Fairfax rush to criticise Christensen, but never Islam…

Legitimises violence against non-Muslims…

Legitimises violence against non-Muslims…

The Fairfax press were quick to sharpen the knives for George Christensen today, after he quite understandably suggested the Merrylands attack could be terrorism related:

People who actually know what they’re talking about say the path to radicalisation is complex, varied and not particularly well understood. The suggestion there is no interaction between “youthful disaffection” and extremism is wilfully silly.

We can’t solve the problem if we dumb it down.

The cliche that we’re all tiptoeing around the fact that some Muslim community fringes are producing people who have radical views and a desire to commit violence is a straw man. Look up any ASIO annual report and see how clear-headed the focus on Islamist extremism is.

It’s possible to say that Muslim communities have a responsibility to help solve the problems at their fringes while also sympathising with the majority of peaceful Muslims who are expected to explain themselves every time there is an incident involving an extremist who most likely is a very poor excuse for a Muslim.

The irony is that when an attack is clearly and unequivocally linked to Islamic terrorism, like Nice, Orlando, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino and the rest, the Left-wing media will keep very quiet about the motives, do everything in their power to obscure the link to Islam and never dream of criticising Muslim communities or challenging them to reform. But on the rare occasion that an attack is erroneously linked to terrorism, like the present case, they come down on the guilty parties (who they believe to be racists and Islamophobes anyway) like a ton of bricks from their supposed moral high ground.

Yes, it was foolish of a politician to link the event to terrorism before we knew for sure, but geez, when someone sets themselves on fire and drives a car full of gas bottles into a police station, it’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw. I did it myself. But I’m not going to apologise for it – we’ve seen this kind of attack so many times before around the world that it is inevitable that mistakes will occasionally be made.

The author, despite all his moralising, and like so many in the media today, fails to address the key issue – namely the legitimisation of violence against non-Muslims in the Islamic texts. Agreed, there are many factors at play in the process of ‘radicalisation’, but why do we see such a vast majority of radicalised individuals of Muslim origin? Because Islam is the only religion, more accurately ‘political ideology’, that affords legitimacy to the “youthful disaffection” that many go through during their lives. It’s a perfect excuse to give vent to their frustrations rather than deal with them in any other way.

Another false argument put forward is the spurious claim that extremists are a ‘very poor excuse for a Muslim’. The reality is the complete opposite, since those who study the Islamic texts the most, and become Islamic scholars, seem to be the ones that are more likely to advocate violence against non-Muslims. The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, has a PhD in Islamic Theology. Hardly what you would call a ‘poor excuse for a Muslim’.

Further, the mosques and madrasas, where Islam is most well understood, are the most fertile breeding grounds for extremism. The murderer of Curtis Cheng obtained his weapon from Parramatta mosque. Who at that mosque is teaching that Islam sanctions the use of a gun against an innocent person? For the author to claim that extremists are bad Muslims is a dangerous fiction.

I’m sure plenty of other immigrant groups all over the world go through stages of “youthful disaffection” with their host country, but do not go on to become radicalised. Why? Because Buddhism or Hinduism or Sikhism (even Christianity) do not legitimise violence against those from other religions. If such a disaffected youth chooses to read the Qur’an, there are very many verses which will help to channel his disaffection towards hatred of and violence towards non-Muslims and martyrdom for Allah.

Despite all the excuses the Left-wing media will inevitably trot out after the next Islamic terror attack, none will be able to whitewash the fundamental problem, namely that the religious texts of Islam legitimise and condone violence and hatred towards non-Muslims.

Until this changes, Islamic terror will continue.

%d bloggers like this: