This Post Has Nothing To Do With Islam

Islamic zealots are all reading from the same script — the Koran. The post below, from Tim Blair’s blog at The Daily Telegraph, shows how many Western political readers also seem to be reading from the same script whenever they are confronted with the behavior of Islamic zealots:

Modern Mo Mantra

by Tim Blair

Shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, President George W. Bush established a protocol still observed by politicians worldwide more than 13 years later. According to the Bush protocol, any mention of Islamic terrorism must quickly be followed by a disclaimer pointing out that Islamic terrorism is nothing to do with Islam.

“Islam is peace,” Bush said six days after the attacks, which killed nearly 3000 people. “These terrorists don’t represent peace.” Bush returned to that theme during his second term: “I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace.”

Thus began a tradition repeatedly followed all over the planet.

“There is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature,” said former British PM Tony Blair. Current Brit PM David Cameron said almost the same after British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Islamic extremists: “Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslim, they are monsters.”

President Barack Obama is another follower of the Bush protocol: “ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

Many in Australia, from Prime Minister Tony Abbott down, have lately joined in on the “religion of peace” mantra. Here’s attorney-general George Brandis: “It is one of the world’s great religions. The suggestion that mainstream Islam is anything but a religion of peace is nonsense.”

Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells: “The terrorists are misusing the name of Islam and giving the community a bad name. I would implore the Australian public to understand this is not about Islam. It is about terrorists and a death cult.”

NSW premier Mike Baird: “This is not about religion. This is about criminals intending to act criminally in association with terrorism organisations.”

Labor leader Bill Shorten: “This war is not about religion. This is about evil people in some other parts of the world twisting religion to their own violent and criminal ends.”

Queensland premier Campbell Newman, following last week’s terror raids involving around 800 police officers across two states: “This is not about a particular group in the community. This is about a very small group of criminals who wish to undertake criminal acts against the community.”

Goulburn prison may also be host to someone with political ambitions. After Saturday’s beardo uprising at the prison, a source spoke to the Daily Telegraph. “Something had happened they weren’t happy about,” the source said. “The issue wasn’t a Muslim-related issue, but it was the Muslim guys who got into it, yelling out to Allah.”

They were “yelling out to Allah” but it “wasn’t a Muslim-related issue”. To be fair, the source probably meant that the issue that prompted the riot was not Muslim-related, but the phrasing nevertheless recalls last year’s bewildering media response to the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Killer Mujahid Adeboloja, his hands covered in blood, subsequently stood in the street near Rigby’s almost-decapitated body and explained himself. “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. You people will never be safe,” Islamic covert Adeboloja said. “There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth.”

This wasn’t clear enough for SBS, where host Hannah Sinclair pressed London-based Australian journalist Adam McIlrick for details:

Sinclair: “Is there any indication of the background of the suspects involved?’

McIlrick: “No indication as yet, Hannah.”

The ABC’s London correspondent was equally perplexed. “What happened was clear,” he said. “The motivation, less so.” No wonder Muslim extremists are frustrated. They literally stand in the middle of the street telling everybody that they killed for Allah and nobody seems to hear them.

It’s just bad luck, I guess, that the religion of peace attracts so many people of violence. Could’ve happened to any religion, really, although it’s rare to hear of anyone flying jets into buildings to honour Krishna or screaming oaths to Ganesha while cutting someone’s head off.

Only a few dare to go against the whole religion of peace theme. One of the them, interestingly, is British Islamic extremist Anjem Choudary. “You can’t say that Islam is a religion of peace,” he told interviewer Erick Stakelbeck in 2010. “Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam.”

Thanks for the clarification, Anjem. By the way, this column is nothing to do with Islam.

Hat tip: JP.

20 thoughts on “This Post Has Nothing To Do With Islam

  1. The U.S. has had the misfortune since 1988 to be lead by an amiable, unimaginative place warmer, a player beholden to the Chinese, a patriotic, liberal dunce, and a man with no history, uncertain sexuality, zero academic accomplishment, a law license that is no more, disdain for whites and constitutional requirements, and an instinct to grovel before Muslims and Chinese.

    This has resulted in confusion.

  2. Christianity had two great reformations that make it distinct from Islam.

    1. Christ himself. He fulfilled the law of Moses, introducing a new law which demanded peace and non-aggression.

    2. The Reformation, in which erroneous beliefs that led to problems and conflict were revised or eliminated.

    Islam has not had those reforms. The original calls of spreading the word with the sword still stand, and are still interpreted the same way. Until this and a variety of other laws are reformed, Islam will remain “submission” and not “peace.” Such fatwas will be accompanied by action–ISIS is not being suicide bombed by moderate Muslims, so no reformation has happened–at least not one with any teeth.

    • Judaism had been non-aggressive for many centuries before Christ (and the history of religiously inspired aggression in Judaism is relatively brief). Early Christians continued the Jewish pattern of being prepared to criticize the dominant society and political powers (and sometimes suffering when political powers made demands contrary to their beliefs), but generally not aiming to seize political power for themselves.

      As Christianity grew quietly within the empire, theologians posited that secular authorities had their own kind of divinely sanctioned legitimacy, regardless of their religious beliefs. After political rulers started adopting Christianity, church leaders already had a distinct and separate sphere of authority — and the distinctness persisted through efforts to establish a unitary authority and through turf wars between church and state.

      That is fundamentally different from Islam, which does not recognize a legitimate distinction between religion and state.

      The original Christian pattern of gaining adherents was by individual persuasion or family conversion. It’s true that when emperors and chieftains and kinglets adopted Christianity, they began imposing it on their subjects, and sometimes conquering other peoples on whom they imposed their creed. It’s certainly regrettable that Christian rulers and clergy used to promote the prosecution of thought-crimes.

      The Protestant break-up of the Roman Catholic monopoly did have the effect of reviving the principle of individual persuasion as the basis of Christian faith, but early Protestants could be aggressive in trying to impose what they believed to be the sole truth on an entire society. And the Protestant Reformation, quite obviously, introduced new sources of conflict between various groups insisting that their creed was the only legitimate one.

      It was primarily the conflict between those groups (not the elimination of “error”) that allowed the gradual re-emergence of the original principle that individual persuasion is what makes Christian faith authentic, and that coercion is not justified.

      That is fundamentally different from Islam, which at its origins prescribed coercion as a sacred imperative.

      The foundational tenets of Islam are diametrically opposed to the original principles of Christianity that eventually allowed freedom of conscience to prevail in what used to be called Christendom. Hoping for an Islamic “reform” in a civilized direction may be futile — and worse, it may gave more growing room to aggressive Islam when we should be fencing in Islam however and wherever we can.

    Here are nine simple statements which can be easily verified.

    Islam authorizes deception of non-Muslims in the cause of Islam.
    “Using deception to mask intended goals” is Muslim Brotherhood strategy.
    The Muslim Brotherhood’s main U.S. front group is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
    CAIR supplied Bush with the “Islam is peace” message.
    It was a deception.
    George W. Bush is not known for general knowledge.
    Bush was deceived.
    Using Bush was a brilliant and successful propaganda ploy.
    The “Islam is peace” message was, and is, a lie.

    Will any media relate these statements?

    See also “Cameron is being lied to”

  4. Mr. Cameron knows the relevant fact to relate:
    It is the “Nothing-to-do-with-Islam” Islamic State.
    It’s a terrorist entity, militant entity,
    “Poisonous” ideological entity,
    Warping and twisting,
    Perverting and smearing and
    Misunderstanding and misrepresenting,
    Extremist and radical rogue of a state.
    He says it’s a “so-called” Caliphate,
    Why, it can’t be a proper Islamic State.

    • Yes of course,when a man with a PHD in Islamic studies (ISIS leader) starts marauding across the middle East it obviously has “Nothing to do with Islam”

      What a moronic narrative Cameron is touting.

      Truth is that the Saudis are buying up London,Cameron is running scared,so scared that he won’t even accept Putin as a hard nosed,nuclear equipped,semi super powered anti Jihad ally.

      Just wait until China gets angry,the imported Islamic demographic in Europe is something that they won’t think twice about sorting if it threatens them.

      People should think much more strategically about European Islamic demographics than they currently do.The Chinese,Russians and eventually the USA when they finally abandon the Saudis won’t care one jot about nuking you when you finally put your hands in the air,wave your white flag and scream “I’m English”.Too late.

      The UK is currently sponsoring and exporting terrorism.We can’t continue to do that.

  5. Yes, I was reminded of all those elephant jokes of many years ago, the 70s perhaps?
    I can’t see how any politician in a liberal democratic, multi-culti society could actually admit to the fact that we’ve imported a fifth column by saying “The jihadis are simply imitating the behavior of Mohammad–they’re good Moslems”. I hope, I really hope, that the West’s political elites don’t actually believe that PC drivel.

  6. At least liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells got something right when he/she said “It is about terrorists and a death cult.” It is about a death cult and its name is ISLAM

  7. If the politicians admit the violent nature of islam then they have to do something about it. That’s 1500 millions muslims that need to be removed from our societies and kept separate from the rest of the modern world. For America that would be bothersome. For Europe it would be calamitous. For countries like India with 15% to 20% muslims (200 millions) it would be genocidal. It’s a problem they don’t want to deal with even as it gets worse every year.

    Also, these same backwards reprobates sit on the majority of the world’s ‘economic lubricant’, while the west has become too lazy to find another energy source, and too cowardly to just kill them all and take it.

