Headlines, social media and the campaign trail all have been dominated for the past several days by Khizr Khan and Donald Trump. (Meanwhile, never mind the new bombshells about Hillary Clinton that have been released, including her and her campaign’s real ties to Russia and Hillary’s perjury about providing arms to none other than ISIS, just to name a couple other big stories that might’ve warranted a headline or two.)
Khan, of course, is the father of a fallen Muslim U.S. soldier, who attacked Donald Trump at the DNC for never having sacrificed for his country. He became an overnight Democrat hero, as Dems jumped to praise this Muslim who spoke out against Trump. And, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Trump has come under further fire for his response to Khan’s attack, acknowledging Khan’s son was a hero but suggesting Khan himself had no right to criticize Trump in front of a national audience.
Trump also noted that, ‘the real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm.”
Now, even ISIS is wading into the controversy, both seeming to reinforce Trump’s comments about the real problem being radical Islam — and adding a message aimed at Khan’s parents.
As Fox News reports:
In the new edition of its full-color, glossy magazine, ISIS mocks those who claim Islam is a peaceful religion, and even wades into the controversy surrounding Donald Trump and the parents of a dead Muslim U.S. soldier.
The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled “Break The Cross” and appears to be primarily directed at those that ISIS considers its enemies, particularly Christians. One section is devoted to the words and actions of Pope Francis and is headlined “In The Words Of Our Enemies.” [Pope Francis just yesterday argued ti was “not right to identify Islam with terrorism” — suggesting that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism. Yeah….]
An editorial titled “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” takes aim at Westerners and “apostate ‘Imams’ in the West” who refuse to define ISIS’ motivation as being Islamic. ISIS calls this rhetoric purely political.
And on this one point, we have to agree with ISIS.
“Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool,” the article says. “The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle.”
The ISIS author of the “Why We Hate You” piece aims to settle the argument, and “clarify” in “unequivocal terms” that ISIS is Islamic. The author says that those on the “social fringe” who identify Islam with ISIS are correct.
“There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative,” the article says.
Showing just how quickly the magazine was produced – and how intently members of ISIS watch U.S. politics – an image in the publication shows the grave of Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Adding its own voice to the debate, ISIS declares in a caption below Khan’s grave that the soldier is an “apostate” of the Muslim religion and urges other Muslims to “beware” a similar fate.
It would appear ISIS may be including the likes of us in talking about those ‘painted as social fringe, so their voices are dismissed,’ so that ‘a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative.’ As regular readers know, Col. West in particular has long been one of the most vocal and informed in our nation about the real threat of radical Islam — and calling out leaders, such as President Obama and Hillary Clinton, for their dangerous refusal to label ISIS as “radical Islamic terror.”
We all grieve for the loss of Mr. Khan’s son. Where we diverge, it seems, is that some of us are willing to recognize and name the enemy — the first step to defeating it — while others continue to play a very dangerous game of political correctness. How many more sons and daughters — regardless of their faith — must die before the masses wake up to the false narrative our own leaders are pushing?
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]