- The Washington Times - Thursday, September 3, 2009


There are so many logical fallacies in Hussam Ayloush’s letter (“Enough with the fear mongering,” Aug. 17) that one hardly knows where to start. In his defense of the Obama administration dropping the term “Islamic” in conjunction with the word “terrorism,” he first mischaracterizes an obvious fact as “fear-mongering.” After all, it is the Islamic terrorists themselves who call themselves Islamic, and it is they who point to Koranic verses to justify their barbaric attacks.

Next, Mr. Ayloush uses a tired old red herring in which he calls potential terrorists “disenfranchised.” Actually, sir, the majority of high-profile terrorists — including the Sept. 11, 2001, murderers — were/are well-educated and, by most accounts, sons of privilege. I know this makes it difficult to blame terrorism on the depradations of rapacious Western capitalists and all that, but facts are inconvenient things.

He is correct that abortion-clinic bombers are not Christian, and in fact, one would be hard-pressed to find any way for a so-called Christian to justify this act theologically. Radical Islamists, on the other hand, point right to the Verse of the Sword, which, thanks to the principle of abrogation, nullifies previous peaceful passages of the Koran and calls for the imposition of Islamic law worldwide. Oh, and by the way, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) mouthpiece Ibrahim Hooper has stated he’d like the United States to be Islamic at some point in the future. Feel free to hazard a guess as to how friendly Shariah law is to the Bill of Rights.

The next problem for this particular comparison is one of scale, not to mention frequency. Any honest person would admit that when they hear of pirates, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), riots due to some supposed insult, etc., they don’t give too much thought to the possibility that the attack in question was perpetrated by those darn Episcopal brigands.

Also, the attempt to conflate those evil neocons and al Qaeda is amusing, but again, like everything else in his letter, it is misdirection. I just can’t seem to view former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as some sort of malevolent bookend to Osama bin Laden. Face it, Mr. Ayloush, we’re no longer buying this rug. He can continue to try to position CAIR as a run-of-the-mill civil rights organization, but it won’t work.


Hagerstown, Md.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide