Why can’t David Cameron and Boris and the BBC believe what “the Moslems” are telling them? Choudary and Co. are open and honest. Transparency is what we like, no?
The obvious answer is before our very eyes, but due to circumstances beyond our control we can’t admit it. There are so many Muslim and right-on voters in this country, and understandably, no-one dares to risk rocking the boat.
Okay, so violence and barbarity are nothing to do with Islam, eh? Says who? Moderate Muslims, who insist that violent Jihad is a perversion of the real Islam?
Why should anyone actually believe a goody-goody fantasy, rather than honest Anjem when the evidence is there for all to see. Kindly look at Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, blah blah bloody blah, and ‘Palestine’, everyone’s oh so precious cover-up for their embarrassing antisemitism.
A courageous Muslim poses the question - why is it that Muslims can be, philosophically, as radical as you like, but unless and until they resort to violence in deed or or plot, they’re considered to be moderate.
In every other aspect of our society, an ‘extremist’ is defined by both their actions and their personally held views; it is perfectly reasonable to label a racist a ‘racist’, whether or not they carry out illegal acts or promote law-breaking. For some reason, however, such rational logic isn’t generally applied when it comes to describing members of religious groups.It seems that any Muslim who states that they support obeying the laws of the land is defined by default as ‘moderate’ without regard to whether he or she might hold some views that are very extreme and unpleasant indeed. However, a large section of our media and institutions appear to only label a Muslim as an ‘extremist’ if he or she breaks the law or incites others to do so. This is illogical and irrational.
The verbally incontinent Asghar Bukhari of MPACUK, whose verbosity is no match for his stupidity, has been on our screens day and night since the incident. He simply has to chant “Though Moslems abhor this act, it was because of the government’s foreign policy” and his interlocutors are virtually pole-axed, reduced to stuttering stupefaction. Stunned into submission by what they dumbly accept is a legitimate grievance. Dumbfounded! By what? Bamboozled by a trumped-up, illogical, patently ridiculous “greevy-ance.”
To his credit Clive Myrie attempted to challenge this meaningless, baseles, blatantly illogical, manifestly false mantra. “We’re trying to make things better for the Afghanis” protests Myrie. But Bukhri’s having none of that. He doesn’t want our ‘better’. He wants Sharia. He wants poverty, misogyny, repression and female genital mutilation. You know, the true Islam. That’s the ‘better’ he wants.
Followers of Islam, the true version, the false version, the perverted version, the version that doubles-up as a hostess trolley, all oppose “our” side - that is Western armed forces - trespassing on Muslim land, “killing Moslems.” That’s the chant that’s universally repeated by practicing, radical, fanatical, ghettoised, integrated, built-in or free-standing, moderate Muslims everywhere.
So I’m waiting for them to explain. Which Muslims mustn’t we kill? The Taliban? Saddam Hussain? The Sunnis? Shia? Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab? Do tell, Mr. Bukhri old chap, which particular Muslims are the ones that are reserved solely for other Muslims to kill?
Or is it just that Muslims are a homogeneous group when it suits the case for the prosecution, and the good v bad, moderate v extreme, mustn’t-be-tarred-with-the-same brush, don’t-associate-us-with-terrorism, hard-done-by, epitome of diversity when it happens to suit the case for the defence. So why are we going through this charade?
Certainly, Muslims are quite right to fear the backlash. If they don’t want a backlash, they must denounce a whole lot more than just the one gruesome act.
Aftermaths are like that. After Brievik’s atrocity the finger was pointed at the “the right-wing” as a whole. Very few qualms about that were to be heard from the Guardian-reading ‘we are all Hezbollah now” brigade.
Whenever Islamic inspired terrorism rears its head, mixed with the horror there’s an undeniable sense of vindication. Relief that the violence is motivated by Islam and not an unhinged rogue representative of one’s own kith and kin.
Anjem Choudary has really put the wind up everyone. Muslims and non-Muslims alike are saying he should be in prison for radicalising others.
Banged up for telling the truth? Anjem believes in telling it like it is. He doesn’t bother condemning the beheading of Lee Rigby, settling instead for an oblique reference to obeying the law of the land.
Other muslims think it’s sufficient to condemn this particular barbaric act, while still harbouring their precious greevy-ance. They advocate exerting their influence over our foreign policy by democratic means, and in polls, surveys, interviews, undercover and open-plan reporting, they come out with stuff that makes a mockery out of David “This was nothing to do with Islam” Cameron’s politically correct, factually incorrect assertion.
Anjem Choudary is a true colours kinda guy. We know where we are with him. Like Bukhari and other grievance-burdened Islamists who pay televised lip service to their disapproval of the ambush and murder of Lee Rigby, Choudary also wants Sharia; chauvinism, misogyny, repression and, who knows, female genital mutilation; the true Islam. He doesn’t just want it in Afghanistan or Iraq. He was born here, and he wants it here.