First posted: 11 September 2011
Pumped up with his own Islamophile rhetoric, this writer tells us that
"more than 50 Muslim groups united to show their condemnation of the terrorist attacks which occurred ten years ago today".
Only 50 Muslim groups? That’s actually a very small number for the whole of the UK. There are more than 50 ‘Muslim groups’ in London alone; and this is to discount other British cities and towns.
In any case, have these Muslim groups actually/really
united to show the MEDIA their condemnation of terrorism?
Why would they do that? Well, many Muslim groups did the same after 9/11 itself, as well as after the London bombings. (No doubt something similar occurred after the Madrid Islamic massacre.) These explosions of pseudo-sympathy only seem to occur directly after terrible events like 9/11. The rest of the time Muslim groups stay largely silent about the everyday reality that is Islamoterrorism. In other words, at times like this many Muslims feel that they simply must make token condemnations of Islamoterrorism in order to keep the non-Muslim British media off their backs.
In addition, which Muslim groups have ‘come together’? Not the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Not the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Not the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK). Not the Respect Party. That is, none of the main political players in the Muslim community generally.
As for the Islamic Society of Britain, which is featured in this article. This group exists solely to teach non-Muslims about Islam. It is a society of Islamic da'wah - proselytising.
On a similar theme. How does this journalist know that "imams throughout Britain are giving special sermons"? There are thousands of mosques in the UK. Has this writer privileged access to all of them - even the East London Mosque?
The writer at least lets one cat out of the bag. He says that
"the 9/11 attacks were counter-productive to the terrorists’ aims".
This is a clear admittance that many Muslims may not like the means (terrorism, killing) Islamoterrorists use, but they do agree - or sympathise - with ‘the terrorists’ aims’. Which ‘aims’ are they? More to the point. Do these ‘moderates’ want to bring these aims/ends about without any kind of violence? Is one aim the installation of an Islamic state? Full sharia law? To pull all Western troops out of every Muslim country? The annihilation of Israel? Who knows?
The Imam of Leicester Central Mosque, Maulana Shahid Raza, has
"reminded worshippers that terrorists had been quoting passages of the Quran out of context".
That Muslim classic - out of context! How does he know that they’ve been quoted out of context? Does he have access to the true ‘context’? Can Raza defend his position, theologically, against the Islamists and the Islamoterrorists, many of whom no doubt have an equal - or even superior - education in Islamic theology? In any case, there is no centralising church or authority in Islam, so how would this Leicester imam support his view that every Islamoterrorist is in the wrong? He most certainly cannot. And who’s to say he’s not indulging in Islamic taqiyya anyway?
Here are some quotes from the Koran which Imam Raza would certainly like to place in their correct ‘context’:
"Fight against unbelievers until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme." (2:189)
"When you meet unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads." (47:3)
"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends... Whosoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number." (5:51)
Yes, I’m pretty sure that this Leicester imam will find ‘cohesive contexts’ for these unequivocally ruthless passages in the Koran. But it would be him, and not the Islamoterrorists, who will be attempting to squeeze square shapes into round holes.
The news link: