STEP 1) Feign shock
STEP 2) Express resolve
STEP 3) Say good things about Islam
STEP 4) Pretend that taking in more Muslims “defeats terrorists” and makes us safer
Source: The Religion of Peace
STEP 1) Feign shock
STEP 2) Express resolve
STEP 3) Say good things about Islam
STEP 4) Pretend that taking in more Muslims “defeats terrorists” and makes us safer
Source: The Religion of Peace
The terrorist bombing Friday of a train on the London Underground, which injured 30 people – including one of my very close friends – was yet more evidence of a painful truth: the Islamification of the United Kingdom and Europe is well under way, changing the very character of the continent that gave birth to Western Civilization.
This is indeed an excellent essay, and the fact that it is written by someone who was, herself, touched by the latest bombing in London – through a friend of hers, who was fortunate that when the bomb detonated in her train compartment, it did not go off properly. I strongly recommend that you “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” this essay!
But like most other writings on the subject of Islam, in her commendable zeal to protect religious liberty and avoid tarring with too broad a brush, Ms Davis misses a few important points.
She quotes the Brookings Institute definition of Islamism, which of course is quite accurate, as far as it goes. However, consider: any religion worth its salt believes that its “values should play a role in public life,” and that it “has things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people – not just themselves – should conduct themselves.” If it does not, it hardly qualifies as a religion at all: at best, it is some form of nebulous personal spirituality.
Certainly, Christianity has things to say about these issues. Buddhism (more so in the East than in the West, but in some places even here) has things to say about these issues. Hinduism and certainly Taoism have things to say about these issues. The difference lies in how those values are promoted and expressed, and what the religion in question sees as its ultimate role in society.
I don’t feel that I can speak authoritatively for the other religions mentioned, but I do believe that I can speak fairly authoritatively for Christianity, having degrees in medieval studies and theology and being an ordained Christian minister. And what I can say is that while Christianity has certainly not been immune to the temptations to power-politics and even violence that come from a too-close alliance with secular authorities, such things are foreign and even contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith itself.
The fundamental teachings of Christianity are encapsulated in Christ’s summary of the law: “Love the Lord your God… and your neighbor as yourself.” This concept is repeated and reinforced in such passages as “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” and “a new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another.” Similar teachings appear in the writings of the Apostles, Christ’s successors after His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.
And his final instruction was to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptize. Not conquer. Not subjugate. Not kill. Baptize. That is a voluntary action: one must make a choice to receive the teachings, before baptism can take place (1). Nowhere is violence called for (2). Nowhere are Christians called to fight, kill, or make war against the “infidel.” Nowhere are they told to make non-Christians second-class citizens (dhimmi) who must die, convert, or admit they are inferior and pay protection money (jizya).
Beyond that, Christians are supposed to be the “leaven in the loaf” of the body politic, not its rulers and dominators. Christ was clear about this, stating “My kingdom is not of this world,” and instructing his listeners to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” His Apostles followed the same track, exhorting the early Christians to “honour the king,” and to obey the secular authorities, including the (then pagan) Roman Emperor. Christians were – and are – intended to seek to exert a positive influence on the actions of secular and political authorities by example and moral exhortation, not, as I say, domination and rulership.
So Christianity has, and God willing will continue to have, “things to say” about “how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how [people in general] should conduct themselves.” The important point is that the Christian faith itself – regardless of what deluded or over-zealous devotees may have done on their own initiative – does not teach that Christianity, or its followers, should politically dominate the world, and it does not teach violence as a way to spread its teachings. You can search the New Testament, and for that matter the Fathers of the Church (approximately corresponding to Islamic prophet Mohammed’s immediate successors), in vain for any such teachings.
And that is the point that so many otherwise intelligent and perceptive individuals – on both sides of the political aisle – consistently miss, or misunderstand: Islam is not just another religion. It does not merely believe that “its values should play a role in public life.” It does not simply have “things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people… should conduct themselves.” Would that that’s all it were! But it is not.
It is a religious / spiritual / theological justification for absolute dominance, conquest, and subjugation, in all realms: religious, political, judicial, economic, and military. One is either part of the Dar al-Islam, the Realm of Submission to Allah, or one is part of the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of Conflict, and thus subject to conquest so that submission to Allah may be enforced upon you. Those are the choices. And that is why the present contest between the West and Islam is a civilizational, existential conflict, whether one likes to think of it in those terms or not. Islam has not left us any choice in the matter.
All of that said: this is nonetheless a cogent and timely article, and an important warning for us, here in the U.S. It is well worth a read! Just don’t let yourself get caught up into too erroneous concepts, which this otherwise superb essay implicitly accepts: a) that Islam / Islamism is just a religion, and that b) no other religion has, or should have, things to say to and about the rest of (secular) society.
