By Benedict Carrizzo

Last Friday, the Islamic State (ISIS) devastated the world by carrying out mass killings at several locations in Paris. More than 120 people are dead and over 350 are injured because of the sinister actions of a death cult, and (because terrorist attacks have become such a widespread occurrence, the action does not surprise me) ISIS sympathizers tweeted in glee. This is what many apologists seem to overlook. In an effort to defend mainstream Islam, pundits like Reza Aslan will state that only seven percent of Muslims are terrorists, but this does not account for the Islamists — people who yearn for a worldwide Caliphate State and justify suicide bombing when Islam is perceived as “under attack.”

There is a well-known noisemaker by the name of Anjem Chowdry in England. This man strives to see the flag of Islam hanging over Buckingham Palace, and his organization Islam4UK advocates the implementation of Sharia law in Britain.

Thankfully, many British Muslims see him as a joke, and many have denounced him as a part of extremist ideology. It is essential, however, to realize that he is not part of a fringe. Anjem Chowdry is part of a minority, yes, but it is too substantial of a minority to dismiss as a crazy fringe. A Pew Poll survey entitled The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics, and Society explains this, saying, “while the vast majority of Muslims in most countries say suicide bombing is rarely or never justified to defend Islam against its enemies, substantial minorities in a few countries consider such violence justifiable in at least some circumstances.” Of course, many, many, many Muslims are good, law-abiding people — however, 17 percent of Turkish Muslims and 18 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that the punishment for apostasy should be death.

Moreover, among Muslims who believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land, 43 percent of Turkish Muslims and 50 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that it should apply to non-Muslims. I choose these countries purposely because they are the supposed bastions of liberal democracy that so many apologists love to mention, and I encourage anyone to inquire deeper into this comprehensive study. Of course, there are numerous discrepancies within Islam on how Sharia law is or can be imposed, and I cannot reduce it, as so many critics have, to a penal code. Nevertheless, these fundamentalist ideas — the stoning of adulterers, the death penalty for apostates and the cutting off hands and feet of thieves — are what sustains extremist ideology. I want this to be a wake-up call for liberals who want to pretend there is not a problem and conservatives who want to overstate it.

I want to foster dialogue within the Fordham community on beliefs and their consequences, foreign policy success stories and errors and comprehensive ways to combat Islamic extremism. In recent years, because of the political correctness of our college campuses, critics like ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and feminist Asra Nomani are disinvited from campuses like UC Berkeley. You may disagree with them, yes, but do not silence them. I am writing this article not to convince anyone reading it that my views are right, but as a clamor for dialogue. We need the Ayaan Hirsi’s of the world, the Reza Aslan’s of the world, the Maajid Nawaz’s of the world — everyone from all sides of the issue — to come together, state their cases and come to common ground. I stated my case, but there needs to be no more argumentation; we need dialogue.

Even as a white male non-believer, I too am offended whenever a Mosque is destroyed or when a hospital is bombed or when a concert hall is stormed. I am curious to know what everyone else thinks. We need to start a trending, inclusive dialogue from all sides of the conversation to make sure a Paris-type massacre never happens again.

Benedict Carrizzo, FCHR ’18, is a communication and media studies and English double major from Kings Park, New York.