WNP senior writer Melvin Rhodes writes this morning about the "dialoque of the deaf" that goes on between Islam and the West.
 

I received an interesting letter a few days ago from a young Iranian Muslim. Commenting on a recent article I had written, he wrote: "Please don't use the word 'Radical Islam', because we have just one Islam."

If true, these words should make people question whether dialog can avert a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West.

The letter was received just a few days after a 22 year old Iranian immigrant at the University of North Carolina hired an SUV and deliberately drove it into a number of fellow students, injuring nine in the process. He said he wanted "to punish the United States for its actions around the world".  In his mind, America is killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he wanted to kill Americans.

This particular incident led to the coining of a new expression "Sudden Jihad Syndrome", "whereby normal appearing Muslims abruptly become violent," writes Daniel Pipes in his New York Sun article: "The Quiet Spoken Muslims who Turn to Terror." (www.danielpipes.org/article/3450) (14th March 2006).

As Mr Pipes pointed out, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the perpetrator of the university campus atrocity, is not unique. Rather, "he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the hijackers responsible for the attacks of September 11th, the London transport bombers, and the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan, Maher Hawash."

If the expression "radical Islam" is not appropriate when writing about this violent element, then what expression can be used? "Fundamentalists" is not accurate and is also misleading. In Christianity, "fundamentalists" are people who believe the Bible is the literal word of God. All Muslims claim the Koran contains the inspired words of Allah. Therefore, all Muslims are fundamentalists. Are all Muslims also "radical"? Based on the comments made in the letter I received, the answer is quite disturbing.
 

I referred to the same letter on my Monday podcast. You can read the remainder of Melvin's commentary later this week on our UCG Commentary page.

One of the reasons Americans have  difficulty understanding the true nature of Islam is our failure to separate being spiritual from true reality. We think that expressing spiritual ideals and faith is enough to consider oneself religious and good. A recent Barna poll shows this disconnect among Americans of faith. A recent religious survey found 62% of American adults consider themselves to be not merely "religious," but "deeply spiritual." However a deeper analysis found confusion in being able to define what it meant to be "deeply spiritual."

George Barna writes:

"Spirituality is in vogue in our society today," he commented. "It is popular to claim to be part of a 'faith community' or to have a spiritual commitment. But what do Americans mean when they claim to be 'spiritual?' The recent Grammy awards were perhaps indicative of this breakdown between self-perception and reality. The members of the group that won the award for best song thanked God for the victory then immediately followed with profanities that had to be bleeped from the broadcast. It seems as if God is in, but living for God is not. Many Americans are living a dual life - one filled with good feelings about God and faith, corroborated by some simple religious practices, and another in which they believe they are in control of their own destiny and operate apart from Him."

With such confusion among those who claim to be faithful it is little wonder there is an inability to discern the nature of a religion alien to western culture. It will be too late when we wake up.