at any time preponderate beyond all Western-oriented judicious monitions against the "Islamist" concept of jihad. This same noesis inspired Major Nidal Hasan into a shooting spree in Ft. Hood in the same way it inspired the doctor in Aberdeen Scotland to drive his SUV into an airport lounge. Islam is the cause of terrorism. The radicalization process is merely the conduit through which the former "moderate Muslim" arrives at the Islamist level of Islam.
No matter the odious acts of terror Osama bin Laden has committed against the West, the West has yet to acknowledge that bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is the more accurate. Were all Muslims required to be "experts on Islam" in order to perceive the true meaning of the words of the Prophet Mohammed, then Islam is untrue to the Prophet's promise of perspicuity for the simple-minded. But if not, then Islam has certainly succeeded as a religion intrinsically, although not as a salubrious affect for those whose beliefs lay elsewhere.
Michael Devolin,
B'nai Elim Canada
