The truth about the attacks in Sri Lanka

It has been a gut-wrenching month for Christians.

Observers have seen the burning of Notre Dame cathedral as an allegory of the decline of Christianity in the West and the rest of the world. They’ve also tried to direct our attention towards how this decline coincides with the rising global influence of Islamism. Islamists look upon this decline joyously and are trying to expedite it so they can realize the glory of worldwide Islamic supremacy. To do this, the obliteration of the infidels is a must.

The attacks that took place on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka that killed over 200 were the latest salvo against the infidel. In classic jihadi fashion, there was a series of coordinated attacks—a few in the form of suicide bombings—at several locations including Christian churches and hotels. The carnage is so shocking that people are saying it’s among the worst attacks since 9/11.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attacks and the Sri Lankan government has said local Islamists carried them out. The attack poses new challenges for Sri Lanka as it’s been plagued by ethnic conflict for the better part of its history but is now forced to cope with the Islamic menace.

A consequence of severe dysfunction, the government was warned about possible attacks on prominent churches by the Islamist group, National Thowheed Jamath, but failed to take any pre-emptive actions to avert them.

Like most acts of Islamic terrorism, the execution of the attack demonstrates elaborate planning, and careful selection of the locations, targets, and date. There is a symbolism in it being on a Christian holy day, as it’s the grandest rejection of Christianity and increases the chances of having many victims in one area. Foreigners were also killed, including Americans and Britons, which is a bonus for jihadists as they can make it to paradise knowing they have neutralized many “kafirs” at once.

The mastermind is said to have been Zahran Hashim, a radical imam who incited violence against infidels in his lectures. He had long sought a triumphant act of jihad and wanted to attack the Indian High Commission in the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo. A video recently released by IS reportedly shows Hashim leading seven attackers in a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghadi, the chief of IS.

As some have pointed out, this thusly indicates that IS is still able to sustain its global terrorist networks, even though dreams of a caliphate have been effectively scotched. It also now makes Sri Lanka— a country that has been peaceful and considered by some to be a “tourist paradise” ever since the 26-year long conflict with the Tamil Tigers ended—a possible theatre for the global jihad.

Another key feature of these attacks is the denial of its realities by Western political figures.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for example, have posted statements that have elicited much scorn for their vagueness. Both deplored the attack on tourists and “Easter worshippers.” Some are incensed by the term “Easter worshippers” since, to them, it shows an inability to acknowledge who the victims are and the reasons for their maiming by Islamists. All to maintain the politically correct delusion that Christians aren’t a victimized group, Islam means peace, and there is no Koranic justification for unprovoked assaults on Christians.

The outrage at the use of the “Easter worshippers” neologism has been lampooned as “snowflakery”, since the term is widely used and harmless.

Fair enough. Except that’s not the issue here. The crux of the discontent is that those speaking in these terms are applying a double standard to Islam and trying to avoid admitting the undeniable: Extremist ideologies aren’t entirely heretical to Islam, and those who suffer because of this are often other religious groups and minorities.

Acknowledgement of the terrorized Christian provides a context that’s crucial to understanding these attacks.

There is an abundance of research that shows how Christians are among the most persecuted groups in the world, many at the hands of those who pray to Allah. For example, Open Doors estimates that 7,100 died for choosing Christ in 2015. Christians in Nigeria often dress like Muslims to avoid being tormented, and Islamic militias have indiscriminately slaughtered Christian farmers.

But people like Obama and Clinton have long refused even to utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.” After the massacre at Christchurch mosque, there was no hesitation in decrying the victimization of “the Muslim community” and emphasizing the need to combat the global threat of white supremacy. It’s true that governments need to subdue the rogue ideologies that inspire racist lone-wolf attacks, but we can also address two things at once.

After all, Islamic extremism continues to be the greatest threat to the world due to the networks that enable its dissemination. As David Harsanyi puts it, what makes the double standard so exasperating is that the Left denounce any discussion of the links between Islam and terrorism as broad bigoted statements, and then downplay the prevalence of Islamism by lumping “every white-skinned person who commits a terrorist act into one imaginary coherent political movement to contrast against it.”

More vexatious is how people who don’t deserve to be are lumped in with these racist loons to stifle debate. As we saw with the politicization of the Christchurch massacre, there were vast denouncements of anyone who has ever criticized Islam—like Douglas Murray or Sam Harris—as inciters of anti-Muslim violence. This is the worst kind of syllogistic reasoning. It’s about as intelligent as arguing that since Murray and Harris are white and likely agree with the Christchurch shooter that grass is green, they are also blood-thirsty white supremacists.

Similar logic games are being played in the aftermath of the Sri Lanka attack. You may be derided with the meaningless epithet, “Islamophobe,” if you dare point out that a radical Imam or Islamism may have contributed to the attacks. To those throwing the worthless label around, any propounding of these facts can potentially catalyze a hunt for Muslim blood. So we must be cautious when it comes to being honest.

This, of course, is arrant nonsense meant to silence any inquiry into the matter. The regnant belief seems to be that the need to not offend Muslims should supplant the need to converse honestly about these issues. People seem convinced that placating Islamists will reduce the possibility of them strapping bombs to their chest and stopping at a Christian or Jewish congregation on their way to paradise.

Bleeding hearts can go on and bleed, but the reality is simple. Because of their infidel status, over 300 Christians and tourists were butchered. And Islamists will remain in pursuit of their Muhammadan honour while apologists continue to obfuscate the inconvenient truths of the problems before us.