Personally, as The Anglophilic Anglican, I am heartsick at what is happening in Britain, and I pray it’s not too late to reverse it. But it will take some doing, and it may take sterner measures than people nowadays have the stomach for, unfortunately.
I also pray that we may resist this evil – and yes, it is an evil, both Islam and its Sharia law, and the loss of Western values, ideals, and the history and heritage of our Western civilization to Islam – here in the United States. Better not to let it gain any more of a foothold than it already has, rather than trying to get the camel back out once it’s already in the tent!
(1) Yes, I know there were some mass, forced baptisms in the course of the conversion of Europe. But those were the exceptions rather than the rule; they were done by secular rulers for primarily political purposes; and they were clearly contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith. Everyone has sinned and fallen short, and Christians are no exceptions.
(2) Christ’s most violent action was to make a whip of knotted cords and drive the money changers out of the Temple, turning over their tables. Not, please note, killing them! And when he exhorts his disciples that “let he who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one,” and is told they have two swords (for twelve disciples) he says, “It is enough.” When one of them actually uses his sword, cutting off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, Christ heals him. Contrast that to the actions of the Prophet of Islam and tell me there is moral equivalency between the two!
I have to confess, I had not even heard of Douglas Murray, that I can recall, until literally a few days ago. But in my opinion, he’s brilliant. Very, very well said, Sir!
Heck, you want to talk colonialism? It’s not just the Ottoman Empire – although he is completely right to point to them as a prime example. It’s the whole sweep of Islam across the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th and early 8th centuries, and far beyond later on, all the way to India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines… If that’s not colonialism, I don’t know what is!
I like what one Indian commentator had to say on the subject (ellipses are in the original):
Bravo. As an Indian, I’ve noticed everyone loves to blame the British, while conveniently forgetting Muslims (Turkish mainly) that have destroyed and robbed India. The British used India as a business to generate their wealth and in turn ended up building functional infrastructures still in use.
What the Muslims did was erect f_cking monuments of oppression… and mosques over desecrated Temples and completely eradicate our history in many places. British only tried to enslave us while empowering some locals.. but Muslims not only enslaved us but killed us and very strongly tried to change our identities. British came here and learnt from India.. but Muslims came and robbed our knowledge to claim it as their own and burnt the rest.
People need to stop thinking every f_cking thing against Muslims is Islamophobia…. In the new age, you are able to stand freely against colonialism / anything else really when it comes to the “West” … but if it were still Islamic, you’d be silenced swiftly like an animal (as the Muslims boast in their taunts towards free speech activists).
Indeed. The double-standard is strong in the Left! Especially ironic, since they’d be among the first against the wall, tossed from tall buildings, or beheaded, if Islam ever actually did come to power in the West…
And yes, the “alt-right” is correct: as promoted and practiced by many (most) Left-wing activists today, “diversity” and “multi-culturalism” are indeed code words for being anti-white, anti-European – for rejecting and seeking to overthrow the West, both culturally and demographically. That may not be a popular view in many quarters, but it is a fact, and readily apparent if you’re paying attention.
The purpose of this report is to suggest the basis for a new anti-dawa strategy, designed to check the advance of political Islam as an ideology and a movement.
In the first part, I describe the constitution of political Islam: the foundational principles, terminology, and objectives of Islamist ideology. In the second part, I analyze the infrastructure of political Islam, in particular the institutions and techniques of dawa. In the third part, I propose a number of policies that I believe will, if properly implemented, halt the spread of political Islam in the United States and perhaps also abroad. [The quotes here cited are from the executive summary of the longer report.]
It should be (but is not always) self-evident that Islam exists in an adversarial relationship to Christianity and to the West – both Western Christendom, as it historically has existed, and also the more secular West of Enlightenment philosophy and socio-political thought. Make no mistake, the end-game of Islam is world dominance: the conversion of the entire world to the Dar al-Islam – “the Realm of Submission to Allah.”
Although militant extremists seek to advance this ideology through violence, the perhaps greater danger is posed by those who are not overtly violent, but who seek to advance their ideology through dawa. Linked is an excellent discussion of this concept and its implication:
“Dawa as practiced by radical Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance their goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytizing but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to instill Islamist views in existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with the rule of sharia law.
“Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the ‘long march through the institutions’ was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within—the abuse of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom… dawa is rooted in the Islamic practice of attempting to convert non-Muslims to accept the message of Islam. As it is an ostensibly religious missionary activity, proponents of dawa enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.
“Worse, Islamist groups have enjoyed not just protection but at times official sponsorship from government agencies duped into regarding them as representatives of ‘moderate Muslims’ simply because they do not engage in violence.”
This is, it should be apparent, a dangerous misconception! Read on for more details.
Note: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an internationally-recognized, Somali-born scholar of, and convert / refugee from, Islam – unfortunately, she converted to atheism, not Christianity, but her critique of Islam is no less on-point for that – and an international activist for women’s rights. For more information on her and her work, visit the AHA Foundation.
