"I ask him to bring a new spirit of urgency to the fight against the Zeus of Iran and his attempt to kidnap our freedoms; and by doing so, to show New Labour's commitment to the true spirit of Europe - not just to an economic community, or to monetary union, but to European civilization itself."
The excerpt above is from a letter written by Salman Rushdie to Britain's "The Guardian" newspaper on 14 February 1997. It was on this day, the eighth anniversary of the fatwa against him, that Salman Rushdie would castigate Europe's politicians for cynically abandoning the ideals of free expression and human rights. In retrospect, Sir Salman Rushdie's words would offer a veiled glimpse at the coming future of European and Western civilization. A civilization that would one day willingly subjugate itself to dhimmitude, all in the name of diversity and "religious tolerance".
You might have expected a strongly worded statement on the 14th of February from 10 Downing Street, perhaps even in response to Hamid Ansari's declaration on Iranian State television that the "fatwa" calling for the death of Sir Salman Rushdie still stands, but this is not the courageous and proud Britain of the past, this is a nation now resigned to fatalism. Islamic fatalism.
The excerpt above is from a letter written by Salman Rushdie to Britain's "The Guardian" newspaper on 14 February 1997. It was on this day, the eighth anniversary of the fatwa against him, that Salman Rushdie would castigate Europe's politicians for cynically abandoning the ideals of free expression and human rights. In retrospect, Sir Salman Rushdie's words would offer a veiled glimpse at the coming future of European and Western civilization. A civilization that would one day willingly subjugate itself to dhimmitude, all in the name of diversity and "religious tolerance".
You might have expected a strongly worded statement on the 14th of February from 10 Downing Street, perhaps even in response to Hamid Ansari's declaration on Iranian State television that the "fatwa" calling for the death of Sir Salman Rushdie still stands, but this is not the courageous and proud Britain of the past, this is a nation now resigned to fatalism. Islamic fatalism.
It is hard to imagine that Sir Salman Rushdie could have possibly imagined that just eleven years later not only would the Archbishop of Canterbury be conceding that Britain's acceptance of Islamic law was inevitable, but that Iran would be on the very verge of developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Is there truly any hope for a civilization hopelessly consumed with a "pathological self-hatred", a self-hatred that has now become dangerously fused with both anti-rationalism and as the Archbishop has so demonstrated, an Islamic fatalism?
Britain's latest disgrace is to unwittingly assist Islamic extremists in perpetuating their "us versus them" dichotomy by issuing special "Islamic bonds". What was wrong with the regular bonds you might ask? Well, the for Britain's Islamic fundamentalists, the regular bonds are "unclean" by Islamic standards. Make no doubt about it, with the assistance of quislings like Rowan Williams and Chancellor Alistair Darling, Islam's foot soldiers are busy with the task to ensure that Islam's religious precepts are all being duly incorporated into civil law.
For a government hopelessly enamored with the concepts of diversity and multiculturalism, these sharia-compliant bonds are a naive and misguided way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community, but the reality is that this "banking apartheid" contributes not to economic prosperity, but only to racial and ethnic chauvinism. What Britain's leaders lack is foresight, the foresight to see that that by rejecting their own principles and values and then bolstering Islamic self-assertion, chauvinism and values, they only substantiate the dualistic sociopolitical ideology professed by Islam's hardcore fundamentalists. It is the relentless accommodation and appeasement of these fundamentalists that continues to embolden them.
When the day of maturity comes, and it will, these bonds will be repaid with English blood and not with sterling.
Britain's latest disgrace is to unwittingly assist Islamic extremists in perpetuating their "us versus them" dichotomy by issuing special "Islamic bonds". What was wrong with the regular bonds you might ask? Well, the for Britain's Islamic fundamentalists, the regular bonds are "unclean" by Islamic standards. Make no doubt about it, with the assistance of quislings like Rowan Williams and Chancellor Alistair Darling, Islam's foot soldiers are busy with the task to ensure that Islam's religious precepts are all being duly incorporated into civil law.
