The Will of Allah

allah sloganIn a thoughtful article (‘A deal beyond belief’) in The Weekend Australian on July 18, the commentator Greg Sheridan observed, “No one in the West takes the idea of God seriously any more and cannot conceive of a government whose actual real behaviour is determined by theological goals.”

The government Sheridan wrote of is Iran and the god is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Sheridan’s article was commenting on the value of the US-Iran accord on sanctions and nuclear weapons. Almost as an aside, his insightful comment identifies the reason behind the difficulty Western leaders have in coming to grips with the Islamic imbroglio.

If we were to substitute ‘Islam’ for ‘a government’, Sheridan’s quote would describe the position of Western leaders today. They fail to recognize that Islam is a religion with a god, Allah, who expects absolute obedience and respect from believers. For Muslims, Allah is a real spiritual entity with an objective: the subjugation of all mankind to himself. His precepts for achieving this are set out in the Qur’an. The drive for such an outcome and the precepts for achieving it appear to be unrecognized by those who should be most aware of them

Western leaders and commentators shy away from confronting Islam. They like to talk about ‘political Islam’ as if this were something quite different from Islam itself. This is a handy delusion, as they then equate political Islam with Islamic State and radical terrorists rather than Islam per se. They can then get a warm feeling when some success is achieved against these manifestations, as is now occurring in Iraq. Notwithstanding, Islam rolls on, continuing to increase its presence in all Western nations and its influence over those charged with the responsibility for their security.

A recent four part series in The Australian, ‘War on Islamic State’, demonstrates these assertions by outlining the stated strategies of our leaders.

  • Soften the rhetoric to stop using hard-line terms such as ‘death cult’ and ‘Team Australia’. The objective being to enable ASIO and the AFP to secure Muslim cooperation in countering extremists.
  • The age of terrorism is inspired by radical Islamist ideology and thus the above agencies must have the trust of the Islamic community.
  • Islamic State is weak and its weapons the acts of the loser: the danger of Islamic State should not be overstated.
  • Employ a strategy to embrace Islam through such means as the PM’s dinner to mark the end of Ramadan and the visit by Ministers Foley, Burke, and Baird to Lakemba to celebrate the same event.
  • Fast-track de-radicalisation programs with the realization that young people are a significant demographic danger.
  • The defeat of Islamic State in the Middle East is the answer.

The authors of the article then weighed in with some musings of their own. ‘The question is not why the ideology is so popular; it is why it is so popular now? Militant Islam has existed in some form or another for centuries, however never before has it enjoyed such wide currency.’

These are astounding statements from supposedly lucid commentators when the history of Islam is considered.  As the authors note, militant Islam has existed for centuries. But not just a few — fourteen centuries to be exact! Islam has always been militant from the day in AD 630 that Muhammad marched into Mecca. The big difference now is that through those fourteen centuries of militancy, Islam has achieved a significant representation in every Western nation and is in control of the agenda. Those are the reasons for Islam’s wide currency today. Islam has demographic critical mass geographically and is flexing its muscle: Muslims are encouraged and Allah is happy.

Also in last week’s Weekend Australian, Alan Dupont, contributing national security editor, CEO of Cognoscenti Group and non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute, came up with the new idea of treating Islamic State as one would a cult (‘Islamist killer cult can’t be destroyed with half-measures’). Dupont goes on to outline a swag of measures he wants the West to implement to destroy this cult, including control of borders; disrupting the capacity of terrorists to recruit our people; imposing harsher penalties on those convicted of terrorism, including their supporters; preventing those engaged in terrorist-related activities from collecting welfare benefits; investing in more intelligence, intelligence-sharing and counter-terrorism; stopping our prisons from becoming terrorist incubators; reaching out to our Muslim communities; targeting terrorist financing; and destroying Islamic State’s war-fighting capacity.

What a list!  Additional billions of dollars would be spent without laying a glove on Allah or the Qur’an. Moreover, his suggestions are blunt instruments that will simply inflame tension and intensify resurgent Islam’s resolve. They fall into the same category as a number of ideas floated during the recent election campaign: banning the berka, restricting the number of mosques, recording sermons, and similar.

Reverting to Sheridan’s comment, quite simply our leaders and commentators do not appear to understand Islam’s theology or the spiritual nature of that with which they are dealing. One has to wonder if any have read the Qur’an or considered the issue from a theological and spiritual point of view. It also brings into question whether they have much knowledge of Christianity, whose precepts are the foundation of the secular democracy they have been tasked with protecting. Their actions to date display a poor understanding of the diametric differences between the theologies of Islam and Christianity and the outcomes each manifests. Mind you, Christian leaders do not appear to have been a big help in either critiquing Islam or in advising government.

In the Bible we find an emphasis on the following: compassion, courage, discipline, endurance, hope, humbleness, forgiveness, freedom, justice, mercy, respect, sacrifice, sincerity, trust, and truthfulness. The Bible encourages individuals to display love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. And the Bible makes it clear on how these virtues are to be measured: in the person and actions of Jesus. Our forebears drew on these virtues to fashion the West’s secular democracy. You won’t find many of them in the Qur’an.

Unfortunately, as Sheridan has noted, no one in the West takes God seriously and in general we don’t think about, talk about, or live by the noted virtues any more. We are more interested in the latest leftish ideology or material and hedonistic pleasures.  God’s precepts and their standard have become ‘old fashioned’, ‘out of date’, ‘too hard’, ‘unfair’, ‘restrictive’ and worst of all ‘politically incorrect’. In the absence of the solid direction that these virtues have engendered in the past, Australia’s society has becomes weak and sloppy with no moral or spiritual compass: the perfect environment in which resurgent Islam flourishes. The recent musing at Quadrant Online, ‘Holding the Man in Dubai’ exemplifies Australia’s addled state. Where do we go from here?

We all know lovely Muslims; we come across them every day. They are all terribly sorry when something like the Nice truck massacre occurs. Could there be a problem? Well there is and it is this: all Muslims carry Allah’s playbook, the Qur’an, in their backpacks. There is no escaping this simple fact. Nor is there any chance of the Qur’an being modified: after all, if that were to happen Allah’s objective would not be accomplished.

Do our leaders or commentators understand this? Do they recognize the primacy of Allah and the Qur’an to Muslims? Do they understand that the Qur’an is a dangerous document to have circulating freely in a secular democracy? Are they aware that Allah is not the same spiritual being as God? Do they care?

Muslims have a view of the world that is expressed in the precepts of the Qur’an: that is their right. Unfortunately these precepts do not fit with the norms of Australia’s secular democracy. It is unacceptable and impractical to expect Australians to put up with being hostage to Allah in our own country and spending billions of dollars to no effect.

If the Government is going to effectively manage the Islamic imbroglio they have one choice and one choice only. They must say to Muslims, “Regrettably, it is clear that Allah’s precepts in the Qur’an and their outworking, as shown by the history of Islam, are not compatible with Australia’s secular democracy and our social norms. Either change your life and reject the teachings of the Qur’an and remain in Australia as an Australia citizen or, migrate to a country where the precepts of the Qur’an are accepted and practiced.”

NOTE: This concludes a series of articles by the author on the Islamic imbroglio. Earlier articles have attempted to demonstrate the following:

Thanks also to all who have responded with comments.




39 thoughts on “The Will of Allah

  • pgang says:

    Speak for yourself Sheridan. I think when he wrote ‘No-one’ he really meant to say ‘None of our self-proclaimed elites’, which I guess to a journalist is the same thing. Many of we nobodies still take reality very seriously.

  • pgang says:

    Jim, the root cause of the differences between Christianity and Islam are The Trinity versus Monotheism. The Trinity offers a personal creator who is in touch with creation, and provides the necessary link in the vital philosophical relationships between the one and the many, in that the creation is an image of the creator. From this springs all of those moral concepts that you listed.

    Islamic monotheism on the other hand is impersonal, implacable, cold, ruthless, unpredictable, and confusing. It offers merely a set of rules or guidelines from a distant monarch, upon which adherents must build their lives in isolation and then hope for the best. No underlying matrix for a reasonable, logical philosophy is offered.

    The resultant worldviews from these two theistic starting points will never be compatible, and this is what our leaders and academics don’t seem to ‘get’. And it’s what many in our society don’t ‘get’ when they treat Christianity with throwaway disdain or contempt. The Enlightenment atheistic experiment has been a spectacular failure (Peter Smith, who often uses the word ‘enlightened’ when he means ‘Christian’).

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    Yet another powerful reminder of the monumental stupidity of our”elite”. What would it take for them to understand that the root of the problem are not Muslims, moderate or extremist, not even ISIS or terrorism as such, but Islam. It is a thoroughly evil ideology, wholly incompatible with civilisation as we know it and have known it for millennia. Judging by the state of affairs and the trending of western political attitudes, Islam is assured of success within a generation or two. Makes me feel privileged as an old man who will be spared of experiencing it first hand.

  • joelane94@hotmail.com says:

    I’m a slow learner, so it’s taken me some time to twig to the good-cop/bad-cop routine of the ‘peaceful’ imams and terrorist groups like al Qa’ida and ISIS, and how just possibly, the ‘peaceful’ lot are using the violent lot as something to hold over the heads of societies such as Australia’s. The ultimate aim is to impose, as they see it, Allah’s will, Shari’a law, over all countries on Earth, including Australia, maniac as it may sound. So the two tactics are used: utter brutality and Tekiya. I still remember that slow smile on the face of some imam or other on Q&A, while some idiot grovelled to apologise to him for ever believing that ISIS was Islamic, something like that. ‘Pigeon’, he was thinking. ‘No rush.’ Like Bill above, I’m guiltily relieved that I may not last long enough to see it all unfold. Christ help our kids and grandkids, in this civilizational mega-struggle.

  • Homer Sapien says:

    I sense the vacuum of a truly Christian society makes an all too fecund ground for Islam to flourish. This article exposes Islam for what it really is, well done!I’m also one in the twilight years who might be lucky enough not to see the unfolding of this sordid scourge Islam brings.

  • jeremyhearn@optusnet.com.au says:

    I have asked the editor of quadrant to delete some comments I made in 2016 while the war against ISIL in Syria was still at it’s height. These comments described the barbaric activities and ambitions of ISIS and suggested they were shared by all Muslims.

    This was wrong. I have requested that the editor replace those words with these to ensure no further offense is caused.

    The vast majority of Muslims in the world and certainly those in Australia consider the violent parts of the writings of Mohammed to be a reflection of the times in which he lived and not appropriate for modern times.

    It is most important that the Government maintain funding for Islamic schools so that children growing up in that faith understand this.

    The honest hard-working Muslim citizens of Australia have been badly let down by a small number of misguided people and we must not let this damage the Australian community.

    • Warty says:

      I totally agree with you and with Bill, particularly his last paragraph, where he presents his solution. The problem is that we more conservative minded people are in a minority. We may see clearly what is needed, but are yet to find a way of persuading the wider community the merits of our arguments. The level of ignorance and/or nativity in the general public presents a major obstacle; added to this is the fact that Labor, the Greens, Get Up (to name a few) are steadfastly doing their best to appease and ingratiate themselves with our Muslim population.
      So, as Cory Bernardi says: ‘we need a conservative revolution’.

    • gcheyne@bigpond.net.au says:

      I couldn’t agree more, jeremy.
      We have seen the enlightenment, and agree that church and state must be separate. Government exists apart from religious belief and superstition. We are not ruled by what someone experienced in the desert hundreds of years ago.
      So what for the future? This paragraph says it all:
      “Regrettably, it is clear that Allah’s precepts in the Qur’an and their outworking, as shown by the history of Islam, are not compatible with Australia’s secular democracy and our social norms. Either change your life and reject the teachings of the Qur’an and remain in Australia as an Australia citizen or, migrate to a country where the precepts of the Qur’an are accepted and practiced.”
      A straight swap would be a good deal: one new real refugee for each leaving muslim. It would work out cheaper than indefinite dole payments, and the cost of halal certification and ever-increasing “dhimminitude”

  • a.crooks@internode.on.net says:

    I have spent a long time wondering when Christians would show some resolve against the Islamisation of Western Christendom when suddenly I realised that they already have accepted Dhimmi status under the bullying of the secular Progressive Left. There will be no resistance as they slide from one form of Dhimmi status to a new one under Islam, and may even think they will be shown more respect.

