Posted on 07/12/2004 4:10:20 PM PDT by Pokey78
A couple of years back, I mentioned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and received a flurry of lively e-mails. It was Valentine's Day 1989, you'll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims were marching through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed.
A reader in Bradford recalled asking a West Yorkshire officer on the street that day why the various "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they'd been told to "play it cool". The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to "F--- off, or I'll arrest you."
Isn't that pretty much how it's likely to go once David Blunkett's new protection for Islam is in place? If you're the "moderate" Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, you'll be invited to speak at the "Our Children Our Future" conference sponsored and funded by the Metropolitan Police and the Department for Work and Pensions. But, if you express concern about ol' Mullah Moderate, an Islamic lobby group will file an official complaint about you.
Indeed, after Sir John Stevens, Met commissioner and event co-sponsor, said he didn't want his officers on the same stage as the imam, the Muslim Association of Britain filed an official complaint about his comments. By the time you read this, Sir John might have already called for himself to be investigated by a Royal Commission and found guilty of systemic Islamophobia.
As for "Our Children Our Future", when it comes to children, the imam certainly has the future all mapped out: as he has said, "Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation." Thank heaven for little girls, they blow up in the most delightful way.
If an Anglican Bishop were to commend a career as a suicide bomber to his Sunday school charges, you'd certainly hope to be free to question his judgment on the matter. Not that Anglican bishops ever say such things, of course. They're lost in anguished debate on whether they should just have celibate gay deans in long-term relationships or go for full-blown robustly active gay bishops, and all the thanks they get for their painful efforts to keep up with the times is wholesale public mockery of Christianity up and down the land - i.e. my old friend Alistair Beaton's satirical Iraq-war song, We're Sending You a Cluster Bomb From Jesus.
Meanwhile, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the Western world, but Blunkett wants us to pretend that it's a wee delicate bloom which has to be sheltered from anything unpleasant. The other week, the governor of one of those Nigerian states that now lives under sharia called for the burning of all Christian churches within his jurisdiction. Every Friday, on state TV and radio throughout the Arab world and in mosques somewhat closer to home, the A-list imams call for the killing of Jews and infidels. Well, good luck to them. But, if they can dish it out so enthusiastically, couldn't they learn to take it just an eensy-teensy-weensy bit?
One of the reasons Arab nations are in the state they're in is because of the inability to discuss Islam honestly. I was in Amman for the Jordanian election last year and one of the things you notice is that, although the city does a reasonable impression of a modern dynamic capital and its press is, by the standards of the region, free-ish, its stunted political culture is subordinate to its religious culture. That's why, for example, Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code - which effectively licenses "honour killings" - always gets renewed when it comes up in parliament.
That's another reason the British Government should not be in the business of helping coercive lobby groups further stifle debate. Islam raises political questions that Judaism or Buddhism don't - the suggestion, for example, that Muslim women should be exempt from the requirement to be photographed on national identity cards. Without Blunkett's law, there'll be the odd crusty type from the shires huffing on BBC phone-ins that if Muslim women think it's insulting to be made to remove their hejab for ID cards, they should bloody well have thought about that before moving to Britain.
With Blunkett's law, we'll discuss such questions, if at all, between tightly imposed government constraints explicitly favouring one party to the dispute. I know which one of those options any self-respecting liberal democracy ought to prefer.
In The River War (1899), Winston Churchill's account of the Sudanese campaign, there's a memorable passage which I reproduce here while I'm still able to:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Is that grossly offensive to Muslims? Almost certainly. Is it also a rather shrewd and pertinent analysis by one of Britain's most eminent leaders? I think so. If Blunkett bans the sentiments in that first sentence, the sentiments of the last will prove even more pertinent.
I wonder how long before a fatwa is issued on our beloved Mark Steyn.
bump.
As usual, Steyn is right on target. Disturbing article, though. The British had better wake up.
BTTT
Another fine Steyn article. He nails it.
Unexerpted, and un-Q'ed. Bravo.
actually, the Brits need to be pushed further..then they'll wake up..However, the country that will probably FIRST move hard against Muslims within its borders will be France..it's the least democratic of the western nations.
France may be the least democratic Western nation, but they'll be the first to surrender. Okay, I know what you're saying...I just couldn't resist saying that ;-)
A month ago when Berlin had a huge gay celebration presided over by the city's gay mayor, I thought, "This will stop big time when Islam takes over."
Soon this will be the case in the West.
Already, anyone who says anything negative about Mohammedanism is branded a hatemongering bigot.
This sentence shimmers like a highly polished gem:
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
But who is he quoting here?:
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Does anyone know?
Non-excerpted BTTT.
The disease of politically correct cowardice is well noted by Mr Steyn. A correspondent asked a policeman, why do you not lay charges under the law regarding hate. The Bobbie told him "F... Off, or I will arrest you".
There is something rotten abroad in my native country and in Canada also. People are being prosecuted for unwise remarks against Islam or other minority cultures under the hate laws. Then the fanatics who use Islam as a cover, sneer in peoples faces, protected by the cowards. Let me name one group. The Ontario Human Rights Commission. Be on guard.
That's right, kick Catholicism, any branch of Christianity and that's PC fine with the media. Pro-Palestinian(Muslim)/anti Israeli(Jews) spiels are also okay. The Hindus and Buddhists aren't even on the U.S. media radar screen unless Hindus just happen to be repelling another Muslim attack in Kashmir.
But nobody dares say a judgmental word against Islam! We all know that if a terrorist attack occurs it is 99% sure to have been done by Muslim terrorists and innocent civilians are the usual victims. In the U.S., we put up with security checks at every airport, etc. because they're watching for Muslim terrorists, there isn't another variety to speak of. When you sit down in an airplane you automatically look around for Middle Eastern/Paki young men, because that's the only potential danger.
But we can't say anything publicly that it's all those damn crazy Muslims' fault! They're protected when Islamic terrorists should be discussed and condemned on every street corner, and open discussions of what massive failure in their religion causes those bombing lunatics to plague us!
It's our countries Muslims are piling into, we aren't trying to gain citizenship in their filthy Islamic ratholes. We owe them nothing, and they owe use the respect of our ways while they live in our countries. Or else they can return to one of their Allah's showcase homelands, which would be the best thing for the West.
Aren't the Libs supposed to be champions of tolerance? How is it that Islam gets a pass every time when they tolerate practically nothing? I have a hard time comprehending this.
MKM
That was Winston Churchill, Lord love him.
Congressman Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.