The Islamic community needs to be more honest with non-Muslims when it comes to the relation between Islam and violence; there is a connection even if not all Muslims act upon this aspect. This reduces the amount of trust possible between our communities due to the lack of transparency.
It should not be a surprise when indigenous elements get restless because our culture should not be undermined in order to accommodate the Islamic community and appease violent elements. More respect for the indigenous cultural identity would be beneficial since promotion of multiculturalism can appear self-serving if these leads to the proliferation of mosques. Greater voices within the Muslim community for the defence of the indigenous cultural identity will reduce the mistrust of the Islamic community that it is found within ‘our multicultural society’.
After the Woolwich attacks in which a British soldier was murdered in a barbaric manner attention has been cast to the role of Islam in inspiring their actions – or the lack of it. It is the latter viewpoint that is the problem. The logic to the latter viewpoint is that Islam is peaceful, the actions of these two animals were violent, therefore their actions were unIslamic. Sikander Saleemy, the Secretary of a mosque in Braintree which was on the receiving end of an attempted revenge attack, said that ”we absolutely condemn what happened in Woolwich, but it had nothing to do with us . It was an appalling act of terror – but it wasn’t Islamic in any way”.
In The Telegraph Mehdi Hasan pointed out a passage within the Koran that proclaimed that an attack on one person is equivalent to an attack on mankind. How do these two individuals explain, if Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, passages from the book of Surah that urge the murder of unbelievers? Even if you can claim that this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Islam is a violent religion it certainly weakens, if not explodes, the Islam-is-peaceful thesis.
Some these passages from the Koran should be considered when you ponder the supposed peaceful nature of Islam. Surah 9.73 exclaims says, ” O Prophet, fight against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination”. When al-Qaeda and other deluded fanatics fight against non-Muslims they are following what the Koran is telling them.
It is claimed that ‘Allah’ is merciful. How do you explain passages such as ”So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punsihment…” (Surah 9.74). It is seems that ‘Allah’s”mercy’ is conditional. In Surah 9.5 is is claimed that ”when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and beseige them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give Zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful”. In other words, if you do not convert you are fair game, but will be welcomed into the Muslim brotherhood and sisterhood if you do.
So, even though most Muslims are not members of murderous groups or partake in murderous activities against non-Muslims, this does not make Islam a peaceful religion. It just means that the majority of individuals with a Muslim background do not act out passages quoted above. However, since there are such passages within the Koran, and the above ones are only examples of what else is in there, the non-violent Muslims cannot justifiably claim a monopoly over the ‘correct’ interpretation of Islam.
This means that the non-violent Muslims must reconcile their faith with militant nature of Islam. This has to happen otherwise they are not being honest. They are not being honest to themselves, and worst of all, they are not being honest with us non-Muslims. We hear Muslims claiming that such men follow a ‘perversion’ of Islam, yet we see wave after wave of Muslims trying to murder us in the name of Islam. What these non-Muslims need to do is to explain as to why there is no al-Qaeda equivalent in the Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist populations. For this reason, there is clearly something distinct about Islam that makes a disproportionate number of its people resort to terrorism even if this number is a minority of the Muslim population.
When individuals such as Tommy Robinson of the EDL claim that ”They’re [Muslims] are chopping our soldiers’ heads off. This is Islam”, and that ”our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. It never has been…”. This cannot be contradicted even if you claimed that Islam is more than chopping off soldiers’ heads, since violence rhetoric is found in the Koran. All the Muslim community can do is to admit that there is a violent streak running through their ideology because any attempt to persuade non-Muslims that Islam is peaceful can be undermined whenever anyone bothers tom do any research into the subject. This would then appear that those asserting the Islam-is-peace argument are trying to hide something.
Religious ideology certainly seemed to be a motivation for the murderers. One of them said into a camera held up by a member of the public that ”we swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you”. The fight, fortunately, seems to have ended for this particular moron, but unfortunately it seems that others will take their place and will take inspiration through Islam. Since ‘Allah’s’ mercy extends only to those who convert it seems that he is not theologically compelled to grant mercy to would be victims. This is clear evidence against the Islam-is-peace argument.
This aggression is portrayed as defence and revenge. The killer who made the previous nonsensical statement also raised the old adage of an ‘eye for an eye’. This is seemed to be a ‘responsibility’ that is compelled onto Muslims individually – Islam is an active religion since its adherents are compelled to assert its beliefs against others. The killers were thus compelled, with a little help, it seems, from that waste of oxygen and matter, Anjem Choudary, and theological commands.
This revenge is based on a misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. They killed the soldier on the basis that he had killed innocent Muslims in Muslim countries; of course, there is no reason to assume that he had done, not that it would have ever justified what happened to him even if he had done.What these idiots failed to understand is that large of numbers of Muslims in Muslim countries are dying because of people like him; insurgents killing civilians with car-bombs because of sectarian divisions, while British soldiers have been trying to protect Muslim civilians. But it is easier to divide the world into ‘good’ Muslims and ‘bad’ non-Muslims – they would not have to do as much thinking.