    • Warty says:

      I think there are signs of resistance, particularly in Europe. My feeling is that Europe, England (and one day Australia) have become so infiltrated and have become so sick of the naive, complaisant, lying authorities; and have become so sick of the left leaning MSM that civil war is bound to break out. Did you read about the reaction, in Corsica, to a local photographer being beaten up (having photographed a woman wearing a burkini) and the riotous reaction of fellow (local) Corsicans? There is more of that to come and far worse. There is only so much riot police can do when locals, en masse, become fully enraged and, sure as eggs, just a few more dollops of appeasement and you’ll have it.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Muslims make up about 22% of the world’s present population, but are the fastest growing part of it.
    Their religion, Islam, can be regarded as ‘one of the world’s great religions’; a warrior code; a form of collective insanity; an inherited mental disorder; or all of the above. I prefer the inherited mental disorder.
    People seeking to migrate to this country are subject to various tests oriented towards preserving Australian public health. So those suffering from tuberculosis, HIV and hepatitis, yellow fever, polio, and ebola virus disease are refused entry.
    My own view is that if a would-be-immigrant is suffering from Islam he/she should likewise be refused entry. (See http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/). There is no period in quarantine or of rest that will cure this condition, though in certain cases there is spontaneous remission ; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Muslim

    • Jody says:

      Yes, and Islam has a very aggressive military wing (reminiscent of the Christian crusaders hundreds of years ago). It’s this military wing which is the dominant problem.

    • gcheyne@bigpond.net.au says:

      But pity the poor muslins, brainwashed since birth, having to pray five times a day to an invisible sky-fairy, threatened with death if they leave, everlasting hell if they don’t conform.
      Easiest to go with the flow, if you are brought up under that system.
      The average muslim is a victim: the real criminals are the muftis who use them for personal and political gain.
      Brings this to mind: Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds –Charles Mackay (Author)
      A great religion? Pull the other leg!

  • Rob Brighton says:

    It continues to strike me that we are looking at Islam through a Judeo-Christian lens. Does this distort our view of the faithful?

    Do the juxtaposition of us and them, the othering of Islamic belief using religious comparisons achieve anything other than putting ourselves on a pedestal? Does this in some way defeat or hinder our understanding and through understanding our ability to answer the challenge?

    Does this frame our response inappropriately?

    • Jim Campbell says:

      Rob – well the Judeo-Christian lens has, in the main, formed our secular democracy, somewhat emasculated by our stupidity over the past 50 years I admit – but you may have a better idea – let’s have it. Questions are good but answers are better.

    • Warty says:

      Let’s just pretend you happen to be Hindu, just for argument’s sake. Now how would you view this from the Qur’an: ‘O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.’ (Q. 9:123)
      Or this: ‘But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission’. Q. 4:65)
      Or this: ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.’ (Q. 9:29)
      I could spend all morning doing this, each time landing a speck of the unspeakable on whatever lens you wish to see through, until your lens is entirely ‘crudded up’.

      • Rob Brighton says:

        That’s the point, in throwing the unspeakable we reduce our ability to see clearly. From my atheistic perspective, all I see is people throwing quotes and making claims based on the contents of Harry Potter and Lord of the rings novels claiming superiority for their respective stories.
        I don’t see how that moves us forward, I don’t see how that informs us on how better to deal with the challenge so clearly in front of us.
        With 220 million Muslims a few hundred Km north of Australia, we had better learn fast how to relate because if we don’t we are in a world of hurt that our kids and grandkids will have to deal with militarily, an inheritance I would rather not impose.

        • Jim Campbell says:

          Sometimes Rob you have to stand up for what you believe. You and I wouldn’t be here with the freedom we have, and with it the luxury of dilettantism many exhibit, if our forebears had not done so.

        • trbailey07@icloud.com says:

          Your inability to see something other than an exchange of platitudes is in the nature of intransigence, Rob Brighton, an intransigence that may, in turn, arise from a kind of wilful blindness born of fear. In this respect – if my analysis of your letters is correct – it is as if you are the very voice of those in power about whom Jim Campbell wrote this article: QED, Mr Campbell, QED!

          What more by way of evidence as opposed to rhetoric do you need to ‘see clearly’? (Where do I begin to cite the sources of proof? Confronted with an embarrassment of riches, just listen to Anjem Choudhury on YouTube for a start.)

          Or is it that you conflate evidence with rhetoric in order to dismiss political reality as a semantic game?

          In any event, your personal enlightenment is a problem for you alone, though I’m sorry if you can’t or won’t see what is happening. The real tragedy, though, lies in the effect that the intransigence of people like you has in relegating the realists on this page & elsewhere collectively to the fate of Priam & Hecuba’s lass, Cassandra.

