Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
June 10th 2017 print

Peter Smith

Monsters of Faith, the Faith of Monsters

I don’t want searches outside public events. I don’t want concrete barriers to prevent mad Muslims mowing down pedestrians. I don't want to hear another smug sophist prattling about lethal refrigerators. What I want is a logical, reasoned response to an evil, growing menace

sssshhhh. Islam! IIA good big ‘un will always beat a good little ‘un is an adage mostly applied to boxing. And it is mostly true. Correspondingly, family units and small communities are vulnerable to raiding bands of pillagers. Cities are vulnerable to sieges by armed forces. Weaker nations are vulnerable to stronger ones.

This all seems terribly dated, does it not? Vikings sacking British monasteries, Muslim armies at the walls of Constantinople, storm troopers sweeping over the Maginot Line, are all relics of past times?

In fact, the difference between then and now is not the advent of a new moral age. Bad guys are as numerous as ever. If you for a moment doubt that, those in Israel don’t. If you think Israel is a special case think of the heady aspirations of North Korea and Iran, not to mention the “junior varsity” upstarts. And, without wishing to add to Russian fear-mongering, Ukraine and the Baltic states have reason to be anxious.

The difference between then and now is purely logistical. Enemies have to cross borders and sometimes open seas. Standing against them are the good guys; disciplined defence forces armed with advanced weaponry, allied across enlightened Western countries. They are ‘the thin red line’ between us and pillage, rape, massacre and enslavement. We can sleep peacefully in our beds.

Hold on, enemies within don’t have to breach borders or engage the thin red line. They are an entirely different kettle of fish. What do you do if the bad guys are on the inside?

The advice that British police give citizens is to “run and hide” from terrorists. Good advice when you’re not armed and armed police at the very (amazing) best will take eight minutes to turn up and kill the assassins, as in the London attack on  June 3. Be aware, they should add as part of their advice, “knife, gun, bomb and truck wielding assassins might take only seconds to kill you.”

Why we are concerned but not quaking? Yes, as I said, we have the police and army if needed, but also we have each other. We can rely upon each other. Not to defend us but to be like us. Hardly anyone in our street is a criminal or assassin. Moreover, to the extent criminals and assassins are among us they are not glued together as a cohesive force. Suppose they were? Suppose that the 23,000 known Islamic extremists in the UK and their support networks, their fellow travellers, and fair-weather brothers and sisters, were glued together by a common ideology and purpose?

Be afraid. They are glued together by an extremely widespread perverted and extremist view of their ‘noble faith’. Mind you, how tens upon tens of thousands of Islamic scholars and hundreds of millions of ordinary Muslim folk could get it all so wrong I must leave to your vivid imagination. It is beyond sense that this for example – “fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness” (9:123) – could be a given any kind of threatening interpretation. And those dastardly conservatives dispute the validity of Islamophobia. Really!

But back to the followers of ‘perverted Islam’. Take a typical British or Australian suburban street. No one is armed; no one is trained. One home-grown Islamist fighter with an AK-47 could subdue the whole street. How many it would need to control most large population centres? I don’t know, but far fewer than in the US, pound for pound, where lots of people are armed. But even there, the vast majority of people, left unprotected by the police, would be overwhelmed by relatively few trained insurgents.

And exactly how do you retake a suburban area populated by sick people, disabled people, old people, middle-aged people, young people, children, infants, babies and pregnant women, controlled by, say, tens of heavily armed fighters ready to kill hostages and die for their cause? How likely is this ever to happen? However unlikely it might be best not to take a chance.

I would suggest that it is time to nip the whole god-awful catastrophe in the bud before it goes any further. But this is what I don’t want except as temporary measures. I don’t want strip searches before attending any public events. I don’t want steel and concrete barriers built across every bridge and thoroughfare to prevent mad Muslims from mowing down pedestrians. I don’t want thousands of agents monitoring tens of thousands of Muslim maniacs to prevent them killing innocent people attending a pop concert. I don’t want armed patrols on street corners.

I want the problem solved in a way which preserves our way of life. How, you might ask?. Well I didn’t buy a dog so that I could bark at intruders.

Governments are elected and paid to keep us safe from harm inflicted by alien forces from without and within; and without turning us into inhabitants of permanently armed camps. I have some suggestions which are not meant to be exhaustive. Banning all further Muslim immigration would be a good start. And no, this is not religious intolerance. It is called self-preservation.

Extremists in the West who can be deported should be deported tout de suite. Extremist mosques should be closed down and all government funding and support of Islamic centres of learning, including schools, should be cut off. Social conventions, like mixed bathing at public swimming pools should be upheld by force of law. Sporting venues aren’t churches and shouldn’t be allowed to comport themselves as such by incorporating prayer rooms. I won’t go on. I haven’t been elected to government.

We have to get something straight before we are buried. Islam is a supremacist ideology wrapped in sharia law wrapped in a political agenda and all cloaked by the appearance of a (like any other, we are told) religion. This ‘religion’ ain’t like any other. Its adherents shouldn’t be allowed to escape into fantasy land by claiming to be peaceful and moderate without explaining how this is consistent with their scripture. And to be clear to dim-witted Islamic apologists, there is no religion without its scripture.

‘I am a Muslim but reject central tenets of my scripture, the very words of Allah and Mohammed, because I’m moderate’, is not a tenable position. It is a ludicrous position. The only viable step for a Muslim of moderate and peaceful disposition is to leave their faith like Hirsi Ali; not to go on pretending you’re a Muslim like Zuhdi Jasser and other so-called reformists.

Peter Smith, a frequent Quadrant Online contributor, is the author of Bad Economics

Comments [21]

  1. Jim Campbell says:

    Peter, I agree, we can’t go on like this or any other weak- kneed way that has been suggested.

    As a consequence I have, on 24/3, submitted an application to the AG to have the Qur’an classified as a banned book in Australia. Surprise, into response to date!!

    The full Application can be found at http://www.ttwsyf.net under ‘Articles’. A copy of the Conclusion follows.

    CONCLUSION

    This Application of necessity refers to Muslims, Islam, and the Qur’an, as they are the background to the subject book from which the themes and precepts that are considered emanate. However, the heart of the issue is not one of religion or theology and it is essential that the cloak of religion or the intricacies of theology do not obscure the primary thrust of the Application.

    That is, that no book of any genre that teaches and encourages the following behaviors should be freely available in Australia.

    *Antagonism between, separation of, and alienation by, a specific group and the rest of mankind.
    * Deception and dissimulation in dealings with people who are not of that group.
    * Physical harm and/or subjugation for those who are not of that group.
    * Coercive management as a tool to exact performance from members of that group.
    * No recognition by that group of the separation of church and State.

    The presence of a book encouraging these behaviours is an immediate and evolving challenge to the values, traditions, institutions, and regulations that define Australia’s secular democracy. There are no arguable circumstances under which it should play a role in shaping the character of any Australian citizen.

    This Application demonstrates that the Qur’an is such a book: it teaches and encourages such behavior. Its themes and precepts are taught in schools, mosques and homes throughout Australia. Over 600,000 Australian residents live by these themes and precepts every day.

    On the basis of the above, this Application requests that the Government classify the Qur’an as a banned book in Australia.

    • Peter says:

      Good stuff Jim. I hope you managed to get the word ‘insurrection’ in there somewhere because that is what it amounts to; and there must be some law against that, even these days.

      • Jim Campbell says:

        Peter – if you get time to look at the full Application, http://www.ttwsyf.net, you will see the Introduction clearly states that without using ‘insurrection’. Big problem is, our leaders are deficient in spirituality and don’t read or both.

        • Trevor Bailey says:

          Yes, the best any of us can hope for is not the “reasoned response” of Peter Smith’s plea, but the “seasoned response” of today’s political class.

    • Bill Martin says:

      Your “Application” is an excellent document Jim. Obviously, a great deal of thoughtful, meticulous work was invested in it. Congratulations. Alas, you are not likely to receive acknowledgement from the addressee, simply because it is absolutely irrefutable, therefore silence is the only option for the “progressive”, inclusivity-obsessed, white guilt suffering, spineless authorities. Furthermore, if your reasoning for banning the Qur’an were to be accepted, it would mandate the banning of Islam altogether, which, of course, is not likely to happen, at least not before a civil war settled the issue here and/or elsewhere.

