This entry follows the recent Islamic attacks on a French magazine, Charlie Hebdo and Boko Haram’s mass killings in Nigeria…
On-going Islamic atrocities continue to be met by a steadfast refusal, on the part of western leaders, to link it directly to Islam. It’s possible their insistence that it represents an extremist betrayal of the fundamentally peaceful nature of Islam may only be a political and diplomatic device. If they were to publicly acknowledge the obvious and decry Islam’s avowed intent to Islamify the world, by force and extreme violence whenever necessary (Surah 9:5, 29 for example)’, what would happen? They would confront the millions of usually nominal Muslim’s in the West with the fact that their religion does indeed call for violence against non-Muslims. Its their duty -their salvation is at stake if they resist Allah’s will. They would then be presented with various choices: defy Koranic teaching by remaining Muslim, renounce their faith, or become actively jihadist. The first option would create a great deal of internal angst and eventually force them into one of the other two options. The second choice would leave them exposed to sharia death penalty laws for renouncing the faith and the last choice would mean they would have to start covertly working with jihadists in the West.
Western leaders will not see a good side to any of this. All those millions of passive Muslims would start making choices and those choices would all spell social disruption, exposing the false nature of multiculuralism long supported by these leaders and their political parties. Its a Catch 22 situation entirely of their own making. Ultimately, they are going to be forced into either capitulating to Islamic demands within the West, especially as the Muslim population is, by natural increase, growing rapidly. If they do that they will risk civil wars as Europeans eventually revolt against laws and restrictions on rights which are anathema to western values. Their other choice, to openly and honestly acknowledge the violence inherent in Islam, will also lead to serious social disruption for the reasons given. Despite that it would be the correct path, simply because unless Islam is confronted and dealt to decisively it will continue its crusade to enslave us all.
Where should the Church be in all of this. It should certainly not be seeking common ground with Islam as it is at present. It could, instead, be actively and vociferously proclaiming the truth that Islam is violent to the bone, while calling on nominal Muslims to either change the laws on abrogation so that the early Koranic ‘peaceful verses’ are reinstated, or leave Islam. This of course is to provide some legitimacy for Islam as a religion, something Truth Watch could not support, therefore this option should not be followed. The correct course is to boldly denounce Islam for the violent and oppressive religion it is and actively proselytise amongst Muslim communities at a level that would almost certainly promote a violent backlash – similar to the persecution early Christians experienced when they challenged the Roman world’s paganism. Publicising Islam’s violent history would also be a good tactic. It is long past time the West woke up to the fact that for the last 1400 years it has been at war, intermittently, with Islam. Islam has never been at peace with the West. The latter’s dominance and the Islamic world’s own backward weakness has kept them quiet since the Muslim Caliphate was wound up following the First World War. A third more moderate option would be to simply push for strict integration. No more Muslim enclaves. Muslims would need to under-go training in core western values and acknowledge their supremacy in the country they have chosen to adopt. No more calls for Sharia law. Unfortunately, this option will run into liberal multicultural conditioning that will likely make such a policy weak and ineffective. Muslim resistance would almost certainly grow too and effete western liberalism is no match for militant Islam. Attempts at stronger integration would probably fail and cause the internal divisions and violence it was supposed to prevent.
Thanks to western liberal multiculturalism and its associated immigration policies the west has created an enemy within. For 1400 years we fought to keep them at arms length. Now, in our ‘enlightened’ liberal era we have simply opened the gates and let them flood in. The ludicrous and unnecessary apology the Pope issued over the Crusades is now exposed. Why should the West apologise for fighting to hold the Muslim armies at bay in the Levant as they repeatedly attempted to topple the Byzantium flank to Europe. If it had fallen in the Twelfth Century the West, in its fractured state, would have been hard pressed to resist the attack that would have inevitably come from both the east and the west (through Spain).
The Church is complicit in this sad state of affairs. It has remained silent on Islamic immigration, which in OT terms would have been the equivalent of inviting the Philistines to occupy Israel. The Church could have followed Israel’s example, since it clearly had God’s sanction. Instead it defied biblical example and sought to find common cause with an implacable enemy.