“Radical Islam” points us in the wrong direction to identify the kind of Islam that motivates America’s enemies and is too vague to accomplish the defining and limiting that is needed for the grounding of expectations and the setting of strategy.

July 4 marked the 40th anniversary of Israel’s daring rescue of hijacked airline passengers captive to Palestinian and German terrorists…

ISIS militants see Turkey not simply as a gateway to the soul of the West, but a gutter

We have to be grateful to President Obama for his tirade over the term “radical Islam” and for the subsequent…

The jihadist terror attack in Orlando that killed 49 people relaunched two major policy debates regarding the U.S. response to the challenge of Islamic State.

To insist on the shibboleth of “radical Islam,” at this moment in the political history of America, can no longer be a matter of insisting on rhetorical accuracy. To insist on this shibboleth, now, is to provide, intentionally or unintentionally, cover for those who are emboldened in their religious and racial bigotry by Mr. Trump’s rhetoric.

Obama wrongly insists calling Muslims who commit terrorism in the name of their faith radical Islamists only plays into the hands of those same terrorists.

Hamid’s Islamic Exceptionalism argues that Islam is far different from other religions in how it relates to governance, law, and the modern nation-state.

The cultural left treats the Orlando assault as if religious belief plays no role in the modern world, as if there is no difference between a school shooting by a young man who emotionally snaps and a suicide bombing planned and inspired by ISIS.