  2. Bill Clark's nephew says:

    One possible response to this abominable threat to our safety, that appears to be worth considering, is one I have heard recently, and that is to take the sugar off the table, by putting up a roadblock on the road to Heaven. Governments should announce that henceforth suicide bombers and any other Muslims killed in the act of terrorism should have their bodies or what is left of them smeared in pigs blood and dumped in unmarked graves along with pig’s heads and offal. Could work.

    • Rob Brighton says:

      Or simply christening them will achieve the same thing, no need to torment pigs.

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      Cerrtainly worth a try. Euchre them using their own Godawful religion.
      Except that pigs are highly intelligent animals well up on the phylogenetic tree, and should be respected.
      Dumping a load of pig shit into the coffin to take up any surplus space in my theological opinion should do the trick just as well.

  3. en passant says:

    Peter,
    Bill Martin, Tony Thomas, Jim Campbell, Uncle Tom Cobbly, yourself and many others have pointed out the obvious, yet very few of our politicians will openly agree. The Turnip Team will waffle on about peace, when everything in their qu’ranic playbook preaches violence. When I worked in the M.E. I was asked on several occasions to sponsor my coworkers to Oz. I survived saying ‘No’, and explaining that they would not like a pluralistic society that encouraged all races to attend mixed schools and that enforced tolerance, equality of sexes and did not allow prayer in public schools.

    Of course, I lied, but that was no different than their telling me that they wanted to come to Oz and ‘fit in’.

  4. Rob Brighton says:

    Douglas Murray crystal clear answer to the whole more people die as a result of …….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqro2DTGhlo

  5. Jody says:

    Having this morning watched a National Geographic documentary on Foxtel about the Frank family in Amsterdam (remember Ann Frank?), I’m inclined to agree with a family relative; the rest of the world turned its back when the Frank family wanted visas to leave Europe. None were forthcoming so I conclude most of these countries were complicit in what happened to European Jews. Totally agree and I see the analogies with the religion of Islam in the West. Doing nothing means we are all complicit in creating the problem. Jaw-boning about it here won’t do anything. Unless you’re prepared to march on the streets of each major capital city in your many tens of thousands absolutely forget it!!

    • Warty says:

      Your analogy about the Frank family is a good one, and indeed we were complicit in the deaths of many many more than that one family. The Vichy government was appalling; the British tried their utmost to turn back ships bringing Jewish emigres to Palestine, at the close of the war. The Poles and the semblance of government they had in the immediate post war period were guilty of the murder of several thousand Jews, despite all that was known about the concentration camps.
      Unfortunately, our constitution never envisaged the militant face of Islam, now threatening our very existence. Peter’s suggestion we ban all further Muslim immigration, will do nothing about those already in our midst, so I’m afraid we will need to lose hundreds, if not thousands of our own people before we have a government with the balls to say what Bronwyn Bishop and Peta Credlin are already telling us: WE ARE AT WAR, with Islam . . . plain and simple. What do you do when there is a full blown emergency (and it will come, believe me)? You round up the lot of them, as happened to Japanese residents at the outbreak of WWII, and put them in internment camps. In our case, once we’ve rounded them up, we need to identify where the parents came from, the grandparents, if necessary, the great grandparents, and then dispatch their offspring, the lot of them. Pull down the radical mosques? Not at all: pull them all down and burn the Qur’ans. We are the ones under attack, not the Muslims, and we need to recognise this.
      Finally we need to have a serious seance with Enoch Powell, tell him his ‘Rivers of blood’ speech was spot on, and ask him what he’d do in our current situation. Now this was a bloke with a ferociously enormous IQ, who had been a Classics professor at Sydney Uni, despite being a Pom, so I’m sure he’d improve on my meagre offerings.

      • Doubting Thomas says:

        Just finished an excellent book, “Secret Victory: The Intelligence War That Beat The IRA”, by Stephen Matchett. He makes a very strong case that internment is a losing strategy if only because it gives the internees a political status that they don’t deserve. This ought to be obvious from the internment of “asylum seekers”. As a former Special Branch officer, he’s obviously got an axe to grind, but he’s very much against turning what is essentially a matter of policing civil crime, eg murder, into a military matter, although there are times when military expertise is required. He’s especially pissed off with the way the slimy British and Irish Republic politicians effectively gave the IRA everything they wanted when it had been utterly smashed. Highly recommended for those who think there are easy solutions. Dream on.