    So the Emperor has no clothes, the song remains the same, and it will stay that way until something REALLY BIG happens. Considering that 9/11 with 3000 dead and over 100 billion dollars in direct economic loss only woke up maybe 10% of the population, it will probably take an entire western city of over a million souls to vaporize for barely 51% to see the truth.

    The quicker this happens the quicker we can confront this problem. I’ve never been so glad that I don’t live in New York or Paris.

    • Porkistan, absolutely correct all the way down. The question is, how many people actually believe the drivel presented by our politicians and media and how many people take the time to be bothered to find out whether or not it is true. From what I’ve seen, people are quite content to carry on with their lives providing no one actually rattles their own personal cage. Given that situation, it will take an awful lot of prodding to get the average Joe and Joanne to do something.

      • There’s someone who often posts on other sites I read who fully recognizes the barbarity of “Islamists” but keeps pointing to a handful of “moderate” Muslims who ”get it” and who are (she imagines) the leading edge of a wave that’s building to take back Islam from the “Islamists.” I keep doing my part to poke through her delusions.

        She’s not someone who shouts “Islamophobe” when people shine a light on the evil that jihadis do, but for some reason she seems intent on trying to salvage something decent in Islam. (And not because she’s Muslim; she has mentioned going synagogue.)

        I think there’s quite a bit of that thinking out there. People don’t want to think that Islam itself is fundamentally a menace to civilization — either because the idea is too frightening, or because they like to be charitable and tolerant (like the woman who didn’t want a sweeping ban on Muslim immigration because she didn’t want “to be a bigot”), or because they’re too optimistic for their own good.

        • @TBM

          Yea, a lot of people don’t care unless it affects THEM. So maybe 51% already think that islam is incompatible with western secular democracy but because the attacks are few, they aren’t willing to do anything about it. If muslims get to 20% like India (and soon France) then there is no ‘clean’ solution.


          I actually meet ‘nice’ muslims all the time. I say ‘nice’ because I don’t know if they are ‘really’ nice or if they are just faking it to get along with the filthy (and gullible) kuffar.

          One thing to keep in mind is that MANY muslims are not ‘really’ muslims. They’re muslims only because they were raised muslim, but more importantly they’re muslims because if they leave islam THEY WILL BE KILLED. Even in the ‘safe’ west, they will AT LEAST lose all their friends and family.

          There’s a reason why Islam is the “Fasted Growing Religion”. It’s because all children of muslims are automatically muslims and anyone who leaves islam is executed. There are a lot of Atheists, Agnostics, and Nominal muslims hidden those counts of muslims.

          I’m NOT saying there is a ‘moderate’ islam. I’m saying that perhaps 30% to 50% of ALL muslims don’t take their religion very seriously, much like Christians who never pray or go to church.

          The problem is that their children or grandchildren can become ‘devout’ at any moment. Anybody who thinks that Allah is God, the Quran is from Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger (even nominally) can have ‘sudden jihad syndrome’ at ANY time and then start murdering us all.

    • The history of Christianity’s fight against the Muslims is the history of a fight that was fought mostly on the back foot. We’ve not yet gone on the offensive – in 1400 years. The Levant was majority Christian before it was majority Muslim. Islamic Istanbul was once Christian Constantinople, the centre of Eastern Christianity, the Middle East equivalent of Rome.

      It seems the only time we utilise all our resources in war is when it’s fought against fellow Westerners. Imagine if the same level of resources and firmness of will utilised during WWII were directed outwards towards the enemy. It would be over in weeks.

      But of course such action is outside the West’s liberal/left paradigm whose adherents seek to prosecute the perfect war, one that doesn’t include the necessity of killing the enemy. Indeed so perverse has the Western politicial establishment become that it expects its own soldiers to lay down their lives in the persuit of not killing the enemy.

      It’s got to end in tears.

      We need to man up and prepare ourselves mentally for the coming strife.

  8. Wow. This article is on the Telegraph site! It adds one and one and comes up with two!? Things moving in our direction surely…

    There ought to be some kind of resource where we ‘newswatchers’ can deposit these ‘head-in-the-sandisms’ from our leaders so that they can be stored for all time.

  9. It is correct that the book says “Don’t kill innocents”.It then goes on to thwart itself by stating that non Muslims,apostates etc…are not innocent.It makes me wonder if any so called Muslims have actually read or understood this arbitrary and capricious nonsense.

    It is often stated that “ISIL are not Muslims”,I’m sorry,this is untrue.The leader of ISIL has a PHD in Islamic studies.


    Create a cartoon showing the Blitz, german bombers over London in 1940 and David Cameron saying: “This has nothing to do with the Germans!”

    ..or, germany, nazism, whichever you like.

  11. There is only ONE religion on earth that we know of that contains multiple, clear, open-ended commands for its believers to kill non believers. I think this should be the criterion that negates its status as a religion. Islam is not a religion: it is a political system because of this, and it should be classed as such.

Comments are closed.