Huff Post: Qasim Rashid: In her recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, atheist and anti-Islam activist Ayan Hirsi Ali finally admits, “In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the Woolwich murder, it was good to hear expressions of horror and sympathy from Islamic spokesmen…” She also correctly calls it “stupid and wrong” to equate all Muslims with terrorism, instead declaring that “the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists.”
But apparently, because enough “moderate Muslims” have finally spoken up to condemn terrorism, Hirsi then unveils a new and increasingly employed anti-Islam tactic, demanding Muslims “…acknowledg[e] that … a link between Islam and terror is appropriate and necessary.”
In other words, Hirsi moves from demanding Muslims condemn violence, to demanding Muslims condemn Islam.
Her convoluted demand contradicts itself on numerous points. But most obviously, if an “appropriate and necessary” link exists between Islam and terror, then how is it possible that the “overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists”? Is it possible that the exceptions (terrorists) prove the rule (not terrorists)?
Hirsi insists, “I don’t blame Western leaders. They are doing their best to keep … trust between majority populations and Muslim minority communities.”
Really? Let’s see what the facts tell us. And I present these facts as an American citizen, as an American lawyer sworn to uphold America’s Constitution, and as an American who’s brother is a United States Marine. I know my country’s history and I know Hirsi’s claim about Western leaders is a fabrication.