Muslims have no respect for American culture or history, and they have no intention to assimilate… A Muslim student, who is about to attend a historic military academy in South Carolina, is attempting to force the school to allow her to wear a hijab. The school refused her request and told her she is not above the rules.
The school is The Citadel, and I salute them! As this article points out,
The military college, the Citadel, has a long history and has operated as a school for 175 years. It has not allowed an exception to the dress code once in its entire history.
The academy’s president announced the decision earlier this week explaining that, “The standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions, and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college.”
“This process reflects an initial relinquishing of self, during which cadets learn the value of teamwork to function as a single unit,” the president said, justifying the almost two-century long guideline.
[I would here note that “guideline” is imprecise, indeed incorrect: it is not a guideline, it is a requirement for all Cadets. Period.]
The Citadel allows for religious accommodation so long as it does not undermine the objectives of the school such as morale, health and safety, or good order. Breaking unit cohesion for a head scarf is not acceptable.
The Muslim student is not accepting the school’s decision in good spirit. Instead, she is suing the school with the support of the terror-funded Council of American-Islamic Relations. She says the lawsuit will go through unless the school allows her to attend in a hijab.
The Muslim-led attack on our historic institutions is being launched in an attempt to undermine our history. Muslims have convinced short-sided liberals to abandon their principles in the name of protecting the supposedly oppressed.
The Muslims are not fighting for equality, as the school policy treats people of all faiths equally. Instead, they demand special privileges for only themselves.
We see this time and again! Look at Moslem insistence on halal-only meats in school cafeterias, attempts to prevent people from walking dogs in neighborhoods where Moslems live and to get women to cover up on the beach, even a Change.org petition, a few years ago, attempting to ban Oktoberfest in Munich, of all things!
This is a part of the process known as creeping Sharia, where Muslims are able to trick a country into adopting Sharia law one principle at a time.
Indeed it is. The pattern, seen over and over again at many times and places, is for Moslems to appear accommodating and peaceful until they perceive themselves to be in a sufficient position of strength to make their real demands known (see taqiyya and dawa). This needs to be recognized, and it needs to be stopped.
Again, I salute The Citadel for taking this action! God grant they stick to their guns. And if it comes to a law suit, I hope and pray that it is settled in favor of the school. This is yet another front in the war against the West!
The map above shows the percentage of residents in various European countries who are willing to fight and go to war for their country.
I am generally a very peaceful person. It takes a good bit to move me to anger, and more yet to move me to violence. In particular, I am willing to shrug off, for the sake of peace and tranquility, many offenses against me, personally – as my dear late mother used to say, “consider the source.” Most offenders are not worth my time and effort!
That is not to say that I am merely passive, however, or that I cannot be provoked:
But if I am relatively forgiving of offenses directed toward me, I am less sanguine with respect to assaults directed toward people I love, care for, or who are under my protection. I am also much quicker to take offense to attacks on ideals I believe in, and places I value.
Sadly, that is not a viewpoint which seems to be shared by many Europeans. If this study, based on a 2015 WIN/Gallup International global survey, is accurate, it seems that most citizens of most European countries do not care enough about their own nations, people, and the history, heritage, and traditions they share to be willing to fight to preserve them.
Is it any wonder that outside invaders, from Islamic jihadists to economic opportunists, are leaping to take advantage of this weakness? Here is the breakdown, by percentage and country, from the largest number of willing defenders to the least. I find it not only sobering, but depressing, disillusioning, and downright scary for the future of Europe, and of Western civilization.
This bodes not well for the future, to put it mildly!
If there is any consolation, it is in the knowledge that, by some estimates, as little as 10% of the population of the American colonies was passionate about independence, prior to the Revolutionary War. More came on board later, but probably never more than 30% of the population was passionate about liberty and independence. Large numbers are not always what is needed; commitment is what is needed. But the figures are still, as I say, extremely sobering…
Note: “Hakkaa Päälle!” – my comment, it was not in the original list – translates roughly to “Hack them down!” or “Cut them down!” God bless the Finns.
I especially “like” this one:
Not that thoughts and prayers are not important! They are. And sometimes prayer is all one can do; if so, then one has an obligation to do what one can. I am not one of those who disparages people for doing all they can, or know how to, do! Even “positive energy” has its place. But if that is all King Theoden had done, not suiting actions to thoughts, Orcs and Haradrim would have been feasting in Minas Tirith, while the Lord of the Nazgûl reigned from the throne of the Kings of Men…
In real-world history, if thoughts, prayers, and positive energy had been all King Jan III Sobieski sent to the relief of Vienna, instead of Winged Hussars, Ottoman Turks would have ruled from the Imperial City, and the history of Europe and the world might have been much different!