Cameron, stand up like a man.
Cameron, stand up like a man.
I read in The Daily Telegraph (6th June 2007) that David Cameron has addressed a conference in London with the title "Islam and Muslims in the World Today". Unlike Blair, Cameron does not claim any pretensions to being an authority on the true meaning of the Quran. Surely he must have at least glanced at its contents? It is not some secret document locked away in a safe, but is freely available via the internet. It is nearly two years since the London bombings, perpetrated in all sincerity in the name of Islam. Surely it is the duty of everyone who is in a position of political influence to at least have a go at reading the Quran, which is the genuine inspiration for these terrorist acts, whether we wish to believe it to be the case or not. You will then be struck by just how hard it is for the western mind to assimilate its contents. Blair has read it, so he claims, and describes it as "progressive". He is so easily fooled. He clearly has not understood abrogation. Even without understanding abrogation, what, pray, is "progressive" about the severe punishment for homosexuals, or that the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man in a Sharia court?
Why does Cameron more or less repeat the crazy notions of the left, with these words in his speech: "After all, it is a tiny minority of British Muslims who support terrorism." Is that so? What about the opinion polls that show around a quarter of Muslims sympathise with the London suicide bombers? Just who is fooling whom? Did you not watch the Channel 4 Dispatches programme "Undercover Mosque", broadcast earlier this year? Please stop insulting our intelligence with such daft statements. Do you not yet realise that few believe such statements now, and repeating them does nothing to make us feel more secure? It merely demonstrates that you are still in denial. Instead of saying "a tiny minority" why not quote an actual percentage figure, if you are so certain that it is small, you could state "less than one percent". Reading "Celsius 7/7" by Michael Gove Conservative MP, the figure would appear to be around 11 to 15 percent, see page 122, hardly a "tiny minority". Curiously, an opinion poll very recently finds that a quarter of Muslims believe that the London bombings were the work of the security services. Presumably this is not the same quarter who sympathise with their Muslim brothers for carrying it out! We can therefore imply that half of British Muslims are deluded one way or the other.
The Conservatives would do well to distance themselves from the legacy of that foolish man Blair. The U turn over Grammar schools should be a salutory lesson. You absolutely must not follow Blair in his fatuous appeasement of Muslims, as Cameron is now doing in his speech to the Islamic conference. Discover the real truth about Islam for yourselves. An increasing number of Muslims are becoming radicalised, and your own survey shows that 37 percent of younger Muslims wish Sharia law to be introduced. It is not only undemocratic, but it is anti-democratic. Why is it impossible to integrate with Muslims? Is it because of the binge drinking culture that has grown up in the last decade? No, that can simply be seen as a response by younger adults to the hopelessness of life now in Blair's Britain. Alcohol deadens the pain. The reasons why Muslims will not, indeed cannot integrate is not hard to find. It is clearly stated in the Quran: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Quran 5:51
Simply blaming this separation of communities on racism is far too simplistic. It may be a factor, but it can only be a small factor. See how well the Indian Hindu and Sikh communities have prospered in Britain, despite the racism from a few mindless idiots. Hidus and Sikhs are law abiding and peaceful, and do not place unreasonable demands upon the host nation as Muslims do, such as de facto Sharia law, no go areas in our towns and cities, interest free mortgages, tax and benefits concessions for polygamy, refusal to use hand washes in hospitals because they contain alcohol, censorship of our freedom of speech and freedom of expression (assisted by Blair, Brown, and Jack Straw), and the avoidable cruelty of halal slaughter. As an aside, Cameron is a hypocrite for not speaking out against halal slaughter, having quite rightly condemned the cruelty of live exports of horses. Labour are hypocrites for banning fox hunting on grounds of cruelty, but have done nothing about halal slaughter. A quarter of sheep in Britain are slaughtered using the cruel halal method. If it is right to be concerned for horses and foxes, then we must also be concerned for sheep and cattle. Their numbers are far greater. It must be stopped on moral grounds. Doing nothing also demonstrates appeasement of Muslims.
No, the problem of lack of integration lies squarely with Islam. Why do you think that India had to be partitioned? Hindus and Sikhs had no need to separate from each other, it was the Muslims who were the missfits. Despite the best efforts of Ghandi, partition was the only option in the end. If even someone of the stature of Ghandi could not induce Muslims to integrate, what hope have relative lightweights such as Blair or Cameron? Integration of Muslims with non-Muslims has been a serious problem from the very beginning of Islam. The evidence is in the Quran: "They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." Quran 4:89 Muslims never have, and very probably never will fit in with non-Muslims. They will not accept the authority of non-Muslims over them, but will always seek to gain the ascendancy: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Quran 9:29 Look at what is happening in Thailand right now. How on earth does Cameron expect to change this behaviour? Is he going to rewrite the Quran? His hopes lacks all realism.
Within the ranks of the Conservative Party you have some good people. Michael Gove MP has written the excellent book "Celsius 7/7" which analyses the appeasement leading so tragically to the London bombings. Cameron would do well to (re)read this book before spouting meaningless platitudes at Islamic conferences. It is a serious error for Cameron to think that Islamic morality is higher than that of the indigenous population. Of course there are drink and drugs problems, but it is a mistake to use that as an excuse, or allow Muslims to use that to strengthen their case for introducing Sharia law. Indeed it is Muslims in Afghanistan who grow poppies, and it is Muslim Turks who transport the resulting drugs to Britain and distribute them. And furthermore consider the bribes paid by BAE Systems to the Saudi princes. There was a time when an Englishman's word was his bond. There is an argument that if we did not pay bribes in order to secure contracts, then the French or the Russians would be quite happy to do so. However, this is precisely the same argument that for so long delayed the ending of the slave trade, despite the best efforts of William Wilberforce and other good Christians. The argument was that if Britain did not transport slaves, there would be no effect, since the Spanish and Portugese would continue to do so. It was only as recently as 1965 that slavery was made illegal in Saudi Arabia, and then only due to external pressure, not through the supposed moral superiority of Islam. It was only made illegal in Sudan in 1991, but continues nevertheless. Consider also how our universities are performing moral sumersaults in order to gain Saudi funding. It is the Muslims who are corrupting us, not we who are corrupting them.
Gove concentrates his fire upon Islamists, and the thoughtlessness of political leaders who have encouraged them over the years. However, there is a need for another book from him, dealing precisely with the core of the problem, and giving an honest answer to what exactly it is within Islam itself that gives rise to so much anger and terrorism. Another excellent book that deals with the rise of Islamism in Britain is "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips. In a way Blair is correct to state that "terrorists cause terrorism", and that in reality it is very little to do with Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Palestine. However, Blair's analysis ends there: He fails to take it to the next vital step, to ask: What produces Islamic terrorists? The answer is blindingly obvious, if you have the courage to look: The Quran itself is the primary source of this violence, supported by other Islamic writings such as the Hadiths. They are not secret documents, so read them for yourselves. You may raise the objection that there is a large percentage of so called "moderate" Muslims, who are horrified by the terrorism done in the name of Islam. Their reaction is commendable and shows that we have a shared humanity despite our other differences. It would seem that such a reaction of horror is genuine, in most cases anyway. What this demonstrates however is simply that they have been fooled about the true nature of Islam, just as Blair has been.
We have to realise that within Islam there are no "ten commandments" as there are in the Bible, which are common to Christianity and Judaism. One such command is "thou shalt not bear false witness", in other words, do not lie. Unfortunately, a Muslim has no obligation to be honest. They fool themselves, and they fool non-Muslims with ease. Here is the quote from the Hadiths which makes lying acceptable: "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). " Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64 How will politicians react, when it becomes increasingly well understood amongst the electorate that the true nature of Islam is more accurately implemented by Osama bin Laden and his ilk, than by the presumed "moderate" Muslims who are currently being showered with largesse at taxpayer's expense?
In the 1930s there was the desire to think the best of Herr Hitler, despite indications of his evil nature. Appeasement was in the air, and few voices raised in warning, with Churchill as a notable exception. The threat from the Nazis could have been nipped in the bud, if only Churchill had been listened to. Few believed, or perhaps wished to believe the uncomfortable truths that he was highlighting. There were some others who were also far-sighted: Reginald Mitchell with his Spitfire, without which the outcome may have been so different. But it was developed using private initiative, and no thanks to the head in the sand government. Churchill had words to say about the rise of the Nazis. He had similar words regarding Islam, which we would do well to heed. Is it credible that he was correct about the Nazis, but not about Islam? Cometh the hour cometh the man. The hour for understanding the true nature of Islam and acting upon such knowledge is upon us whether we like it or not, but where is the man? Cameron is likely to be the next prime minister after this interim placeholder, but is he man enough for this challenge? I am sure that he is decent and honest, but he must learn what Churchill knew, and more. Then he must stand up like a man, and do what is the necessity of this hour. If only the spirit of Churchill could return.