Responding to the carnage at Westminster, Theresa May first did a fair imitation of Churchill by telling the Commons that “we will never waver”.
However, she then went on to prove that neither is she immune to influences of other, considerably inferior, politicians, such as George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Dave Cameron. It’s “wrong”, she said, to describe the attack as “Islamic terrorism”.
This came in an exchange that would rank fairly high on the list of craven, intellectually puny dialogues ever conducted in Parliament. It started with the question by Conservative MP Michael Tomlinson:
“Will the Prime Minister agree with me that what happened was not Islamic, just as the murder of Airey Neave was not Christian, and that in fact both are perversions of religion?” (He was referring to the Tory MP murdered in 1979 by Irish terrorists.)
“I absolutely agree,” said Mrs May. “It is ‘Islamist terrorism’, it is a perversion of a great faith.”
Both the question and the answer reveal a whole set of qualities that ought to disqualify the two interlocutors from government jobs: ignorance, stupidity, cowardice, conformism with any popular fad, contempt for truth.
Implied in the question was an exact parallel between IRA and Islamic terrorism, in that neither of them was motivated by their respective religions. This is offensive, ignorant nonsense.
There isn’t a single verse in the New Testament that demands, or even implies, that infidels should be killed or in any way molested. There are 300-odd verses in the Koran that demand it in so many words. Just off the top:
“Slay them [unbelievers] wherever ye find them…” (2:91) “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.” (3:151) “Take them [unbelievers] and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.” (4:91) “The unbelievers are an open enemy to you.” (4:101) “Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends…” (5:51) “Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush” (9:5) “Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” (4:74) “…If they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…” (4:89).
In other words, while it’s impossible to be a murderer for Jesus, it’s not only possible but indeed mandatory to be a murderer for Mohammed. Thus, though the attack on Neave could under no circumstances be described as ‘Christian terrorism’, whatever religion the attackers espoused privately, the attack at Westminster faithfully reflected, and was motivated by, Muslim piety.
This was how Mrs May should have answered Tomlinson’s question, adding that he ought either to learn something about the subject before speaking or, for preference, shut up. The way she did answer it screams all those failings I enumerated above: ignorance, stupidity, cowardice, conformism with any popular fad, disregard for truth.
There’s no difference between Islamic and Islamist. In fact, the second adjective isn’t a valid term at all. Islamic terrorism isn’t “a perversion of a great faith”. It’s a logical reflection of a system of belief that masquerades as some sort of religion but is in fact a heavily politicised death cult with global aspirations.
Theologically, Islam is a patchwork quilt of scraps ripped out of Nestorian Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and whatever else Mohammed could pick up with the ease of an illiterate autodidact.
The founder of Islam wasn’t a crucified martyr who taught to turn the other cheek. He was a brigand and a military leader, adept at raiding caravans and sacking towns.
His creed proved to be the catalyst to violent conquest whose pace was unprecedented in history. Unlike Christianity, which was first spread by peaceful and usually self-sacrificial sermon, Islam was propagated by exactly the methods currently on display in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Here’s an excerpt from the earliest Muslim biography of Mohammed, showing that in addition to inspiring murder the illustrious Prophet wasn’t averse to committing it with his own hand:
“Then [the Jewish Qurayza tribe] surrendered, and the apostle [Mohammed] confined them in Medina… Then he sent for them and struck off their heads… as they were brought out to him in batches… There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900… This went on until the apostle made an end of them.”
The Muslims began as they meant to go on. The subsequent 1,400 years provide a detailed catalogue of violence, both of the geopolitical and common-or-garden variety. Those who died at Westminster on Wednesday are just the latest additions to the list of Islam’s victims, numbering the better part of 300 million over history.
Is Mrs May unaware of such elementary facts? The scary thing is that it doesn’t matter whether she is or isn’t. She could in her spare time be an avid student of Muslim violence and its direct link with Islam, she could have all the relevant facts at her fingertips – it wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference.
As a modern politician, she’d still feel duty-bound to mouth inane PC twaddle about Islamic and Islamist. We no longer have statesmen shaping the intellectual trends of the time. We have self-serving, mentally and morally deficient spivs acting as autopilot automata steering our whole civilisation to extinction.
And you know what the sobering thought is? Mrs May is far from being the worst of the lot.
Theresa May might better imitate Churchill by quoting from his book The River War: “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”.
This was not an attack of terrorism but more an act of obedience.
“‘Then [the Jewish Qurayza tribe] surrendered, and the apostle [Mohammed] confined them in Medina… Then he sent for them and struck off their heads… as they were brought out to him in batches… There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900… This went on until the apostle made an end of them.’”
And according to my understanding of the event Moe then took some of the widows of those beheaded as wives. Plus 1/5th the booty taken also.
What can we expect from ignorant secularised British politicians when the Church of England itself has bought into the heresy of Islam as epitomised by the reading of the Koran inside St Mary’s Cathedral Glasgow earlier this year, where to add insult to injury the passage that was read actively denied the Trinity which is a core doctrine of Christianity ! This ludicrous outrage provoked a leading clergyman to resign his position as Queens Chaplain. Previously in 2014 the National Cathedral in Washington hosted a blasphemous Muslim prayer service where reportadly muslim prayer rugs replaced the cross. Such apalling apostacy in the Church and utterly false yet deeply ingrained perceptions of Islam in western society reflect a contempt for the glorious Judeo Christian heritage that made countries like Britain great nations at one time in their history. Sadly the foolish West in its naivity may continue to pay a heavy price for abandoning the best part of its wonderful civilisation.