        • ian.macdougall says:

          The one approach that is guaranteed to fail to impress those Indonesian Muslims is an attempt at appeasement. As Chamberlain demonstrated so clearly, appeasement only eggs a fascist on. And Islam is the most successful long-lived variety of fascism the world has ever known.
          Speak softly and deliberately; do not grovel; do not throw your friends to the Islamic wolves, (as every post-WW2 Australian government from Fraser’s up to (but not including) John Howard’s did regarding the East Timorese); keep your powder dry and carry a big stick, but not ostentatiously.
          Best course, IMHO.

          • Rob Brighton says:

            A call to arms eh, oh well then so be it. They will not win, we are slow to anger but forthright in our choice once it is made.

            Who here will pay the price for our inability?

            It’s my sons that will fight. Who’s babies will be dealing with the mess that we have caused because we chose to beat our chests and spit contempt calling willful blindness.

            Fighting over the contents of a book. How pathetic, I have nothing but utter contempt for you who argue from your storybook, you risk my children’s lives you bastards. They are up for it, it’s their job, it’s our job to find an alternative.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Ian MacDougall
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    August 17, 2016 at 10:38 pm
    Muslims make up about 22% of the world’s present population, but are the fastest growing part of it.
    Their religion, Islam, can be regarded as ‘one of the world’s great religions’; a warrior code; a form of collective insanity; an inherited mental disorder; or all of the above. I prefer the inherited mental disorder.
    People seeking to migrate to this country are subject to various tests oriented towards preserving Australian public health. So those suffering from tuberculosis, HIV and hepatitis, yellow fever, polio, and ebola virus disease are refused entry.
    My own view is that if a would-be-immigrant is suffering from Islam he/she should likewise be refused entry. (See http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/). There is no period in quarantine or of rest that will cure this condition, though in certain cases there is spontaneous remission ; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Muslim

  • Fleetfox says:

    Please, please. Would someone, anyone from the Progressive Left of life tell me where/how they will spend the rest of their lives once Shari’a law is imposed over all our secular democracies of the West? For example, would Mr. Stephen Banks, current President of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties be so kind as to give me his thoughts on this question?

    What fools we all are, to have come to this, to have stood by all these decades mostly silent, mostly submissive, cowering, while the Progressive Left so-called elites set about destroying the social, moral, civil codes of our/their/own Western democracies. Do they honestly believe they will be living harmoniously alongside brutal Islam? God help my children and my grandchildren.

    • Jody says:

      The ‘problem’ as I see it is this; we who are the older generation are experienced enough to know all about famous last words. Remember “peace in our time”? And there has not been at least two generations (since Whitlam) propagandized in schools to accept ‘diversity’ and ‘difference’ as the norm and to accept that the bad things which go with ‘celebrating diversity’ don’t mean you have to forfeit your own rights; on the contrary, it’s a pleasure to be able to make room for others. If this isn’t the new ‘religion’ (along with climate change) which has substituted for Christianity then can you please tell me what is? The poor, misguided souls are merely following their agitprop cues – much like the hapless followers of one Jim Jones.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    ‘Islam is not Christianity with a beard’! Well said Jim, and Mohammedans are not Christians with 4 wives. Neither are they Christians who prefer squat toilets and a wet left hand [It. mano sinistra] to toilet paper, nor are they just Christians who think a woman’s testimony is worth only half a man’s. The difference is total, like the difference between circumcision and noncircumcision.

  • Stephen Due says:

    The statement by Greg Sheridan says (a) that non-one in the West takes the idea of God seriously and (b) non-one cannot conceive of the idea of a theocracy. That’s what it actually says.
    The second claim (b) is clearly the opposite of what he intended to say.
    The first claim (a) is demonstrably false. Muslims in the West take the idea of god seriously, as do Christians, Jews and a large number of other spiritually-aware people.
    Australia is a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. We are not – NB not, in fact – a secular society. Get used to it. Get over it. The issue is not whether religions in general, or any in particular, are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or agree with Greg Sheridan’s value system. The issue is how to protect religious freedom and free speech in order to ensure that democratic processes work effectively to determine government policy.

