9/11: Thirteen years on


Lessons not learned

Lessons not learned

Thirteen years after 9/11 and what have we learned? Not much.

Despite the hijackers of those planes screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ (a war cry proclaiming that the god of Islam, Allah, is greater than any other, and which we hear frequently even today in news clips from Syria, usually to celebrate an explosion) as they flew them into the Twin Towers, murdering over 3000 civilians, everyone from George Bush down insisted that Islam was a ‘religion of peace’, or that the attacks had ‘nothing to do with Islam’.

Since then there have been nearly 24,000 jihadi terrorist attacks, where the word of the Qur’an, and the deeds and sayings of Muhammad, have been used as justification for those attacks.

Today we read [$] that plans for a jihad attack on Australian soil are ‘in place’:

A SMALL number of Islamic radicals have “settled intentions” to conduct terrorist attacks in Australia, bolstering the case for the nation’s spy chief to recommend an increase in the terror threat level, which could happen as early as tomorrow.

ASIO director-general David Irvine and Australian Federal Police acting commissioner Andrew Colvin had been expected to outline today the threat facing the community and lay the ground for an increase in the public alert level, but the planned press conference has been cancelled.

If (when?) such an event happens, it will be a race to the bottom to see who can be the first to pronounce that it was ‘nothing to do with Islam’ or repeat the platitude ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. You can bet Labor and the Greens will be battling it out for first place…

The Left are desperate to show that their version of Islam, the ‘religion of peace’ version, is the real Islam, and that the other versions are the fraudulent ones, because the alternative, namely that we have allowed, through decades of policies encouraging the development of a fictional multiculturalist utopia, a violent, supremacist political ideology to fester and grow within our Western democracies, is too horrible to contemplate.

The only problem with this interpretation is that we have people like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self-proclaimed caliph of Islamic State, who has a PhD in Islamic studies, demonstrating every day that what he and his followers believe is the real Islam is very, very far from the fluffy religion of peace version our politicians wish it were. And he has a freaking PhD!

So, who are we to believe? Are Christine Milne and Bill Shorten and all the other non-Muslim Western apologists who are forever telling Muslims what their religion means, claiming to know more about Islam than a caliph with a PhD?

The problem that we face is that Islam requires adherents to accept that the Qur’an is the word of god, and that Muhammad was the perfect man, whose example must be followed by all Muslims. To accept any change to the above must inevitably call into question the entire foundation of the religion, and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Further, and more than any other religion, Islam places its followers in a position of imagined superiority over non-Muslims, in every conceivable respect. It instills the belief that non-Muslims are unclean and inferior to Muslims and that anything which is the product of the kafir is unworthy of respect – that includes, of course, the institutions of Western governments. This all seems so obvious, but still we have politicians regularly scratching their heads when this behaviour is seen.

In May last year, one of the Sydney rioters refused to stand for a magistrate. Why would that be? The magistrate asked his lawyer:

“You can tell me where it is in his religion that it says he cannot stand.”

I’m not sure if the lawyer gave an answer, but to a Muslim, as he is informed by the Qur’an, the sunna and the hadith, the magistrate was a filthy, unclean kafir, and there was no way on earth he was going to show any respect to someone who, in his mindset, was far inferior to him in standing. Read the earlier post on Befriending the Kafir if you need further proof of this concept.

Also, man-made law is subordinate to the sharia, and therefore under Islamic jurisprudence, the magistrate had no authority to pronounce over him anyway.

Islam (meaning the real Islam) as a religion or political ideology is clearly incompatible with Western freedoms and democracy. Many of its ideas would be regarded as treason if expressed by others. Unless Muslim leaders in the West can devise a way in which Islam can be tempered whilst allowing its followers to remain Muslims, the ideology must be eradicated from our shores.

Note: all the above references are to Islam as the religious and political ideology expressed in the Qur’an, sunna and hadith, and not to individual Muslims, many of whom may regard themselves as Muslim, but who do not practise Islam. Such secular Muslims can function as well as anyone in Western democracies, and there are indeed many in Australia. 

Comments

  1. From THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, Dated MAY 21, 2013 12:00AM
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/court-stand-off-as-magistrate-berates-then-placates-disrespectful-rioter-mohammed-issai-issaka/story-fni0cx12-1226647223127?nk=0b84c760ebf6a58801499f452bb75ed8

    I would say his response was something along the lines of what his lawyer told the Magistrate, which suited their circumstances at the time, which was:

    “Mr Hopper said his client respected the law and his refusal to stand for the magistrate had nothing to do with her gender: “I respect that (he) has beliefs and that he stuck by his beliefs, that’s a matter for him.””

