A.S. Ibrahim who holds 2 PhDs in Islamic studies, is not reluctant to say the politically-incorrect obvious here.

“Here is what actually failed to develop over the last 25 years: the willingness to name the source of such terrorism . . . The hijackers, the Madrid bombers, the Bataclan attackers, ISIS’s soldiers—none of them expressed confusion about their sources. Their recruiting material is saturated with the same Quranic and hadith citations: the Verse of the Sword, the jizya passage, the command to strike necks, the hadith on fighting until men testify there is no god but Allah. Their own words were never ambiguous. It was the West that manufactured the ambiguity, insisting on inventing a gentler Islam to stand between the public and the actual texts, so that anyone who noticed the connection could be waved off with a buzzword—Islamophobia, bigotry—before the conversation could even begin. We can see the Islamic element in these attacks plainly. We have simply been trained not to say so.“

He warns,

“And while the world is trying to shield Islam against scrutiny, a quieter institutional effort proceeded largely unexamined. Scholars documented how Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks built mosques and schools across Europe over these same 25 years, how Sharia councils proliferated in the United Kingdom operating a parallel legal track for family and civil matters, and how CAIR-style advocacy shaped what American institutions were permitted to say about Islam publicly. Western counterterrorism policy focused almost entirely on the dynamic threat—bombs, planes, guns—while the slower political penetrating project, one that shares the same theological end goals as its violent cousin and differs mainly in tactics and timeline, operated with far less scrutiny. Ultimately, one Muslim wears a suit and lobbies; the other wears a vest and detonates. Look under the surface and trace both back far enough, and they cite the same “sacred” book.“

We fail to heed Ibrahim’s warning at our own peril.