Alpine Summit

Monday, July 11, 2005

Blessed are the Peacemakers of Islam

A column in the Telegraph was recently asking the rhetorical question: "where is the Gandhi of Islam?" In fact, this is a great question. Islam is a violent religion- despite what the moderates tell us. The Koran is full of inflamatory language and is quite specific on what one should do with "infidels."

If you look at the Koran, you will find many glorifications of violence. In Sura No 8, for example, God is quoted as saying: "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" This punishment comes to them for having "defied God and His apostle". It seems reasonable to ask Muslims what this sort of remark means in the modern world.


Charles Moore's comments aren't just applicable to the British population, but can be applied to all nations sick of terrorist attacks. He mentions the problem militant Islam presents as opposed to their (the UK's) last dealing with terrorism with the IRA.

This was not a funny coincidence. It was because the IRA preached a doctrine about Ireland and called on the loyalty of a perverted version of Irishness. Therefore, the words "Irish" and "terrorist" went together, hard though this was on the majority of Irish people. The Brian Paddicks of the day would have been appallingly negligent if they had not concentrated their investigations among the Irish. And the vigilance of the public, which the police then and now rightly call for, inevitably directed itself towards Irish neighbours, Irish accents, Irish pubs.

So it must be with Muslims in Britain. In fact, the situation is more serious because we are dealing with a religion, not merely a national aspiration, and the demands of a religion are more absolute than anything else. If fanatics can persuade people that their religion insists that they kill others (and often themselves) in its service, then they will obey. And whereas the IRA, though utterly sadistic and fanatical, kept in mind a political aim which, once achieved, would mean that they need kill no longer, the religious fanatic lacks even this check on his behaviour.


This is a serious issue as he says here because there is never an end in sight for a religious fanatic until death. The IRA actually had an end in mind- meaning the violence had an end. Moore goes on to mention how national leaders are too afraid of upsetting the Muslims in the UK and so refuse to recognize that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims. It's this sort of politically correct BS that costs lives. When you find a trend in something, exploiting that trend to benefit yourself or society should not be taboo. Women see a trend that most women who end up dead are murdered by a man, so are more cautious around men than they would be around women. Does this mean women are sexist who do this? No, it just means they identify a trend they perceive and exploit for the sake of self-preservation. Countries should do the same thing with Arab Males between the ages of 18 and 45. Instead of this, to be "tolerant" and "understanding" they say; "we know most terrorist attacks are done by Arab Muslim Males between the ages of 18 and 45... so let's not look at them because we might offend someone since they're a minority group." It's utter lunacy!

Moore also mentions that another part of the equation comes from Muslim religious leaders failing to flatly condemn attacks on non-Muslims.

I have asked, for example, if the Muslim Council of Britain, the mainstream umbrella organisation in this country, will condemn the killing of British troops in Iraq. They will not do so in absolute terms. They prefer instead to condemn the war itself, which is by no means the same thing.

It's this kind of silence among the Muslim community that is just deafening to me. I would be more than happy to condemn the actions of Christian extremists who strong arm video stores into doing their will- but the same is not true (apparently) among "moderate" Muslims and Muslim extremists.

The second reason is that the leaders are frightened. In private conversations with the moderates, one is always told that they are under "enormous pressure", that they risk losing control of their own people, and therefore they cannot say very fierce things against the extremists. One must accept that this pressure exists, which only goes to show how serious the problem is.

So, the only strong language they could ever use is when it's against anything non-Muslim. I could mention something about Muslim religious leaders not having spine enough to actually LEAD their congregations, but I won't... oops. Too late. People who wish to do violence to their fellow man will find an excuse to do so. Nowhere is that opportunity more available than with the Muslim faith. A religion where physical violence is openly advocated or implicitly tolerated, and is so easily justified through the faith when it isn't supposed to be (according to ones who say Islam is a religion of peace), makes me question Islam's divinity.

So, the question remains: where is the peacemaker of Islam? Even during the civil rights movement in America, the one advocating peaceful change was a Christian (Martin Luther King) while the one advocating violent revolution was a Muslim (Malcom X). It would be nice to see Muslims openly condemn terrorists at least as much as they do our troops, but I'm not holding my breath.

The situation in the UK is absolutely horrendous. So much is being done to help terrorists in the name of tolerance. It's absolutely sickening. Moore chronicles several things wrong with the UK in how it's dealing with militant Islam. I suggest you read the whole column. It's refreshing to know there are people in the UK who actually get it.

UPDATE: LGF has a post to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor on the state of Islam in the UK.

UPDATE: Yet another example of refusing to see the obvious in the name of tolerance at the BBC.

|