        • Warty says:

          The earliest form of ‘internment camp’ was utilised during the Boer War. Anti British propaganda termed these ‘concentration camps’ though there was no comparison with your German ones. The WWII camps were never politicised, and the internees were released at the end of the war, when the various enemies were defeated. They served a useful purpose, even if it may have simply been peace of mind: a worthwhile state anyway.
          Northern Ireland was quite another proposition, because internment was indeed politicised, and the media became involved too. You can bet your sweaty underpants they would be politicised here too, unless we threw the MSM, Labor, GetUp and the Greens in with the Muslims. It might work then.

      • acarroll says:

        Sorry mate but you’ve fallen into the white guilt trap hook line and sinker.

        “We” aren’t responsible for any of that. We were not there, were not even born probably. We don’t even know the full story of what went on. All we’re allowed to receive is the victor’s version. Serious scientific arguments debating “self evident” received history have lead to prison sentences in European countries for a significant number of people, not to mention the threat and reality of physical violence from ethnic defense thugs and antifa. Just read what happened to Germar Rudolf or Fred Leuchter. Yeah, you won’t get a fair revue on first search because they’re of that inhuman group know as those “deniers” by thought police.

        Besides who could trust the word of the Franks after serious questions about the diary’s authorship were raised decades ago (use of biro when biro pens were generally not available and highly unreliable). Back then the class was that Anne Frank was not responsible for half of the diary. Otto Frank contested this and his defence won on ultimately moral grounds (how could he be lying???). Last year the book was passing out of copyright and the fund setup to receive its royalties lodged a claim that since Otto Frank was an author the copyright hasn’t run out and they could keep receiving the royalties as usual.

        Guilt for the Holocaust and the threat of another is central to the multicult policy of all European nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.

        Intolerance of Islam => Holocaust.

        So shutdown “hate speech”.

    • ianl says:

      > “Jaw-boning about it here won’t do anything”

      Thank you Jody. I feel a little less like Cassandra now. However I’m still of the view that street demos are unlikely to crack political bipartisanship, although the lust for Ministerial power may snooker that. Of course, that type of political opportunism is completely untrustworthy.

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      Jody,
      I was active in helping organise street demonstrations in Sydney against the Vietnam War from the day Menzies (ironically*) announced the start of the Australian commitment to it.
      You have to start somewhere. We began with a handful in both Sydney and Melbourne, and had about 100,000 out in the streets of Melbourne by the time the warmongers in the US and Australia threw in the sponge and decided to ‘Vietnamise’ the war.
      As the old Chinese proverb puts it: a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

      *A small digression, but not really O/T: Having never himself seen a shot fired in anger, and having ponced about as a captain in the Melbourne University Rifles until WW1 was declared; as things hotted up in August 1914, Menzies smartly resigned his commission and handed back his uniform. As Sir Wilfrid Kent-Hughes put it, “a most promising military career unfortunately cut short by the advent of war.”
      I am resolutely anti-Islam, but I am not anti-Muslim. And I am happy to lend my support to any anti-Islam street demonstration that observes that distinction.

      • Anthony Cox says:

        “I am resolutely anti-Islam, but I am not anti-Muslim. And I am happy to lend my support to any anti-Islam street demonstration that observes that distinction.”

        There is no distinction.

        • Ian MacDougall says:

          Anthony:

          “There is no distinction.”

          Sorry. You are quite wrong there. And you are actually helping the Islamists and doing what they want you to do.

          Islam is a horrible religion. Just read Christopher Hitchens “God is Not Great’ on it.
          But the overwhelming majority of Muslims are born to it and are not converts. They have made no conscious decision on it one way or another. And 75% or so of them do not see Islamists in a favourable light according to Pew Institute stats. But that still leaves a helluva lot who do.
          It is a religion of conquest which has not lost its fundamental conquering strategy as set out in the Koran. But it is well to give most of the Muslims the benefit of any doubt. The Islamists I am sure want non-Muslims to do the opposite, and to drive them into the Islamist camp. (‘See. What did we tell you about these Infidels?’)
          Support what the enemy opposes.

  6. Joel B1 says:

    You might be surprised at the number of Australians who are indeed trained and are in fact armed. Especially on their home ground.