Pretending the Problem Is Not There
After all, Islam is not a pacifist religion. Its founder was not a Quaker. There are many of the opinion that this problem should be out in the open, discussed and tackled. Not least in order to assist those Muslim scholars who are preaching against the extremists.
Is it ever acceptable to tell a lie? If you believe the answer is "no" then this is an area in which you disagree with our political class. The recent terror attack in Kenya -- and the reaction to it -- is only the latest evidence. When it comes to the truth about Islamic violence, our politicians evidently believe the truth is something we, the general public, cannot handle.
The latest example occurred this past weekend, when Islamic militants stormed a shopping mall in Nairobi. At the time of writing it is unclear just how many scores of people they have killed. What we knew from the start was that the culprits separated out Muslims from non-Muslims, allowed the Muslims to go free, and massacred the rest. This was a slaughter along specific religious lines: Muslims slaughtered Christians and other "infidels." As if to reinforce this point, at the same time in Pakistan two suicide bombers blew up dozens of Christians as they left church.
Anyone wishing to observe anything striking in all this was warned off by David Cameron. While the Kenya siege was still going on, and the brutal nature of the selection already known, our PM took to the airwaves. "These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion -- they don't. They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world. They don't represent Islam or Muslims." Very few people think they do represent all Muslims. But after so many years and so many attacks it is worth questioning why our leaders think the "nothing to do with Islam" lie is a remotely noble one.
At least the Prime Minister did not go as far as the distinguished journalist Sir Simon Jenkins, who blamed shopping malls themselves for the Kenya terror. But Cameron was still standing in a now decade-long tradition of deceit.
Convinced that "Islamophobia" is the real problem, and an anti-Muslim "backlash" the real concern, it has become almost impossible for Western politicians to have any rational discussion about what is both a local and global problem. When four young Muslim suicide bombers blew up the London transport system in July 2005, the smoke had not cleared before the then police-chief, Brian Paddick, told a press conference:"Islam and terrorism do not go together."
Two years later, when Islamic extremists tried to car-bomb a London nightclub and Glasgow airport, the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said what happened was, in fact, so contrary to Islam's teachings that such acts should henceforth be termed "anti-Islamic activity." It does not matter which party the politicians are from (Jacqui Smith is Labour, Cameron a Conservative), the lie is always the same.
In May this year, when Drummer Lee Rigby was decapitated in South London by men shouting "Allahu Akhbar" ("Allah is Greater"), David Cameron immediately tried to scotch any unhelpful inferences by stating, "There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act." London Mayor Boris Johnson assisted by stressing that it was "completely wrong" to associate Islam in any way with the killings.
One positive interpretation of this response is that since, with each attack, the fever-pitch of the politicians -- their absolute insistence that this has nothing to do with Islam -- increases, perhaps they intuit that their lie is getting ever harder to sustain. They must sense they are losing us.
It is unlikely, after this latest massacre in Kenya, that more people believe Islam is a wholly quietist and peaceful religion this week than they did the week before. Likewise, in May, after everyone in Britain woke up to blanket front-pages of two wild-eyed maniacs covered in blood, waving meat-cleavers, would you imagine that more people believed Islam to be a religion of peace that morning than the day before? Or a couple fewer?
In some ways you have to feel sorry for the politicians. They simply do not know how to speak to this difficult issue. They see that we have millions of Muslims in our countries. They also see -- rightly -- that the vast majority have absolutely no connection to such acts of violence. And although they undoubtedly over-worry about the potential of a popular "backlash" against Muslims, the longer the problem goes unaddressed, the more it appears that theirs is not an entirely unfounded fear.
Yet what the politicians cannot say -- and a very small number of public figures are willing to even hint at -- is that the actions of terrorists in Pakistan, Kenya and around the world on a daily basis most certainly are connected to Islam. In particular they are connected to a war of interpretation that has raged within Islam for 1400 years.
Islam is not a pacifist religion. Its founder was not a Quaker. People like to make comparisons at this point, so one might as well join in. Allow me to put it at its clearest: The history of Christianity has been quite bloody already. But it would have been far bloodier still if, rather than telling his followers to love their neighbour, Jesus had ordered them to "slay the infidel wherever you find them," as the Koran directs Muslims to do. What if Jesus, rather than telling his followers to "turn the other cheek," had -- as Mohammed did -- slayed and beheaded his enemies personally?
Does this mean that all Muslims follow Islam's violent strictures? Of course not. The Koran and sayings of Mohammed contain peaceful, as well as violent, admonitions. A complex battle continues over which interpretation of these texts and traditions should win out, and where and when. It is not only mistaken, but downright untrue, to pretend the problem is not there. The truth that politicians believe we are not ready for is that, although the extremists have a wicked and -- for everyone -- obviously disastrous interpretation of Islam, it is not an implausible interpretation. The extremists do not get where they get to from nowhere. Unfortunately for the politicians, an increasing number of voters can see this.
There are many of the opinion that this problem should be out in the open, discussed and tackled. Not least in order to assist those Muslim scholars who are preaching against the extremists. Many will only jump if they are persuaded that they must in order to safeguard the future of their religion. Rather than apply such pressure, and provide some assistance, our politicians have chosen another way. They have chosen to lie. There are only two ways that lie will stop. When the Islamists prove them wrong more markedly on their own doorstep. Or when popular anger tells the politicians that their lies are transparent. It is interesting to consider which eventuality will be more uncomfortable for them.
Reader comments on this item
|Enough is enough [100 words]||Max||Apr 8, 2014 17:40|
|Public recognition for Mr. Murray [152 words]||Mr. Appreciator||Dec 1, 2013 12:18|
|The gaslighting of America [219 words]||More-geese-than-swans||Oct 2, 2013 19:25|
|You need to find out about abrogation and taqiyya [106 words]||Mark||Oct 2, 2013 11:31|
|Islamophobia minus anything concrete to solve the problem raised [89 words]||Sam DeLorenzo||Oct 2, 2013 11:03|
|You've got to be kidding [187 words]||Bart Benschop||Oct 2, 2013 00:53|
|Peaceful Muslims [150 words]||Greg Hamilton||Oct 1, 2013 15:04|
|↔ Peaceful Muslims - how many? [113 words]||Ross Logie||Dec 25, 2013 00:51|
|Fogging the truth [286 words]||Gleaner1||Oct 1, 2013 14:06|
|↔ Do you have a link? [27 words]||Jason||Oct 1, 2013 16:44|
|Comment on "Pretending the Problem is Not There" [117 words]||Jen Schiller||Oct 1, 2013 12:08|
|Well said [71 words]||Peter Fusaisee||Oct 1, 2013 11:20|
|↔ 100% Agreement [15 words]||Jason||Oct 1, 2013 12:14|
|Defining Religion [60 words]||Dallas||Oct 1, 2013 10:45|
|A millstone for Cameron's neck [91 words]||Eib||Oct 1, 2013 09:47|
|The Problem is Islam. Period. [137 words]||Edward Cline||Oct 1, 2013 07:44|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."