For a government hopelessly enamored with the concepts of diversity and multiculturalism, these sharia-compliant bonds are a naive and misguided way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community, but the reality is that this "banking apartheid" contributes not to economic prosperity, but only to racial and ethnic chauvinism. What Britain's leaders lack is foresight, the foresight to see that that by rejecting their own principles and values and then bolstering Islamic self-assertion, chauvinism and values, they only substantiate the dualistic sociopolitical ideology professed by Islam's hardcore fundamentalists. It is the relentless accommodation and appeasement of these fundamentalists that continues to embolden them.
When the day of maturity comes, and it will, these bonds will be repaid with English blood and not with sterling.
Lao,
ReplyDeleteAs a former colonial, I might have a better perspective on the British relationship with Islam.
British Colonial rule (as opposed to French Colonial rule) actually strengthened Islamic institutions.
A good example is Niger and Nigeria. In Nigeria, the British ruled indirectly through the Emirs (Islamic rulers) and discouraged the activities of CHRISTIAN missionaries whilst in Niger the French ruled directly and curtailed the power of the Emirs.
The result: Nigeria has Shari'a law while Niger does not.
The British elite has always had a soft spot for Islam (watch BBC, listen to Thatcher, listen to Prince Charles) - and the Islamists know that. Rowan Williams was merely projecting into the future.
If the British could not stand up to Islam in their colonies, what makes you think they can do it today? There is a vacuum, Britain is no longer a Christian nation and another religion is poised to fill that vacuum.
Hey! Thanks for visiting my blog! And just so you know...that interview was with someone else, it was not my story or opinion.
ReplyDeletePersonally as an American in another country, I am proud to be an American, and thankful to get the chance to experience other beautiful and different parts of the world. I love it all.
And I know as an American,I am supposed to beleive that it is the best country or whatever, but what I believe is that every place and all people have good and bad qualities. My goal is to take the good from wherever I am or have been and use it as a gift in my life.
Thanks for coming by! Hope to see you back soon.
Kristie!
PS The interview you saw was one of many I have on my blog. I like to see what other expats around the world experience and to hear their stories. Since you are also an expat, I would LOVE it if you would honor me by doing a short interview (like the one you saw) to hear your thoughts about being an expat. Let me know!
"If the British could not stand up to Islam in their colonies, what makes you think they can do it today?"
ReplyDeleteAnd who says the British never had the courage to stand up against recrudescent Islam?
This is not the first time in our history when the world has come face to face with Islam on the march.
From 1885 to 1898, (over 13 years) Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad terrorized much of the Sudan and East Africa.
That all ended in September of 1898 when the British killed over 10,000 of the Mahdi's troops under the command of Abdullah al-Taashi and captured over 15,000 at the Battle of Omdurman
The British lost 48 men.
What we should have learned from this historic battle is that - there is no substitute for victory and more importantly that jihadist movements can be defeated with overwhelming military force. In fact, there is no other way to defeat such an enemy.
The problem of course is mustering the courage to be downright brutal. The British faced the very same dilemma at the Battle of Omdurman with many soldiers awed by the clash between two civilizations and others disturbed by the sheer spectacle of the slaughter that took place.
It was ugly to say the least, but the jihad that had terrorized much of East Africa ended right there.
Winston Churchill's book "The River War" a first-hand account of the Battle of Omdurman can be downloaded for free right here
Very interesting blog Lao.
ReplyDeleteLao,
ReplyDeleteMahdi Muhammad was not the only Islamic ruler that the British defeated. The British and the French put paid to the Jihad of the Sokoto Caliphate in West Africa.
The issue is what the British did after the defeat of the Islamists. In both Sudan and West Africa, the British empowered the successors of the Mahdi and Muhammad Bello. Northern Sudan was ruled indirectly by Islamists and made a "no-go area" for Christian missionaries, while Christian missionaries operated in Southern Sudan.
Omar Bashir and co are merely the successors of the Mahdi.
Contrast that with the French. You don't see Islamist governments in charge in former French colonies (they tried really hard in Algeria but did not succeed).
The British accomodation of Islam had roots in the strange concept of "the noble savage". Select groups like the Zulus, Muslims, Gurkhas and Sikhs had a special place in the hearts of colonial administrators. Other groups - were looked down on.