This therefore means that instead of pushing the narrative that Muslims are victims because Muslims are dying in Afghanistan Muslims who express revulsion at terrorist acts should acknowledge the role that Muslim ideology plays in maintaining this narrative. It is claimed that Islam only justifies violence in self defence, but maintaining the myth of Islamic victimhood only reinforces the sense of justification of those that launch attacks against non-Muslims; it is only a cover for an aggressive proselytising campaign as the Koran seems to sanction. If these non-violent Muslims want to demonstrate to us that they are against such acts then they need to stop evading the issue by claiming that such acts have nothing to do with Islam. Ideologies can be complex, and Islam could be open to rival interpretations, but the connection between Islam and violent jihad seem to be too clear just to dismiss.
This requires a debate and a fundamental campaign to change Islam, and this needs to be done in full view of non-Muslims since we are on the receiving end of its excesses, not to mentioned the Muslims whose deaths our servicemen are wrongly blamed for. The problem could be Islam itself since it claims that the Koran is the literal word of ‘Allah’- including the violent bits. Muslims would need to be persuaded to drop this principle and follow their religion for selectively and considerately to non-Muslims. After all, despite the cries about supposed Islamic victimhood, Muslims have been granted a massive amount of leeway. They have been allowed to live here in huge numbers despite the theoretical ability to prevent them from doing; they are, wrongly, allowed to convert historic buildings into mosques, and our heritage industry will stand back and do nothing in order not to cause offence; they have been allowed to alter the cultural landscape; halal meat is served to non-Muslims, despite animal welfare issues, in order to allow Muslims to abide by their religious diets. We have granted a culturally suicidal amount of leeway.
Muslims therefore have no right to claim a sense of victimhood. However many Muslims have condemned the attacks in order to avoid attention from ‘far-right’ groups such as the English Defence League. They have failed since the EDL took to the streets. The EDL have been blamed for division but they are a reaction to problems that already existed; remember the circumstances in which they were formed? British soldiers were being abused by a group of Islamic fundamentalists, and the EDL was born out of the group that confronted these ‘mentalists.
This problem has existed for a long time. We had the 7/7 bombings but the Woolwich murders were not the first instance of murders by lone fanatics. Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004 when he had his head cut off because he was involved in a film that apparently insulted Islam. But, nearly a decade later, we still have Muslim spokesman trying to dissociate Islam from such acts despite the fact that supporting evidence for the contrary can be found in the Koran and the Hadith. It has been pointed out that there has been progress made. There is validity to this view because before the tone was, despite some lip service for the victims, that we had it coming because we had not been nice enough to Muslims, but now there has been downright condemnation from Muslim spokesmen, even though there is still the tendency to claim that Islam has nothing to do with violence. Muslims have to come clean, and come to terms with the violent aspects of their religion otherwise the society that is generously hosting them will find it impossible to trust them.
Nick Griffin has claimed that there is a connection between the attack and mass immigration. There would certainly seem to be an issue here regardless of what you think of Griffin and the British National Party. The two murderers were of immigrant background; we know that they were of Nigerian background. We know that one of them came from a devout Christian family before descending into the world of drugs and crime before converting to Islam; a seemingly common route. The connection with mass immigration seems to be an issue surrounding identity and multiculturalism.
The killers identified with Muslims in Afghanistan, a country that they have never visited, more than the citizens of the country that they grew up. There is a connection between mass immigration and identity disjunction because mass immigration has replaced an homogenous identity with a plethora of identities. If you are going to identify with a country then you need to know what you are identifying with. Muslims are therefore faced with competing identities; some Muslims may claim that they can comfortably live with an Islamic identity and a British identity, whatever they take that to be, but it is clear that many cannot. Muslims who are in the latter camp must realise that they cannot justify aggression against the majority because we are here; it is not our fault that some Muslims cannot deal with their identity crisis, and we have no obligation to change what is left of the national identity, though we could assert and demand compatibility with our own identity instead of the absurd notion of multiculturalism.
It is up to the non-violent Muslims, and any violent ones, to come to terms with any identity crisis. Even their religion may compel them to see any other belief system as a threat, and respond with violence, this is based on a false idea of infallibility. Their religion is based on faith; there is no evidence to establish the existence of ‘Allah’, and by extension, any of the demands made within the Koran; even if ‘Allah’ exists there is no evidence that ‘The Prophet’ Muhammed conversed with the Archangel Gabriel or that any subsequent ‘revelations’ were actually from ‘Allah’. It is purely faith, a faith that most people do not hold.
Thus, Muslims should not expect to claim any special status. If Muslims genuinely want to gain the trust of the majority population then they need to accept the validity of our way of life because we were already here, and be more expressive in this regard, and come to terms with the violent aspect of their religion, instead of claiming that Islam is being misrepresented or Muslims are being persecuted whenever anyone connects Islam and violence because a Muslim has perpetrated a violent act in the name of Islam. Otherwise, they just come across as dishonest. It would also be ideal if they expressed respect for the indigenous culture, and be more respectful to it, i.e, stop the proliferation of mosques and ‘Islamic cultural centre’ , especially in a way that alters our cultural landscape and treads on our heritage. Otherwise, and compounded with successive outrages against non-Muslims, they cannot blame the natives for getting restless.
resistancetoantidemocraticleft 