It is appalling
that the Prime Minster of the United Kingdom is either ignorant or deliberately
deceiving.
In a speech
after the London terror attacks she said:
“First, while the recent
attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one
important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of
Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes
sectarianism.
It is an ideology that
claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are
incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a
perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”
The very ideology
which came into being with Muhammad’s move from Mecca to Medina in 622, the
hijrah, is according to Theresa May a perversion of Islam? Has Theresa May any
idea what she is saying? After all, Ayatollah
Khomeini admitted: " Islam
is politics or it is nothing."
Here is
what Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes:
“No symbol represents the
soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam
for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who
want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his
conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three
different groups of Muslims.
The first group is the most
problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada,
mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime
based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or
completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more,
they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone
else.
I shall call them Medina
Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition
of Shariah as teir religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s
teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even
if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone
it.
……
Instead of
letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace, we
in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought
and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most
violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that
are used to justify those acts.”
This kind
of behavior Winston Churchill would have called abdication of duty
In the House of Commons, on November 12, 1936, he said:
“Two
things, I confess, have staggered me, after a long Parliamentary experience, in
these Debates. The first has been the dangers that have so swiftly come upon us
in a few years, and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook
of the world. Secondly, I have been staggered by the failure of the House of
Commons to react effectively against those dangers. That, I am bound to say, I
never expected. I never would have believed that we should have been allowed to
go on getting into this plight, month by month and year by year, and that even
the Government's own confessions of error have produced no concentration of
Parliamentary opinion and force capable of lifting our efforts to the level of emergency. I say that unless
the House resolves to find out the truth for itself, it will have committed an
act of abdication of duty without parallel.”
