Robert Henderson
The latest Muslim atrocities in the West (Paris, USA and London) has been met with the frantic recitation of the liberal internationalist’s favourite mantra to explain away such terrorism, namely, it is not committed by Muslims.
The attack in the Leytonstone tube station in outer London set the ball rolling in Britain when the lone black attacker shouted “This is for Syria” prompting the response “You ain’t no Muslim bruv” from an onlooker, a black Londoner judged by his accent and the fact that he addressed the attacker as “bruv”, a term only common amongst blacks in Britain. The context also suggests that the man is a Muslim.
The hashtag “You ain’t no Muslim bruv” was soon alive on twitter and lavishly lauded by the politically correct as an example of how to respond to someone claiming to be a Muslim who had stabbed someone and tried to behead them. The British PM David Cameron aka NuTory Boy embraced the twitter tag using the cry while in the US Thomas Friedman came up with the all too predictable tag of “You ain’t no American bruv” to describe Donald Trump after Trump had called for a temporary halt (note the temporary) to Muslims visiting the USA.
To see how absurd it is to insist that that any person who commits a violent act in the name of Islam is not a Muslim apply a few cases of X cannot be a Y because X has committed a violent act to non-Muslims:
– Christianity from the time it became the official religion of the Roman Empire was forced on people whether or not they wanted to be Christians. Hence, none of the enforcers or the coerced were Christians.
– The crusaders were not Christians because they engaged in religious war against Muslims.
– The Catholic Church cannot be Christian because (1) for the vast majority of its existence it conducted or supported war against pagans and (2) for the vast majority of its existence it persecuted mon-Catholics , most notably through the Inquisition.
– Protestants of almost all colours (pacifists like the Quakers are an exception) cannot be Christians because they have persecuted and fought against other Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.
Similar judgements could be made against those who behaved in an immoral way in the context of other religions, for example, Buddhists who are wilfully violent, and Confucians who rebel against rightful authority. In fact there is not a religion or secular system of morality whose practitioners have not in huge numbers breached the beliefs of their professed religious or ethical position. This is so because the history of human beings is predominantly a history of aggressive (as opposed to defensive) war, everything from the vendetta to formal warfare.
Then there is the question of the historical behaviour of Muslims. Islam from its beginnings was often , if not invariably, spread by the sword. If Muslims today are not Muslims if they engage in violence other than in self-defence against non-Muslims, or Muslims of a different stamp whom they consider to be non-Muslims, logically it must follow that all those who have called themselves Muslim in the past were not Muslims if they had committed similar offences.
In short, it is literally absurd to claim someone is not a true believer of any creed, whether sacred or profane, because no ideology is without its heresies, schisms or the complications of a range of permitted belief.
There is also the ticklish problem that religions or secular ideologies often have concepts of what is moral which clash with other religions and ideologies. Those societies with the vendetta will view revenge killings as a matter of honour and entirely moral, while those without the vendetta will see such killing as a murder.
The claim that Muslims engaged in terrorist acts are not true Muslims is made doubly absurd by the fact that the Koran gives plenty of support to Muslims to engage in violence against non-Muslims, something which for groups such as ISIS includes huge numbers of Muslims of the “wrong” stamp.
Absurd or not the politically correct politically correct will continue to use the “they are not Muslims” because they desperately wish to avoid acknowledging the frightening truth: that there are now tens of millions of Muslims in the West who are there because of the immigration policies of the politically correct elites over the past 50 or 60 years . There are nearly three million Muslims in the UK , an increase of 45% since the 2001 census. The figure for the EU including Britain is 44 million. The USA has 2.75 million.
It would be no comfort if 99.9% of these people would not dream of engaging in terrorist acts for if even a tiny proportion of such populations is willing to become terrorists that would mean large numbers of terrorists. If one Muslim in a thousand in Europe is willing to become a terrorist that would mean 44,000 Jihadis. That is what the politically correct are hiding from and which increasingly terrifies them.
Living In A Madhouse 
Comments
Well said Robert. Perhaps it is an insoluble problem, but for sure it will remain unsolved if the West’s political leaders are incapable of recognising that it is a problem.
Henderson: “That is what the politically correct are hiding from and which increasingly terrifies them.”
They don’t find the Muslims terrifying.
More to the point, they find the exposure of their treachery infinitely more terrifying.
It is important to understand that most of the people pushing these policies want to believe they are immunized to the effects. It is the sense of self-righteous invincibility, similar to the Japanese who believed in their invincibility, even as their cities were being pulverized and burned in WW2. In short, Vanity bequeaths an irrational sense of resolve, no matter how ruinous.
It’s not about rationality, but faith.
And like the Japanese, these people are willing to go to suicidal lengths to prevent their own humiliation. In this, Socialists and Muslims are very much alike.
What makes them different from Christians?
What separates Socialist/Internationalists from Americans?
“The proof is in the pudding.”
An ideology is judged principally by what its adherents do and what its host society creates.
I have often been quite amused when “Citizens of the World” wish to appropriate the accomplishments of astrophysicists, systems engineers, pilots, etc at NASA, SpaceX, General Dynamics, etc as their own. Clearly, these socialists have nothing to do with the aerospace/defense industry (and its storied accomplishments), or they would know that the employees who make up these companies and institutions would be chanting “USA, USA, USA” and typically refer to God in sympathetic terms, roughly in the same vein as Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong.
An ideology/religion is what its avatars – its people – make it.
The lies of people like David Cameron are necessary because what Muslims, Socialists, and the Japanese of yesteryear created was a mixture of failure, horror, and humiliation.
I agree with much of what you say but disagree on the point of elite fear of Muslims. You are quite right to think that the elite used to think they were protected from the consequences of mass immigration and the development of large Muslim fifth columns in the West, but now they are beginning to fear both for their own immediate safety – with random Muslim terrorist acts everyone is vulnerable – and eventually that punishment for permitting the profound treason that is mass immigration will be legally exacted.
Trackbacks
[…] Robert Henderson […]