Islamic terrorism: we are all to blame for

Islamic terrorism: we are all to blame for

by Jonathan Stanley
article from Saturday 8, April, 2017

Derry, Maine: A sleepy coastal town with a wicked secret. Something evil is haunting the streets and has done so for decades. "It" has terrified everyone in town into silence. No matter what evidence is presented to them, the grown ups are in complete denial that something is very wrong, very wrong indeed.

GROWN UPS can't see Stephen King's "It" because of a cognitive dissonance it embeds in people. One driven of extreme undiluted fear. The novel and the movie adaptation are terrifying. A demon disguised as a clown preys on fear and cultivates it to its own end.

Well another lorry crashed this week. Some people died apparently. What were their names? Their faces? Do we know a single name of the victims of Nice, or in Berlin or London or... sorry what was I talking about? Oh yes, lorries that crash because that's what they do, obviously.

But what is causing this? How have we got to have so many lorries crashing? What's that? We can't ask because we'll be killed? By who? What's that again, you can't tell me because it's racist?

We are all in Derry, Maine, now. "It" is stopping us even analysing what is happening. We are not even allowed to suggest "It" exists.  We can leave Derry anytime we like. We just have to stop Islamists, especially converts or recent arrivals, who have previous criminal records, especially if they are violent ones. There. That's it.

We have been here before of course in a very secular way. New York was crippled by severe violent crime in the 70s and 80s. It was dealt with using a new concept called zero tolerance. Crack down on petty crime, antisocial behaviour and deal hard with those at high risk of causing severe crime.

Will every Muslim be a terrorist? No. Will every convert? Will every convert or recent arrival who has convictions for violence... we are getting warmer. There is of course a pattern beyond being Muslim but Islam is a driver, a promoter even though it is not of itself enough to create a terrorist. Not addressing these drivers is not only absurd but also negligent and insulting.

This week we saw a senior Anglican at the funeral of murdered victims of Islamic terrorists state that we may never know what motivated the Westminster attack. Inside my head a flashing orange light went off because while such banal nonsense is fine for manuring the roses, when spoken within a church it tells us our own religious and civil leaders live in Derry too.

So maybe we need to bring in a zero tolerance approach to handling the slow drift to recognising Islam as somehow a legitimate motivation to violence and terror in the west. When "refugees" or occasionally even refugees commit violent crime within a year or so of arrival in Europe maybe we should as a matter of course by Fed'exing them back to where they came from. Even tyrannies harbour petty criminals.

When they are "known to security agencies" what exactly are we monitoring them for? Is there some proven screening programme by which by monitoring such people we can stop them and educate to live here peacefully? If so what is the cost benefit ratio? When they are reported to have visited Islamist websites or downloaded Islamist propaganda why on earth are these websites still in use? Why are they not closed down with the same vigour used to close down child pornography sites?

Islamist rallies, aggressive promotion of Salafism, constant rushes to appease sensitivities all create something biologists called Quorum Sensing. This is where bacteria identify when they have multiplied to a sufficient level to cause harm to a patient, at which point they change their behaviour and become more aggressive. 

Public displays of Islamic extremism are not inert as they signal to others that this is becoming normal. Suddenly meals must be halal in schools, or Islamic gowns demanded by medical staff, or there is the ever-present reflex rage whenever Mohammed is depicted. And no he isn't a Prophet as if this is some objective statement, no more than Jesus Christ can be expected to be seen as the son of God by Hindus. So why do we routinely refer to him as a Prophet if we do not believe he is? Derry.

There is no need for a secular society to grant any recognition or privileges to any religion. There is certainly no need to ask the bulk of the population to accommodate a minority beyond our own natural but limited generosity. All of these attacks have occurred not where they are muslims but where countries have allowed themselves to fall into a habit of appeasement.

Appeasing supremacists is stupid, any scholar of European history should know it only suggests weakness in the end, a reward for bad behaviour. This current generation appeasing Islamic sensitivities is only repeating mistakes for there is nothing new here.

The fundamental religious freedoms above all others are the right to say no to them and the right to leave them. Anything else is a cult. That is objective. There was no reason for Theresa May to even consider wearing a headscarf in a Muslim majority country, let alone Saudi Arabia. There is no reason to censor satire of Mohammed or any religious figure because of some automated anger. The opposite is true in that religious rioters and those who chant "Death to...whoever" are prime candidates for a leather enema at the nearest airport.

Perfection is achieved in society as in anything, not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away. Let's ask ourselves the Derry question. What is "It" doing here, why is it here and what good is it bringing?

If it is never acceptable to promote violence on behalf of religion, and I propose humbly that it never is, then we have to have a cold steel divorce from Islamism, that is, Islam that won't leave the rest of us alone. Those who preach hatred, call on death to xyz, attack Israel as having a right to exist, call publicly for a violent legal code known as Shariah, and who riot in the name of religion need to go.

Not to be educated otherwise, just go.

A riot is an assembly that disrupts the peace, it need not be violent to suggest it may become so. Calling for Shariah is calling for execution of apostates, stoning of adulterers, amputation of thieves, forced covering of women, and the banning of items we consider normal. As a famous Lincolnshire lady once said,

 "No, No, No".

If society does not mould itself to appease such extremists it is by its nature less hospitable to them. That need not be a bad thing. We have social conventions and codes of conduct as much as we have dress codes for certain functions. If people don't like that, that is fine. Nothing is more diverse than the world and there are lots of places that will cater for everyone. If I want to drink Belgian lager in the street I will not be flying to Isfahan. Bangers and mash with a pint of mild? Downtown Riyadh is not the place.

The slow appeasement of any ideology routed in both extreme narrowing of tolerance, and a direction to violence, is not a wise enterprise. Islam clearly is part of the puzzle. Crime and antisocial behaviour too. A religion that absolves the guilty of sin through the execution of nonbelievers will have some appeal to such people. Such people are in prison quite often. Giving religious texts that promise salvation for execution to psychopaths may not be a wise enterprise either.

Educating children they are special or superior because of their religion or that of their parents may not be a wise enterprise, especially if they see other children following their religious practices. Whatever happened to a packed lunch? And though people cannot reasonably fear gay people they can fear ideology. And if they cannot question it openly without fear of being killed then fearing it is in fact extremely rational. Was Marxophobia an issue in the old USSR? If you were deemed an enemy of the people it was. Why should any ideology be given a safe space?

There have been quite a few lorries crashing in Derry of late. Who knows why but maybe someone should consider that something other than the lorry is to blame – that may be a wise enterprise. Finding out what "It" is isthe only way to stop it.

ThinkScotland exists thanks to readers' support - please donate in any currency and often

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter & like and share this article
To comment on this article please go to our facebook page