    What is funny about this is that a Muslim Community Leader at the time commented:

    “Muslim community leader Keysar Trad said Issaka’s behaviour in court was typical of a “rigid interpretation” of Islam, which included a “firm belief you don’t stand for anyone”.

    “You wouldn’t even stand for the Prophet (Mohammed) if he were to walk in,” he said.”

    Oddly enough however, there seems to be some confusion within Islam as to whether you stand or not, as can be seen in a fellow protesters reverse actions, those being:

    “His refusal to stand follows fellow protester Mahmoud Eid remaining on his feet throughout his sentencing before Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Culver less than two weeks ago.

    She was told Eid had beliefs he “holds very dear to him” and he did not want to sit then be forced to stand to hear his punishment as he would “only stand before God”. Ms Culver allowed him to stand through the proceeding before sending him to jail for more than four years.”

    So the question is, are they supposed to stand or not stand? They should have their Sharia Jurists sort that issue out.

    Like

  2. I presume you’ll be doing a similar article showing the dangers of Christianity from adherents to the Bible and providing relevant quotes. It would be a better world without any religions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, of course, because we all hear about those every day, don’t we? You can’t open a newspaper or turn on the TV without seeing those evil Methodists, Baptists, you name it, launching suicide attacks and beheading Muslims, and trying to take over the world…

      Liked by 1 person

    • OK Greg, so, aside from the fact that by ‘any religions’, you probably just mean Christianity, because that is, after all what the vast majority of people who say what you say, actually believe. How would you remove religions, exactly?

      Now lets take Australia – our constitution states:
      “…The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth…”

      Now, lets say you actually formulate a coherent argument (anything is possible, I guess), and you get significant numbers of people to support you (but be careful your movement doesn’t resemble a religion). Now you have to change the constitution. How would you go about that? What would your referendum question be?

      Would you impose laws forbidding any religious practices? To do this, you’d have to classify what is a religion, and what isn’t a religion. To some, the AFL and NRL are religions, These sporting codes cause anger, arguments, and violence every weekend. It should probably be banned too, right?

      What sort of laws would you put in place? How would you ban religion, but stop people from using violence against someone who openly practices a religion, or, by their attire, shows their religious faith? Better ban the clothing, just in case, eh? “for their own safety”, of course, that excuse always works well.

      What would you do about public memorials, where people leave flowers, cards, candles, and photos of the deceased? Is this not a religious practice too, even if it is not of any particular faith? Better ban them too… What about funeral services? Weddings? better ban them too, there could be religious talk at such events. Get ready to lock up people for saying something along the lines of “I’m sure they are in a better place now”, or similar…

      With religion being such an insidious thing, you’ll need some sort law enforcement, perhaps random inspections? What sort of sentences would you like to see for people who, for example, claim that they are obeying the law, but suspiciously, keep a bible which belonged to their great great grandfather (for sentimental reasons, they say)? 5 years? 6 months? Community Service? What about, say, the Hindu housewarming ceremony, griha pravesh? Better not allow a pot of milk to boil over without severe legal consequences, it could be one of those subversive religious practices…

      With no religion, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays are just like any other day of the week, so you’d better get rid of penalty rates which apply to those who work then. After all, the tradition of not working on at leaf 1 day of the week is primarily due to ;religion’, of one sort or another. Get rid of religious public holidays too – no more Easter long weekends for you.

      What about foreign tourists? would you ask them if they were planning to exercise their religion in Australia, and ban them from entering if they said yes, or would they be excused, and allow to practice said religion?

      What would you do with the buildings used by various faiths? Confiscate them and sell them off…? Who would get the money?

      I await your response… after all, getting rid of religion was your idea, so you must have the method all worked out, as well as an idea of the consequences of your actions, and how to handle them.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. luisadownunder says:

    As His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, in his address about the interplay of faith and reason, intoned: Muhammad brought “things evil and inhuman”.
    As God is “transcendent” in the Muslim faith, it is unclear where one gets the idea that “moderate” Muslims are different to “radical” ones?
    Muslim leaders have not once condemned the atrocities happening in the Middle East, in the name of Allah, but are more concerned with the focus that is currently on them.
    Strange behaviour, indeed, if these atrocities are not really Islamic.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. One day, probably far in the future, the civilized world will have to fight for its life against the barbarians.
    We are half way to defeat now, and the Trojan Horse full of ‘refugees” is INSIDE the gates.

    Liked by 2 people

%d bloggers like this: