The Stupid Party is at it gain

In 2002, I posted that "Islam is what Muslims do" because there is no ideal form of Islam that exists in some state detached from its adherents. I have also observed more recently that the question of whether Islam is inherently violent is moot for us Westerners because that is the very issue being settled (mainly by force) in the Muslim world today.

David Goldman writes today,

Westerners seeking to make sense of Islam should consult a short book by Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, a Jesuit of Arab origin who advised Pope Benedict XVI. 111 Questions on Islam (Ignatius Press, 2008) explains that both the violent and peaceful interpretations of Islam are legitimate within Islam’s own terms, and that the peculiar character of Islamic tradition makes impossible to exclude either on purely theological grounds. Like many Arab Christians, Fr. Samir is hostile to Israel, and I abhor his view of Middle East politics. As an scholar of Islam, though, he has an important insight. He explains:

Many Westerners fear Islam as a “religion of violence”. Muslims often call simultaneously for tolerance and understanding as well as for violence and aggression. In fact, both options are present in the Qur’an and the sunna. These are two legitimate manners—two distinct ways to interpret, to understand, and to live Islam. It is up to the individual Muslim to decide what he wants Islam to be. . . . (p 18)

His background for this outstanding essay is Donald Trump's call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States "until Congress gets its act together." In, "The Republican Establishment Attacks Cruz to Cover Its Own Blunders," he writes,

I never thought the day would come when I would admonish Americans to show understanding and forbearance towards Islam. In fact, Islam is neither a religion of violence nor a religion of peace: it is an ambiguous set of doctrines from which Muslims may choose peace or violence as they will. To penalize all Muslims for the actions of those Muslims who choose violence is as morally misguided as it is strategically stupid: It repudiates those Muslims who explicitly embrace a peaceful interpretation, for example the president of the largest Arab country, Egypt’s president Fatah al-Sisi. Western countries in their own self-defense need to draw a bright line between peaceful and violent Islam.

Meanwhile, American Muslims have raised more than $170,000 for the relief and benefit of the victim families of San Bernadino.

What does the Republican party stand for today? Nothing, that's what. And that is the major reason that Trump has garnered such a large following. The American electorate are to a substantial degree sick and tired of what the Democrat party stands for and repulsed by the near-total lack of believable conviction on anything important among the establishment Republicans. Trump, for all his gazillion shortcomings, at least appears to stand for something (I suspect Trump's main interest is Trump) and that has attracted voters who aren't attracted elsewhere. If Cruz was as flamboyant as Trump (which he is inherently unable to be) then his attraction appeal would be even higher.