    • Jim Campbell says:

      Stephen – are you speaking for Greg Sheridan? If so, you are a better man than me – I simply state what Sheridan’s article says. So, yes, Sheridan said that ‘no one in the West takes the idea of God seriously any more’. Sheridan was obviously making a generalised statement about the god that is associated with the West, the god of the Bible. From my observation this is a pretty fair comment. How many Australians would you say take that god seriously: i.e. go to church regularly, read the Bible, pray as a matter of course, speak of that god on a daily basis, and generally try to follow that god’s precepts? The second claim you have misstated. Sheridan said, ‘and cannot conceive of a government whose actual real behaviour is determined by theological goals.’ He did not say, as you do, ‘conceive of a theocracy’. You say he meant the opposite! On what basis do you base this conclusion? Read what is written and don’t try to make up something to suit your argument, whatever it is.

      You want Australia to be a ‘multi-racial, multi-religious society’.

      • Jim Campbell says:

        To continue – don’t know how that happened.

        As I said, you state Australia is a ‘multi-racial, multi-religious society’. No argument there. But the laws and procedures that govern the society are secular, they are not driven by a theological agenda: separation of religion and state. And under those laws and procedures religious freedom and free speech are enshrined and to the best of my knowledge our ‘democratic processes work effectively to determine government policy’. What is your concern?

        The difficulty Stephen, is that Islam has a very different view of the world that does not sit well with democracy, freedom or secular government policy. Their policy is determined by Allah’s theological goals. That is the point that Sheridan was making and, our leaders don’t get it.

  • Geoffrey Luck says:

    The start point is that Islam is a monotheistic religion. It specifically claims superiority to all other beliefs because Allah is the only God. Muhammed his prophet is superior to Jesus, a minor prophet, but flawed because of the triune nature of Christianity. That established, Allah’s commands – on behaviour, belief, punishment, war, sex, slavery, treatment of non-Muslims, and most important, apostasy – remain holy and unalterable in the Qu’ran. They are a complete guide to personal religious and political conduct. Then follow the several surah that establish Islam as a warrior missionary religion, with violent jihad a legitimate weapon for its extension. As I have often said, there are therefore no “moderate” muslims. They may be quiescent, apathetic or ignorant, but all are subject to the commands of the Qu’ran, and will be obedient to the radical militants when the time come.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Islam began as a violent, conquering religion with total world domination its ultimate and stated goal. A (large ~ 25%) minority of Muslims take it at face value and become jihadist sympathisers. A much smaller minority become jihadist recruits. The majority make the best of this terrible religion they were born into, and sincerely try to rebadge it a ‘The Religion of Peace’. Worth a look: the response of (a fanatical minority jihadist fringe of) American Muslims to 9/11.


    • Jim Campbell says:

      Ian – history cannot be denied and it does Islam no favours. There is an interesting book review in the Weekend Australian of July 9-10 by Paul Monk. The book’s title is ‘The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews Under Islamic rule in Medieval Spain’, a time that has been presented as a model for harmony. Monk concludes with, ‘We should want a tolerant, cosmopolitan order here and abroad. What we cannot do is any longer is take Muslim rule in Spain as our model for accomplishing that laudable goal’. I fear this will always be the case. Given that, I see little option for Government but to call Muslims out as I suggest.

      If, as you say, 75% (?) say they want a religion of peace there are plenty to choose from even (dare I suggest it) Christianity. The question that continues to perplex me is, if it is peace hey want why they do not take that option ?

      • ian.macdougall says:

        India and Pakistan stand side by side on the Asian subcontinent, as if set up as a controlled experiment to investigate the effect of Islam on peoples of a given culture and ethnicity. Islamic Pakistan is unquestionably an economic basket case. India is powering ahead, despite difficulties. Meanwhile, across the Himalayas China, despite the ravages of Maoism, is now the workshop of the world.
        Pakistan is dominated by an Islamic clerical caste. India is much more religiously divided. China has a long pre-Maoist tradition based on its own native religions: ancestor worship, Daoism, Chinese Buddhism, Animism etc. These IMHO encourage far greater clarity of perception and original thought than do any of the Abrahamic religions.
        When I was there some years ago I was constantly asked for comment on what I saw and how I thought things could be better done. A friend of mine who is a guitar builder reports the same experience.
        I own a Chinese mandolin and a Chinese bass guitar. Both are of excellent quality. And a collection of Chinese-made tools. Ditto.

Leave a Reply